Bridging the Gap between Tourism Development and Urban Planning: Evidence from Greece

Abstract

This article examines the shifts in spatial planning within Greece’s tourism sector since the 2010s, aimed at addressing the structural problems and challenges of Greek tourism. By exploring the characteristics of urban planning and tourism development in Greece, it investigates the changes in spatial planning in the field of tourism and the emergence of new urban planning mechanisms designed to facilitate and enable integrated tourism development projects. It highlights the interconnections between tourism planning and urban planning, demonstrating how these new urban planning instruments have incorporated tourism planning approaches based on integration and adaptability, with a focus on environmental sustainability.

1. Introduction

Greece is widely recognized as a prominent global tourist destination, showcasing a remarkable resurgence following the eurozone crisis, spanning from late 2009 to late 2018, and overcoming the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic [1]. In 2022, Greece welcomed nearly 27.8 million tourists, with direct tourism activities contributing EUR 23.9 billion, representing 11.6% of the nation’s GDP. Taking into account its multiplier effect, the cumulative impact of tourism on the national economy ranges between EUR 52.6 billion and EUR 63.2 billion, accounting for 25.4% to 30.6% of the national GDP. Notably, a significant portion of tourism revenue, amounting to 89%, is concentrated in just five out of twelve administrative regions: 27% in the South Aegean, 21% in Crete, 17% in Attica, 15% in the Ionian Islands, and 9% in Central Macedonia. Consequently, tourism expenditure surpasses the GDP of specific regions, with figures reaching 102% of the South Aegean’s GDP, 110% of the Ionian Islands’ GDP, and 51% of Crete’s GDP. It is estimated that, during the peak of the 2022 season, tourism-related activities generated 703,000 jobs, constituting 16.7% of direct employment, and between 36.7% and 44.2% of total employment [2] (pp. 6, 8, 18, 20–24). Therefore, Greece’s tourism sector has emerged as a significant driver of economic activity, fostering revenue generation, regional development, and employment opportunities [3] (pp. 246–252).

In terms of geomorphological characteristics and ecologically sensitive areas, approximately 80% of Greece’s landmass is characterized by mountainous or hilly terrain, and its extensive coastline spans approximately 16,000 km. The Greek archipelago comprises approximately 6000 islands and islets, of which 227 are inhabited. Notably, 446 locations have been designated within the Natura 2000 European network, encompassing roughly 27.9% of the terrestrial area and 22% of the maritime zone [4]. Moreover, the land area covered by forests and wooded regions totals 7,413,549.81 hectares, representing nearly 55% of the nation’s total territory [5].

The above highlights the tourism sector’s pivotal role in the national economy, revealing that it is deeply ingrained within Greek society, especially in the regions dependent on tourism. Nonetheless, the sector frequently faces issues and conflicts concerning environmental preservation and the sustainable utilization of natural resources, particularly in ecologically sensitive insular and coastal areas, where there is high demand for tourism development. Indeed, tourism can have both adverse and advantageous impacts on natural and man-made environments. Despite the increasing awareness regarding the concept and significance of sustainable tourism over the past two decades, new challenges such as climate change, natural disasters, extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem collapse necessitate further advancements in sustainable tourism development [6] (pp. 12–14).

Interest in tourism planning followed the recognition of tourism as an industry, initially conceived with a primary focus on maximizing economic growth [7] (p. 21) [8] (pp. 181–182). Nevertheless, the evolution of approaches and methodologies in tourism planning has been subject to continuous change, deeply influenced by transformations in sociopolitical ideologies, advancements in sociological theories, and new approaches to public management [9] (p. 44) [10] (pp. 3–5). In this respect, Getz identified four broad traditions or approaches to tourism planning: boosterism, economic/industry oriented, physical/spatial, and community oriented [11], to which Hall added the sustainable tourism approach [9] (p. 50). According to Getz, such tourism planning traditions are not mutually exclusive, nor are they necessarily sequential [9] (p. 50). Moreover, some authors have pointed to the need for more cooperative and integrative approaches to tourism planning to achieve effective coordination, better decision-making, and an equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of tourism development. In this respect, they have suggested strategic tourism planning at the destination level facilitated by host communities as a method to supersede conventional approaches [9] (pp. 62–64) [12] (pp. 105, 111). In this context, traditional approaches to tourism planning, which relied on a final master plan deemed adequate to guide the tourism industry, have been replaced by more contemporary methodologies. These modern approaches conceptualize tourism planning as an ongoing and flexible process, aimed at developing an optimal strategy for future actions to achieve specific objectives through a series of measures [13] (p. 41). Indeed, Lagos argues that the stages of tourism planning constitute a cyclic process, resembling a cycle or flowchart with neither a beginning nor an end [13] (p. 72). Furthermore, spatial and procedural models have been further refined to address specific tourism planning and policy challenges related to environmental, community, and other pertinent issues [14] (p. 291). The contemporary literature, in both planning and tourism disciplines, recognizes the crucial importance of strategic planning for tourism development. It introduces a cohesive, long-term strategy to guide tourism policies within specific regions. The primary role of planning is to guide and facilitate sustainable investments in the tourism sector and coordinate the various sectoral policies that are either directly related to, or intersect with, tourism initiatives. In addition, it may also function as a regulatory mechanism [15] (pp. 12–13) [16]. Further research in the fields of planning and tourism can help to explore the possible tensions that arise between sectors, interests, or stakeholders, such as the tension between tourism-led speculative real estate development and the loss of local access to land as a resource for the whole community, and the tension between physical and economic development, and socio-cultural and environmental issues [17] (p. 217).

In this context, the integration of tourism policies and sustainable tourism development with spatial and urban planning policies and processes emerges as a complex issue, posing ongoing challenges for key stakeholders such as government entities, local communities, tourism enterprises, environmental organizations, and society. Indeed, tourism activities without proper planning and regulation can lead to the irreversible degradation of the natural capital and resources that constitute the very attractions of the site or the region.

Against this background, Greece presents an interesting example of bridging the potential gaps between the need for tourism growth and revenue generation, the shift toward integrated tourism planning, and the imperative for urban planning and sustainable development.

To address the main research question, the issue is approached in this paper through the lens of the interplay/interconnection between tourism planning and urban planning. There is ongoing discourse in the international literature regarding how tourism planning has been influenced by planning theory and whether tourism planning is, or can, function as an element of urban planning. Certain scholars, such as Gunn and Var [18], and Lawson and Baud-Bovy [19], have advocated for the physical/spatial approach, emphasizing the central role of physical master planning and zoning in tourism planning. The debate over whether tourism planning should be assimilated into conventional mainstream planning remains, though it is contentious. Lew suggested that tourism planning can be seen as a subset of urban planning and should be integrated into general planning procedures [20] (p. 2). This opinion was also supported by Murphy, albeit from an ecological perspective [8] (pp. 184, 193). Conversely, Inskeep suggested that, although, ideally, tourism should be integrated into comprehensive planning, it is often necessary to follow separate planning processes. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that tourism planning is harmoniously integrated within overarching development policies and programs. In the context of urban tourism development, tourism is more suitably incorporated as a component of a comprehensive urban general plan [21] (p. 34, 37) [22] (p. 29). Nonetheless, it is important to distinguish between planning as a process and an actual plan, which represents a set of decisions for future action [9] (p. 8), [23] (pp. 330–331).

