Journal for Nature Conservation 13 (2005) 231—246 The national park policy context in Greece: Park users’ perspectives of issues in park administration Kostas Papageorgiou , Kostas Kassioumis Agricultural Research Station of Ioannina (NAGREF-ARSI), E. Antistasis 1, Katsikas 45500, Ioannina, Greece Received 26 January 2004; accepted 1 November 2004 Summary The history of the national parks in Greece involves a succession of issues pertinent to the legal framework and nature of park authorities. To date the largely state-based administration and the restrictive management practices have failed to grant effective protection and management in the designated areas largely due to organisational and institutional weaknesses, ineffective policy coordination and insufficient park authorities. The latest revision of the system of park administration and legislation in Greece heralded some changes that can improve the management of national parks. The key question is whether the creation of park boards and a number of changes in their funding possibilities and regulatory management regime are perceived by park users to contribute to genuine park improvement. Information was collected by means of a questionnaire survey in three outstanding parks in Greece. Research findings suggest that the perspectives of park users are increasingly aligned to the interests of park authorities as regards park management purposes. Park authorities’ achievements in relation to protection, management and administration were perceived as poor by the respondents in all parks. The conceptions of park users markedly reflect a situation whereby the role of the state in park administration is well anticipated and valued but visitors’ funding options are contrary to the spirit of the new law. Park users tend to reject the transfer of park administration to local authorities or private companies, recognising a continued need for both autonomy and government intervention away from direct state control. While the participants strongly recognised the importance of regulatory management in parks, the weak executive powers of park boards constitute a major administrative deficiency likely to threaten the ecological integrity of parks in the future. It is imperative that park boards acknowledge the current interaction between park users and park authorities. Otherwise, park administrators may find their task an increasingly difficult one. & 2005 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. ARTICLE IN PRESS www.elsevier.de/jnc KEYWORDS National parks; Administration; Legislation; Perceptions; Greece 1617-1381/$ - see front matter & 2005 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2004.11.001 Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Papageorgiou).
The national park policy context in Greece: Parkusers’ perspectives of issues in park administration
Kostas Papageorgiou�, Kostas Kassioumis
Agricultural Research Station of Ioannina (NAGREF-ARSI), E. Antistasis 1, Katsikas 45500, Ioannina, Greece
Received 26 January 2004; accepted 1 November 2004
Sarks;tion;;s;
ee front matter & 200jnc.2004.11.001
ing author.ess: kostpap@freemai
SummaryThe history of the national parks in Greece involves a succession of issues pertinent tothe legal framework and nature of park authorities. To date the largely state-basedadministration and the restrictive management practices have failed to granteffective protection and management in the designated areas largely due toorganisational and institutional weaknesses, ineffective policy coordination andinsufficient park authorities. The latest revision of the system of park administrationand legislation in Greece heralded some changes that can improve the management ofnational parks. The key question is whether the creation of park boards and a numberof changes in their funding possibilities and regulatory management regime areperceived by park users to contribute to genuine park improvement. Information wascollected by means of a questionnaire survey in three outstanding parks in Greece.Research findings suggest that the perspectives of park users are increasingly alignedto the interests of park authorities as regards park management purposes. Parkauthorities’ achievements in relation to protection, management and administrationwere perceived as poor by the respondents in all parks. The conceptions of park usersmarkedly reflect a situation whereby the role of the state in park administration iswell anticipated and valued but visitors’ funding options are contrary to the spirit ofthe new law. Park users tend to reject the transfer of park administration to localauthorities or private companies, recognising a continued need for both autonomy andgovernment intervention away from direct state control. While the participantsstrongly recognised the importance of regulatory management in parks, the weakexecutive powers of park boards constitute a major administrative deficiency likely tothreaten the ecological integrity of parks in the future. It is imperative that parkboards acknowledge the current interaction between park users and park authorities.Otherwise, park administrators may find their task an increasingly difficult one.& 2005 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
The creation of national parks is now the mostuniversally adopted means of conserving a naturalecosystem and/or relevant cultural heritage for abroad range of human activities. The IVth WorldCongress on National Parks and Protected Areasdefined national parks as natural areas to protectthe ecological integrity of ecosystems and provide afoundation for spiritual, scientific, educational,recreational and visitor opportunities (McNeely,1994).
Until the past few decades planning for nationalparks has been based on a deductive chain ofdecisions taken by the competent public authorityin charge of making public choices for society. Thisdecision making framework has been an on-going,dominant approach in other types of land planning,such as forestry (Buttoud & Yunusova, 2002),whereby the common interest is defined byrationalist norms in an extra-societal way withoutany consideration of the needs and interestsexpressed by the users, the local communityor the stakeholders involved. In many countriesdisputes and conflicts have dogged publiclymanaged wilderness since such areas were firstdesignated (Moore & Lee, 1999). Led by IUCN,flexible approaches to protected area managementwere encouraged worldwide to ensure long-termsurvival of protected areas (McNeely, Harrison,& Dingwall, 1994). Progressively, new trendshave emerged, focusing upon strategies aimedat facilitating local community involvement wherethe indigenous communities are allocatedappropriate authority for the management of anatural resource that has a local value (Francis,1996; Conway, 1997; Ransom, 1998; Mehta& Heinen, 2001; Nepal, 2002). Collaborativemanagement between local communities andconservation authorities to jointly manage aresource of high conservation value has also beenthe focus of conservation in many developing anddeveloped countries (McNeely, 1995; Harris,Branch, & Wilson, 1996; Venter & Breen, 1998;Beltran, 2000). In certain cases, protected areasare managed by non-governmental organisations(IUCN, 1991; Schneider & Burnett, 2000) or by non-departmental public bodies such as nature con-servation agencies in the UK (Bishop, Phillips, &Warren, 1997).
All the above schemes were expressions of thenew paradigm for park management that placeemphasis on efforts to capture a broad spectrum ofopinions as a basis for setting wise managementinterventions that satisfy users’ and local peoples’anticipations and manage the park in an optimal
manner. It is imperative that any actual parkadministration regime should work with the realityof the views of various publics, given currentknowledge.
The history of the national parks in Greeceinvolves a succession of issues pertinent to thelegal framework and nature of park authorities.The lack of relevant participation of variousinterested parties in decision making in Greecehas led to fear and mistrust from the indigenouscommunities and often generated conflicts be-tween recreationists, local groups and managingauthorities (Papageorgiou, 1996). Some authorsnoted that the achievements of park authoritieshave been negligible and particularly disappointingwhen viewed against the involvement of varioustypes of recreation groups (Tzouvaras, 1983;Trakolis, 1999). The recent revision of the nationalpark administration system in Greece led to thereorganisation of park authorities introducing anumber of changes in their statutory role, fundingpossibilities and regulatory management. Thesechanges aimed to further the objectives of parksin a more efficient manner.
