Monitoring sustainability in insular areas

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Case study

Monitoring sustainability in insular areas

Ioannis Spilanis a, Thanasis Kizos b,*, Maria Koulouri a, Julia Kondyli a,Hristos Vakoufaris a, Ioannis Gatsis b

aDepartment of Environmental Studies, University of the Aegean, Mytilini, GreecebDepartment of Geography, University of the Aegean, Mytilini, Greece

1. Introduction: sustainability and islands

Sustainability and sustainable development are notions that

are widely used today in areas of research, policies, monitor-

ing and planning. The two notions are used in different

contexts. In the European Union (EU), sustainable develop-

ment aims to achieve economic prosperity, social equity and

cohesion and environmental protection and is considered as

an over-arching principle in all EU policies. Sustainability can

be considered as the state and potential of an area for

achieving sustainable development. Many estimation

approaches for sustainability have been developed, most of

them with indicators, either with a single index or with many

indicators (Bell and Morse, 1999, 2004; Zoeteman, 2001;

Wiggering et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 2007), with the selection

of the indicators performed by experts, or with the help of

stakeholders. Indicators in general should be useful to the

users by being simple and capable of illustrating temporal

changes and by offering common ground for comparisons

with other areas and critical values; they should also be

reliable and based on sound scientific concepts and comply

with international standards; and they should be measurable,

with data that can be acquired and monitored with reliable

procedures (OECD, 2002).

Methodologically, islands are ideal ‘laboratories’ for study-

ing and measuring sustainability, with easily discernible

limits and defined flows. For small areas or islands, estimation

methods are either adaptations of some of the general

sustainability approaches, or entirely new approaches. Such

adaptations are the Island of Wight ecological footprint

e c o l o g i c a l i n d i c a t o r s 9 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 7 9 – 1 8 7

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 18 September 2007

Received in revised form

15 March 2008

Accepted 19 March 2008

Keywords:

Islands

Sustainability indicators

State indicators

Sustainability measurement

Aegean islands

Greece

a b s t r a c t

The notion of sustainability is used widely at the policy level, but only few approaches deal

with its measurement, especially at the local level. Here, we develop and apply a practical

tool for the estimation of the sustainability state at the island level with the use of indicators

selected and adapted from international agencies and institutes, in a framework which is an

expanded version of the DPSR approach. The identification of the significant sustainability

state factors and the selection of the indicators are based on areas’ characteristics, namely

their insularity and the fact that they are in the Mediterranean. The values of these

indicators were obtained or calculated for the islands of Paros and Kos in Greece. The

findings reveal that the method can be of great use for the sustainability evaluation and for

planning the sustainable development of islands.

# 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2251036447; fax: +30 2251036409.E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Kizos).

avai lab le at www.sc iencedi rec t .com

journal homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /eco l ind

1470-160X/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.03.003


(www.bestfootforward.com) and the sustainability indicators

for Malta (Bell and Morse, 2004). Novel approaches include the

‘‘Sustainable Guernsey’’ project (Barrett, 1998; Policy Council,

2004); a multi-criteria analysis with environmental perfor-

mance at the municipality level in Italy (Ferrarini et al., 2001); a

sustainability matrix for remote and insular Scotland (Copus

and Crabtree, 1996); and another approach for local sustain-

ability indicators for mountain ecosystems in Scotland

(Crabtree and Bayfield, 1998).

Here, we develop and apply a practical tool for the

measurement and improvement of sustainability at the local

level, applied on two islands, Paros and Kos in the South

Aegean Region of Greece. In the next section, the method is

presented and the results follow with a discussion of the

positive and negative points of the application.

2. Methods and data

2.1. The method developed

In the approach followed here, we propose a concept that can

monitor the ‘progress’ of local societies towards sustainability

with the use of indicators via a broadened DPSR framework

(with economic, social and environmental issues). By sustain-

ability state (S) of an area, we refer to the quality and quantity

of the economic, social and environmental capitals under

pressure (P) from human activities that change by economic

and social driving forces (D), internal or external. The

knowledge of the state can finally lead to responses (R),

policies that seek to improve the state by affecting and

changing the driving forces at play (Fig. 1). In this approach,

the sustainability of an area is not considered as an isolated

moment in time, but as a series of successive states that result

from interactions among pressures, state, impacts and

responses. Therefore, it can be used in retrospective terms

(i.e. to assess the present state from past pressures) and in

prospective terms, if the state of the area is monitored over

time with the proposed system. Sustainability is a holistic

concept and its three dimensions should be integrated. But, in

order to be able to plan at the local level, the important issues

need to be pointed out and studied and the three dimensions

should be studied first separately before integrating them into

a common perspective. For each of the three dimensions:

economy, society and environment critical factors are

identifying and indicators selected for each factor. The

indicators are either selected from existing approaches (e.g.

