Sustainable Tourism and Regional Development Through Innovation in the Post-COVID-19 Era: The Case of Hersonissos and Chios

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed long-standing vulnerabilities in island tourism economies such as Crete and Chios, including seasonality, overdependence on mass tourism, and limited innovation adoption. This study investigates how sustainable tourism, regional development, and innovation interconnect in these two cases. Drawing on structured questionnaires addressed to tourism stakeholders in Hersonissos (Crete) and Chios, we apply a comparative analysis through descriptive and inferential statistics. The findings reveal a common interest in diversifying tourism offerings through digital transformation and alternative tourism models. Hersonissos demonstrates higher engagement with innovation-led strategies, while Chios reflects a cautious but growing inclination toward eco-tourism and cultural tourism initiatives. The study employs a comparative cross-sectional design based on structured questionnaires addressed to 71 tourism stakeholders in Hersonissos and Chios. Data were collected through purposive sampling that was completed in July 2023. As a practical outcome, we propose the Regional Innovation Index in Tourism—a composite tool designed to assess innovation readiness at the local level. This index enables policymakers to evaluate the strategic capacity of tourism regions and supports the formulation of long-term, place-based development strategies aligned with EU policy goals and the transition to a green economy.

1. Introduction

Regional and sustainable development are subjects that receive particular attention from the European Union (EU) as means of achieving fair convergence among territories and communities. New challenges brought on by climate change alongside digitalization and the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic (European Commission, 2023a) have brought a reconfiguration of the EU’s Cohesion Policy—especially with regard to the 2021–2027 programming period.

Proper regional development can be defined as the development of an entire region or subregion, which is considered as a collective development of all the areas in a state, so that the inequality between them can be reduced. Persistent asymmetric economic relations between regions may lead to both social tension and economic stagnation, especially in the periphery regions of the EU (Rodríguez-Pose, 2018). On the other hand, the horizontal priority of sustainable development includes environmental, social, and economic aims having their own role to play in a green and resilient future for Europe (European Committee of the Regions, 2024). Technological innovations and renewable energy sources are crucial because they increase the capacity of regions to meet new challenges and directly engage in the transition towards a circular and sustainable economy (Bailey et al., 2023). The European Union has also implemented pragmatic policies such as the “Fit for 55” package or the modified Renewable Energy Directive to further stimulate territorial initiatives while making environmental objectives, quality of life, and economic resilience essential parameters of sustainable development in the future. Recent scientific literature is increasingly focusing on the roles of institutional reforms, cohesion policies, and territorial strategies in the sound implementation of such policies at the regional level (Bachtler & Begg, 2017). At the same time, the limits of macroeconomic interventions that disregard spatial specificities are starting to emerge, as is the need to empower the local dimension in policymaking (Camagni & Capello, 2010).

Thus, the present article addresses the thematic framing of regional development as a recovery mechanism, in the post-pandemic context, through innovation and sustainable practices. More specifically, this is achieved through a case study analysis of two representative Greek island destinations, Hersonissos in Crete and the island of Chios, which have suffered significant losses due to lackluster tourism and are now facing the need to redesign their tourism models. This study emphasizes barriers and enabling conditions for local innovation, sustainability, and empirical resilience strategies in the context of European regions, as well as their analysis and practical assessment. It makes an addition to the discussion around policy design with a clear local imprint, highlighting the need for multi-governance regimes and localized solutions that can address the multi-challenge nature of the post-COVID scenario.

This study aims to address the limited empirical knowledge regarding how innovation, entrepreneurship, and sustainability interact in tourism-dependent island regions of the EU in the post-COVID context. Specifically, it focuses on local-level comparative evidence between Hersonissos and Chios—two cases that represent different stages of innovation readiness. To guide the analysis, the following research questions were formulated:

• RQ1: What innovative practices are being implemented in the post-COVID era?
• RQ2: How can tourism entrepreneurship contribute to reducing seasonality?
• RQ3: What are the prospects for developing alternative forms of tourism?

2. Literature Review

Sustainable development is multidimensional in nature, covering economic progress and social justice together with environmental protection. It has become a cornerstone of European policy strategy, but especially in case of indigenous development. The conception of sustainable development was first easily defined in 1987 by the report Our Common Future, presented by the United Nations Brundtland Commission, known as “development that meets the needs of the cannot undermine the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The principles of sustainability in Europe rest on three pillars, namely economic development, social cohesion, and environmental responsibility. With this strategy, regions could pursue developmental goals without putting natural or social resources at risk. Most notably for less-developed regions, such as the North Aegean, sustainable development acts as a balancing mechanism for inequalities. Through targeted investments, the strengthening of local communities and economies is ensured, without bypassing the need for environmental integrity (Camagni & Capello, 2012a). Under the Green Deal and Cohesion Policy, the EU has promoted programs that also include emission reductions or renewable energy. These programs embrace the notion of social addition, active citizen participation, and the empowerment of regional identity. In this way, the active participation of all European regions in the green and digital transition is encouraged (Böhme et al., 2011).

2.1. Resilience and Regional Development

The concept of resilience has emerged as a key principle of contemporary regional policy, as European regions are continuously facing new and multidimensional challenges—from climate change and health crises to energy transitions and geopolitical uncertainties. Adaptability is defined as the capability of a region to acclimatize and recover effectively from shocks, while maintaining or recovering the functionality of its economy and society (Rodríguez-Pose & Ketterer, 2020). Resilience is not an inherent attribute but is rather the result of proactive preparation, intentional empowerment of the workforce, and an innovative culture. Resilient areas have the ability to learn from crises, to change, and to utilize challenges as opportunities for renewal. Martin and Sunley (2015) explain that the clustering of resilience and sustainability exposes a need for long-term development that does not occur through merely recovery but through innovating, restarting, and restructuring systems (Martin & Sunley, 2015). In reality, regions investing in research and technology, digitalization, education, and renewable energy sources is shown to be more adaptive. The EU’s Cohesion Policy now acknowledges the enhancement of regional resilience as a priority and underwrites these investments through focused initiatives, offering technical advice and resources to local stakeholders (Davoudi et al., 2013). Furthermore, Simmie and Martin (2010) mention that economic data alone cannot determine regional resilience; it also consists of social capital, institutions, collective mindsets, and preparedness for change. All of these elements influence regions’ ability to respond and adapt under instability (Simmie & Martin, 2010).

2.2. Sustainable Development, Regional Policy, and the Region

Sustainable development has become one of the EU’s (European Union) most important components of regional policy, linked to economic growth, social cohesion, and environmental protection. As part of the Cohesion Policy, which encourages the reduction in disparities between regions, sustainability principles have been integrated into the EU’s development system to foster development that does not risk the future of local communities (Camagni & Capello, 2012b). Such an organizational formation is more secure in the longer run than that of regions that are more dependent on a single productive sector, e.g., tourism on islands such as Crete and Chios (Faludi, 2013). The European Strategy for Sustainable Development was considered a core action for mainstreaming sustainability into all developmental policies of the Union. This strategy aimed at integrating environmental considerations into economic and social policies in a balanced way and therefore was key to creating sustainable approaches at the regional level (European Commission, 2006). At the same time, the Cohesion Policy gives priority to regions facing the greatest development challenges. These include island regions, which are often affected by geographic isolation, seasonality, and fluctuations in tourism demand. Through tools such as the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund, the transition toward more resilient and diversified development models is supported (Ferry & McMaster, 2013).