To date, much of the national park literature inGreece has been descriptive and recreation or-iented. Many attempts have been made in the pastto explore the dimensions of park use for recreation(Kassioumis, 1978; Vakrou, 1993; Papageorgiou,1996; Trakolis 2001a, b) while little research hasbeen done to elicit park users’ expectations andknowledge (Papageorgiou, 2001). The present studyrepresents an initial effort to encounter a range ofopinions by visitors in three of the most outstandingnational parks in Greece, of the new changesin park administration as outlined in thelatest revision of the parks’ law. First, the paperreviews the legislation relevant to, and thehistory of the evolution and working of nationalpark administration in Greece before discussingand analysing the results of visitors’ perceptionsand preferences. Second, specific issues addressedin the analysis focus on user’s preferences forthe management purposes of national parks andtheir evaluation of the existing conditions offunctional organisation. Third, park users viewsare sought regarding current discourses on admin-istrative issues relevant to the nature of parkboards, funding possibilities and magnitude ofrestrictions. Past surveys undertaken in Greeceand relevant written sources are drawn on toprovide a valuable pool of information to helpunderstand the nature and efficiency of the newsystem of park administration. Finally, policyimplications are suggested to overcome potentialproblems in the future.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Users’ view on Greek park administration 233
The Greek national park policy context
National parks in Greece have a legislativedefinition that was born in Law 856 in 1937, whichspecified that parks are ‘‘mainly forested areas ofspecial conservation interest on account of floraand fauna, geomorphology, subsoil, atmosphere,waters and generally their natural environment’’(Kassioumis, 1990). This legislation proposed thegazetting of extensive mountainous, mainlyforested areas as national parks, each not less than3000 ha of core area with a buffer zone of 4000 haand led to the creation of five parks between 1937and 1962, covering a total of 18,600 ha (Papageor-giou, 1996). The law also introduced carefulmanagement, including the notion that core areaswere to be protected in a natural state. Thus, thepredominant characteristic of national parks inGreece has been mainly the interplay of purelynatural processes. The 856/1937 law also providedfor the establishment of a ‘‘Special National ParkForest District Authority’’, an autonomous parkauthority for each park, with powers to manageconservation sites to protect particularly valuableor vulnerable features and key recreation sites(Kassioumis, 1994). However, this administrationunit was never set up in practice and parkmanagement duties were transferred to the ForestService through its Forest District Offices (FDOs).Thus, FDO has been a government body funded bythe Ministry of Agriculture, having the form of astatutory national park authority.
The next significant change to the workings ofthe national park system came with an amendmentto the 1937 law (Law, 996/1971), which abolishedthe limitations of five parks and led to the statutorydesignation of another five areas between 1962 and1974. The law 996/1971 has also added substantialprotection for smaller tracts of land and allowedthe creation of another two categories of protectedareas: ‘‘aesthetic forests’’ and ‘‘protected naturalmonuments’’. The principles governing the creationof parks and their basic philosophy were enshrinedin the provisions of law 996/1971; conservation wasthe primary purpose of the parks with recreationonly allowed where conservation values are notcompromised (Government Gazette of Greece,1971). This legislation has formalised the nationalpark designation process; each new protected areais declared by presidential decree, having beenproposed by the Council of Ministers on the adviceof the Technical Council of Forests (Lazaretos,1995). Park administration has remained within thecompetencies of FDOs, which have been served bya full-time staff and have received all funding forthe parks’ administration and management from
central government. Since the creation of nationalparks, the pursuit of park objectives has remainedlargely rhetorical rather than the product of parkauthorities’ determination and commitment(Kassioumis, 1994). It has been widely recognisedthat application of the above laws and theirrespective rules and regulations have failed togrant effective protection in the designated areasin Greece largely because of organisational andinstitutional weaknesses, ineffective policy coordi-nation and insufficient park authorities (Larson,1974; Duffey, 1982; Kassioumis, 1992).
An institutional law on the environment (1650/1986), designed to eliminate deficiencies in theprevious legislation, was submitted to parliamentas a framework bill in 1986, to be implemented indetail by a series of presidential decrees (EuropeanEnvironment Review, 1986). The new law intro-duced certain changes in the existing types ofprotected areas, by adding five new categories ofprotected areas (absolutely protected natural area,protected natural area, protected natural monu-ment, protected landscapes and area for eco-development) as well as changes in the parkdesignation process (Fanariotou, 1987). Most im-portantly, the 1650/1986 law granted more powersto the Ministry of Environment, Planning and PublicWorks (MEPPW) to deal with the new categories ofprotected areas, Ramsar sites and national parks.While the MEPPW then became the main operatorin policy development and planning of protectedareas including national parks, executive powershave remained with FDOs at the local level. Thisdual administration was a major issue to effectivepark functioning. Kassioumis (1994) argued thatthis model has added more confusion and hascaused difficulties other than those it aimed tomitigate. Troumbis (1995) also criticised the 1650/1986 law as the product of an institutional obliga-tion to harmonise Greek national environmentallegislation with European law, rather than theresult of a social demand and the administration’screativity. This legislation has several negativefeatures, including lack of public involvement,insufficient sanctions and administrative difficulties(IUCN, 1991).
The recognition of changing pressures on nationalparks, the pressure from the Habitat Directive92/43/EEC and the corresponding need to makechanges to the structure of the system, influencedthe government’s policy regarding national parks,resulting in a number of changes set out in therecent Law 2742/1999. The new legislation pro-vided inter alia for the establishment of parkboards as autonomous legal entities to take overresponsibilities mainly for parks organisation and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Papageorgiou, K. Kassioumis234
functioning (Government Gazette of Greece,1999). These responsibilities included a duty toguide park protection and management workingalongside FDOs, the commissioning of research toprotect and enhance the natural beauty andbiological value of the park and the provision ofopportunities for public enjoyment and environ-mental education. Additional activities undertakeninclude the organisation of conferences and semi-nars related to nature conservation as well as thecertification for environmental friendly productsand services produced in the vicinity to the park.
