Παρουσίαση/Προβολή

ΤΟΥΡΙΣΤΙΚΗ  ΓΕΩΓΡΑΦΙΑ

Το συγκεκριμένο άρθρο με τις θεωρητικές προσεγγίσεις που πραγματεύεται  και τις  έμπρακτες εφαρμογές  που διερευνά, αφορά στα πεδία της διδακτέας ύλης που άπτονται των τουριστικών ρευμάτων, των τουριστικών περιοχών και των διαφόρων τύπων τουριστικών χώρων, καθώς και των απορρεόντων προβλημάτων και πολιτικών.

MOUNTAIN TOURISM AND WINTER RESORTS : A STUDY OF GREEK SKI CENTERS

                                                   S. VARVARESSOS   T.E.I of Athens                                        

M. SOTERIADES   T.E.I of Crete 

Abstract

The initiation of leisure and sports activities in the second half of the 20^th century led to the transformation of a considerable number of mountain spatial units into attractive tourism hosting zones. Determinant factors were landscape quality, local authenticity and quality of tourist services. Sports and recreational activities related to skiing have contributed to the gradual development of tourist flows, while winter resorts have rendered mountain tourism more accessible and popular. This evolution has led to four specific models for winter resorts implemented in the Alpine countries over the past century. The four models serve as a reference framework in our study, which looks at Greek ski centres. As a country hosting mass leisure tourism, Greece has developed the industry by implementing a spontaneous development model centring on the sun; mountain tourism, and winter sports in particular, have never been a priority in the national tourism policy. When compared to the four models devised for ‘winter resorts’ implemented in the Alps, the twenty-one ‘ski centres’ operating in Greece are clearly representative of the spontaneous model of tourism development adopted and implemented in the Greek mountains. Simultaneously, such comparison highlights the urgent need to adopt a tourism planning approach and to implement appropriate action plans for mountain tourism as a constituent part of Greek tourism policy at both at the national and regional level.

Hence, this paper focuses on the analysis of Greek ski centres and seeks to contribute to the discussion regarding the development model for mountain tourism / winter resorts.

            JEL classification : L83, Q01, O10

            Key words: mountain tourism, winter resorts, models, ski centres, tourism planning, Greece.

1. Introduction

Mountains are specific geographical zones and have constituted the spatial framework for the conception and implementation of a series of tourist and recreational activities. Mountain tourism development in its contemporary form is due to the diffusion of ski and snowsports as a recreational activity and the construction of winter resorts established in the Alps (Philipona-Romanens 2001; Boyer 2004). Furthermore, winter sports tourism has simultaneously expanded with second generation stations and integrated ski resorts (Cottle 1992; Boyer 2004). The latter, being designed along the lines of the French model, are perfectly compatible with economic, commercial and recreational considerations of an integrated – spatial, technological and economic - planning approach. Considering the recreational character of winter sports tourism, its contemporary implementation is encountered in fourth generation resorts, i.e. the Tyrol model. The interest of these polyvalent village resorts focuses on preserving traditional architecture and adopting sustainable tourism principles (Schnell 1981; Zimmermann 1992). It is estimated (Baily 2002) that this type of resort represents a new generation, more mindful of ecology and seeking an equilibrium between tourism specialisation and other activities developed in mountain areas. On the other hand, Greece hosts inbound ‘sea, sun and leisure’ tourism flows, i.e. ‘heliocentric tourism’ (1) and has only attempted to develop and promote mountain tourism during the last quarter of the 20^th century. Greece’s heliocentric image, the recreational nature of snowsports, the low rate of local participation in mountain tourism activities, as well as the limited volume of private developers, have led to the construction of twenty-one low performance ‘ski centres’ in the Greek mountains. The concepts of ‘ski centres’ in Greece (2) and ‘winter resorts’ in the Alps (3) differ considerably as regards the recreational, spatial and economic framework, and to the implementation of a mountain tourism planning policy based on the adoption of one or more winter resorts models.