In this context, the European Green Deal—launched in 2019—further consolidates sustainable regional policy by observing goals like climate neutrality by 2050 and “zero pollution”. It also promotes the development of green infrastructure, energy retrofits, and the strengthening of social cohesion at the local level (European Commission, 2020). These strategies are especially important in tourism-reliant areas like Hersonissos and Chios. There is a direct link to integrating sustainability in tourism planning, limiting dependence on seasonal tourism, and transitioning to alternative forms of tourism development with the philosophy of contemporary EU regional policy. From the emphasis on infrastructure and industry to a more integrated approach with environmental and social sustainability in mind, the evolution of regional development in Europe provides an important backdrop for analyzing the development of island regions. The EU provides the framework for resilient, green, and inclusive development through the Cohesion Policy, the Green Deal, and its funding mechanisms—the foundation of this study.

2.3. Alternative Tourism and Innovation in Island Destinations

Recent comments stress that other forms of tourism, such as wellness, eco-, or religious tourism, drive evolution in regional development strategies, particularly in island realities oriented towards sustainable innovation. A new concept in the literature is the “Island and Beach-Based Health Tourism Model”, proposed by Agarwal and Parashar (2024), that comprises well-being, sustainability, and environmental preservation in island-based destinations. In the same line of argument, Jin and Gao (2025), in a bibliometric review, endorse the importance of technological and managerial innovations (e.g., biodiversity monitoring systems, participatory planning) to enrich eco-tourism. These forms of tourism contribute not only to the local valorization of resources and economic diversification but also to social inclusion and institutional convergence. These findings are in line with the theory of migration introduced in this research, indicating that innovation within tourism cannot be narrowed down to just digital transformation. Instead, it includes strategic, environmental, and governance innovations of particular relevance to resilient island economies like Chios and Hersonissos.

3. EU Policies and Strategies for Regional Development

Policies and strategies of the European Union act to promote regional and sustainable development. These are critical for enhancing social cohesion and promoting economic development right across the continent.

3.1. Cohesion Policy of the European Union (EU)

The European Union’s Cohesion Policy is the foundation of its policy for balanced regional development. It aims to reduce disparities between European regions by encouraging economic, social, and territorial cohesion. In fact, the EU stresses the importance of supporting less developed areas, which are structurally disadvantaged: geographical isolation, unemployment, and underdeveloped infrastructure (European Commission, 2023b).

The Cohesion Policy is mainly funded through three core funds: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund+ (ESF+), and the Cohesion Fund. These are important financial tools to implement European Union priorities at the regional and local levels. For the 2021–2027 period of programming, the Cohesion Policy is now completely mainstreamed with the aims of the European Green Deal and the digital transition across its five policy objectives. In the first place, it contributes to a more competitive and smarter Europe: it boosts innovation capacity, fosters digitization, and supports small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Second, it will facilitate the transition to a green and low-carbon Europe through investing in clean energy technologies, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, and sustainable mobility. Third, it seeks to build a more united Europe by upgrading transport infrastructure and increasing high-quality digital networks to overcome spatial and technological divides. Fourth, it helps to make Europe more social by enhancing access to jobs, inclusive education, social rights, and equality. Finally, it also contributes to a more engaged Europe by enhancing the involvement of communities, demonstrating grassroots projects and promoting holistic approaches to sustainable urban development (European Commission, 2023b).

These strategies are in line with the European Green Deal, which aims to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Moreover, green growth, energy upgrades, and the circular economy are embedded in the core of regional investment planning (European Commission, 2024). The development of low-carbon tourism models is one of the highest priorities, and it is no coincidence that it directly concerns the challenges facing regions like Hersonissos and Chios. Examples from regions in Eastern Europe and Southern Italy illustrate the positive impact of the Cohesion Policy in enhancing green development, improving social cohesion, and upgrading infrastructure (JRC, 2024). The best practices observed in these regions offer useful lessons for the Greek context and highlight the importance of the targeted utilization of European resources.

In particular for Greece, the regions of the South Aegean and Crete are among those largely dependent on tourism, and therefore integration into sustainable backing strategies becomes pivotal. The Cohesion Policy can serve as the institutional tool through which innovation, the diversification of tourism products, and the socially just empowerment of the originally frugal can be strengthened.

3.2. Europe 2020 Strategy and the European Green Deal

The “Europe 2020” strategy, an initiative by the European Commission, was launched in 2010 as a response to the financial crisis, aiming to build a smarter, more sustainable, and inclusive economy (European Commission, 2010). It sought to enhance employment through job creation and labor market integration, support research and innovation, and strengthen economic, social, and territorial cohesion. Among its environmental priorities, it promoted energy efficiency and climate sustainability across sectors. The strategy also emphasized equitable access to quality education and reinforced social cohesion by addressing poverty and social exclusion through coordinated policy responses. By embedding the 2020 agenda across EU funding programs, the strategy provided a cross-sectoral framework for integrated regional development. For tourism regions such as Hersonissos and Chios, it supported investments in education, sustainable transport, and green energy. However, growing environmental pressures and the need for a transformative economic model led to the emergence of a more ambitious framework—the European Green Deal.

Launched in 2019, the Green Deal sets out to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, in line with the Paris Agreement (European Commission, 2019). It introduces a comprehensive roadmap for sustainability, including fossil fuel reduction, renewable energy expansion, circular economy adoption, biodiversity protection, and low-impact transformation of key sectors such as mobility and tourism. Particularly relevant to regional development, the Just Transition Mechanism supports infrastructure, energy upgrades, innovation, and training in vulnerable regions. For island regions like Crete and the North Aegean, these initiatives encourage the development of low-impact tourism models—ecotourism, agritourism, and digital offerings—while addressing climate vulnerability and seasonality. These policy frameworks are operationalized through the Cohesion Policy, offering strategic tools for the redesigning of tourism models in Hersonissos and Chios, and aligning local strategies with resilience, innovation, and sustainability goals.

3.3. Comparative Overview and Application to the Case Study of Crete and Chios

The four aforementioned case studies demonstrate that the successful implementation of regional development strategies depends on the adaptation of policies to the local context, the integration of sustainable practices, and the cooperation between governmental, business, and civil society stakeholders. The transition to climate-neutral energy on the basis of renewable sources had to be reconciled, and the investment as well as operation of social consequences for original communities had to be optimized in the North Rhine—Westphalia (NRW) (Aniello et al., 2019). Andalusia succeeded, through the smart utilization of EU agricultural funds, in enhancing agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability (Blanco & Martinez, 2019). In a similar vein, Scandinavia moved toward technological/institutional innovation to reinforce an ecosystem of renewables (Similä et al., 2021), while studies on Eastern Europe, particularly Ukraine, emphasized the need for long-term strategies and a combination of cohesion policies and technological innovation (Marukhlenko & Kuzmenko, 2024).