Three issues in current legislation tower abovethe rest and differentiate park administration fromall previous legislation. The first issue concerns thelegal entity. Unlike FDOs and the MEPPW, boardsare non-departmental bodies that were granted thestatus of an independent agency accountable to theminister of EPPW. They are able to employ theirown staff and operate their own action plans,especially for the organisation and functioning of apark, without reference to FDOs or MEPPW. Boardscomprise 7–11 members representing a variety ofsectoral organisations and stakeholders with localas well as national interests (NGOs, Forest Direc-torates, local authorities, forest cooperatives,etc.). According to the law, the minister of EPPWappoints the board chairman and nominates allother members after proposals made by eachparticipant organisation. The second issue refersto protective legislation enforcement. Boards areempowered to exert all functions of plan makingand administration except executive control (Gov-ernment Gazette of Greece, 1999). The lack ofexecutive powers is impinged upon Article 24 of theGreek Constitution, which declares that ‘‘theprotection of nature is the responsibility of theState’’. As a consequence, the law enforcementarm remained largely linked to the FDOs, especiallyfor land areas, and its wardening system, which cannow be supported by park boards. This wardeningsystem achieves the protection purposes mainlythrough the realisation of prohibitions or regula-tions for activities potentially damaging to thepark’s resources. Such regulatory and restrictivemanagement practices have been the most com-mon methods of controlling nature–visitor interac-tions worldwide (Plimmer, 1992). The third issuefocuses on funding sources. The financing of theboards comes from national and European re-sources and grant schemes. However, increasingeffort is being given to generating revenues frompreviously unconsidered sources such as entry fees,services or material sales.
In the government’s view, this system of admin-istration and funding is designed to reinforce the
competencies of park authorities and could haveprofound implications for the future administrationof the parks. However, no sooner was the Lawenacted and implemented than a problem arose. Itconcerned the composition of the park boards.Local as well as national interests are strong; andthis duality determined the form of the authoritiesthat would administer the parks. This issue hasbeen particularly evident in the newly formedboard for Vikos-Aoos park and has concerned parkprotagonists and others to the present day. Broth-erton (1984) reported, some 20 years ago, that thecomposition issue of park authorities appeared toreinforce the reality of national-local dichotomy innational parks in England and Wales. In the mean-time, and until the board commences in Vikos-Aoospark as well as in all other parks, FDOs remain thestatutory park authorities.
Outline of study areas
The three national parks in this study containsome of the finest stretches of the remote and wildcountryside of Greece. They owe much of theirindividual uniqueness and biological value to theirgeographical isolation and limited human interfer-ence (Council of Europe, 1987). Their potential rolein safeguarding wildlife was recongised at theoutset. Each park has one or more additionalnatural attractions. In general, the three parksoffer considerable variety in terrain, ecosystemsand facilities but there is also considerable com-monality. All parks are relatively undeveloped,biologically valuable and highly appreciated fortheir diversified landscapes (IUCN, 1991). No fee ischarged for entering the park or for use ofwilderness areas. A brief outline of each parkfollows.
Olympus park extends over the eastern part ofthe Olympus mountain, the highest mountain inGreece and mythical residence of the OlympianGods in Greek mythology, at an altitude between700 and 2917m (Fig. 1). It was the first nationalpark to be created in Greece, in 1938. Within3998 ha of protected land one finds a wide varietyof floral and faunal species. Over 1700 plantsspecies have been recorded throughout the Olym-pus mountain, including 25 endemic species (Strid,1980). The fauna is also rich with large mammalsincluding chamois, wild boar, wolf, jackal and fox(Tsounis & Sfikas, 1993). The rich cultural heritageof the park interacts with the surrounding land-scape creating a cultural landscape, which hasbeen valued for its biophysical and cultural
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Figure 1. Olympus, Parnitha and Vikos-Aoos national parks, Greece.
Users’ view on Greek park administration 235
qualities and led to an additional designation asBiosphere Reserve. The park attracts high recrea-tion traffic reaching an average of 110,000 visitorsper annum (Vakrou, 1993), which ranks the park asthe second most visited park in Greece (Papageor-giou & Vakrou, 2001). The park provides well-developed recreational facilities focusing on visitordispersal and rewards the intrepid recreationistwith an essentially congestion-free wildernessexperience.
Parnitha national park lies in the northern part ofthe Attica prefecture (40 km north of Athens) onmount Parnitha at an altitude ranging from 500 to1473m. The park was established in 1961 andcovers 3840 ha of hard-leafed shrubs of Mediterra-nean maquis, mingled with pine forests. Most of theland within the park supports the forest ofKephallonian fir. Parnitha is famous for its richflora, which includes almost a thousand plantspecies, some of them rare, most of which can be
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Papageorgiou, K. Kassioumis236
found inside the park. There are also many speciesendemic to Greece. Bird fauna is equally rich with130 species of birds, recorded either as permanentresidents or passing through the mountain region.Noteworthy are the golden eagle, sparrowhawk,goshawk, buzzard, eagle owl and barn owl (Tsounis& Sfikas, 1993). The park is within easy day-visitdistance from the capital Athens receiving over70,000 visitors per annum (Papageorgiou & Vakrou,2001) mostly interested in hiking and picnicking.
Vikos-Aoos extends over a 3407 ha core area and9538 ha buffer zone of broad-leaved and evergreenmixed forests. The landscape is a mosaic of gorge-edge lookouts, forests, alpine lakes and rivers. Awealth of 253 plant species, many of which rareand four endemic only to the park (NationalCommittee of Physical Planning and the Environ-ment, 1982), a plethora of large mammals such asthe brown bear for which Vikos-Aoos is one of thelast European strongholds, wolf, lynx, roe deer,chamois, wild boar wild cat, otter, 100 bird species(Katsadorakis, 1985) and a variety of naturalhabitats and ecosystems rank Vikos-Aoos amongstthe most valuable Greek parks for nature conserva-tion (Duffey, 1982). Three communities are foundwithin the buffer zone and another six are in closeproximity to the park, whose economies aredirectly or indirectly related to, but also impingeon the park’s biological systems and resources. Atpresent the area is confronted with a decline intraditional activities of the prime production basein favour of trade and service sectors. Vikos-Aoos isthe third most visited park with an annual visitationof more than 90,000 persons per annum (Papageor-giou & Vakrou, 2001). The landscape character andrelatively undeveloped setting of Vikos-Aoosfavours a series of facilities for dispersed recrea-tion. Other uses involve camping, kayaking andcanoeing. Yet, significant tourist infrastructuredevelopment occurs in the communities close tothe park.
Today the interaction between man and nature inall parks has, to a great extent, been driven by thepresence of tourists and recreationists and less bytraditional activities of the primary sector. Havinglittle history of working together with the parkusers and local communities or developing andplanning park strategies as integral component toregional development, the focus of park manage-ment has been upon establishing prohibitive mea-sures as regards conservation, and offering small-scale recreational amenities to facilitate on-siteactivities such as walking and picnicing. Visitors canobtain on-site information regarding the kind ofactivities that they are allowed to perform withinthe park from information signs posted at the
entrances of each park. In addition, simple in-formative facilities including posts with informa-tion about the history and main geographicalfeatures are found in all parks whereas smallthematic museums about local history and floraoccur in Vikos-Aoos.