soil and water quality indicators), or adjusted to the

particularities of the area (e.g. urban environment, land use

and biodiversity indicators). Consultation with stakeholders

was performed in an informal basis, by presenting the

framework and the indicators to local stakeholders and asking

for their input. The indicators used are scale specific and some

of them site specific for two islands of the Aegean Sea, Greece:

Paros (and the smaller island of Antiparos) and Kos (Fig. 2).

The study area, small Mediterranean islands are charac-

terized by: (a) insularity, i.e. small size, limited natural

resources and accessibility problems (Royle, 2000); (b) ‘‘med-

iterraneanity’’, which involves (i) a climate characterized by

long, dry and hot summers and short and intense rainfalls in a

short period of winter; (ii) a relief of mountain areas of high

gradients and variability of geology and soil types; (iii) human

presence and shaping of landscapes for long time periods,

leading to semi-natural environments that fluctuate from

‘natural’ to ‘cultivated’ with economic and social changes; (c)

an economy based on tourism and services mostly, but also on

small scale, family agriculture. Here, we consider agriculture

and tourism services as ‘‘competitive’’ economic activities for

the islands, as they bring incomes to the area from other areas,

plus they cover local needs so that imports (and consequently

economic leakages) are avoided. These characteristics lead to

the identification of the critical factors and the indicators for

each factor for the state of the economy, the society and the

environment of the case study areas.

For the state of economy, four factors were considered as

most important for assessing economic efficiency (employ-

ment; ‘‘competitive’’ activities1; the economic performance of

enterprises; and the gross product of the area2) and nine

indicators were selected (Table 1). For the state of society, five

factors were considered as most important (the number of

active inhabitants; unemployment; job position; income; and

the size of the population and its age structure) and eleven

Fig. 1 – Framework of analysis.

1 For ‘‘competitive’’ activities an employment indicator is used(Ec6, the sum of the people employed in ‘‘competitive’’ branches/total employed) but under a new heading to monitor the percen-tage of employment in these ‘‘competitive’’ for the case studyareas branches.

2 Two very similar indicators are used here, Ec8 (Gross Product)and Ec9 (Gross Product per capita) for different reasons: Ec8 is ameasure of the value of the production in the area and its mon-itoring can reveal the changes of this production over time, whileEc9 can be used for comparisons with other areas.



Fig. 2 – Location of the Case Study Islands in the South Aegean Region, Greece.

Fig. 3 – Land uses on Paros and Antiparos Islands.

e c o l o g i c a l i n d i c a t o r s 9 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 7 9 – 1 8 7 181


indicators were selected (Table 1), reflecting not only demo-

graphic issues but issues of prosperity, social equity and gender

equality as well.

For the state of the environment, five factors were

considered as the most important in the case study areas

(biodiversity; land use; water quantity and quality for marine,

coastal, surface and underground waters; soil quantity and

quality; and urban environment) and 19 indicators were

selected (Table 1), adapted from international agencies’ and

institutes’ approaches (EC, 2005; EEA, 2004; OECD, 2002; UNCSD,

2001). Some of the indicators used (Table 1) are not considered

as State indicators in the DPSR framework: E1 and E2 (protected

areas per total area and per type of ecosystem, respectively) are

considered as Response indicators, but are used here as an

estimation of the state of the biodiversity at the local level (the

more protected areas, the better biodiversity is preserved); E3

(land uses in the area), is considered as an Impact indicator for

land use changes, but in this paper it is used in a static manner

as a feature of the state of the area in each respective period of

time; E14 (intensity of practices for cultivated land) is

considered as Pressure indicator but the degree of intensity

reflects to a great extent soil quality; and E15 (percentage of

organic farming area) is considered as a Response indicator, but

here it is linked with improved soil and water quality compared

to most conventional similar cultivations.