The obvious juxtaposition between tourism planning and urban planning arises from their different scopes and origins. Urban planning is considered a public activity [24] (p. 1) realized through government intervention, with the aim of catering to all aspects of a community’s interests and needs, and achieving growth for the general population. In contrast, tourism planning is more focused on providing infrastructure and facilities for visitors and serving the interests of the tourism sector, although it is mostly initiated and executed by the private sector [20] (p. 2). In this context, sustainability and an awareness that extreme development can have dramatic consequences for the environment and ultimately for the tourism product itself provides a ‘unifying discourse’ for both tourism planning and urban planning [10] (p. 3).

This article attempts to enrich and supplement the existing literature by examining the case of Greece, illustrating how tourism planning can be integrated into urban planning. By drawing on elements, principles, and methodologies from urban planning, tourism planning can play a significant role in the broader urban planning processes, thereby advancing and further operationalizing sustainability objectives. The central research aim of this article is to prove the hypothesis proposing the integration of tourism planning as an element within urban planning. Evidence from the Greek case study is employed to substantiate this hypothesis.

In this context, this article begins by reviewing the international literature on the interrelationship among tourism planning, urban planning, and environmental sustainability. It then proceeds to examine Greece’s context as a case study. An overview is provided concerning the fundamental characteristics of Greece’s spatial and urban planning system, as well as the structural problems and challenges faced by the tourism sector since the 2000s. This study explores significant transformations in the spatial dimensions of tourism policy, with a specific focus on the utilization of urban planning tools to facilitate tourism investments. Notably, emphasis is placed on the introduction of new urban planning mechanisms that enable integrated tourism development. Subsequently, the article outlines the gradual integration of Greece’s tourism policy into Special and Regional Spatial Planning Frameworks. This is supported by evidence-based data illustrating the implementation of recently introduced urban planning tools for specific integrated tourism development projects. Following this, the discussion addresses the emergence of a new tourism development model that incorporates key elements of tourism planning within urban planning processes. Finally, the concluding section summarizes the research findings and evaluates whether this approach can enhance efforts to address sustainability concerns and promote public participation and community involvement.

The analysis draws on the existing literature and is further supported by research that uses a significant number of primary sources, including Special and Regional Spatial Frameworks, maps, legal documents, presidential decrees, ministerial decisions, reports, and studies, as well as decisions and opinions from the Council of State.

2. Interplay between Urban Planning, Tourism Planning, and Sustainability

The roots of urban planning can be traced back to the 19th century planning movements (such as the City Beautiful movement and the Garden City movement) emphasizing architecture, aesthetics, order, design, and sanitation. Physical-oriented planning further led to the scientific approach of the comprehensive rational model, a systematic and structured process of decision-making to address problems by fully investigating them, exploring objectives and alternatives, implementing them, and monitoring the progress of the chosen alternatives [25] (p. 221). The goal of the rational planning process is to produce expert judgment by planners through the thorough evaluation of alternatives and choices, thereby contributing to ‘human growth’ [26] (pp. 38–39) [27] (p. 2). In response to criticism of the comprehensive rational model, the incremental planning model highlights the importance of integrating political factors within the framework of planning theory. From the 1960s onwards, urban planning theory was shaped by perspectives on pluralism and advocacy, particularly emphasizing the satisfaction of needs and the creation of opportunities for low-income families. Additionally, planning theory was influenced by radical and politically oriented ideologies, directed toward addressing the needs of impoverished and marginalized communities. Against this background, a new era of communication and participatory planning was entered into, involving the community and diverse stakeholders in the planning process [28] (pp. 2–4).

Tourism planning, on the other hand, emerged after the 1940s as an activity controlled by private enterprises, partly influenced by physical planning, and focused on the supply of physical facilities for tourists. In this context, the tourism industry was expanding, driven by the demand for popular destinations and facilitated by governments. Tourism planning as a systematic approach emerged only in the 1970s as a result of a growing awareness of the implications of uncontrolled tourism growth, the decline in environmental quality, and the deterioration of tourism attractions. In this context, early concerns about tourism carrying capacity and the need to manage resources brought to the forefront the need to plan tourism activities more substantially to guide tourism to a more sustainable model and to mitigate negative impacts [29,30].

Up to that point, tourism planning and planning theory appear to have evolved along parallel routes [28]. Urban planning has developed largely as a more comprehensive public sector activity; it has traditionally aimed to serve the public interest, taking into consideration the needs of the general population and all aspects of community development [20] and [24] (p. vii). Tourism planning, on the other hand, is more focused on meeting the needs of a specific branch of the economy, and its scope is narrowed down to plans, projects, and actions to serve visitors and private enterprises [20].

The concept of sustainability emerged during the 1980s and is attributed to the Brundtland Commission (the World Commission on Environment and Development 1987) and the World Conservation Strategy (1980). Among other policy areas, the concept of sustainable development had a major impact on planning theory and practices after the 1990s. Hence, environmental sustainability is deeply incorporated into urban planning goals and principles, and it also gave new impetus to community participation in planning processes. Ensuring effective public participation in environmental decision-making processes is a fundamental aspect of European Environmental Law, especially considering that spatial, urban, and land-use plans can have substantial impacts on the environment. Therefore, Directive 2001/42/EC mandates environmental impact assessments for such plans, explicitly requiring early and meaningful opportunities for the public to express their opinions on draft plans or programs before adoption or submission to legislative procedures. This provision effectively links planning activities to public consultation procedures.

Although sustainable tourism was not specifically included in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992), the latter had a major impact on international sustainable tourism policy [31], leading to the 1996 Agenda 21 for the travel and tourism industry, jointly launched by WTTC, UNWTO, and the Earth Council. Mainstream sustainable tourism policy was formulated during the Rio+20 UN Conference, which specifically stated that well-designed and well-managed tourism can make a significant contribution to the three dimensions of sustainable development and recognized the need to support nationally and locally sustainable tourism activities [32]. In 2005, UNWTO and the UNEP released the famous report “Making tourism more sustainable. A guide for policy makers”, adopting one of the most popular definitions of sustainable tourism as “Tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities” [33]. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, an action plan comprising 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), should also be noted [34]. In this context, the concept of sustainable tourism development has dominated strategic policy papers and the literature; however, it remains a concept difficult to operationalize [35] (p. 3) [36] (p. 475). Furthermore, authors increasingly question whether the concept of sustainable tourism has truly achieved its intended results [37] (p. 2), while the concept of “resilience within destinations” has also been introduced in tourism academic literature [38,39].