Methodology
Data were collected from a systematic surveyundertaken in the national parks in July and August2001 for a period of 3 weeks. The site-orientednature of the study implies the use of a ques-tionnaire directly targeting park visitors as anappropriate survey instrument to elicit their atti-tudes and perceptions of both the existing condi-tions of park organisation and a series ofmanagement and administrative issues. Informa-tion from in-depth interviews with members ofnational park authorities and past experience wereused to develop a structured questionnaire. Fivequestions were utilised in the present analysisclassified in two content relevant clusters. Thefirst cluster focused on questions that soughtvisitors’ most preferred management objectivesfor a national park as well as their evaluationtoward the existing functional conditions in eachpark. The second cluster directly addressed visi-tors’ choices for issues raised by the review of thenew system of administration and legislation: thestyle of park administration, the type of restric-tions imposed in a park area and the use of entryfees as potential sources for revenues. In addition,standard demographic information (age, gender,family income and nationality) was also collectedto help portray park users’ profile. Preferences andperceptions were measured by respondents ratingtheir responses using a 5-point Likert scale. Thequestionnaire was pilot tested in Vikos-Aoos parkfor comprehensibility during the summer of 2000.To ensure credibility among the findings in thethree parks, the question layout and wording waskept uniform in all three surveys. Some subquestionmodifications and alterations however, were intro-duced in an effort to develop a questionnaire bestadapted to park specificities.
An explicit sampling and survey design protocolwas developed to eliminate sampling bias andensure that the results are within comparablemeasures. In all cases, every visitor leaving thepark or group leader, in the case of visitor groups,was given the questionnaire along with a briefnarrative describing its purpose, and he was askedto complete it on-site and return it by post in
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Users’ view on Greek park administration 237
prepaid envelopes attached to each questionnaire.The survey spots were located in park entrancesand sites that essentially represent the startingpoints of most recreational activities.
After excluding all population agedo17 years, atotal of 1752 participants (750 in Olympus, 533 inParnitha and 469 in Vikos-Aoos) was approachedand a sum of 581 usable questionnaires (213 inOlympus, 221 in Parnitha and 147 in Vikos-Aoos)was eventually returned representing an overalladjusted response rate of 33.1%. The response ratevaried in the three parks with the lowest recordedin Olympus (28.4%), followed by Vikos-Aoos (31.3%)and the highest recorded in Parnitha (41.5%). Theresponse rates obtained are similar to thosereported by other authors (Trakolis, 2001a, b;Vakrou, 1993; Noe, Hammitt, & Bixler, 1997)concerning studies in national parks and outdoorrecreational environments, and can be thereforeregarded as a normal average for a field study ofthis kind.
One way analysis of variance was used toestablish statistical differences across the threevisitor groups parks at the 0.05 accuracy level.
Results
Visitor profile
The nature of the respondents in the threenational parks is examined with respect to thesocio-demographic characteristics of the visitorgroups. Information for a range of important socialdescriptors (gender, age, education and income) is
Table 1. Socio-demographic variables of the three samples
Variable Olymp(%)
Gender Male 57.4Female 42.6
Age o30 32.531–45 42.246–60 22.8461 2.4
Education Primary school 2.4Intermediate secondary school 4.8Secondary level school 28.0Technical education 5.8University 58.9
Income (h/annum) oh14.700 32.8h14.701–35.200 46.64h35.201 20.6
shown in Table 1. Collectively, all samples consist ofrelatively mid-aged, highly educated and moder-ately to highly paid participants although certaingroup attributes markedly diverge from this generalpicture. Male respondents outnumber females in allcases and this difference is particularly distinctamong the Parnitha park users, indicating thatusually group leaders were men when only onequestionnaire per group was completed. Age is notevenly represented in each visitor group. Thedistribution of recreationists appears to be moreuniform across the three groups with peak propor-tion of respondents gathered in the age class of31–45 years. Most people surveyed have a uni-versity education followed by secondary-levelgraduates in all parks. Finally, an uneven distribu-tion of participants along income clusters wasobserved in the three study areas. The majorityof users earn an income between h14,701 andh35,200 per annum (Table 1).
Park management purposes
Visitors preferences concerning a wide variety ofmanagement purposes pertaining to nature con-servation, opportunities for education and scien-tific research, organisation of small and large-scalerecreational facilities as well as the potential forecotouristic development of the park area wereinvestigated in this section.
Of the seven purposes shown in Table 2,respondents rated nature conservation as beingthe most significant purpose for park managementfollowed closely by the provision of opportunitiesfor education both for ecological and cultural/
us (n ¼ 213) Parnitha (n ¼ 221)(%)
Vikos-Aoos (n ¼ 147)(%)
73.5 58.926.5 41.1
22.4 21.748.9 47.623.3 25.95.5 4.9
1.4 0.783 3.532.1 21.110.1 7.048.2 67.6
38.3 2351.4 48.510.2 28.3
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2. Respondents’ most preferred park management purposes by each visitor group (1 ¼ absolutely insignificant,5 ¼ absolutely significant)
Management in national parks should promoteactions toy
Park Mean ANOVA
Pairs Difference(mean)
Enhance protection and guarding of the park forthe conservation of the natural values (flora,fauna, landscape)
NB: only significant social variables are quoted.*Difference is significant at the 0.05 level.**Difference is significant at the 0.01 level.
K. Papageorgiou, K. Kassioumis238
historical themes and the need for improvingconditions for scientific research (mean43). Somevariation across the three visitor groups is appar-ent, but this is not statistically significant, unlessshown in Table 2.
In comparison, visitor groups seem to statisticallydiverge in the questions that sought users’ choicesfor furnishing the park with small or large-scalerecreational facilities. The results indicate that the
Parnitha visitors give greater support to thepromotion of light scale facilities for leisure(4.29) compared to visitor groups in Vikos-Aoos(3.90) and Olympus (3.92) based on the meanscores. However, the fact that all visitor groupsscore relatively high in this item on the five-pointrating scale, implies that all three groups deemessential the need to manage national parks forrecreation. On the other hand, as the magnitude
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Users’ view on Greek park administration 239
of recreational facilities increased, visitors’ pre-ferences for recreation management decreasedindicating, in this case, their concern for large-scale recreation amenities in a natural setting.Based on the mean scores, Parnitha visitors appearto have the fewest reservations (3.00) while visitorsin Vikos-Aoos and Olympus had the most reserva-tions concerning park management for large-scalefacilities (2.45 and 2.78, respectively).
The last management objective sought to estab-lish the park’s features as an ecotourist attractionto trigger ecotouristic development of the widerregion. Both Vikos-Aoos (3.72) and Olympus (3.65)visitor groups allocate greater significance to theuse of park’s natural features for ecotourism thantheir counterparts in Parnitha (3.38).