This paper consists of three parts. In the first, leisure activities on mountains and are briefly analysed in conjunction with winter sports trends worldwide. The second section looks at winter resorts, and more specifically the various models developed in the Alps. The third section offers a study of mountain tourism and ski centres in Greece, followed by a comparative study by using the four models implemented as a reference framework.  This study of Greek mountain tourism highlights the need to elaborate and implement an adequate planning policy. The adoption and implementation of a winter resorts model should be compatible with the environmental, economic, social, cultural, ecological and technological attributes and particularities of Greek mountain areas. Moreover, the appropriate model should be a constituent part of development policy and tourism planning in the Greek mountains.

2. Recreational and Leisure Activities on Mountains

Nowadays it seems that ski and other snowsports, as leisure activities, are characterised by standardization due to an imitation effect, in which post-modern values - i.e. identity seeking, individualism and narcissism - have been imposed on Western countries (Varvaressos 2000). Moreover, this imitation effect sharply contributes to an expansion in the numbers of potential skiers, thus rendering winter sports more popular. The evolution of demand for mountain tourism has been dynamically influenced by social and cultural changes occurring at the end of the 20th century. Hence, leisure visits have become highly dependant on a series of factors, such as service quality; environment authenticity; and landscape quality (Amourous 2001; Boyer 2004). These factors, which relate to the expansion of mountain leisure demand, have resulted from public social programmes, a high rate of dissatisfaction with the quality of life in urban centres and the tendency to seek refuge in traditional values. Therefore, tourism development in the mountains has resulted from a correspondence established between socio-cultural expectations and leisure activities, as well as by the mountain environment, aiming at catering for potential visitors.  Obviously, variation in skiers’ needs and level of satisfaction is to some extent dependent on their culture and nationality, since fashion, national identities and anthropological relations linking people with mountains are not characterised by the same spatial and temporal context. In turn, this helps to account for significant fluctuations in the types and intensity of tourist flows towards mountains, which are influenced by anthropological, social and cultural factors (Amourous 2001; Wozniak 2002; Varvaressos and Soteriades 2003).

On an international level, the location of mountain resorts is not directly related to tourist flows. The growth of tourist flows into mountainous areas has resulted from the expansion of snowsports, and more specifically from their diffusion among the middle classes. Increased mobility due to the expansion of individual transport modes (mainly private cars) as well as an increase in short break holidays (i.e. weekends) have contributed to significant supplementary flows towards mountains (Herbin 1995; Varvaressos 1999; Hudson 2003). Therefore, it seems that access facilities, constituting a prime factor in the winter resorts’ planning, are closely bound up with the social, economic and political context (Cottle 1992; Carraud and Servoin 2001). The Alps are the mostly frequented mountain chain worldwide, recording more than 100 million overnight stays per year (Le Garrec and Antczak 2005). In Japan, winter resorts are situated in the Nagano district, at an equal distance from the urban agglomerations of Tokyo and Osaka. In Canada, the most visited winter resorts are located in Québec, not far from the big urban centres (Archambault and Audet 1997). In the USA, the majority of ski resorts are situated in New England, in the rural regions of Appalachia and Wisconsin, whose cultural characteristics are very different from the urban centres (Goeldner 1992; Hudson 2004a). In Greece, the Parnassus ski centre is located a short distance from Athens, the Greek capital, and hosts tourist flows on short breaks. The intensity rate of tourist flows related to winter sports varies significantly from one region to other, in proportion to the degree of dependency on geographic and socioeconomic characteristics at the international, national and regional level, as well as on the consideration or omission of a planning approach (Baud-Bovy and Lawson 1998). Hence, the rate of participation in winter sports varies from one country to other: it is 40% for Swiss and Austrians; 15% for Canadians; 12% for the French; 6% for Americans; and 2% for the British and Spanish (Le Garrec and Antczak 2005). In Greece, this rate is less than 1%. It is worth stressing that the demand for winter sports is influenced by a plethora of factors, such as the low birth rate in European countries; economic recession and climate changes rendering the hibernal period milder. All these factors can be seen to be pushing ‘snow tourism’ into a mature stage in resort life cycle.  Actually, mountain tourism, being linked to the recreational dimension of winter sports, is likely to be rather introverting rather than extroverting, in regard to aestival tourism (Giotart 1993; Boyer 2004).