According to the existing literature, the main approaches to sustainable tourism development are based on three theories: the carrying capacity model, a concept rooted in the earliest discussions of the “limits to growth” that developed both under the “resource-based” and “activity-based” traditions; collaboration or the community-based model, which draws on participatory approaches through negotiations between key stakeholders; and the WTO’s sustainable model based on the application of sustainability indicators for destinations and businesses related to environmental, social, and economic criteria [40,41].

Considering the aforementioned points, both urban planning and tourism planning have been significantly shaped by the principles and methodologies of sustainability. The impact of this influence is multifaceted: they both strive toward more comprehensive approaches that involve communities and stakeholders, and distribute growth and opportunities equitably. They share the common objectives of advancing environmental, social, and economic goals. Additionally, in certain instances, both may seek to impose limits or exert control over growth. In this regard, the sustainable development movement ‘narrowed the gap between planning theory and tourism planning’ [28] (p. 7).

In this context, tourism planning is regarded as a multifaceted, dynamic, and complex rational decision-making process aimed at guiding tourism development toward a desired model [42] (p. 232). It adopts an integrative approach, treating tourism as a system encompassing various elements, such as natural and cultural resources, stakeholders, existing infrastructure, land and labor availability, market dynamics, and financial resources, while also prioritizing considerations of environmental, financial, and social sustainability [13] (p. 40) [18] (pp. 81–85) [42] (pp. 232–233, 239–240). Tourism planning often forms part of broader programs or strategies, including urban and development plans [42] (pp. 233, 249). The objectives and processes of tourism planning vary depending on the administrative and geographical scale. Therefore, tourism planning may take place at a regional scale (national or subnational), a destination scale (community and its surroundings), and a site scale, with the latter involving individual property development for hotels, resorts, vacation homes, etc. [13] (p. 55) [18] (p. 23) [42] (p. 233).

The research question addressed in this paper specifically focuses on the relationship between urban planning and tourism planning at the site scale.

3. Urban Planning and Tourism Development in Greece

An integral aspect of Greek urban planning is the classification of public and private property into areas delineated by town plans (within-the-plan) and areas not regulated by town plans (out-of-plan) [43] (p. 21) [44] (pp. 237–238). Land plots within the boundaries of a town plan can be developed in accordance with the designated land uses and building conditions outlined in the approved plans. Conversely, the development of properties in ‘out-of-plan’ areas, intended to meet housing demands or entrepreneurial goals, is subject to abstract and general building conditions, and regulations that apply uniformly to property owners. These general rules and conditions are independent of specific land uses, particularly in the absence of zoning regulations. The intensive fragmentation of property through the unauthorized subdivision and illegal building of rural land is another dominating pattern of real estate exploitation in Greece [44] (pp. 215–216, 392) [45] (pp. 467–468) [46] (pp. 151–152).

Formally institutionalized planning laws in Greece explicitly provide for several legally binding strategic and regulatory plans at the national, regional, and/or local level [47]. All strategic plans support the principle that the uncoordinated development of out-of-plan areas, which is dissociated from land-use planning, should be gradually abolished. However, land-use regulatory plans cover little more than 20% of the Greek territory [48]. In this context, land development subject to general building conditions and construction rules has become the norm.

The prevalence of small-scale private properties has facilitated the intensive exploitation of private property in the tourism sector as well, resulting in the dominance of small and very small tourism units and the blending of second homes with tourism facilities [49,50]. In this context, Greek tourism experienced continuous growth from the 1950s onwards. In analyzing the periodization of tourism development in Greece, three distinct stages can be identified. The first stage, spanning from 1950 to 1965, saw tourism playing a secondary role in the restructuring of the Greek economy, with tourist activity concentrated in specific large urban areas and select regions with significant tourist demand. The second stage, from 1965 to 1990, was characterized by the development of organized holiday tourism and the expansion of related infrastructure. The third stage, from 1990 to the present, has been dominated by industrialized mass tourism, leading to substantial issues due to unplanned development [3] (pp. 22–27).

Indeed, during the 2000s, Greek tourism encountered structural problems and serious challenges that called its potential and competitiveness into question [51].

The concentration of visitors during the summer period, low average visitor spending, an oversupply of low-quality accommodation, poor penetration of international high-end brands in the domestic tourism market, declining performance in traditional markets, and limited representation in emerging markets were quickly identified as the core factors contributing to these challenges [51,52,53]. The image of Greece as a cheap, undifferentiated, and unsophisticated “sun and sea” destination should be reoriented toward authenticity, diversity, individuality, and high-quality tourist experiences, while ensuring the sustainable use of man-made, natural, and cultural resources [52,53]. Furthermore, as established by the two consecutive Special Spatial Planning Frameworks for tourism, approved in 2009 and 2013, the expansion of tourist facilities in areas not designated for tourism development has resulted in either saturation or environmental and landscape degradation, thereby reducing the quality of the tourism experience. In this context, the need for comprehensive tourism planning was also recommended as a solution to these challenges. This included the establishment of new forms of tourism accommodation to meet the increasing international demand for high-end lodging, amenities, and holiday residences [53], as well as to address the issue of seasonality.

4. Integration of Tourism Policy in Special Spatial Planning and Urban Planning Instruments for Tourism Development

It has been observed that during the 1990s and 2000s, Greece’s planning agenda shifted toward a more strategic spatial planning approach [44] (pp. 266–267) [46] (pp. 158–160). In this context, Greece’s planning system includes a series of strategic-level plans (frameworks) at the national and regional levels [46] (157) [47] (pp. 1824, 1828).

In this respect, a General (national) Spatial Planning Framework was approved in 2008, emphasizing the need for a Special Spatial Planning Framework for tourism. The priorities included increasing the competitiveness and attractiveness of tourism destinations, safeguarding landscapes, spreading tourism activity across the hinterland by utilizing untapped resources, and reducing unplanned tourism facilities in out-of-plan environmentally sensitive areas. Indeed, two Special Spatial Planning Frameworks for tourism obtained official approval: the first in 2009, followed by the subsequent revision in 2013.

The 2009 Framework acknowledged the rapid global expansion of tourism, the potential for Greece to secure a substantial market share, and the rising demand for housing within organized tourism resorts. In light of this, the Framework prioritized the adoption of an integrated spatial planning model. This model was designed to serve as an operational framework to facilitate synergy and harmonious coexistence between tourism activities and other land uses. Furthermore, the Framework aimed to address the critical issues of the dominance of mass tourism, the lack of diversification, environmental degradation in certain destinations, high seasonality, inadequate service provision, and the deterioration of a serious number of accommodation facilities. To achieve this objective, the Framework designated tourism development zones and instituted specific building regulations to manage the unregulated proliferation of accommodations, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas and regions exhibiting signs of saturation. Moreover, the Framework aimed to introduce the integration of tourism and residential land uses within mixed-use tourism resorts [44] (p. 269).