Table 3. Evaluation of existing functional conditions by eac
Please evaluate the current state of parkorganisation with respect toy
Park M
Existing conditions for protecting andguarding the park
Olympus 2.
Parnitha 2.Vik-Aoos 2.
Existing conditions for administering andmanaging the park
Olympus 2.
Parnitha 2.Vik-Aoos 2.
Information and environmental educationfacilities (leaflets, visitor centres,museums)
Olympus 2.
Parnitha 2.Vik-Aoos 2.
Information and educational signs Olympus 2.Parnitha 2.Vik-Aoos 2.
Facilities for visitors’ safety (first aid,communications, etc.)
Olympus 2.
Parnitha 1.Vik-Aoos 2.
Recreational amenities to facilitatevisitors’ staying at the park area
Olympus 3.
Parnitha 2.Vik-Aoos 2.
Tourist infrastructure at the wider parkarea (accommodation, restaurants, etc.)
Olympus 3.
Parnitha 2.Vik-Aoos 3.
NB: only significant social variables are quoted.*Difference is significant at the 0.05 level.**Difference is significant at the 0.01 level.
Evaluation of existing functional conditions
Nature conservation, recreation and environ-mental education in Greek parks have developedas activities largely pursued by the forest-trainedpersonnel in FDOs. An essential theme of thepresent study is to gauge visitors’ perception abouthow well park authorities have pursued the currentfunctional status of parks with specific reference toconditions for protecting and managing the parks,providing information and educational opportu-nities and furnishing the resource with facilitiesto aid recreation, tourism or to enhance the senseof safety in the park area.
Table 3 portrays the mean scores over all therespondents in each park. Since almost all mean
h visitor group (1 ¼ very inadequate, 5 ¼ very adequate)
scores in all parks are less than the scale median of3, all organisational conditions can be perceived asseen as being relatively inadequate to visitors. Onaverage, park users in Parnitha park seem to bemore skeptical regarding the current stateof organisation in the park as specified bythe lower mean values recorded for each variable.In most cases, this difference was found statistical(Table 3).
The park authorities’ achievements in protec-tion, management and administration were per-ceived poor by the respondents in all parks(meano3). This finding is consistent with thegeneral feeling drawn on past relevant literature(Wade, Mather, & Ferry, 1987; Kassioumis, 1990;IUCN, 1991; Scoullos, 1991). Olympus visitors weresignificantly different from the other two groups(Table 3). The mean values indicate that Olympusvisitors consider the existing conditions for protec-tion, management and administration to be themost adequate (2.78 and 2.87, respectively)compared to the perceptions of park users inParnitha (2.27 and 2.16) and Vikos-Aoos parks(2.35 and 2.69).
It is evident that the recreational facilities andtourist infrastructure were perceived to be moreinadequate in supply in Parnitha (2.65 and 2.44,respectively) than in Olympus (3.04 and 3.13) andVikos-Aoos park (2.94 and 3.46). The alreadyexisting network of facilities including footpaths,kiosks or resting areas as well as tourist infra-structure found today in Olympus and Vikos-Aoosparks may explain the higher mean scores, perhapssuggesting a degree of resentment towards greaterfacilities in these parks. This is consistent withPapageorgiou and Brotherton (1999) who reportedvisitors’ objections to unsympathetic park devel-opment such as more lodgings, restaurants orcoffee shops that might spoil the unique wildernessfeatures in Vikos-Aoos park.
Safety was perceived an issue of major concernamong the respondents in all parks. However,pairwise comparisons indicated Parnitha visitorswere significantly different from either group(Table 3). Based on the mean scores, visitors inParnitha were more concerned about the greaterneed for measures to improve safety conditions.
Finally, most people surveyed in all parks feltthat there was not adequate supply of informativeand educational material, nor enough visitorcentres or thematic museums. The deficit ofinformative and interpretive material was equallyperceived in all parks. On the contrary, all visitorgroups were significantly different from each otheras regards to museums and reception centres.Based on the mean scores, park users in Parnitha
strongly perceived (2.01) those facilities to belacking compared to respondents in Olympus (2.83)and Vikos-Aoos (2.39).
Issues on park administration
Park authoritiesThe study sought a direct examination of
respondents’ scoring of four different park manage-ment schemes they perceive to achieve themanagement objectives in a more efficient way.The findings suggest a homogeneity of preferencesbetween the three visitor groups (Table 4). Of thefour scenarios, the creation of a non-departmentalbody under government supervision received thestrongest agreement between park visitors. Allthree samples exhibited identical behaviour andno statistical differences were recorded. Certainly,this strongly held preference among the respon-dents favours a specific type of park administrationthat is seen as relatively free from directstate control by transferring the exercise ofadministration tasks toward an autonomous agencyaccountable to state bodies. In comparison, theassignment of park management to statutorygovernment bodies, which reflects the currentadministrative regime of FDOs, received lowermean values but still ranks higher than theremaining two types of administration (Table 4).It can be inferred that the involvement of govern-mental agencies in a direct or indirect way appearsto be the management type most preferred by theaverage park visitor in all parks. This emphasisesthe strong perceived links between state structuresand nature conservation among park users.
A marked result accounts for the scenario assign-ing park management tasks to private experiencedcompanies specialised in environmental issues.Results indicate that all the respondents had themost reservations and there were no group differ-ences based on mean values.
There is an evident divergence however, in theresponses, between the visitors in Parnitha andtheir counterparts in the other two parks regardingthe transfer of park administration to local autho-rities. Mean scores suggest that getting localauthorities more involved into park managementduties is likely to raise greater objections betweenusers in Parnitha (2.74) than between visitors inOlympus (3.37) and in Vikos-Aoos park (3.14).
It is clear from above that, according to parkusers, perhaps the greatest challenge to the idea ofmanaging a natural resource lies within the domainof the state. The preference for a non-depart-mental body under government supervision rejects
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4. Preferences for styles of park administration, types of restrictions and funding options by visitor group andanalysis of variance to test group differences (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree)
Park Mean ANOVA
Pairs Difference(mean)
Preferences for style of park administrationPark management (protection, organisation andoperation) should be assigned toyA statutory government body Olympus 3.50 Olympus Parnitha 0.08
Preference for funding optionsPark’s expenses for protection, administration andfunctioning should be covered byyAdmission fees Olympus 2.82 Olympus Parnitha 0.52**
NB: only significant social variables are quoted.*Difference is significant at the 0.05 level.**Difference is significant at the 0.01 level.
Users’ view on Greek park administration 241
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Papageorgiou, K. Kassioumis242
the transfer of natural resource managementtowards local authorities or private companies,thus recognising the continued need for govern-ment intervention, albeit in a very indirect form.