3. Winter Resorts and Ski Stations: the Tourism Planning Framework

The planning and design approach taken to winter resorts has resulted from the political, social and spatial context, whereby individual needs and social requirements are met with regard to snowsports (Herbin 1995; Baud-Bovy and Lawson 1998). Spatial planning of winter resorts has been implemented according to a number of models closely linked to the nature and the distinguishing features of winter sports. However, the various models / generations and their spatial distribution have gradually undergone profound modifications so as to better correspond to changes in visitors’ needs. Hence, in addition to socioeconomic factors, the adoption of a model has also come to take a host of geologic, climatic and sports-related factors into consideration, such as snow quantity, quality and period, operation of various ski trails, etc. (Rudaz 2002). Geomorphologic and weather conditions, significantly variable from one mountain area to another, have played a considerable role in the particular planning model adopted (Cazes et al. 1993). Within the above outlined context, the continental and somewhat arid climate in Colorado (USA) obliged planners to construct winter resorts at a very high altitude, e.g. 2,400m in Aspen and 2,460m in Vail. In the Cascades Mountains in Washington State, the ocean weather conditions permitted the installation of big winter stations at lower altitudes – at an average of between 1,000 and 1,300m (Goeldner 1992). In Greece, the average altitude is approximately 1,600m. The winter resorts of Kitzbühel (in the Austrian Tyrol) and Garmisch (in Baviere) lie at 730m, but receive plenty of snow thanks to the continental climate in that region of the Alps (Zimmermann 1992). These examples of stations with different characteristics clearly indicate that there is no unique, ideal set of geomorphologic and climate conditions regarding the spatial choice and operation of a winter resort. 

Winter resorts, as an essential component of spatial and socioeconomic planning closely linked to leisure and sporting activities, recorded very high growth rates over the last century (Hudson 2004a; Boyer 2004). In France, there were 154 winter resorts in 1936, 225 in 1956 and over 400 in 2000. More than 700 winter sports stations now operate in North America; 200 in Japan; 400 in Norway; and 21 in Greece. These resorts have been established in mountain areas with different features and are of various types; all of them succeed in meeting potential visitors’ expectations to a greater or lesser extent.  Where mountain areas succeed in catering for and satisfying a certain number of needs and expectations, expansion of winter resorts is observed, e.g. in the Valley of Tarentaise (French Alps). The most famous winter resorts were constructed between 1961 and 1972, e.g. Arcs, La Plagne, Ménuires, Tignes (France); Anzere in Valais (Switzerland); Pila in Val d’Aoste (Italy); and Borovets (Bulgaria).

In Greece, the Parnassus ski centres, regarded as the country’s most important, has operated since 1975. It is worth stressing that winter resort planning varies significantly from the linear planning of wide spacious seafront / balneal zones. Actually, the various development models implemented can be accounted for in terms of geomorphologic and climatic characteristics, as well as the limited space suitable for development (Baud-Bovy and Lawson 1998).