These cases offer valuable lessons for analyzing tourism development in Greece—particularly in the regions of Hersonissos and Chios, which are at a critical crossroads following the COVID-19 pandemic. Just as in the NRW, Crete’s dependence on a one-dimensional productive model (such as mass tourism) highlights the need for economic diversification and the strengthening of endogenous innovation. The Andalusian experience demonstrates that the intelligent use of European funding can yield sustainable geotourism growth and the revivification of surrounding areas—certainly pertinent to the case of Chios. Finland demonstrates that targeted support for innovation and the creation of a favorable legal and institutional framework can help businesses survive difficult conditions—similar to those faced by Greek tourism in the post-COVID era. The study of Eastern Europe provides valuable examples for managing social and territorial inequalities, especially in regions like Chios, which often face challenges in accessing resources, connectivity, and policy prioritization.

As we now move toward presenting the findings of our primary research in Crete and Chios, the above comparative analysis served as a foundation for clarifying the concepts of resilience, innovation, and alternative tourism strategies. The conceptual model that integrates the study’s key questions with central theoretical topics is provided in Figure 1.

This conceptual map (Figure 1) generated in the context of this study was used to provide clarity between the three major research questions and the relevance of the theoretical categories of analysis. It leverages insights from the international literature on tourism innovation, resilience, and sustainable regional development.

Tourism innovation can occur across various domains (technological, product, process, and organizational), and is crucial for the competitiveness of tourism destinations (Hjalager, 2010). Sigala (2020) provides a theoretical framework for the first research question (RQ1), which concerns innovative practices in the post-COVID context. In her analysis of the pandemic’s effects on tourism, she stresses the roles of digitalization, collaboration, and technological adaptation. This work also informed the development of this study’s thematic axes on resilience and innovation as key responses to crisis conditions. Pikkemaat and Peters (2005) proposed a tool for measuring innovation in small tourism enterprises, which was used in the design of the study’s questionnaire, particularly in capturing the innovative behavior of small businesses. Separately, Butler (1980) introduced the Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) model, which highlights the concepts of tourism destination maturity and seasonality. This framework contributes theoretically to the second research question (RQ2), which addresses the reduction in seasonality through entrepreneurship and strategic innovation. Gössling et al. (2020), in a rapid assessment of the pandemic’s impacts, link tourism with the need for a transition to more resilient and environmentally sustainable models, framing resilience as an essential element of post-COVID tourism planning (Gössling et al., 2020). The study by Bramwell and Lane (2011) analyzes the governance of sustainable tourism development, highlighting the need for participatory and multilevel policies. Their approach reinforced the theoretical background of the question concerning the management of alternative forms of tourism and their integration into regional strategies (Bramwell & Lane, 2011). In his analyses of regional economic development, Capello (2007) draws attention to the endogenous factors and “innovation cores” that shape local dynamics. These principles contributed to the theoretical grounding of the study’s regional dimension (Capello, 2007). Finally, Sharpley and Telfer (2015) focus on the contribution of tourism to local development, particularly in less developed areas, through the promotion of forms such as agritourism and cultural tourism. Their work supported the third exploration question (RQ3), which explores the prospects for developing indispensable tourism models in the regions of Crete and Chios (Sharpley & Telfer, 2015).

The analysis of these concepts led to the following three main research questions examined in the study: RQ1—innovative practices in the post-COVID era; RQ2—enhancing year-round tourism entrepreneurship; and RQ3—prospects for the development of alternative tourism forms.

This conceptual approach informed the design of questionnaires for the regions of Hersonissos and Chios, with a focus on the targeted characterization of local growth needs and strategies, as illustrated in

Table 1. Correlation of bibliographic sources with mind maps and questionnaires.

Bibliographic Source	Research Question Framework	Mind Map Focus	Relation to Questionnaire
Hjalager (2010)	RQ1	Innovation, technology	2.8, 2.9, and 2.11
Sigala (2020)	RQ1	Recovery, digital innovation	2.4, 2.8, and 2.11
Pikkemaat and Peters (2005)	RQ1	New products	2.8, 2.11
Butler (1980)	RQ2	Seasonality	2.6, 2.9, and 2.10
Gössling et al. (2020)	RQ1 and RQ2	Post-COVID sustainability	2.6, 2.10, and 2.13
Bramwell and Lane (2011)	RQ1 and RQ2	Governance/stakeholder engagement	2.5, 2.10, and 2.13
Capello (2007)	RQ2	Regional economy	2.6, 2.9, 2.10, and 2.13
Sharpley and Telfer (2015)	RQ2 and RQ3	Development in the south/alternative tourism	2.6, 2.10, and 2.12

.

The Importance of Crisis Management for Sustainable Tourism Development

Crisis management is a key aspect of sustainable tourism development, especially in communities highly dependent on tourism. The COVID-19 pandemic, which started to affect Greece in February 2020, exposed the structural weaknesses of the country’s tourism model. To determine the impacts of the pandemic on tourism and (poli) culture, INSETE stated that in 2020 international arrivals decreased by 76.5% and tourism revenues by 76.2%, with major socioeconomic consequences especially for regions with only one-dimensional (type of) tourism orientations (INSETE, 2021).

The Region of Crete responded with strategic interventions, comprising the digitalization of tourism services, the strengthening of dispensable forms of tourism (agritourism, cultural tourism), and the support of small- and medium-sized enterprises with structural finances as well as the Crete Regional functional Program (Region of Crete, 2024). At the local level, the Municipality of Hersonissos—one of Crete’s most prominent tourism municipalities—has initiated actions to promote alternative tourism by connecting the natural environment with cultural heritage and local traditions, aiming to offer authentic experiences and diversify its tourism product (Municipality of Hersonissos, 2024). These actions align with endogenous development theory, relying on the utilization of local resources and social capital.

On the other hand, the region of the North Aegean—and particularly Chios—embraced an approach steeped in the political frugality of regional development. Local actions focused on the promotion of thematic forms of tourism, cross-sectoral cooperation (tourism—culture—agriculture), and the retraining of human capital with the support of the University of the Aegean. Furthermore, Chios was included in the Sustainable Urban Development Strategy (SVAA) program, aiming at the sustainable upgrading of the island’s urban fabric (North Aegean Region, 2024). A notable example is the Chios Tourism Board, which, in collaboration with professional associations, promotes the development of an extended tourist season and thematic forms of tourism, such as cultural and gastronomic, thus promoting unique tourism identity of the island (Municipality of Chios, 2025).

The above actions highlight the value of adaptive governance and local empowerment for ensuring the sustainability of tourism products in Greece’s island regions.

4. Materials and Methods

In this section, we outline the methodology adopted for the empirical investigation conducted during 2023. The research focuses on the relationship between innovation, sustainable tourism development, and regional resilience in the island areas of Hersonissos (Crete) and Chios (North Aegean), aiming to capture the evolving dynamics of tourism in the post-COVID-19 context.