The sovereign debt crisis that emerged in late 2009 significantly influenced tourism policy, particularly regarding the development of tourism investments and infrastructure. To regain access to market financing and to prevent default, Greece embarked on three adjustment programs. One of the key priorities outlined in these bailout programs was enhancing the business environment for both domestic and foreign investors, and promoting competitive markets [54] (p. 16). To achieve these objectives, measures were taken by the Greek Government to attract private investments, particularly in the tourism sector, which held significant importance for the Greek economy [3] (pp. 159–163). In this context, specific measures were required to reduce seasonality and extend the tourist season. Key actions included supporting high-quality investment initiatives tailored to the specific characteristics of each destination, which would act as catalysts for certain areas by incorporating special tourist facilities such as conference centers, spas, and golf courses. Another key action was promoting tourist and holiday homes while diversifying the range of tourist offerings [55] (p. 177).

In this context, new legislation was enacted to facilitate “Mixed-use tourist accommodations”, allowing for the integration of tourist and residential units within development projects (Law 4002/2011). Additionally, legislation was introduced to foster organized and integrated tourism development (Law 4179/2013) [56] (pp. 418–419). The latter was focused on utilizing special urban planning mechanisms to facilitate the development of integrated tourism projects, enabling the development of both tourism and residential uses. These special planning instruments were classified under the overarching term “Organized Receptors of Tourism Activities” and encompassed the following:

• Integrated Tourism Development Areas (POTAs), a planning mechanism of an entrepreneurial nature established by Law 2545/1997, are designed to promote the development of high-end tourism resorts and vacation residences. The approval process for POTAs entails the planning and implementation of an integrated tourism program of significant capacity, informed by market surveys and business plans. This process includes the approval of a masterplan, zoning regulations, and building codes, overseen and implemented by a special purpose developer.
• Special Spatial Development Plans of Public Estates (ESCHADAs) and Special Spatial Development Plans of Strategic Investments (ESCHASEs), for tourism development and the creation of ‘Holiday-Tourist Villages’, are special zoning plans introduced during the eurozone crisis. ESCHADAs are aimed at the development of public real estate assets to address public deficit, and ESCHASEs involve the development of private land plots for investments aimed at stimulating employment, fostering productive reconstruction in terms of extroversion, job creation, competitiveness, and innovation. These plans are development oriented, designed to enhance flexibility and adaptiveness by permitting deviations from outdated and rigid zoning and building regulations. It has been observed that such planning mechanisms operate as alternative mechanisms to traditional planning processes, thus forming a “parallel system of planning” that operates alongside the conventional mainstream system [44] (pp. 274–275) [57] (p. 570).
• Private Urbanization Schemes (PERPOs) and Areas of Organized Development of Productive Activities (POAPDs) for tourism development.

Following the planning reform enacted by Law 4269/2014, later replaced by Law 4447/2016, these special planning instruments (with the exception of PERPOs) were classified as Special Urban Plans (EPSs), a special instrument of regulatory planning at the local scale introduced for special programs of urban development and for private investments of supralocal and strategic importance. The institutional framework for each type of “Organized Receptors of Tourism Activities” remains autonomous. However, all organized receptors share certain common formal and substantive characteristics. They are regarded as land use plans and fall within the hierarchy of the spatial planning system as first-level, local-scale urban planning tools. From an environmental perspective, they are classified as programs or plans under Directive 2001/42/EC and are subject to strategic environmental assessment. Finally, they are approved through a series of administrative acts, culminating in a presidential decree issued following an opinion from the Council of State, the highest administrative court in the country.

This shift in tourism policy toward a more integrated planning model was further enforced and elaborated in the Special Spatial Framework for Tourism, which was approved in 2013, replacing the 2009 Framework. The new Framework’s priorities included promoting sustainable tourism development while considering each region’s unique natural, cultural, economic, and social characteristics; transitioning from a mass, undiversified, single-themed tourism model to a qualitative, diversified, multi-themed, and economically efficient approach; mitigating seasonality; increasing average per capita expenditure by promoting tourist accommodations with superior services and infrastructure; integrating internationally branded tourism facilities; and restricting the unplanned development of tourism facilities in out-of-plan areas by establishing tourism land-use zones and organized receptors for tourism activities. The latter has faced criticism and raised concerns regarding the proliferation of integrated organized complexes and the construction of holiday homes, particularly in coastal areas [13] (pp. 215–217) [58] (pp. 197–198).

The 2013 Special Spatial Framework for Tourism was in effect for a very brief period, since it was annulled by a Council of State decision in 2015, primarily because of procedural reasons. The temporary reinstatement of the 2009 Special Spatial Framework met a similar fate shortly thereafter. It is worth mentioning that the new draft of the National Spatial Planning Framework for Tourism has recently been released for public consultation [59].

5. Integration of Tourism Policy in Regional Spatial Frameworks and Implementation of Urban Planning Instruments for Tourism Development

Following the nullification of the Special Spatial Framework for tourism, the development of tourist facilities in Greece must now adhere to the guidelines outlined in the existing Regional Spatial Frameworks (Council of State 519/2017, Council of State Plenary 3632/2015). Compliance with both national and regional planning guidance is considered a prerequisite for the development of productive activities and infrastructure projects, as established by the case law of the Council of State [46] (p. 157). Consequently, the guidelines set forth in the Regional Spatial Planning Frameworks are crucial in shaping sectoral tourism spatial policy. These guidelines also serve as the foundational framework guiding urban planning decisions in the field of tourism policy. This includes the implementation of integrated tourism investment projects through urban planning mechanisms, thereby defining their spatial arrangements.

Although the Special Spatial Frameworks for Tourism are no longer in force, many of their fundamental guidelines, such as the need to diversify and upgrade the tourism product, and the requirement to attract tourism investment through organized and integrated planning have been incorporated and specified in the revised Regional Spatial Frameworks adopted between 2017 and 2020.

For the purpose of this study, research was conducted across the thirteen (13) Regional Spatial Frameworks, including the Athens-Attica Master Plan. Among them, nine (9) Regional Spatial Frameworks, along with the Athens-Attica Master Plan, have been updated subsequent to the 2013 Special Spatial Framework for Tourism. Presently, three (3) Regional Spatial Frameworks, which had been initially approved in 2003, are still undergoing revision processes (Peloponnese, South Aegean, and Western Macedonia).