The indicators selected are very diverse and the setting

of value thresholds for the sustainability assessment is

complex. For some of them, such as the water quality

indicators, the thresholds used are encountered in the

literature, while especially for economic and social ones,

such thresholds cannot be set and values are compared with

those of the Prefecture or national averages, or their change

over time is examined when possible. The assessment of the

values of the indicators is performed with a four scale

system that compares the value of the indicator to the

corresponding thresholds or to the national average for the

same indicator (Table 1): good state (++) is attributed to

values that are ‘‘better’’ (higher/lower) than the correspond-

ing thresholds; acceptable state (+) to values that are close

to the corresponding thresholds; not acceptable state (�) to

values that are ‘‘worse’’ (higher/lower) than the correspond-

ing thresholds; and not possible without time series (0) to

values that cannot be assessed without more data. In this

framework, it is possible to have an indicator that is

assessed positively in one dimension and negatively in

another (e.g. seasonal jobs in tourism services in the case

study areas). Moreover, it is a clear methodological choice

not to sum the indicators to an overall sustainability index

or three sub-indexes, one for each dimension of sustain-

ability. Such indexes are problematic (Wilson et al., 2007)

Table 1 – Sectors of the state of the areas studied, indicators used per sector, data sources and calculation method

Issue Indicators (measurement units,year of measurement—

calculation); source

Results (assessment)

Paros Kos

Employment (Ec1) Employed (number, 2001); 1 4712 (0) 12,311 (0)

(Ec2) Most important employment branch/total

number of employed (%, 2001); 1

Constructions (18.1%) (+) Hotels and restaurants

(30.8%) (++)

(Ec3) Second most important employment

branch/total number of employed (%, 2001); 1

Hotels and restaurants

(16.5%) (+)

Wholesale—retail

trade (11.7%) (�)

(Ec4) Third most important employment

branch/total number of employed (%, 2001); 1

Wholesale—retail

trade (13.7%) (�)

Public services and

defense (9.4%) (+)

(Ec5) New enterprises (number, 2004); 2, 3 87 (0) 91 (0)

Exports (Ec6) The sum of the people employed in

‘‘competitive’’ branches/total employed

(%, 2001); 1

36.9 (Prefecture 35.2) (++) 42.8 (Prefecture 38.2) (++)

Economic

performance

of enterprises

(Ec7) The amount of the added value

tax (s, 2004); 2

3,164,156.1 (0) *

Product (Ec8) Gross Product (millions s, 2001); 4 1345 (0) 2647 (0)

(Ec9) Gross Product per capita (s/capita, 2001); 4 12,217 (�) 14,008 (0)

Active population (S1) Active inhabitants/population (%, 2001); 1 40.7 (Prefecture 39.3) (+) 46.3 (Prefecture 31.2) (++)

(S2) Active women/total women (%, 2001); 1 27.8 (Prefecture 26.1) (++) 36.4 (Prefecture 31.2) (++)

Unemployed (S3) Unemployed women/active women (%, 2001); 1 22.6 (Prefecture 15.2) (�) 19.1 (Prefecture 23) (+)

(S4) Unemployed/population (%, 2001); 1 4 (Prefecture 3.9) (+) 6.5 (Prefecture 7.6) (+)

(S5) New unemployed/unemployed (%, 2001); 1 30.8 (Prefecture 33.2) (�) 8.1 (Prefecture 9.8) (+)

Job position (S6) Employers/employed (%, 2001); 1 20.4 (Prefecture 16.2) (+) 15.7 (Prefecture 13.6) (++)

(S7) Seasonal workers/employed (%, 2001); 5 * *

Income (S8) Income declared to tax services

(s/family, 2004); 6

11,334 (Prefecture

10,876) (++)

12,393 (Prefecture 10,271) (++)

(S9) Tax per capita (s/capita, 2001); 2 712.6 (0) *

Population (S10) Population (number, 2001); 1 12,853 (0) 30,947 (0)

(S11) Ageing indicator (number, 2001); 1 0.77 (Prefecture 1.1) (++) 0.54 (Prefecture 0.64) (++)



Table 1 (Continued )Issue Indicators (measurement units,

year of measurement—calculation); source


Paros Kos

Bio-diversity E1. Protected area/total area (%, 1996); 7, 8 4.7% (++) 32.7% (++)

E2. Protected area per type of ecosystem/

total area (%, 1996); 7, 8

Table 3 (++) Cultivated land 99.4 km2 (3.8%) (+)

Mediterranean shrub

116.2 km2 (42.5%) (+)