4.1. Research Design

The theoretical frameworks outlined in Section 3 (e.g., Hjalager, 2010; Sigala, 2020; Pikkemaat & Peters, 2005) also informed the structure of the questionnaire as well as the formulation of the research questions. A purposive sampling strategy was adopted in both regions to ensure representation across key stakeholder categories. As already mentioned in the abstract, data collection was completed in July 2023 through purposive sampling. Structured questionnaires were distributed through three channels: online forms, physical hand delivery, and during field visits as well as meetings with local stakeholders in Hersonissos and Chios.

The study follows a comparative, cross-sectional research design, using structured questionnaires as the primary data collection tool. The design was examined and guided by the aim of exploring perceptions, problems, and potentials of local sustainable tourism development, and specifically to answer the following three research questions in depth:

• RQ1—Innovation: What types of innovative practices have been adopted in tourism since the COVID-19 pandemic?
• RQ2—Entrepreneurship and Seasonality: How can tourism entrepreneurship contribute to reducing seasonality and enhancing year-round tourism activity?
• RQ3—Alternative Tourism Forms: What are the local stakeholders’ views regarding the development of alternative and thematic forms of tourism?

The developmental basis of the study, being on regional and endogenous development theory, framed its questionnaire, which contained 13 Likert-scale items (5-point scale). These included various elements of sustainable tourism, such as innovation, cooperation (referring to collaboration between the stakeholders), destination branding, circular economy, institutional trust, and stakeholder readiness for change.

The empirical research involved a range of tourism stakeholders, such as hotel and accommodation providers, tourism agencies and travel offices, hospitality and gastronomy professionals, representatives of original authorities, tourism departments, and chambers of commerce, cultural institutions and civil society associations, and combined experts and practitioners with a tourism specialization from universities.

The research adopted a purposeful sampling strategy to ensure coverage of the core components of the local tourism ecosystem. Two distinct samples were collected, one per region, to facilitate the comparative analysis of perceptions between Hersonissos and Chios. This methodological approach enables a holistic understanding of local tourism systems and supports evidence-based policy recommendations for sustainable and resilient development in insular regions.

Case Selection

The current study utilizes a comparative case study method targeting two islands of Greece: Hersonissos in Crete and Chios in the North Aegean. These regions were chosen deliberately, according to criteria that reflected the study’s aim of investigating local responses to the tourism crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, as outlined in Figure 2.

The selection process adopted a non-random purposive sampling approach for selecting areas highly dependent on tourism, regions with large seasonal variation, and territories where there are ongoing policymaking and strategic reorientation projects toward sustainable development. In addition, each area has its own traits regarding institutional capacity, infrastructure, innovation, and cultural resources.

Hersonissos was selected as a case study due to being a well-established tourism destination with a strong seasonal character, having a dynamic private sector and increasing interest in sustainable tourism practices. In contrast, Chios is a smaller destination with a wealth of sites and traditions, but also connectivity challenges and a fragmented tourism market. The structured approach to case selection facilitates the identification of both commonalities and differences in tourism adaptation responses. At each region, the study focused on stakeholders who were directly engaged in tourism planning, operations, and development, including representatives of accommodation businesses, tourism offices, gastronomy professionals, and also local and regional public bodies, such as chambers of commerce, cultural and community organizations, and tourism-related researchers. Additionally, the interviewees provided useful data that reflected the multi-faceted aspects of innovation, entrepreneurship, and alternative tourism practices, enabling useful information for a comparative study to be created through systematic data collection.

Maximally varied sampling thus ensured the consideration of a wide array of voices, reflecting the local tourism ecosystem and its regional development processes.

5. Data Collection Procedures

The empirical data for this study was collected in 2023, and structured questionnaires were used as the main research tool. Specifically, the study examined sustainable tourism practices and local development issues in two insular Greek regions, namely Hersonissos (Crete) and Chios (North Aegean), with an emphasis on innovation, entrepreneurship, seasonality, and alternative tourism approaches.

A combination of 13 Likert-type scale items (5-point scale) were incorporated in the questionnaire, comprising crucial aspects associated with the study, which included innovation practices, stakeholders’ cooperation, trust in institutions, destination identity, strategic planning, and perceptions about alternative forms of tourism. The questionnaire was designed based on the theory of regional and endogenous development and tailored to the specificities of each region. The targeted sample consisted of a large diversity of tourism-related stakeholders, local facility providers, and business owners, tourism operators, especially cultural tourism and all gastronomy professionals, municipalities and regional tourism authority representatives, professional associations and chambers of commerce, researchers from universities, and active citizens involved in tourism initiatives.

A triangulation strategy was employed to enhance the validity of the findings. Alongside the primary data, the analysis included EU-funded initiatives (e.g., ESPA, SVAA programs), desk research on strategic regional development plans, websites and other documents of municipalities and tourism departments that are publicly available, field visit observations, and interviews with local tourism actors during research presentations and stakeholder meetings.

In-depth interviews were not performed/contextual understanding of stakeholder responses was gained through direct interactions, considering the quantitative data collected. These multi-method approaches benefited the interpretation of findings and further legitimized the regional comparison across the two case study regions. All data collected were anonymous and analyzed using SPSS v.30, in keeping with ethical research principles and in accordance with data protection regulations.

This study returned with 71 valid responses, 36 from Hersonissos and 35 from Chios. Responses were manually screened for completeness before analysis. To maintain data rigor and reliability, incomplete or blank questionnaires were eliminated, as shown in

Table 2. Overview of data sources and themes by region.

Region	Thematic Area	Questionnaires	Desk Research	Field Observation
Hersonissos	Innovation and entrepreneurship	✓	✓	✓
Hersonissos	Seasonality and strategy	✓	✓	✓
Hersonissos	Alternative tourism	✓	✓	✓
Chios	Innovation and entrepreneurship	✓	✓	✓
Chios	Seasonality and strategy	✓	✓	✓
Chios	Alternative tourism	✓	✓	✓

.

Table 2 provides information about the triangulation strategy, which was used to confirm and enrich the interpretation of primary data. All three dimensions of the themes (innovation, seasonality, and alternative tourism) were validated through survey and desk observations (including ESPA and SVAA documentation), as well as through contextual observations at the field level according to local stakeholders.

Case Analysis Method

All study data were anonymized and analyzed using SPSS v28. The approach followed a structured process aimed at answering the three main research questions related to tourism innovation, entrepreneurship and seasonality, and alternative tourism development in the two selected case study areas: Hersonissos and Chios.

Descriptive analyses were first computed to describe the central tendencies and dispersion of responses. This included the frequencies, means, and standard deviations for each of the 13 Likert-scale items. This step provided an overview of perceptions and highlighted areas of convergence or divergence between the two regions. Secondly, the reliability analysis was conducted using Cronbach’s alpha to assess the internal consistency of the items grouped under common thematic categories (e.g., innovation, seasonality, and alternative tourism). Acceptable levels of reliability (>0.70) supported the use of composite scores for further analysis. To explore significant differences between the two regions, independent-sample t-tests were performed. These tests identified statistically significant differences in the perceptions of tourism actors in Hersonissos and Chios concerning seasonality (entrepreneurs benefit from consumer spending, while they are also responsible for innovation), and the potential of alternative tourism.