The findings, as presented in Table 1, encompass the strategic tourism objectives designated for each region (Column 3), guidelines governing tourism investments in out-of-plan areas (Column 4), and directives pertinent to integrated tourism developments (Column 5). Column 6 outlines the integrated tourism investment schemes approved within each region, either through urban planning mechanisms or as mixed-use tourism accommodations. Column 7 documents initiatives for ongoing or pending integrated tourism investments, based on strategic environmental assessment studies made available for public consultation. It should be clarified that project plans presented in Columns 6 and 7, whether approved or still in progress, pertain exclusively to projects where tourism-related activities constitute the predominant land use. Therefore, projects primarily focused on recreational uses, theme parks, or commercial ventures are excluded, even if tourism serves as a secondary land use.

Table 1. Regional Spatial Framework Guidelines and Integrated Tourism Development Projects per Regions.

	Regional Spatial Frameworks	Strategic Objectives for Tourism	Directions for Individual Tourist Developments	Directions for Organized and Integrated Tourism Development	Approved Integrated Tourism Development Projects	Large Tourism Development Projects Submitted/under Development Control
1	Crete (GG AAP 260/8.11.2017)	Transforming the tourism development model to alleviate pressures, enhance the built environment in densely developed northern coastal regions, and impose constraints on mass tourism.	Conventional hotels in out-of-plan areas are permitted. Minimum lot size: 1 ha, 1.5 ha, 2 ha (depending on tourism development zoning) Hotel class > 3 star	Priority is given to promoting integrated tourism developments, particularly transforming conventional hotels into integrated organized tourism resorts.	‘Itanos Gaia’ tourist resort in Kavo Sidero, Municipality of Sitia, Lasithi (ESCHASE, GG AAP 38/11.3.2016) Existing hotels converted into an integrated tourist resort in ‘Plaka’, Municipality of Agios Nikolaos, Lasithi (EPS, GG D 764/28.9.2023) ‘Elounda Hills’ holiday-tourist village, Municipality of Agios Nikolaos, Lasithi (ESCHASE, GG D 4/17.1.2020) Tourist resort and mixed-use theme park/retail and recreation center in Gournes, Municipality of Hersonissos, Heraklion (ESCHADA, GG D 238/11.5.2021) ‘Porto Elounda De Luxe Resort’—existing hotel converted into mixed-use tourist accommodation in Municipality of Agios Nikolaos, Lasithi (68054653Π8-ΥΙH) Mixed-use tourist accommodation in Vothoni and Sopata, Municipality of Hersonissos, Herakleion (Ω3ΨΖ4653Π8-ΝAΕ) ‘Elounda Bay Beach and Elounda Bay Pace’—existing hotels converted into mixed-use tourist accommodation in Municipality of Agios Nikolaos, Lasithi (60ΦΜ4653Π8-ΡΩ1)	Tourist resort and holiday-tourist village (ESCHASE) ‘Costa Nopia’ in Municipality of Platania, Chania Tourist resort in Falasarna (EPS), Municipality of Kissamos, Chania Tourist resort ‘Cape Tholos’ (ESCHASE) in Municipality of Ierapetra, Lasithi
2	Ionian islands (GG AAP 16/5.2.2019)	Upgrading conventional mass tourism model by integrating the development of special and alternative forms of tourism, while promoting the unique natural and cultural environment and landscape.	Conventional hotels in out-of-plan areas are permitted. Minimum lot size: 1 ha, 1.5 ha, 2 ha (depending on tourism development zoning) Hotel class > 3 star	Integrated tourism developments and mixed-use tourist accommodations are generally promoted across all tourism development zones.	Holiday-tourist village in Kassiopi, Municipality of Corfu, Corfu (ESCHADA, GG AAP 406/15.11.2013) Castello Bibelli (Mibelli) tourist resort and holiday-tourist village in Kato Korakiana, Municipality of Corfu, Corfu (ESCHADA GG AAP 186/21.8.2017) ‘VIP Exclusive Club’ in Skorpios Island, Municipality of Meganisi, Lefkada (ESCHASE, GG D 302/6.6.2019) ‘San Stefano’—existing hotel converted into mixed-use tourist accommodation in Benitses, Municipality of Achillion, Corfu (7ΓA3465ΦΘH-ΙΓΠ) Mixed-use tourist accommodation in Ipsos, Μunicipality of Corfu, Corfu (ΩΛΡΓ465ΦΘH-OΧΔ)
3	Central Greece (GG AAP 299/14.12.2018)	Tourism activities according to the cultural and natural resources of each municipality district.	Conventional hotels in out-of-plan areas are permitted. Minimum lot size: 1 ha, 1.5 ha, 2 ha (depending on tourism development zoning) Hotel class > 3 star Guidelines for tourist development for each municipality district.	Integrated tourism developments are encouraged according to tourism development zoning, aiming to upgrade concentrated tourism activities and lodging rentals. These developments should either be designated as appropriate by urban planning authorities or be located in close proximity to existing settlements (depending on carrying capacity). The repurposing of abandoned mining sites into ‘designated areas for organized tourism and sports recreation.’ Mixed-use tourist accommodation, particularly within the vicinity of deserted settlements.	Tourist resort in Municipality of Karystos, Evoia (ESCHASE, GG D 659/11.10.2022) ‘Atalanti Hills’ Integrated Tourism Development Area, Municipality of Lokroi, Fthiotis (POTA, GG AAP 216/3.10.2018)	Thermal springs tourist resort in Konιaviti, Municipality of Kammena Vourla, Fthiotis (ESCHADA) Thermal springs estate in Kammena Vourla, Municipality of Kammena Vourla, Fthiotis (ESCHADA)
4	Western Greece (GG D 845/24.12 2020)	Utilization of the region’s rich cultural and archaeological resources, fostering the development of sightseeing, cultural and nautical tourism along the coast, as well as promoting gentle forms of alternative tourism in the mountainous and lakeside hinterlands.	Conventional hotels in out-of-plan areas are permitted. Minimum lot size: 1 ha, 0.8 ha (depending on tourism development zoning) Hotel class > 3 star	The creation of an Integrated Tourism Development Area (POTA) east of Mytikas. Integrated tourism development policies through organized tourist activity receptors (depending on tourism development zoning).	‘Varko Bay’ tourist resort in Municipality of Aktio-Vonitsa, Aitoloakarnania (ESCHASE, GG D 286/12.4.2023) Mixed-use tourist accommodation in Agia Marina, Μunicipality of Ilida, Ileia (ΨΕΦΨ4653Π8-Φ4Ξ)
5	Western Macedonia—under revision (GG B 1472/9.10.2003)	Development of ski tourism. Promotion and protection of rare natural resources. Development and promotion of lakeside and riverside areas and settlements.	Hotel units are to be developed in zones designated as suitable by urban planning mechanisms.	The scale of tourist investments and infrastructure development suitable for the POTA planning mechanism is not aligned with the principles of gentle tourism within the region. Promoting integrated tourism development within traditional settlements, aiming to safeguard their distinctive characteristics.
6	Central Macedonia (GG D 485/20.8.2020)	The advancement of the tourism model through quality enhancement and the introduction of new supplementary forms of tourism within designated tourism development zones, encompassing the establishment of vacation homes in organized areas. Additionally, the expansion of hotel facilities and diversification efforts aligned with mountainous terrain features in areas suitable for specialized and alternative forms of tourism.	Conventional hotels in out-of-plan areas are permitted. Minimum lot size: 1 ha	Integrated tourism development projects and mixed-use tourism accommodation are encouraged throughout all development zones, particularly in areas with high concentrations of out-of-plan holiday homes, such as Chalkidiki and Pieria. Planning mechanisms for organized vacation home developments are encouraged.	Holiday-tourist village and integrated tourist resort in Agios Ioannis, Municipality of Sithonia, Chalkidiki (ESCHADA, GG AAP 16/22.1.2015) Integrated tourist resort in Paliouri, Municipality of Kassandra, Chalkidiki (ESCHADA, GG AAP 46/12.2.2014)	Tourist resort in Tom-Pigadi, Municipality of Dion-Olympos, Pieria (EPS)