3.1 Organisation of winter resorts

Over the two last centuries, the first stage involved in equipping Alpine winter stations was the construction of accommodation facilities. Local populations provided the bulk of accommodation and supplementary services in unplanned way (Knafou 1994; Boyer 2004; Tissot 2004). Growth in tourist flows and the extension of average stays then led to the emergence of an organized accommodation market.  By the 1950s new types of accommodation had been constructed - i.e. hotels, social tourism accommodation, holiday homes – thus rendering winter sports more popular and attractive. By the 1970s mountain areas had diversified, offering new types of accommodation, e.g. timesharing properties and apartments, as an outcome of three factors, namely: tourists’ needs and expectations, emergence of local initiatives and national tourism policy plans (Deslarzes 2003). Obviously, the spatial distribution of accommodation enterprises reflects tourist flows and geographical distribution in mountain areas, which are further defined by two parameters: resort attractiveness and model.  The most famous resorts worldwide are located in Aspen, Colorado, Heavenly Valley, California (USA); Chamonix, La Plagne, Megève, Courchevel, Les Arcs, Tignes, L’Alpe d’Huez, Serre Chevalier (French Alps); Davos, Verbier, Zermatt, Saint-Moritz (Swiss Alps); and Saalbach, Solden, San Anton, Kitzbühel (Austrian Alps). Growth in accommodation supply has also led to standardisation of the mountain tourism product, mainly in the French Alps, as well as to the implementation of different tourism development models in Alpine regions.

The installation of ropeways dates to the beginning of the last century, occurring simultaneously in France, Switzerland, Spain and the USA. Ski lifts appeared in 1932; ski cabins in 1950; and funicular / rope railway in 1980, contributing to diversify in the range of technical equipment and improvement in service quality (Philipona-Romanens 2001; Boyer 2004; Tissot 2004). Today, more than 4,000 ski cabins and rope railways operate in France, which is the world leader. Austria follows with 3,500; the USA has just over 3,200; Italy 3,050; and Switzerland has approximately 1,700 (Duhamel and Sacareau 1998). Two parameters are worth noting: (i) winter sports, as a modern leisure activity, require large investments; the decision to launch such high capital intensity projects depends on the return estimated by developers, as well as on their ability to attract financiers (Tinard 1992); and (ii) the development of mountain resorts arises from the collaboration of three partners, namely local communities, developers and public services – which frequently have contradictory interests and goals. Russell and Thomas (2004) and Franch and Martini (2005) estimate that the contribution of each stakeholder to mountain tourism development is of great importance, especially since the issue is the spatial planning approach and the implementation of the appropriate winter resort model.

3.2 The four winter resort models

As has been already mentioned, the most famous winter resorts were created in the Alps at the end of the 19th century. Two factors played a key role: (i) social differentiation solicited by visitors; and (ii) a political, socioeconomic and cultural context imposed by the hosting communities and the geography and climate of mountain areas (Tinard 1992; Boyer 2004). The planning, design and organisation of winter resorts led to the emergence of two entirely distinct groups of resorts. The first of these encompassed those stations located in agro-pastoral mountain areas. The second were characterised by a high level of spatial planning, taking visitor motivation, national and local tourism policy action plans and developers’ profitability expectations into account (Varvaressos and Soteriades 2004). Planning and designing resorts in the second group involved fulfilling a series of prerequisites, and led to the creation of ‘ex-nihilo’ installations, i.e. virgin areas developed from scratch.  The criteria used were conceived by reference to a series of factors relating to national and local development policy goals, as well as to private developers’ requests, such as accessibility; communication; infrastructure; altitude; length and variety of trails; and snowfall. During the last century, the evolution of winter resorts led to the emergence of four identifiable models over time (Cazes et al. 1993; Baud-Bovy and Lawson 1998; Micheletto and Novarina 2002; Varvaressos and Soteriades 2004). The main features of each model are briefly presented in Table 1.