Furthermore, correlation analysis (Pearson’s r) was employed to identify relationships between key constructs such as strategic planning, institutional trust, and willingness to innovate. This helped to map out how various factors interact in supporting sustainable and resilient tourism models. The case-based nature of the analysis allowed for the comparison of regional patterns while maintaining contextual sensitivity. Each region was analyzed both independently and in juxtaposition, highlighting shared challenges and distinct opportunities in local tourism development. This method ensured that the empirical findings are both statistically valid and grounded in the sociospatial realities of the regions under study. The analysis provided a robust foundation for deriving policy recommendations tailored to each region’s characteristics, as illustrated in Figure 3.

This process includes the formulation of research questions, data collection through structured questionnaires, statistical analysis using SPSS-compatible methodology, and the interpretation of findings for regional tourism development.

6. Results

This section reports on the main empirical results obtained from the stakeholder survey at the two study sites, Hersonissos and Chios. The findings are interpreted according to regional development theory and with respect to three research questions focused on innovation (EE1), entrepreneurship and resilience (EE2), and alternative tourism models (EE3). Gender analysis and regional comparisons are emphasized wherever relevant.

6.1. Interpretation of Supportive Questions in the Framework of Regional Development Theory

While the primary research questions (EE1–EE3) focused on innovation, entrepreneurship, and the development of alternative tourism models, a complementary set of items—namely Q2.1 to Q2.7 and Q2.13—offer valuable insights into the institutional, perceptual, and strategic contexts underpinning regional tourism development. These items correspond with fundamental concepts from regional development theory, including endogenous development (Romer, Capello), regional resilience (Martin & Sunley), multilevel governance (Bramwell & Lane), social capital and institutional trust (Simmie & Martin), and territorial branding as well as communication strategy (Pike, 2008; Kavaratzis, 2004).

Questions Q2.1 and Q2.4 pertain to strategic identity and local capacity. Participants from both Hersonissos and Chios expressed very high agreement with the idea that tourism destinations must adopt a new sustainable identity in the post-COVID era. Q2.1 recorded mean values above 4.5, reflecting a strong belief in the importance of repositioning through cultural and place-based identity-building. This aligns with the endogenous development paradigm, emphasizing local resource mobilization for competitiveness. Similarly, Q2.4 received high scores, highlighting strategic communication as a critical resilience component, not merely a marketing function but a pillar of regional policy for post-crisis narrative-shaping.

Questions Q2.2, Q2.3, and Q2.13 address crisis preparedness and structural constraints. The strong performance of Q2.3 and Q2.13 suggests that stakeholders recognize the need for structured recovery plans and collaborative crisis responses. Notably, Q2.13, with a mean value above 4.7, underscores the perceived necessity of multi-actor coordination for sustainable post-crisis recovery. These views resonate with regional resilience theory, which highlights adaptability and institutional agility. In contrast, Q2.2 revealed some hesitation about the feasibility of implementing sustainable models, pointing to bureaucratic or systemic limitations, particularly relevant to critical regional studies in non-metropolitan island contexts.

Governance capacity and institutional trust are captured by Q2.5 and Q2.7. Here, moderate to low mean values suggest that while there is not outright institutional disapproval, stakeholders do perceive notable deficiencies in regional planning capacity and public trust. This corresponds with literature on multilevel governance, which argues that effective regional policy—particularly in tourism—relies on strong local institutions, consistent coordination across policy levels, and inclusive decision-making structures, according to

Table 3. Summary table—linking supportive questions to theory.

Question	Key Finding	Theoretical Framework	Interpretation
Q2.1	Strong support for rebranding and sustainable identity	Endogenous Development	Indicates readiness for local transformation and cultural anchoring
Q2.2	Awareness of difficulties in achieving sustainability	Political Economy	Points to structural barriers that may limit transition
Q2.3	High awareness of crisis phases and response	Regional Resilience	Suggests strategic preparedness and learning from shocks
Q2.4	Strong value placed on communication	Spatial Economics & Innovation	Supports role of storytelling and branding in policy
Q2.5	Moderate confidence in governance structures	Multilevel Governance	Highlights administrative gaps and decentralization needs
Q2.7	Medium trust in institutions	Social Capital Theory	Emphasizes importance of participatory approaches
Q2.13	Very high support for inter-agency collaboration	Institutional Resilience	Opportunity for strategic synergy and cross-sector action

(Bramwell & Lane, 2011).

Findings and Interpretation

The interpretation of empirical results draws on the theoretical foundations laid out in Section 3, incorporating innovation theory (Hjalager, Sigala), resilience frameworks (Martin & Sunley), and sustainable tourism governance (Bramwell & Lane).

For Research Question 1 (EE1), which asked about the perceived importance of innovative practices in post-pandemic tourism recovery, responses to Q2.8, Q2.9, and Q2.11 were examined. These items addressed new product development, local identity reinforcement, and strategic promotion. Hersonissos consistently reported higher mean scores (above 4.5), indicating strong alignment with innovation and digital transition strategies. Chios also supported innovation-related approaches, though with slightly more moderate ratings (between 4.0 and 4.3). Both regions highly rated the role of alternative tourism as a tool for repositioning, strategic communication for image-building, and the adoption of new technologies grounded in local identity.

In gender-based analysis, female respondents in Hersonissos expressed statistically higher support (p < 0.05) for internal tourism promotion and sustainable tourism messaging. In Chios, gender differences were more subtle and not statistically significant. The results highlight a broad recognition of innovation as a key component of regional resilience and competitiveness, particularly in Hersonissos. This supports the view that innovation and local identity serve as strategic levers for adaptive tourism planning.

Overall, the results indicate that Hersonissos is strategically better positioned to adopt innovation-driven tourism recovery practices, with strong support for digital promotion, local branding, and thematic diversification. Chios also values these directions but adopts them more moderately, reflecting its different regional capacities. From the synthesis of literature, local interventions, and survey data, several innovation practices emerge. These include the digitalization of tourism services for booking and promotion; domestic tourism campaigns; the enhancement of local identity through cultural branding; the development of alternative forms of tourism, such as agrotourism and ecotourism; the integration of circular economy practices in tourism enterprises; cross-sectoral collaboration between tourism, agriculture, and culture; and a shift toward experiential and thematic offerings aligned with regional distinctiveness. Collectively, these practices reflect a move away from rigid tourism planning toward more sustainable, diversified models.

For Research Question 2 (EE2), which explored the contribution of tourism entrepreneurship to seasonality reduction and resilience, items Q2.6, Q2.10, and Q2.13 were analyzed. These examined entrepreneurship, circular economy frameworks, and governance mechanisms. Both regions expressed strong agreement with the importance of sustainable development goals and institutional collaboration, with Hersonissos reporting slightly higher averages (above 4.5) and Chios close behind (between 4.2 and 4.4). Question Q2.13 emerged as the highest-rated item in both regions (mean above 4.7), indicating a strong consensus that integrated recovery strategies are essential.