7	Eastern Macedonia & Thrace (GG AAP 248/25.10.2018)	Elevating the quality and thematic variety of tourism, encouraging the current influx of tourists from Eastern and Southeastern Europe and Turkey, promoting distinctive forms of sustainable and alternative tourism, and revitalizing domestic and social tourism.	Conventional hotels in out-of-plan areas are permitted. Minimum lot size: 1 ha, 1.5 ha, 2 ha (depending on tourism development zoning) Hotel class > 3 star	Potential for large integrated developments in the area west of Alexandroupolis and in the peripheral zone west of Kavala, as well as in parts of the island of Thasos. The area on the coast of the municipality of Maronia-Sapes in the Rhodope region is also considered able to accommodate large units. The mechanism of POTAs is considered inconsistent with the region’s coastal and insular character.
8	Epirus (GG AAP 286/28.11.2018)	Enhancing the quality of the tourism product while broadening the spatial, thematic, and temporal scope of tourism activity.	Conventional hotels in out-of-plan areas are permitted. Minimum lot size: 1 ha, 1.5 ha (depending on tourism development zoning) Hotel class > 3 star	Integrated tourism developments (such as organized areas of tourism activity, mixed-use tourism accommodation, and POTAs are encouraged along the Preveza–Parga–Plataria–Igoumenitsa axes. In the mountainous area of Pindos, tourism accommodation is desirable within existing settlements, except for cases of strong spatial dependence on specific resources, such as ski resorts, thermal baths, agrotourism units, etc. Mixed-use tourism accommodation and strategic investments may be developed within deserted or deteriorating mountainous settlements.
9	Thessaly (GG AAP 269/15.11.2018)	Τourism and second homes are promoted along specific geographical axes, while urban planning mechanisms aim to concentrate human activities spatially, particularly in ‘organized receptors of tourism activities’.	Conventional hotels in out-of-plan areas are permitted. Minimum lot size: 1 ha, 1.5 ha (depending on tourism development zoning)	Integrated tourism developments and mixed-use tourist accommodations are encouraged in the axes between the Olympos–Ossa–Mavrovouni–Pelion mountains and in the Sporades islands (east), as well as in certain areas of the Pindos mountain range, including Meteora, Koziakas, and lakes Plastira and Smokovo (west).	Holiday-tourist village in Koukounaries, Skiathos, Municipality of Skiathos, Magnesia (ESCHADA, GG AAP 1/14.1.2015)	Tourist resort in Koukounaries, Skiathos, Magnesia (ESCHASE)
10	North Aegean (GG D 181/16.4.2019)	Expanding the tourism market by accessing new markets, including Turkey, prolonging tourist activity for a minimum of six months annually, establishing infrastructure to promote marine and cruise tourism, and establishing an organized network of thematic routes spanning all islands.	Conventional hotels in out-of-plan areas are permitted. Minimum lot size: 1 ha, 1.5 ha, 2 ha (depending on tourism development zoning)	Integrated tourism developments and mixed-use tourist accommodations are generally promoted across all tourism development zones. Regeneration of deserted settlements (particularly in Chios) through the creation of mixed-use tourist accommodations.
11	Peloponnese—under revision (GG B 1485/10.10.2003)	Archaeological sites, monuments, traditional settlements, the expansive coastline, along with a picturesque hinterland, limited environmental concerns, and a favorable climate offer opportunities for the advancement of alternative tourism.		The implementation and completion of the procedures and financing required for the establishment of the Integrated Tourism Development Area (POTA) of Messinia.	Integrated Tourism Development Area (POTA) of Messinia, Municipalities of Trifilia, Pylou-Nestoros, and Messini, Messinia (POTA, GG D 887/22.10.2001) ‘Killada Hills’ holiday-tourist village, Municipality of Ermionida, Argolida (GG AAP 247/16.12.2015) Mixed-use tourist accommodation in Hrisovitsa-Platana, Municipality of Sparti, Lakonia (7ΨΘ60-ΩOΙ) ‘Costa Perla’—existing hotel converted into mixed-use tourist accommodation in Kouverta-Perle-Bourloto, Municipality of Ermionida, Argolida (ΨΩΠΤ465ΧΘO-O8Ω) Mixed-use tourist accommodation in Nisi Mareza-Kokosi, Municipality of Korinthos, Korinthia (GG AAP 227/12.10.2018)	‘Scarlet Beach’ tourist resort in Petrothalassa, Μunicipality of Ermionida, Argolida (ESCHASE) Tourist resort in Vrahos, Miloi, Municipality of Argos, Argolida (EPS) Tourist resort in Ververonta, Porto Heli, Argolida (ESCHADA)
12	Southern Aegean—under revision (GG B 1487/10.10.2003)	The South Aegean region is to become a prominent center for high-intensity, efficient tourism. Regulating and managing tourism activity with an emphasis on incrementally improving spatial and temporal distribution. Diversification into a multi-themed tourism experience. Preserving cultural and environmental heritage to enhance the region’s image as a cradle of culture, increasing visitor numbers, and attracting higher levels of tourist expenditure. The planning of activities, projects, and infrastructure works should respect the carrying capacity of the natural ecosystems and resources.	Designation of tourism development zones. Zone A: islands/areas dependent on mass tourism (such as parts of Rhodos and Kos, Myconos, Paros, and Santorini). The establishment of new hotels is limited in terms of sustainability. Zone B: encompasses the remaining island territory to foster the compatible blending of tourism, permanent and vacation residences, recreational and cultural activities, etc. Maximum limits of permissible tourism and infrastructure development are determined by capacity studies.	Zone A: suitable for the designation of tourism land uses through urban planning mechanisms, as well as for Integrated Tourism Development Areas (POTAs). Zone B: maximum limits of permissible tourism and infrastructure development are determined by capacity studies.	Tourist resort and holiday-tourist village in Afantou, Municipality of Rhodes, Rhodes (ESCHADA, GG AAP 180/14.9.2016) Tourist resort in Karapetis, Ano Mera, Municipality of Myconos, Myconos (ESCHASE, GG D 304/10.6.2020) Mixed-use tourist accommodation in Ammoudaraki, Municipality of Milos, Milos (ΒΙΦ8OO-Ω8Π) Mixed-use tourist accommodation in Vroskopos, Municipality of Kea, Kea (BIH00-NΨM)	Tourist resort in Elia, Ano Mera, Municipality of Myconos, Myconos (ESCHASE) Tourist resort ‘White Mulberry’ in Kalafatis, Municipality of Myconos, Myconos (ESCHASE) Tourist resort ‘Project Blue’ in Fera Gremna-Vatoudia, Municipality of Myconos, Myconos (ESCHASE) Tourist resort in Katsellakia, Municipality of Myconos, Myconos (EPS) Tourist resort and holiday-tourist village in Pikri Nero, Municipality of Iiton, Ios (ESCHASE) Tourism resort in Kolibithres, Municipality of Paros, Paros (EPS) Tourist resort in Lindos, Municipality of Rhodes, Rhodes (EPS)
13	Attica—master plan of Athens/Attica (L. 4277/2014, GG A 156/1.8.2014)	Enhancing the role of Athens-Attica as a ‘gateway city’ on a national scale for tourism, amplifying its status as a European metropolitan tourist destination with recognized appeal, both domestically and internationally. Promoting Attica as a central hub for conference tourism (MICE) and a destination for short-term urban tourism (city breaks). Advancing alternative forms of tourism including conference, maritime, and medical tourism. Establishing and promoting routes and networks, highlighting areas of natural and cultural significance, while also connecting the waterfront with residential areas to ensure accessibility for both local residents and visitors.	New accommodation is permitted within designated zones through urban planning mechanisms or within organized receptors of tourist development.	Large-scale tourist projects and infrastructure are prioritized for location within designated zones through urban planning mechanisms or within organized receptors/areas of tourist development.	The ‘Ellinikon Project’—massive redevelopment of the former Athens International Airport area, Municipalities of Alimos, Glyfada, and Ellinikon–Athens Metropolitan Area (GG AAP 35/..2018) Tourist resort on the property of Asteras in Athens Riviera, Municipality of Vari–Voula–Vouliagmeni–Athens Metropolitan Area (GG AAP 191/4.10.2016) The ‘Regency Casino Mont-Parnes’ reallocation project, Municipality of Marousi, Athens Metropolitan Area (EPS, GG A 79/30.3.2023)