Table 1 The four models of winter sports stations / resorts

The French model’s winter resorts fully satisfied the new demands of potential visitors, as well the economic, commercial and leisure considerations of integrated planning (Knafou 1994; Herbin 1995; Duhamel and Sacareau 1998). These resorts differed from those of preceding generations with regard to the following parameters:  urbanized spatial planning (building complexes; commercial centres, parking areas); technical equipment installed at high altitude; and clientele’s isolation from hosting communities. Having been created in accordance with the above-mentioned technical and operational requirements, integrated resorts, privileging trail skiing and sparsely populated mountain zones, do not cater for the modern clientele’s current tastes for human sized resorts. Nowadays, priority is given to medium-altitude areas and to comprehensive planning aiming at harmonious symbiosis and fruitful interaction between the mountain environment and economic activities. These are the reasons that led to the adoption of the most recent model. This consists of a polyvalent village-resort, appropriately incorporating facilities into the natural environment. Design and planning are based on soft tourism development principles and the implementation of multiple activities by local communities (Hudson 1996; Baily 2002). An authenticity image has been built up by dedicating such centres to family skiing and green tourism; this image is appropriate for a winter resort model more mindful of environmental considerations, one which seeks an equilibrium between tourism specialisation and sustainable activities (McGibbon 2000; Donohoe 2004; Williams and Gill 2005). However, structural problems have resulted in the implementation of new intercommunity mechanisms with regard to managerial plans and spatial planning (Tuppen 2000; Bodega et al. 2004).  An adaptation to new market requirements was necessary (Weiermair and Auer 1997; Bieger et al. 2004). Some authors, as for example Pechlaner and Tschurtschenthaler (2003); Hudson (2004b); Hudson et al. (2004), suggest that the key to adaptation lies in the improvement of human resources’ qualifications. This improvement should lead to the development of new skills for tourist cooperatives as a basis for the strategic transition from institutionalised tourism organisations to flexible and market-oriented destination management companies. According to Zimmermann (1995) and Gaido (1998), Alpine winter resorts have adapted their supply to new demands by developing new product categories, such as tourism product attractions, health, sports, adventure and commercial activities. Futhermore, there is a need to better understand the market; future emphasis should be on the better use of marketing tools (Holden 1997; Weiermair and Auer 1997).

4. Winter Sports and Ski Centres in Greece

Despite the fact that seventy-five percent of Greece is semi-mountainous or mountainous, thus far the country’s tourism image has been based on the long coastline (15,000 km) and the plethora of islands (2,000). This heliotropic image is almost inevitably bound up with the linear and unplanned development of the littoral zone (Varvaressos 1999; Briassoulis 2000; Andriotis 2005). Greece’s comparative advantages, resulting from its climate and geography factors, have played a significant role in the formation of tourist motivations and the type of tourism development (Buhalis 2001; Soteriades & Arvanitis 2006). The development model implemented in Greece was typified by exceedingly high inbound demand and rather insufficient supply from the 1950s to the 1970s. This gap led to the emergence of the first seaside and seafront tourism concentrations of the linear type (Andriotis 2003a). By contrast, in Greece’s rural and mountain zones the role of tourism as a socioeconomic activity seems to be insignificant. The predomination of the heliotropic mass tourism model from 1970 to 2005 has reinforced the implementation of a ‘sea & sun’ tourism development model of a spontaneous and linear type, incorporating spatiotemporal and urban concentrations (Tsartas 1998). It has been proposed that this model could be altered by channelling domestic and inbound tourist flows towards rural and mountain areas (Varvaressos 1999; Komilis 2001); as a market segment, it has also been argued that mountain tourism could reduce overall risk and high dependency on tour operators (Andriotis 2003b). Mountains have never been incorporated into national and regional development plans due to the country’s prevailing tourism model. Agricultural properties located in upland areas are small-sized, low productivity units; the manufacturing sector faces serious procurement difficulties; and the tertiary sector has not thus far been seen as a development priority in these areas. Indeed, the unplanned development of mountainous areas has resulted in natural and human resources going to waste, rendering existing gaps more intense (Chiotis and Coccossis 1992; Franch and Martini 2005).