Conifer forest 28.5 km2 (100.0%) (+)

Build area 37.1 km2 (12.8%) (+)

Rocky area 2.2 km2 (86.3%) (+)

Wetlands 7 km2 (67.8%) (+)

Land use types E3. Land use area per land use/total

area (%, 1996); 8

Table 3 (+) Arable: 34.08 km2 (11.7%) (�)

Grazing lands: 126.6 km2 (43.6%) (�)

Tree crops: 11.12 km2 (3.8%) (�)

Vines: 0.57 km2 (0.2%) (�)

Forests: 18.1 km2 (6.2%) (�)

Settlements: 37.1 km2 (12.8%) (�)

Water: 7 km2 (2.4%) (�)

Other: 2 km2 (0.7%) (�)

E4. Burnt area per land use/total

area (%, 2003); 8, 9

Cultivated

land 0.04% (++)

Forest areas 0.37% (++)

Cultivated land 0.58% (++)

Grazing land 1.02% (++)

Grazing land 0.2% (++)

E5. Sparse built-up area/total area (%, 1996); 8 2.7% (�) *

E6. Built-up coastal area (homes, holiday

homes or tourism units)/total area (%, 1996); 8

0.8% (�) *

E7. Diversity of land use (Shannon’s index

(H(b) = �Spi/j x ln pi/j; where H(b) stands for limit

diversity between different land use patches, pi/j

stands for the percentage of the limit between

neighbouring patches i and j for the total number

N of limits in the area), number, 1996); 8

177 (++) *

Water quality

and quantity

E8. Maximum freshwater resources quantity,

not all can be used (m3, 1998–2002); 10, 11

8.96 m3*10�6(++) 13,35 m3*10�6 (+)

E9. Quality of drinking and irrigation water

according to EU directives 75/440 and 98/83/EU

(concentration of chemicals, ppm, ppb, 2005); 12

Acceptable (+) *

E10. Available water in storage reservoirs

(m3, 2004); 12

7.600.000 m3 (++) 360 m3 (�) (?)

E11. Desalinated or imported water (m3, 2004), 12 450.000 m3 (�) 0 (++)

E12. Bathing water quality according to EU

Directive 76/160/EEC (bacteria concentration,

ppm, ppb, 2002–2004); 7

Acceptable (+) Acceptable (+)

Soil quality

and quantity

E13. Environmental Sensitive Areas to

desertification, ESAI = (SQI*CQI*VQI*MQI)1/4,

where SQI stands for quality indicator for soil,

CQI for climate, VQI for vegetation and MQI for

management, 8 classes: 3 critical; 3 sensitive;

1 possible and 1 neutral. (Kosmas et al., 1999) it

expresses desertified area/total area (%, 1996); 8

Fig. 1 (�) *

E14. Cultivated area per category of

intensity/total area (%, 1996); 8

Arable (high intensity):

70.11 km2 (37.8%) (�)

Arable (high intensity):

34.08 km2 (57%) (�)

Grazing lands (high

intensity):

94.19 km2 (50.8%) (�)

Grazing lands (high

intensity): 8.8 km2

(14.75%) (�)

Tree crops (low intensity):

14.35 km2 (7.8%) (�)

Tree crops (low

intensity): 11.12 km2

(18.64%) (�)

Vines (low-medium

intensity):

6.8 km2 (3.7%) (�)

Vines (low-medium

intensity): 5.7 km2

(9.62%) (�)

E15. Organic farming area/total cultivated

area (%, 2003); 8, 13

Olives: 1.28% (�) Tree crops: 0.11% (�)

Vines: 1.18% (�)

E16. Solid waste landfill area (ha, 2005); 14 0.105 km2 (0.05% of total)(+) 0.14 km2 (0.05% of total) (�) (?)



and for localities, the use of more than one indicator is

preferred (Bell and Morse, 2004; Crabtree and Bayfield, 1998;

Policy Council, 2004), even if some appear to describe similar

issues or even if their values are correlated, as the main

objective is the assessment of the area’s sustainability over

time and not comparisons with other localities.3 A con-

sultation with some important local stakeholders on Paros

(mostly from the Municipality) was also conducted, as part

of a wider Agenda 21 approach. Local officials regarded the

theoretical framework satisfactory and agreed on the

necessity of such a monitoring system and of the indicators.