This research has certain limitations. Its primary objective is to illustrate the inherent dichotomy in land development for tourism facilities between out-of-plan areas, which lack a statutory local plan [44] (pp. 237–238) and are subject to general building conditions, as discussed in Section 3, and development through urban planning instruments, as discussed in Section 4. This study does not undertake a comprehensive analysis of spatial guidelines across the tourism sector. Instead, it concentrates on specific essential aspects relevant to its objectives. Specifically, it examines elements of the current Regional Spatial Frameworks, highlighting overarching goals related to tourism policy, and the guidelines and regulations governing both individual hotel sites in out-of-plan areas and integrated tourism developments. Additionally, this research documents the integrated tourism investment schemes that have been approved or are in progress, in order to assess the effectiveness of this spatial policy in the field of tourism. It must also be noted that this research does not address specific case studies.

The research findings indicate that the regulations governing unplanned tourism investments in out-of-plan areas exhibit minimal variation across nearly all Regional Spatial Frameworks. Hotel facilities in out-of-plan areas are typically permitted under certain requirements. Moreover, the findings reveal that all revised Regional Spatial Frameworks, approved subsequent to the 2013 Special Spatial Framework for Tourism, have included guidelines for integrated tourism development to varying degrees [60] (pp. 61–63). In some instances, the directives for integrated tourism investment planning are spatially dispersed, while in others, they are geographically delineated [60] (pp. 61–63). Additionally, there is an emphasis in certain cases on repurposing existing accommodations and revitalizing abandoned settlements.

As illustrated in Figure 1, there is considerable interest in promoting integrated tourism development projects. This interest extends to areas with high tourism appeal, such as the South Aegean, Crete, and the Ionian Islands, as well as other destinations across Greece, including the Peloponnese, Western, and Central Greece. This finding is consistent with previous research, which suggests that new integrated investments currently underway exhibit a more evenly distributed regional allocation compared to other forms of accommodation [56] (p. 419). Interest in converting existing hotel units to integrated tourist resorts is also evident, especially in Crete and in the Ionian islands.

Figure 1. Integrated Tourism Development Projects in Greece.

The growing number of development schemes also highlights that this spatial development model, along with territorial guidelines, creates promising opportunities for integrated investments in the tourism industry. However, it is important to note that the increasing demand for tourism facilities and real estate has raised concerns about carrying capacity in insular areas and sensitive ecosystems, as discussed in academic literature [61,62] and reflected in national case law (Council of State 164/2022, 1037/2022, Council of State Opinion 196/2021).

6. Discussion

6.1. The Emergence of a New Tourism Development Model

In the previous section, we established that spatial planning in the tourism sector at both national and regional levels has a dual focus. Despite formal declarations and legally binding goals to phase out unplanned individual tourist developments, strategic guidelines are still provided for both standalone hotel units and integrated tourism investments through urban planning tools. The homogenous regulation across all regions governing unplanned hotel development in out-of-plan areas indicates that the dominant model of spatial development remains unchanged. However, the increasing number of integrated tourism investment schemes suggests the parallel emergence of a new tourism development model. This model, based on urban planning procedures and practices, is oriented toward the implementation of specific investments. This trend has become particularly evident since the end of the financial crisis and the restoration of economic stability. The growth in the Greek real estate market and the increasing demand for residential investments reflect this shift. This demand is driven by both domestic and external factors, including major real estate development and infrastructure projects that serve as catalysts for growth in specific regions, such as attractive tourist areas and the coastal area in the southern suburbs of Athens [63].

Evaluating this new tourism development model faces certain limitations. Each type of special urban planning mechanism facilitating these developments falls under the jurisdiction of different government bodies and is regulated by distinct institutional frameworks. Consequently, the planning, licensing, implementation procedures, and supervision of integrated tourism investments vary depending on the type of planning instrument: ESCHADAs are overseen by the Ministry of Finance, ESCHASEs by the Ministry of Development, POTAs and mixed-use tourism accommodations by the Ministry of Tourism, and EPSs by the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Therefore, a standardized system for monitoring, evaluating outcomes, and refining the process is lacking. Evaluations typically rely on individual surveys or studies [3] (pp. 159–163) [56] (pp. 418–420). Additionally, with the exception of the POTA in Messinia, which has been partly implemented since 2010 [56] (p. 419), few of these integrated investment projects have proceeded to implementation phases. Therefore, it is premature to quantitatively assess their impact on sustainable tourism development objectives, indicating a significant area for future research and exploration.