No statistically significant gender differences were observed, although women in both regions tended to support circular economy frameworks slightly more. The findings affirm the relevance of entrepreneurial regionalism and resilience theory, reinforcing the need for coordinated, innovation-linked policy that promotes environmental and economic integration. The high scores across both regions confirm a shared recognition of entrepreneurship and institutional collaboration as critical components for seasonality reduction and regional resilience. Hersonissos shows slightly more consistent alignment, but both areas support circular and coordinated economic models.

Research Question 3 (EE3) examined the potential for developing alternative forms of tourism, using Q2.12, which included stakeholder evaluations of thirteen types of alternative tourism. In Hersonissos, the highest-rated categories were gastronomic, religious, cultural, and conference tourism, with average scores exceeding 4.5. Chios favored medical, religious, cultural, agro-, and eco-tourism, with mean scores ranging from approximately 4.1 to 4.4. Internal consistency was strong for both groups, with Cronbach’s alpha at 0.898 for Hersonissos and 0.937 for Chios.

T-tests revealed statistically significant differences in at least five tourism types, suggesting that Hersonissos leans toward more commercially oriented tourism, while Chios supports nature-based and wellness-oriented development. In terms of gender, women in Hersonissos exhibited a slightly higher preference for nature tourism (borderline significance, p ≈ 0.076), while no significant gender differences were found in Chios. Overall, the data confirm that both regions are prepared to pursue alternative tourism diversification, though along different trajectories. Hersonissos is poised for high-value, themed tourism growth, whereas Chios aligns more with authenticity, health, and experiential tourism grounded in local assets. While both regions support the development of alternative tourism, Hersonissos leans toward more market-driven and themed forms, whereas Chios promotes authenticity and wellness-based experiences. This highlights the importance of region-specific strategic planning rather than uniform development models. These results are visually summarized in a series of comparative bar plots, which highlight regional trends and gender-based differences across key variables, as depicted in

Table 4. Summary table.

Research Question	Region	Mean (Approx.)	Notable Differences	Gender Findings
EE1—Innovation	Hersonissos	4.5–4.8	Higher emphasis on strategic innovation	Women rated innovation higher
	Chios	4.0–4.3	Slightly more conservative views	No significant gender differences
EE2—Entrepreneurship	Hersonissos	4.5–4.7	Stronger alignment with resilience strategy	Minor gender tendency in favor of women
	Chios	4.2–4.4	High agreement across items	Similar trend
EE3—Alternative Tourism	Hersonissos	4.5–4.8	Preference for themed & gastronomy	Women preferred eco-tourism
	Chios	4.1–4.4	Focus on medical, eco, agro models	No major gender differences

.

6.2. Visual Summary of Findings

To complement the statistical analysis, a series of comparative bar plots were developed to visually represent the mean scores across the main questionnaire items (Q2.1 to Q2.13), grouped by research question. These visualizations facilitate the identification of cross-regional patterns and stakeholder preferences, offering an accessible summary of core findings, as can be observed in Figure 4.

Figure 4 presents the overall mean scores for Hersonissos and Chios across all questionnaire items. This figure illustrates that Hersonissos consistently achieved higher scores, particularly in the areas of crisis management (Q2.3), internal promotion (Q2.11), alternative tourism (Q2.12), and stakeholder coordination (Q2.13). Chios also demonstrated positive results, though its averages were more moderate.

Innovation-Related Items (EE1)—Entrepreneurship and Circular Economy (EE2)—Alternative Tourism Preferences (EE3)

To complement the statistical analysis, a series of comparative bar plots were developed to visually represent the mean scores across the main questionnaire items (Q2.1–Q2.13), grouped by research question. These visualizations enabled the clearer identification of cross-regional differences and stakeholder preferences, offering an accessible overview of key findings.

In particular, the bar charts highlighted, as presented in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7, higher overall agreement in Hersonissos across most innovation-related items (EE1), reflecting a stronger inclination toward post-COVID tourism transformation. There were positive trends in both regions, however, for circular economy integration in Hersonissos regarding entrepreneurship and coordination (EE2), and a diverse profile of preferences for alternative tourism types (EE3), with Hersonissos favoring thematic and gastronomy-based tourism, while Chios showed more interest in wellness and eco-tourism. Gender-based comparisons, also presented visually, indicated that female participants in Hersonissos expressed stronger support for innovation and internal tourism promotion, while in Chios gender differences were less pronounced.

The bar plots illustrate the comparative mean scores for innovation-related items (EE1), as shown in Figure 5.

This bar plot (Figure 5) presents perceptions of stakeholders towards innovation in tourism in the post-COVID period in relation to items 2.8, 2.9, and 2.11. Hersonissos participants consistently reported higher mean scores, particularly in aspects related to destination promotion, alternative tourism development, and strategic innovation.

These findings suggest a more proactive local stance toward tourism transformation through innovative practices.

The bar charts present the relative average item scores for items addressing entrepreneurship and the circular economy (EE2) in Figure 6.

This graph (Figure 6) shows the mean scores for items 2.6, 2.10, and 2.13, which assess the perceived role of entrepreneurship, the circular economy, and stakeholder coordination in reducing seasonality. Both regions scored highly, with Hersonissos showing slightly higher alignment with sustainability planning. The results reflect broad consensus on the value of coordinated governance and sustainable entrepreneurship as resilience strategies. The mean comparisons of the alternative tourism preferences are represented in bar plots in Figure 7.

This chart (Figure 7) compares regional preferences for different types of alternative and thematic tourism (item 2.12). Hersonissos showed stronger support for gastronomic, religious, and conference tourism, while Chios scored higher in wellness-oriented forms such as medical and eco-tourism. Such behaviors reflect the cultural, economic, and infrastructure characteristics of each region.

6.3. Policy Challenges and Strategic Tools

This chapter goes on to list the main policy-relevant findings generated by the study and presents a set of policy tools developed to address the issues. These are tools that seek to deepen the effectiveness and resilience of tourist policy frameworks.

6.3.1. Key Challenges Identified

Several critical challenges emerged during this research, which may affect the long-term success of regional tourism strategies. First, there are institutional deficits. Stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the effectiveness of local governance structures and limited trust in public institutions, particularly in relation to strategic planning and coordination. These weaknesses, reflected in survey items Q2.5 and Q2.7, could significantly hinder policy implementation.

Second, structural constraints continue to affect island contexts such as Chios. These include limited transportation connectivity, fragmented tourism markets, and strong seasonal dependence. These conditions obstruct efforts toward sustainable development and economic diversification.

A further issue is the asymmetry in innovation adoption. While both regions acknowledge the importance of innovation, Hersonissos demonstrates greater alignment with digital transition and strategic implementation practices. In contrast, Chios appears more cautious, which reflects a broader divergence in innovation confidence and readiness between the two areas.