However, the Greek planning system limits local planning at

the Municipality or island level and the actual use of such a

system is of more use for higher planning authorities for

response, mostly the South Aegean Region and the Ministry

for Public Affairs and Regional Policy.

2.2. Data and application of the method: results anddiscussion

The case study islands Paros (and the smaller islands of

Antiparos) and Kos, are both located in the South Aegean

Region (44 inhabited islands of various sizes and populations,

Fig. 2). Paros is a medium size island (approximately 195 km2),

dependent on tourism and is a popular summer destination

for Greeks and foreigners. It can be reached via ferry-boat

from Piraeus port and via airplane from Athens airport and is

one of the most accessible Aegean islands. In the past,

agriculture was also dominant, but nowadays it is mostly

abandoned. Kos is another medium size island (290 km2),

highly dependent on charter tourism and a very popular

destination for foreigners. It is also easily accessible; it can be

reached easily by airplane from many European towns during

the high season and via ferry-boat from Piraeus port. As in

Paros, agriculture was dominant in the past, but today it is

mostly abandoned.

Data for calculating the values of the selected indicators

were obtained through research and official sources (pub-

lished or unpublished, Table 1). Land uses were calculated for

Paros only via photograph interpretation of the most recent

available aerial photos (1996). These photographs were

digitally corrected and 16 different categories of land uses

were calculated (Table 2). Field observations were conducted

in the winter of 2006 for disputed areas.

The issue of data reliability is very important in this

approach, as unreliable data can lead to wrong conclusions

and sustainability state estimations. Regarding the state of the

economy and society, the indicators can be divided in three

major groups in terms of data availability and reliability: in the

first group are indicators derived from the population census;

in the second indicators from local sources and in the third

from gross product data (only for economy). For the first group

(indicators Ec1–Ec4 and Ec6 and S1–S4 and S10–S11) the data

are reliable but available only at 10-year intervals. Some

doubts about the reliability of the 2001 census data for the

Kyklades Prefecture are only raised for the new unemployed

(Table 1). For the second group (Ec5 and Ec7 and S7–S9), the

data are available theoretically annually and reliable, but their

availability depends on the cooperation of the local and

national Public Finance Administration (PFA). The PFA on

Paros was helpful and assisted the application, but the one on

Kos was unhelpful claiming personal data conflicts. For the

third group (Ec8 and Ec9), the values are available annually but

only at the level of the Prefecture. The setting up of a local

estimation system is not easy and the reliability of the data

depends on GDP estimation procedures at the national level

that have changed recently in Greece. All indicators require

time series to clearly depict changes in the area, at different

time intervals for the different groups of indicators depending

on the data availability.

For the state of the environment, the indicators can be

divided into four groups in terms of data availability and

reliability: (a) Indicators calculated from the interpretation

of land use with the use of aerial photography (E3, E5–E7,

E13, E14 and E17) for Paros and with official land use data for

Kos. Here, the interpretation has yielded reliable data, but

the continuation of monitoring requires the repetition of

Table 1 (Continued )Issue Indicators (measurement units,

year of measurement—calculation); source


Paros Kos

Urban

environment

E17. Non built-up urban areas/total

urban area (%, 2005); 8, 14

0.057 km2 (20%

of urban) (++)

0.265 km2 (0)

E18. Number of cars per km

(cars/Km, 2003); 4, 14

1178 (�) 81.74 (�)

E19. Renewable/conventional

energy produced (%); 15

No data (*) 6.4% (+)

(++): good state; (+): acceptable state; (�): not acceptable; (0): not possible without time series; (*): unknown (no data); (?): not complete data

(from all municipalities).

Data Sources: 1: Population Census (2001); for employment, the branches used are taken from the official Greek employment classification; 2:

Public Finance Administration (2004); 3: Chamber of Commerce (2004); 4: National Statistics Service of Greece; 5: Social Security Service; 6:

Ministry for Economic and Finance (2004); 7: Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works; 8: Our interpretation of aerial photos

from the Ministry of Agriculture (1996); 9: Fire Department of Paros (2003); 10: Water reserves management program for Greece (2002); 11:

Meteorological data; 12: Public Enterprise for Drinking Water and Sewages of Paros; 13: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on

Siros island (2003); 14: Municipality of Paros (2005); 15: Local branch of Public Electricity Enterprise.