Restrictive managementBy definition, the statutory designation of a
protected area in Greece approves a frameworkof legal restrictions and regulations for certainactivities. The respondents were asked to statetheir preference for the type of restrictions to beimposed in a natural area. Since all visitors assignedmean scores above the median 3, visitors areimplicitly accepting the use of restrictions andregulations in national parks (Table 4).
Of the reported restrictions, those aimed atcontrolling traditional landuses such as logging,hunting or grazing received the strongest andbroadest support by all visitors in all three parks.The high mean scores in all groups indicate that ingeneral, all park users agreed that regulating suchtraditional landuses could aid park authorities morein their efforts to maintain use within the frame-work of the management objectives. Althoughgroup comparisons identified the visitors inParnitha to be more supportive of these kindof restriction, the difference is not easily inter-pretable.
Comparatively, the control of interventions toexpand park infrastructure including road networksand building installations, received lower meanscores but mean values remained higher than 3indicating a relatively strong agreement by allvisitor groups. Mean scores comparisons establisheda divergence between Olympus park users, who arelikely to disagree more, than the other two parkgroups (Table 4).
Of the remaining item, although restrictions tovisitor activities had a lower level of agreement,mean values rank relatively high suggesting thatusers are likely to accept controls over visitorsactivities when necessary.
Preferences for funding schemesUsing three scenarios referring to entrance or
user fees and public money as potential source offunding to improve park management, one canobserve, in a rudimentary fashion, visitors’ atti-tudes towards the idea of making parks increasinglyfinancially self-sufficient as opposed to having theirexpenses covered by state funds. This possibility ofself-sufficiency is provided under the new parklegislation. In the first scenario, entry fees arelevied to improve the organisational and functionalconditions of the park. The second scenarioaddressed user fees to certain recreational facil-
ities, whereas in the third option park expenses arecovered by the state.
The study results in Table 4, show, with respectto the first scenario that, since all mean scores areless than the median 3, entry fees are notperceived an essential management tool able toimprove functional conditions and enhance parkorganisation. Significant mean differences werefound only among responses from Parnitha (2.30)and Olympus park (2.82). User fees result in aslightly reverse situation as specified by therelatively higher mean scores in all groups. Basedon the mean values, visitors’ paying to use facilitiesappears to be a slightly more preferable option,especially among the Olympus (3.20) and Vikos-Aoos visitors (3.43); Parnitha visitors appeared tobe the most skeptical of all groups (2.98).
Concerning the option for state funding, themean values were the highest recorded byall groups indicating their broad preference forgovernment to cover all park functional andmanagement costs. This finding highlights theimportance visitors allocate to government fundingaid to ensure the viability of natural resources.
Discussion
This paper sets out to explore current discoursesof administration and management as they areplayed out in the new context for administration ofnational parks in Greece. It is argued that the poorachievements of FDOs are exacerbated by frag-mented jurisdiction over the resource base, scarcefunding and limited political commitment (Phillips,1987; Scoullos, 1991; Kassioumis, 1994). Overallthe story of the 65 years of national parks in Greeceis one of neglected opportunity. However, recentdevelopments are more encouraging. The impetuswithin the park boards for achieving park designa-tion purposes is increased and there is tangibleevidence of higher political commitment to con-servation. The preferences of users help determinethe desired management objectives thus strength-ening the relationship between park users and parkauthorities. In addition, information obtained fromthe park users helps identify context-specificimpacts that the experts may fail to recognise(Lahdelma, Salminen, & Hokkanen, 2000).
The results have shown that the perspectives ofpark users are increasingly aligned to the interestsof park authorities as regards park managementpurposes. This implies that park boards could gainenormous support from park users in efforts tofulfill their objectives. It is a conclusion that is
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Users’ view on Greek park administration 243
perhaps to be expected as parks become moreevident and influential following the latest revisionof park administration and as conservation itselfhas become an issue in the political agenda.
The comparative overview of park users’ evalua-tion regarding the functional organisation of thethree parks in Greece is important for two reasons.First, it has revealed the varied dynamic of parkusers’ attitudes across the three parks. While theOlympus and Vikos-Aoos users perceived the cur-rent state of organisational conditions to bemoderately inadequate, Parnitha visitors adoptedstronger views and recognised major gaps in theexisting conditions of the park. It is believed thatthis difference may be attributed to initial varia-tion in the scale of facilities offered in these parks.Second, it reflects that the vigorousness of parkadministrators in establishing functional conditionsto high standards has not in general reached thescale of intensity originally conceived nor thatwhich appears desirable in view of current pres-sures on the parks within 65 years of park existencein Greece.
The system of park administration analysed
Fundamental in the interaction between visitorsand park administration and prime focus of thisresearch, is whether the changes carried out by thenew legal framework for national parks andprotected areas in Greece could facilitate orimpede the course of administration in nationalparks. The key question for the future may wellcentre on whether an administration that wasdesigned, among other things, to provide a ‘‘lessstate’’ approach can correspond to visitors’ antici-pations for effective park management. Perhapsthe major finding of the research lies in the area ofhomogeneity of preferences in most cases, be-tween the three visitor groups of issues pertainingto the style of administration. This conclusion holdsa particular significance when viewed in light of thevaried biophysical and recreational conditions ofthe parks as well as the demographic character-istics of each group. The visitors’ most preferredadministration style tend to move away from theformal, coercive powers and direct control of forestservice (FDOs) as the traditional park authority,towards a new form of administration that involvesan exercise of authority by a non-departmentalagency supervised by the state. This transfer is verywell reflected in our study areas and this schemalargely resembles the newly founded park boards.Thus, the convergence between administrators’thinking and perceived understanding of park users
is believed to be in the interests of efficient parkadministration.
However, it is noteworthy that park users do notview the relationship between the state and natureas being entirely negative; they prefer the involve-ment of state bodies to exert supervision, but areless supportive of administration styles that em-power local authorities or private individuals.Weakening the direct control of state institutionshas been a turning point in the administration inother fields such as forestry (Buttoud, 2000). Insearching for the rationale to these developments,Goodwin (1998), has noted that governments havebegun to recognise that their ability to get thingsdone no longer rests on their formal powers ofenforcement and have consequently ‘reinvented’themselves by developing a capacity for manage-ment and steering rather than direct forms ofintervention. Especially in the national park field,this devolution of natural resource managementtowards greater involvement of local government,NGOs or private individuals has been a worldwidetrend in park administration, largely supported byIUCN (Davey, 1998). In our case this shift ofresponsibility away from state agencies is not seenas a reduction in the role of the state in parkadministration. Rather it is representative of a new‘‘free from direct state control’’ formula of rule.Relevant literature sources could possibly providesome insight to help interpret these results.Kassioumis (1994) has noted that the poor perfor-mance of park authorities to take account of theoriginally envisaged purposes of parks, has reducedthe trust of visitors in the efficiency of FDOs, thusmaking this style of administration less attractive.On the other hand, Papageorgiou (1996) found thatnatural resource administration by non-state-basedactors was simultaneously perceived to be ineffec-tual and connected with business attitudes.
