*by Dimitra Triantafyllou
Illustration: Michael Kirki
A report by the Department of Environmental Engineering of the Democritus University of Thrace captures the overdeveloped areas of Greece, but also those in need of a sustainable development model
Alexandra Ghemitzi, professor at the Department of Environmental Engineering of the Democritus University of Thrace and supervisor of the geoinformatics team, who conducted a relevant study mapping the Greek territory with a new method that combines socioeconomic and environmental indicators, characterizes the carrying capacity for development in our country as “uneven” and “overweight” .
“Half of Greece, eastern and southern, with the Aegean region first and foremost, is oversaturated. The remaining half, northern and western, needs reinforcement through sustainable development,” emphasizes the professor, summarizing the main conclusion of the report, which was recently published in the prestigious scientific journal Land.
The DUT team developed an index called the Carrying Capacity Index (CCDI), utilizing open data from the European Union, as well as a large volume of environmental data through Earth observation satellite missions.
The CCDI calculation is based on the integration of six levels of information that describe the natural and human-influenced state of the planet.
One key parameter the team examined is the Human Modification Index (HMI). This index was introduced into scientific research in 2022 by American researchers and examines the extent to which each area has been modified over time – from the percentage of population to the state of road networks, transport networks, whether it has been used for energy production, etc.
Next is the Vulnerability to Disasters Index (VDI). This was compiled by the EU in 2023 and results from environmental, economic, social, political instability sub-indices, etc.
Then, the time trend in Water Storage Changes (TWSC), the time trend of the Leaf Area Index for High Vegetation (LAIH), the time trend of the Leaf Area Index for Low Vegetation (LAIL) and the Natura 2000 network of nature protection areas (NAT) were examined.
All of the aforementioned indicators describe, through their individual values or their long-term trend, the state of the Earth’s surface and natural resources related to human activities, including the impact of climate change.
Thus, they co-form the CCDI Development Capacity Index, which ranges from 0 (minimum capacity for development) to 1 (highest capacity for development).
What does carrying capacity for growth actually mean?
Explaining more simply the essence of the above term, Ms. Gemitzi notes:
“The concept of carrying capacity in development refers to the maximum level of human activity and population that an environment or system can withstand in the long term without degradation. It integrates ecological, economic and social dimensions, emphasizing the need to balance development with the sustainable use of resources. The problem that usually exists when we talk about issues such as sustainable development is the lack of understanding of the concept by citizens and politicians. The vast majority believe that the problem lies in the lack of infrastructure and not in the lack of resources. In other words, the misconception prevails that there are inexhaustible resources, such as water, food, energy, etc., which simply need more infrastructure to become available for use. And, even worse, at no point in the reasoning of most citizens does the provision for the other creatures that live in each area, as well as the valuable ecosystems that support biodiversity and that also need available resources to survive, enter into consideration.”
There is a misconception that there are inexhaustible resources, such as water, food, energy, etc., which simply require more infrastructure to become available for use.
The conclusions of the report
Starting to analyze the main conclusions of the report, Ms. Gemitzi first notes that the large urban centers – Athens, Thessaloniki, Patras, Larissa, Corinth, Chalkida, Heraklion Crete –, as well as the majority of the Aegean islands – Cyclades, Dodecanese, a large part of Crete – as well as the coastal areas of the southern and eastern country – from Patras to Kalamata, Corinth, the coasts of Messinia and Laconia – present a very low carrying capacity for further development (CCDI index).
Nevertheless, there are still islands, as well as less densely populated cities, with CCDI index values ranging from 0.50 to 0.60 and which can be considered as areas with moderate potential for further development. The islands of Chios and Samos are two such areas.
On the contrary, very small urban centers, such as Drama and Serres, have great potential for development (CCDI values > 0.600), indicating the availability of resources for further development.
In fact, in the above two areas, the alternative tourism that has been developing in recent years (wine tourism and the Short Film Festival in Drama and eco-tourism in Lake Kerkini and other areas of Serres) has already created a good model of sustainable tourism development, which can be further cultivated.
The same good picture with a margin and often a necessity for sustainable tourism development, due to the desertification of residents, is also presented by many mountainous areas of Greece.
The CCDI is relatively high in mountainous areas such as Pindos, Evrytania, mountainous Trikala or mountainous Ioannina. In all of the above areas, there are already pockets of sustainable, alternative tourism. At the same time, mountainous areas are rich in natural resources and less affected by human activities and are therefore more capable of future development.
The coastal part of Epirus also has room for development – coastlines in areas such as Sivota and Parga.
Water resources and vulnerability to natural disasters
Ms. Gemitzi also gave us two triads of best and worst regions on the key issues of water resources and vulnerability to natural disasters.
Poor water resources status
- Crete and Cyclades
- Eastern Peloponnese – Laconia, Argolida, Corinth
- Athens, Evia, Halkidiki, Thrace and coastal part of Northern Greece
Good status of water resources
- From Pindos and further west, with Epirus being the most “self-sufficient” of all
- Eastern Sterea, Evrytania, Messolonghi, Karpenisi
Vulnerability to natural disasters
- Rhodes – due to extensive fires last summer
- Evia – successive natural disasters– and Lesvos – social issue/immigration
- Rhodopi, Evros – very low incomes of residents
Examples to avoid
Returning to the issue of the prevailing misconception about the carrying capacity of development, Ms. Gemitzi gives as a typical example the region of Crete, where, despite the critical state of water resources, it is believed that there is a way to support further development.
As she explains:
“The new airport in Kastelli, Heraklion, is expected to serve 12-15 million passengers per year. However, we did not ask ourselves whether there are the resources available to support such a tourist flow and at the same time, there will be no significant degradation or collapse of the natural environment, but also of the island’s cultural heritage.”
As for the Aegean islands, these, according to Ms. Gemitzi, constitute a special case where specialized measures should be considered to promote sustainable development, as they are limited in area and natural resources and face the challenge of mass tourism development that threatens to alter their natural character.
As the professor notes:
“Solutions to control tourist flows and the corresponding consumption of resources should be immediately examined here, such as imposing a maximum number of visitors in sensitive areas, imposing a special tax on visitors, imposing particularly strict conditions for building and intervention in the natural environment, and promoting only truly sustainable development investments that strengthen local communities. Greece cannot and does not need to be a destination for golf tourism or swimming pool tourism.”
Source: Kathimerini.gr