6.2. Integration of Tourism Planning into Urban Planning

Tourism planning, particularly at the site level, is considered a systematic approach that focuses on the physical planning of tourist resorts and recreational complexes within a comprehensive framework, allowing alternatives to be considered in detail and decisions to be made rationally in a series of successive phases. It involves a specific process or becomes a “series of functions and actions designed to achieve or balance specific objectives” [22] (p. 28). This approach follows a methodological sequence that encompasses considerations of market dynamics, economic viability, social implications, and environmental issues. Development takes place in evolutionary stages over a long period, enabling defects and errors to be remedied by subsequent stages [19] (pp. 114–121).

This systems-based approach to tourism planning draws on key features of the planning process in which strategic information, external conditions, the behavior of external variables, special opportunities, and feedback may provide signals that lead to incremental adjustments to its direction and intensity [26] (p. 132).

According to Inskeep, the basic tourism planning approach is based on the concepts of planning being continuous, incremental, flexible, systems-oriented, comprehensive, integrated, and environmental with the focus on achieving sustainable development and community involvement [21] (p. 29). The main stages of this systematical approach are as follows: (a) the resort conceptual planning which takes into account market and product assessment, existing regional or urban planning requirements, as well as the economic, social, and cultural environment; (b) the draft project, which precisely defines the size, the clientele, and the various categories of accommodation, as well as a land-use plan outlining proposals for the layout of the site, allowing for a draft financial plan to be prepared; (c) the final project, which defines a phased program for the implementation of the resort and the provision of facilities; and (d) the operational project of each phase, which is concerned with the implementation of the immediate building and infrastructure program [13] (pp. 86–87) [19] (pp. 116,121) [21] (p. 202) [42] (p. 249).

In light of these, and given the findings of the conducted research, Greece has established special urban planning mechanisms with the objective of promoting organized and integrated tourism development. This integrated tourism development planning process takes the form of a logical sequence of actions and administrative acts, which is illustrated in Figure 2. This sequence incorporates key elements of tourism planning at the site level, as mentioned above, such as market surveys, clientele and product characteristics, requirements by existing spatial or urban plans, environmental aspects, and community considerations. In this context, integrated tourism development projects, designed within this framework, include zoning regulations, land use plans, and building provisions, all of which are assessed in various phases and compared against alternative options. These are further elaborated subject to incremental adjustments after a sequence of opinions and feedback by the competent authorities and public consultation.

Figure 2. Integrated tourism development planning process. Adapted from Inskeep, E. (1991) [21] p. 202 and Lawson, F. and M. Baud-Bovy (1977) [19] p. 122.

7. Conclusions

This article examines the emergence of a new integrated tourism development model in Greece, through urban planning mechanisms which incorporate key elements of tourism planning at the site level, with a focus on environmental sustainability.

In terms of environmental sustainability, these urban planning mechanisms afford greater prospects for fostering environmentally sustainable development. They are subject to comprehensive environmental evaluations at both strategic and project levels, encompassing assessments of carrying capacity, the sustainable management of natural resources (particularly in environmentally sensitive regions), the preservation and rehabilitation of biodiversity and landscapes, water resource management, and adherence to policies addressing climate change mitigation and reducing air pollutant emissions.

Moreover, they facilitate increased participatory planning through established consultation procedures, which serve as a foundation for the enhanced engagement of relevant stakeholders and local communities in decision-making processes. The procedural framework overseeing Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) enables the implementation of public consultation procedures. Nonetheless, the pursuit of further enhancement and elaboration of development proposals through participatory approaches and community involvement presents a significant challenge for the planning legislation governing these planning instruments.

Taking into account the emergence of this new tourism development model involving integrated tourism investment schemes through urban planning processes, the degree of integration of the tourism sector into urban planning has noticeably improved. This observation corroborates the findings of the ESPON COMPASS project regarding the degree of integration within the planning frameworks of the participating countries. The latter indicates that, in Greece, the integration of sectoral policies into spatial planning has advanced from being merely informed to a more publicly coordinated level [64] (p. 797) [65] (pp. 153–154).

These urban planning tools are project-led. Consequently, development proposals are formulated by the initiators, whether they are public or private entities, rather than being dictated by generated upfront general land-use plans. This approach to planning demonstrates a growing inclination toward adaptiveness and flexibility in decision making, to adjust to inputs and changing conditions. The findings of the ESPON COMPASS project regarding the level of adaptiveness in planning indicate a transition within the Greek spatial system from a “weak” to a “moderate” status. The findings here further support this conclusion [64] (p. 798), [65] (pp. 159–162). However, it is essential to acknowledge the inherent vulnerabilities and potential risks associated with adaptability, as highlighted in the existing literature [66,67].

As previously mentioned, the urban planning tools analyzed in this article are designed to facilitate the planning and implementation of integrated tourism development programs. These tools enable stakeholder proposals to undergo planning processes that result in the approval of specific land use and zoning plans, which serve as the foundation for implementing development projects. These plans adhere to strategic spatial guidelines and may eventually be integrated into a local land use plan for the whole municipality district. However, their lack of integration into a comprehensive local land use plan does not undermine their validity or effectiveness. Moreover, it does not negate the fact that they encompass elements of tourism planning and are subject to established planning processes. This observation supports the distinction made in the literature between planning as a process and the resulting finalized plan [9] (p. 8).

In conclusion, this study attempted to substantiate, through evidence-based analysis from the Greek context, the hypothesis that the perceived disconnection between tourism planning and urban planning can be bridged and resolved. This reconciliation can be achieved through the convergence of objectives, methodologies, processes, and practices, and, in particular, through the integration of tourism planning within urban planning mechanisms. Consequently, this may contribute to the further advancement of tourism sectoral policy integration into planning and improve adaptiveness. This alignment of strategies and processes holds promise and demonstrates the potential for enhancing and strengthening the sustainable management of natural resources.

The question remains, however, to what extent the findings of this research are generalizable and applicable to other contexts. Given the significant variation in planning systems across countries [68] (p. 1008), even within Europe, and the differences in planning instruments and how planning is understood and practiced [69] (p. 29–30), generalizing and identifying common patterns is challenging. Additionally, the varying relationships between domestic spatial planning and sectoral tourism policy [70] (pp. 125, 134, 136), and the intense fragmentation in tourism demand, further complicate this task. Therefore, a much deeper analysis of different contexts and frameworks is necessary to draw such conclusions.