There are many instances in which policy makersand park management officials can use results suchas these in designing or improving managementstrategies to achieve desired objectives. Oneexample is the design of entrance fee structuresthat generate needed revenues. Since limited fundsare usually the main constraint on park manage-ment both worldwide (Davey, 1998), and in Greece(IUCN, 1991), the success of the new style of parkadministration in Greece, in the long-term willdepend on the development of clear fund-raisingand investment strategies. This study demon-strated obvious visitor support for the allocationof state funds to park administration and manage-ment. Consistent with the above was the viewexpounded by visitors not willing to pay fees topreserve a Greek Ramsar wetland that it was
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Papageorgiou, K. Kassioumis244
supportive, in principle, of the responsibility ofgovernment for funding nature reserves(Oglethorpe & Miliadou, 2000). On the other hand,the new system of administration did in factempower park boards to set up entry fee schemesin order to make administration more self-suffi-cient. However, setting fees is a two-edged swordfalling between safeguarding much needed parkrevenues and business attitude (Becker, Berrier, &Barker, 1985). A current discourse on pricingnational parks centres upon whether fees shouldbe linked with recreation activities or charged atentrance spots. We could postulate from our studythat if fees are to be levied then it is more likely tobe accepted if visitors are charged for using thepark for certain recreational activities rather thanas entry fees. Park entrance fees is in Greece ahighly politicised matter subject to many factors,not just revenue generation (Papageorgiou &Vakrou, 2001). For example, several authors haveargued that the setting of entry fees can be anunfortunate distraction and may lead to publicprotest (Becker et al., 1985; Jorgensen & Syme,2000). A remark brought forward by Papageorgiouand Vakrou (2001) in Olympus and Vikos-Aoos parksis relevant in our case. They argued that freeaccess to national parks in Greece appears to bejustified and legitimate, it is conceived as a socialcommitment and thus entry fees are not to beconsidered. Thus, there are two straightforwardimplications derived from the above. First, giventhe moderate level of acceptance of fees, theeconomic possibilities set by the newly foundedadministration authorities should be primarilybased upon tapping opportunities for using publicfunds. Second, if parks are to become self-sufficient, fees earmarked for using the park forcertain recreational activities is more likely as anoption than entry fees.
Among some of the chief concerns about admin-istrative and management threats to national parkswithin Greece arise from ineffectiveness of parkregulations and restrictions (IUCN, 1991). Althougha significant component of the success of regulatorymanagement lies largely on enforcement efficiency(Papageorgiou, 2001), knowledge of the accept-ability of restrictions can provide essential infor-mation for park administrators in making decisionson appropriate improvements. Protecting nationalparks in Greece has been an issue based on park’soperation regulation, often forbidding rather thanregulating visitor activities. This is not surprising ifones bears in mind the very normative vision ofFDOs, which mainly focuses on prohibitive mea-sures, but takes little account of the relationsfound in the visitors–national park system. A set of
rules and restrictions for certain kinds of activitieswere strongly supported by park users. Thus,although the strict enforcement of restrictive andregulatory management is uniformly espoused byvisitor groups, park boards lack the correspondingexecutive powers under the new legislation. Theyhave only advisory and coordinating roles tosupport the application of protective legislation,which is linked to FDOs. In this respect, the new lawsets up a new perspective as well as the need toestablish good cooperation and a working togetherattitude among the park boards and FDOs.
As a concluding remark, in view of the provisionsoffered by the new park law, we believe that theconceptions of park users markedly reflect asituation whereby the role of the state in parkadministration is well anticipated and valued buttheir funding options contrast with the spirit of thenew law. Moreover, the reorganisation of adminis-tration requires both time and changes in thepolitical commitment. Given the latter, it is withinthe powers of the new park boards to respond tothis challenge, move rigorously forward, considermeasures of persuading and informing park users,but above all ensure in practice that the newadministrative framework will not be anotherexample of lost opportunities. The prophetic viewof what was to come in the English national parkssome 30 years ago can also be relevant in the Greekcontext today: ‘‘the quality of the membership of apark authority is more important than the structureof the body, for no system can be better than thosewho operate it’’ (Sandford, 1974).
References
Becker, R. H., Berrier, D., & Barker, G. D. (1985).Entrance fees and visitation levels. Journal of Parksand Recreation Administration, 3, 28–31.
Beltran, J. (2000). Indigenous and traditional peoplesand protected areas: Principles, guidelines and casestudies. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN and WWF.
Bishop, K., Phillips, A., & Warren, L. M. (1997). Protectedareas for the future: Models from the past. Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management, 40, 81–110.
Brotherton, I. (1984). Issues in national park administra-tion. Environment and Planning A, 17, 47–58.
Buttoud, G. (2000). How can policy take into considera-tion the ‘‘full value’’ of forests. Land Use Policy, 17,169–175.
Buttoud, G., & Yunusova, I. (2002). A mixed model for theformulation of a multipurpose mountain forest policy.Theory vs practice on the example of Kyrgyzstan.Forest Policy and Economics, 4, 149–160.
Conway, K. (1997). Gender and culture influenceson attitudes towards national park Punta Izoto,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Users’ view on Greek park administration 245
Honduras: An assessment for participatory conserva-tion and management. MA thesis, University ofFlorida.
Council of Europe. (1987). Parks, plans and people.Protected areas and socio-economic development.Environmental Encounters Series 2, Council of Europe,Strasbourg.
Davey, A. G. (1998). National system planning forprotected areas. Switzerland and Cambridge, UK:IUCN, Gland.
Duffey, E. (1982). National Parks and Reserves in WesternEurope (pp. 262–271). London: Macdonald.
European Environment Review. (1986). Greece: Draftenvironment law 1, p. 28.
Fanariotou, I. (1987). The potential role of environ-mental impact assessment in policies for the estab-lishment and operation of protected areas in Greece.M.Sc. thesis, University of Aberdeen, UK.
Francis, M. (1996). Community involvment and themanagement of vegetation inselected communalareas in Zimbabwe. In Bihini Won wa Musiti (Ed.),1996 Pan African symposium on sustainable use ofnatural resources and community participation. Har-are: IUCN.
Goodwin, M. (1998). The governance of rural areas: someemerging research issues and agendas. Journal ofRural Studies, 14, 5–12.
Government Gazette of Greece. (1971). Law Decree 996/1971 (in Greek).