Finally, the numbers show divergent development trends in the regions. The unique interest in the types of tourism (e.g., high-value thematic tourism in Hersonissos compared with eco- and wellness tourism in Chios) indicates that ‘one-size-fits-all’ approaches will not work. Rather, area-based strategies should be developed that respond to the social, economic, and cultural landscapes of each area.

6.3.2. Policy Proposal: Regional Innovation Index for Sustainable Tourism

Conceptualizing innovation-led transitions in response to the research findings and the observational strategic need to monitor transitions to innovation-led systems of tourism, this study introduces a new policy tool: the Regional Innovation Index in Tourism. Despite numerous policy initiatives at the EU and national levels, there is currently no standardized mechanism with which to evaluate the innovation performance of tourism regions in Greece. This index addresses that gap by offering a diagnostic and comparative tool that can inform planning, guide funding decisions, and benchmark regional progress toward innovation and sustainability. The Innovation Index was calculated based on the responses to three key Likert-scale questions: Q2.8 (development of new tourism products), Q2.9 (local identity and destination branding), and Q2.11 (internal promotion and strategic communication). Using SPSS-compatible methodology, the following steps were performed: mean score calculation across the three variables per respondent, the creation of a compound variable (the ‘Innovation Index’), and an independent-sample t-test for interregional comparison.

Hersonissos scored a significantly higher average on the Innovation Index (mean = 4.53, SD = 0.43, n = 36), indicating a higher strategic alignment with innovation-driven tourism recovery (Figure 8). Chios recorded a moderate yet positive Innovation Index (mean = 4.09, SD = 0.41, n = 35), reflecting engagement with innovation but a slightly more conservative orientation (Figure 8). Respondents in both areas emphasized the value of innovation in strategic communication, product differentiation, and enhancing destination identity in the post-COVID period.

The bar graph presenting the Regional Innovation Index for tourism activities in Hersonissos and Chios is depicted in Figure 8.

We propose the institutionalization of the Regional Innovation Index in Tourism as an evaluative and planning tool to support prioritization of innovation-related policies and ESPA funding decisions, align with the EU Green Deal and Smart Specialization Strategy (RIS3), and enable the benchmarking of tourism innovation performance across insular regions in Greece.

While no formal Tourism Innovation Index exists in Crete or Chios, this research presents a pioneering pilot application. Its successful deployment in Hersonissos and Chios offers a scalable and replicable model for other Aegean destinations aiming for sustainable and innovation-led recovery. The index itself reflects three core innovation practices that emerged prominently in both regions: the development of new tourism products, including thematic, agro-, cultural, and eco-tourism initiatives tailored to post-COVID visitor expectations (Q2.8); the strengthening of local identity and destination branding through cultural storytelling, local product integration, and heritage-based promotion strategies (Q2.9); and internal promotion and strategic communication, particularly digital campaigns aimed at destination repositioning, with Hersonissos showing advanced implementation (Q2.11). The composite index is based on these practices and also highlights significant regional tourism policy priority areas, particularly how they align with RIS3 and the EU Green Deal frameworks.

SPSS was utilized for all statistical procedures in this analysis to ensure greater scientific rigor and promote the credibility of the Regional Innovation Index in Tourism. The composite index was computed as the mean of three Likert-scale items designed to measure the aforementioned dimensions. Descriptive statistics showed Hersonissos (N = 35) with a mean score of 4.53 (SD = 0.43), while Chios (N = 35) presented a mean score of 4.09 (SD = 0.41), as presented in

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the Regional Innovation Index.

Descriptive Statistics
Region	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
Hersonissos	35	4.53	0.43
Chios	35	4.09	0.41

.

The independent-sample t-test confirmed a statistically significant difference between the two sites: t(68) = 4.44, p < 0.001. This suggests that Hersonissos is more closely aligned with an innovation-driven tourism strategy, whereas Chios represents a more conservative variation in the same approach. A reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha was also conducted. While the values were below the widely accepted threshold of 0.7—α = 0.50 for Hersonissos and α = 0.456 for Chios—they are considered acceptable in exploratory studies with a limited number of items, albeit with caution due to the small item pool. These results suggest moderate internal consistency and indicate that the tool can be refined further, yet already offers a valuable framework for evaluating innovation readiness in regional tourism systems.

7. Discussion and Implications

We consider that the results offer robust evidence supporting the initiatives undertaken by the tourism sector toward innovation, entrepreneurship, and diversification in the field of the tourism industry, especially in the islands that are trying to develop more resilient and sustainable tourism systems. Decision makers and stakeholders in the case studies of Hersonissos and Chios have adopted a post-COVID transformation narrative centered on local identity, alternative tourism products, and digital preparedness. These perspectives are consistent with contemporary scholarly discussions on regional recovery and sustainable tourism (e.g., Sigala, 2020; Gössling et al., 2020). These findings are consistent with Sigala (2020), who emphasized that post-COVID tourism recovery should rely on digital preparedness, strategic promotion, and local stakeholder involvement. Moreover, Gössling et al. (2020) called for a fundamental transformation in tourism planning rather than a return to pre-pandemic patterns. The evidence from Hersonissos supports these positions, as stakeholders showed high agreement with innovation-oriented practices including internal promotion and digital branding.

The implications of these results are particularly relevant for a clearly defined group of stakeholders, to the extent that local authorities, like Hersonissos Municipality and the North Aegean Region, should play an active role in strategic tourism planning by integrating resilience and sustainability principles into regional development frameworks. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the tourism sector, including hotel operators, holiday apartment providers, travel agencies, and catering establishments, are crucial in promoting innovation at the regional level. The more such businesses network and diversify their services, the greater the flexibility and responsiveness of local and subregional tourism systems. Equally important is the role of national business associations and chambers of commerce, such as the Heraklion Chamber of Commerce and the Chios Tourism Committee, which have been instrumental in fostering a culture of collaboration among stakeholders, facilitating joint initiatives, and improving access to financial and organizational resources.

The findings of this study may support Greek public authorities involved in tourism and regional development, particularly the Ministry of Tourism, ESPA funding management bodies, and RIS3 coordinators to develop more focused, flexible, and innovation-oriented funding initiatives. At the European level, DG REGIO and other actors of the Cohesion Policy could subscribe to adopt the proposed Regional Innovation Index in Tourism (RIT) as an external reference tool to measure readiness for innovation and design compensation mechanisms for island regions. Academic and research bodies (e.g., University of the Aegean, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) contribute crucially to the evidence-based assessment and preparation of the next generation of tourism professionals.