4.1 Winter sports in Greece

Snowsports were unknown in Greece for over three quarters of the last century, since the country’s tourism product was associated with the heliotropic image, and mountain tourism mainly concerned central and north Europe. The Mount Parnassus ski centre, which is the most famous Greek one, was constructed in 1975, when installations and ski lifts were opened at Fterolaka. The construction of further ski lifts and related facilities at Kelaria was completed by 1981, while seven years later a ski lift linking the two locations began operation. Greece’s predominant tourism image, the lack of adequate spatial plans for mountain areas and the general political and socioeconomic context help to explain why at least initially, winter sports did not develop as a result of demand from the wealthier classes. The search of metaphysic and the need of self-accomplishment led to the appearance of the first mountaineers and consequently, the establishment of the first mountaineering clubs. These elementary bodies contributed to the construction of the first ski lifts in a very limited number of Greek mountain areas, in order to satisfy basic conditions. However, it seems that skiing itself did not markedly contribute to the increased participation of local communities, private developers and public organisations in mountain development. In Greece, these tourism development stakeholders have not been able to keep track of and assimilate the planning models developed and implemented in Alpine countries over the last century, even if belatedly. The increase in skier volume over the last twenty-five years has resulted on the one hand from the proliferation of skiing areas, and on the other from an increase in skiing among the middle class, in imitation of upper class trends. There are thus five main features of winter sports tourism in Greece: (i) ski recreational practice has serious weaknesses and constitutes a privilege of the upper class; (ii) snow sports are a high cost leisure and recreational activity; (iii) the majority of visits are of short length; (iv) skiers are in the main young persons attracted by the sporting rather than the recreational side of the activity; and (v) the resorts cater mainly for the domestic market. These features help to account for spatial planning as implemented in Greek mountain areas. Winter sports in Greece have contributed to the creation of tourism flows departing from urban centres towards the mountains. Such tourism strengthens a domestic redistribution of income from Athens and other major urban centres to the benefit of mountain communities where ski centres are located. The lack of reliable statistical data and poor implementation of measurement tools at regional and local level render any precise estimate of the economic impact of mountain tourism almost impossible (Varvaressos 2000). The speed and the way in which local communities have responded to new economic opportunities appear to be equally influenced by social and cultural factors. Mountain tourism has a conception and approach different from seaside / balneal tourism, as for the planning implementation, due to specific geographic, economic, social and environmental conditions. Since the 1970s, the predominance of two winter resort models (the. French and Tyrolean) in Europe and other continents has not had any impact on Greek reality, which persists in promoting the concept of ‘ski centre’ at both at the spatial level and type of planning implemented. The two different analytic concepts of ‘ski centre’ and ‘winter sports resort’ clearly point both to existing differences regarding the structures of spatial planning and their management, and to the degree of infiltration and incorporation into local communities and economies (Varvaressos and Soteriades 2003). The term ‘winter sports resort’ denotes a situation in which zones more extensive than the skiing domains generally compounding a Greek ski centre are taken into account in the planning approach. TAien évidemmenine la prise en cogrmines the fact that spatial units more extended ion degree into local communities and economiehe explicative term ‘ski centre’ incorporates spatial, structural and managerial weaknesses characterising the sporting and recreational activity of skiing all over the country.

4.2 Greek ski centres

Ski centres in Greece generally constitute businesses with such high operating expenses that private investors cannot take the financial risk involved. Investors and managers are not industrial groups or financial organisations, real estate developers or management companies, as is the case in France. These functions are assumed by ‘Greek Tourist Real Estate’ (GTRE), a state company responsible for the privatization and the management of real-estate and enterprises belonging to the Greek National Tourism Organisation (GNTO); the ‘General Secretariat for Sports’ (GSS); the Alpinism Clubs, in collaboration with GSS; as well as local administration organisations (Varvaressos 1999; Vasiliades and Masmanides 2004). In Greece, twenty-one ski centres operate at present, as shown in Figure 1.  In total these stations have 89 ski trails of a length of 90 km; 67 ski lifts and cabins; and a capacity of 47,265 skiers per hour. Apart from two ski centres – Parnassus Mountain and Seli - none conform to international standards, and they very dependent on local and regional market. Table 2 briefly outlines the main features of existing Greek ski centres.

Figure 1 Ski centres in Greece*

Source: Greek National Tourism Organisation (GNTO), 2006

(*) The numbers appearing on the map correspond to the numbers in Table 2.

Table 2 Greek ski centres: Main features

Source: Greek National Tourism Organisation (GNTO), 2006.