Government Gazette of Greece. (1999) Law Decree 2742/1999 (in Greek).
Harris, J. M., Branch, G. M., & Wilson, A. J. (1996).Comanagement and participatory harvesting of mus-sels by subsistence gatherers on the Kwazulu-Natalcoast of southern Africa. In Bihini Won wa Musiti (Ed.),1996 Pan African symposium on sustainable use ofnatural resources and community participation. Har-are: IUCN.
IUCN. (1991). Protected areas of the world: A review ofnational systems, vol. 2 (pp. 184–192). Switzerlandand Cambridge: IUCN, Gland.
Jorgensen, B. S., & Syme, G. J. (2000). Protest responsesand willingness to pay: Attitude toward paying forstormwater pollution abatement. Ecological Econom-ics, 33, 251–265.
Kassioumis, K. (1978) The forest visitor. A study of hismotivations, rewards preferences and attitudes re-garding forest recreation and some implications forrecreational planning and forest management. Ph.D.thesis, University of Reading, UK.
Kassioumis, K. (1990). Greece. In C. W. Allin (Ed.),International handbook of national parks andnature reserves (pp. 157–174). New York: Greenwoodpress.
Kassioumis, K. (1992). The system of protected areas inGreece. International seminar on national parks andequivalent reserves. Abruzzo National Park, 14–18October 1992, Italy.
Kassioumis, K. (1994). Nature protection in Greece,legislation, protected areas and administration. Geo-technic Scientific Issue, 5, 58–74 (in Greek).
Katsadorakis, G. (1985). Preliminary study of theinvertebrate fauna in Vikos-Aoos National Park.Athens (in Greek).
Lahdelma, R., Salminen, P., & Hokkanen, J. (2000). Usingmulticriteria methods in environmental planningand management. Environmental Management, 26,595–605.
Larson, J. W. (1974). National park system plan forGreece. Athens: OECD.
Lazaretos, T. H. (1995). Legal protection of Greekwetlands. Athens: Sakkoula (in Greek).
McNeely, J. (1995). Expanding partnership in conserva-tion. Washington, DC: Island Press.
McNeely, J. A. (1994). Protected areas for the 21stcentury: working to provide benefits to society.Biodiversity and Conservation, 3, 390–405.
McNeely, J. A., Harrison, J., & Dingwall, P. (1994).Protecting nature: Regional reviews of protectedareas. Switzerland: IUCN, Gland.
Mehta, J. N., & Heinen, J. T. (2001). Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes amonglocals. An empirical study from Nepal. EnvironmentalManagement, 28, 165–177.
Moore, S. A., & Lee, R. G. (1999). Understanding disputeresolution processes for American and Australianpublic wildlands: Towards a conceptual frameworkfor managers. Environmental Management, 23,453–465.
National Committee of Physical Planning and the Envir-onment. (1982) Report on the Evaluation and Manage-ment of the Aoos Ravine. Athens (in Greek).
Nepal, S. K. (2002). Involving indigenous peoples inprotected area management: Comparative perspec-tives from Nepal, Thailand, and China. EnvironmentalManagement, 30, 748–763.
Noe, F. P., Hammitt, W. E., & Bixler, R. D. (1997). Parkuser perceptions of resource and use impacts undervaried situations in three natinal parks. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 49, 323–336.
Oglethorpe, D. R., & Miliadou, D. (2000). Economicvaluation of the non-use attributes of a wetland: Acase study for lake Kerkini. Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management, 43, 755–767.
Papageorgiou, K. (1996). An evaluation of the nationalpark system of Greece with particular reference torecreational management in the Vikos-Aoos nationalpark. Ph.D. thesis, Sheffield University.
Papageorgiou, K. (2001). A combined park managementframework based on regulatory and behaviouralstrategies: Use of visitors’ knowledge to assesseffectiveness. Environmental Management, 28,61–73.
Papageorgiou, K., & Brotherton, I. (1999). A managementplanning framework based on ecological, perceptualand economic carrying capacity: The case study ofVikos-Aoos National Park, Greece. Journal of Environ-mental Management, 56, 271–284.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Papageorgiou, K. Kassioumis246
Papageorgiou, K., & Vakrou, A. (2001). Can Greek parkspay their own way? Issues revealed from two con-tingent valuation studies in two Greek parks. Medit,1/2001, 35–44.
Phillips, A. (1987) Report on a Visit to Greece, 8–14February (52pp). Countryside Commission.
Plimmer, W. N. (1992). Managing for growth: regulationversus the market. In Proceeding of conference,ecotourism business of the Pacific (pp. 122–125),University of Auckland, Auckland.
Ransom, W. R. (1998). Local community perceptions ofthe socioeconomic and cultural consequences ofconservation and tourism in the Mount Elgon nationalpark, Uganda. MA thesis, University of Aberdeen.
Sandford, L. (1974). Report of the national park policyreview committee. London: HMSO.
Schneider, I. E., & Burnett, G. W. (2000). Protected areamanagement in Jordan. Environmental Management,25, 241–246.
Scoullos, M. (1991). Parks and nature reserves. InDocter (Ed.), The state of the Greek environment(pp. 28–31). European Environmental Yearbook,Athens (in Greek).
Strid, A. (1980). Wild flowers of Mount Olympos. Athens:Goulandris Natural History Museum.
Trakolis, D. (1999). Protected natural areas. Proposals foradministration and managemenet (pp. 544–551). In
Th. Zagas (Ed.), Proceedings of the eighth congress ofthe Greek forestry society, Thessaloniki.
Trakolis, D. (2001a). Perceptions, preferences andreactions of local inhabitants in Vikos-Aoos nationalpark, Greece. Environmental Management, 28,665–676.
Trakolis, D. (2001b). Local people’s perceptions ofplanning and management issues in Prespes Lakesnational park, Greece. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 61, 227–241.
Troumbis, A. (1995). Ecological networks in Greece.Landschap, 95, 51–62.
Tsounis, G., & Sfikas, G. (1993). Ecotouristic guide ofGreece. General Secretariat of Youth and HellenicSociety for the Protection of Nature, Athens.
Tzouvaras, T. H. (1983). The legal frame of the nationalparks. Paper presented at the conference on nationalparks, Athens, 19–20 May 1983.
Vakrou, A. (1993). A study on the economic valuation andmanagement of recreation at Mt. Olympus NationalPark, Greece. Ph.D. thesis, Aberdeen University.
Venter, A. K., & Breen, C. M. (1998). Partnership forumframework: Participative framework for protectedarea outreach. Environmental Management, 22,803–815.
Wade, J. W., Mather, S. T., & Ferry, H. (1987). Anassessment of the organisation staffing and training inthe National Parks of Greece, WWF.