In parallel, non-governmental organizations, local cultural associations, and active citizens play a vital role in co-designing authentic tourism experiences and promoting community-based tourism strategies. The regional preferences for eco-tourism, medical tourism, and agrotourism in Chios reflect a place-based development logic. This aligns with Sharpley and Telfer’s (2015) framework for sustainable tourism, which stresses the importance of cultural authenticity, natural assets, and community participation in designing viable alternative tourism paths. The differing experiences of Hersonissos and Chios underscore that broad, top-down strategies may not fully capture the nuances of local contexts. Instead, planning models must be place-based and participatory. Policy priorities should include building institutional trust, enabling effective stakeholder cooperation, and supporting local innovation ecosystems. The observed divergence in institutional trust and governance capacity between the two regions reflects Martin and Sunley’s (2015) theory of regional resilience, where local adaptability and embedded institutions shape the ability to recover from shocks. Additionally, these findings illustrate the challenges described in Bramwell and Lane (2011), where multilevel governance coordination is critical but often uneven in tourism policy contexts. From this perspective, the present study offers a concrete framework for enhancing regional tourism resilience and promoting long-term sustainable development through innovation-led strategies.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations

This concluding section integrates study findings and provides policy as well as practice recommendations tailored to context. The conclusions present the comparative learning from the case studies of Hersonissos and Chios, and offer strategic guidance to foster sustainable tourism governance, innovation and stakeholder engagement in insular contexts.

8.1. Overall Conclusions

This research set out to investigate the evolving dynamics of sustainable tourism in two insular Greek regions—Hersonissos (Crete) and Chios (North Aegean)—by examining local stakeholder perceptions of innovation, entrepreneurship, seasonality, and alternative tourism models. Using a structured questionnaire and comparative statistical analysis in SPSS, the study revealed several important trends. Stakeholders, particularly in Hersonissos, emphasized the importance of innovation (EE1) as a key pillar of post-COVID tourism recovery. High mean scores were recorded for internal destination promotion, strategic communication, and the use of new technologies to enhance local identity and competitiveness. Both regions recognized the contribution of tourism entrepreneurship and the circular economy (EE2) to sustainability and resilience. Hersonissos demonstrated slightly stronger support for integrated governance and sustainability strategies, while Chios showed an equally strong commitment to coordinated recovery planning, particularly in relation to governance integration (Q2.13). Preferences for alternative tourism varied based on regional characteristics. Hersonissos leaned toward gastronomic, religious, and conference tourism, while Chios favored medical, agro-, and eco-tourism (alternative tourism, EE3). These findings underscore the significance of place-based development strategies that take into account local assets and socioeconomic structures. In terms of governance and institutional trust, moderate to low scoring on governance capacity items (Q2.5) and institutional trust (Q2.7) suggest underlying skepticism among stakeholders regarding the effectiveness and reliability of public institutions, especially in Chios, where institutional fragmentation and limited policy continuity remain pressing issues.

Finally, this study revealed a gender dimension in stakeholder perceptions. In Hersonissos, female respondents expressed statistically higher support for innovation-related practices (p < 0.05), particularly in terms of internal tourism creation and the development of a sustainable destination identity. Gender differences in Chios were less pronounced, suggesting differing levels of engagement with innovation across regions and demographic groups. This study makes several theoretical contributions to the literature on regional tourism innovation and resilience. First, it introduces the Regional Innovation Index in Tourism (RIIT), offering a novel tool for evaluating innovation capacity in tourism-dependent regions. Second, it integrates concepts of regional resilience, innovation, and place-based development in the context of post-pandemic recovery. Third, it operationalizes EU policies at the regional level, showcasing how Green Deal objectives can be translated into local strategies. Finally, it adds a gender dimension to the study of tourism innovation, revealing differential support among male and female stakeholders.

8.2. Policy Recommendations

Based on the findings, a number of strategic policy recommendations emerge. First, it is essential to strengthen multilevel governance by supporting inclusive mechanisms that foster collaboration between local authorities, regional tourism bodies, the private sector, and civil society. Second, institutional capacity and public trust should be enhanced through targeted training programs for local public administrators, coupled with transparent and accountable governance practices. Third, the development of innovation ecosystems should be promoted. This includes funding schemes, knowledge-sharing platforms, and technical support, particularly aimed at enabling tourism SMEs to innovate and adapt.

A place-based approach to product diversification is also necessary. In Hersonissos, policy should focus on the creation of high-value thematic offerings, including gastronomy, cultural heritage, and business tourism (MICE). In Chios, priority should be given to health and wellness tourism, eco-tourism, and agro-tourism, leveraging the island’s natural and cultural resources.

Gender inclusivity in tourism development must be reinforced. Women-led tourism businesses and campaigns should be actively supported, particularly in areas related to innovation and destination branding, where female engagement has been shown to be strong.

Moreover, it is necessary to implement year-round tourism strategies. These could include off-season cultural festivals, experiential agro-tourism packages, and wellness retreats tailored to non-peak periods in order to reduce dependency on high seasonal demand.

8.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study has certain limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the research adopts a comparative case study design limited to two Greek island regions—Hersonissos and Chios—which may constrain the generalizability of the findings to broader insular or mainland tourism contexts. The use of purposive sampling and a modest sample size (N = 71) also limits statistical extrapolation and suggests that conclusions should be interpreted within the scope of the selected cases. Additionally, while the study captures stakeholder perceptions at a specific moment in time (2023), future changes in policy, governance, or market dynamics may alter these trends.

Further research could expand the geographic scope by applying the Regional Innovation Index in Tourism (RIIT) to other Aegean or Mediterranean regions to evaluate comparative innovation readiness. Longitudinal studies would also be beneficial for assessing how institutional trust, digital transition, and stakeholder coordination evolve over time. Moreover, the gender-related findings observed in Hersonissos—where female stakeholders showed higher support for innovation—suggest a valuable line of inquiry into how gender dynamics influence sustainability transitions in tourism governance.

These directions may enhance theoretical and policy understanding of how island tourism systems can transition toward resilient, inclusive, and innovation-driven development pathways.

8.4. Final Reflection

The findings of this study affirm that place-based innovation, inclusive governance, and diversified tourism models are essential components for building resilient and competitive tourism economies in insular regions. Both Hersonissos and Chios display promising but distinct trajectories. Continued progress, however, will require coordinated interventions, trust-building initiatives, and long-term commitment to institutional continuity and participatory governance. Especially in the context of post-crisis recovery, election transitions, and administrative reform, local actors must work collectively to build robust and transparent systems. Hersonissos, with its dynamic tourism profile and strong culture of innovation, exemplifies the potential of strategic planning, digital transformation, and high-value tourism offerings to lead recovery efforts. Conversely, Chios illustrates the strengths of authenticity, experiential tourism, and cross-sectoral collaboration, particularly valuable in regions with limited connectivity but rich cultural and environmental capital. This study confirms that generic, one-size-fits-all approaches are insufficient in addressing the complex challenges faced by regional tourism systems. Instead, strategies must be rooted in local identity, resilience-building, and community empowerment. Among the most critical enabling factors are the enhancement of public trust in institutions, the promotion of gender-inclusive innovation, the improvement of coordination between public and private actors, and the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems aligned with sustainability principles.

In this context, the introduction of the Regional Innovation Index in Tourism—developed using survey-based data and analyzed through SPSS—offers an original and practical contribution to regional strategic planning. The index provides a structured framework for assessing innovation readiness across regions, and its pilot implementation in Hersonissos and Chios highlights its potential as a replicable and scalable model. Incorporating this tool into regional policy frameworks can enhance local evaluation systems, align development with EU Green Deal goals, and support more data-driven, adaptive decision-making processes for sustainable tourism transformation.