3 Another reason for not constructing an overall index here isthat some indicators are spatially explicit while others are not andthe construction of such an index would be problematic.



this procedure with more recent photographs or satellite

images. On the contrary, official land use data are not as

reliable, but readily available at 10-year intervals. (b)

Indicators monitored via official procedures, as are all water

quality indicators (E9 and E12), that are reliable, but in the

case of drinking water microbial measurements are not

conducted as the water is chlorined, neither analysis for

pesticides or organic substances in general. (c) Indicators

from local sources, covering a variety of issues like fire (E4),

water (E10 and E11), organic farming (E15) and landfills (E16),

all with reliable and annual data; and energy (E19) with data

that their availability depends on the cooperation of the

local branch of the Public Electricity Enterprise that was

unhelpful on Paros. (d) Indicators calculated from official

data, again covering a wide variety of issues, such as

protected area (E1 and E2) with reliable data, water quantity

(E8) and traffic (E18), both with reliable data available

annually. Again here time series are required to depict

changes.

Summing up, the data used here are of different

reliability between the different dimensions and factors, a

common situation in such approaches (Morse and Fraser,

2005; Wilson et al., 2007), but of comparable reliability for

each factor.

The application of the approach reveals that, considering

the state of economy, the ‘hotels and restaurants’ branch is

important for both islands, while on Paros the first branch is

‘constructions’, indicating the importance of tourism and

vacation homes in the island’s economy. The values of the

indicator used for ‘‘competitive activities’’ (Ec6), verify this

depiction: the percentage for Kos is very high; higher than the

value for Paros and higher than the value for both Prefectures.

Data for the indicator used (Ec7) is available only for Paros

(Table 1). For society, the application reveals a better state on

Kos than Paros for active inhabitants, but lower unemployed

population on Paros. Incomes are higher on Kos but some 500s

lower than the national average. On both islands population

increases, but the population on Kos is less aged than that on

Paros (Table 1).

The application for the environment, reveals that on

both islands, protected areas cover some of the most

important and fragile ecosystems (such as wetlands, sandy

beaches and streams, along with forests (Tables 1 and 2).

Most of the area on both islands is shrub, grazed at different

degrees of intensity and arable land. Urban areas on Paros

are smaller in size than sparse built up areas, revealing

urban sprawl, especially along the coast. Overall, the

different land use patches are small in size and diversity

values are high, a positive result (Fig. 3). Burned areas are

few on both islands. Drinking and coastal water quality is in

general satisfactory on both islands, with older measure-

ments indicating that the state of coastal water quality has

improved for both islands, as the values of tar, organic

waste and oils are significantly reduced since 1994. Soil

quality is at risk on Paros, as 79% of Paros and 81% of

Antiparos are under serious desertification threat (Fig. 4),

especially hilly grazed areas. These findings are verified by

the intensity of agricultural land uses and the grazing

pressure (number of grazing animals per ha of grazing land)

is overall high (in total 1533 cows, 4091 sheep and 6446 goats

graze the 94,190 ha of grazing lands of Paros, resulting to a

density of 3.1 animal units/ha), but locally it is even higher,

leading to increased risks of soil degradation. For Kos,

similar conclusions can be drawn by the intensity of

agricultural land uses. Moreover, organic farming is very

limited on both islands and only on less intensive uses

(olives and vines). Finally, the area where untreated solid

waste is disposed is small for both islands, but it is a source

of point pollution. The state of the urban environment

appears to be overall satisfactory, but averages can be

misleading, especially for Paros, where Greek tourists bring

their cars more often (Table 1).

Table 2 – Area per ecosystem type and areas under protection on Paros

Type of ecosystemunder protection(NATURA, 2000)

Land use class(aerial photo

interpretation)

Land use intensitytype

Total areain km2 (%)

Area for protectionin km2 (%)

Cultivated land Arable land High intensity agricultural land 70.11 (30.5) 0.2 (0.3)

Tree crops Low intensity agricultural land 14.35 (6.2)

Vines Medium intensity agricultural land 6.80 (3.0)

Mediterranean

shrub (maquis)

Shrub (<10%) Grazing land 77.0 (33.6) 9.37 (7.7)

Shrub (10–40%) Grazing land 17.14 (7.5)

Shrub (>40%) Natural shrubland 27.4 (11.9)

Forests Forest Forest 0.33 (0.1) 0.1 (21)

Forest (10–40%) Forest 0.15 (0.1)

Built areas Coastal urban Settlements 2.03 (0.9) 0.04 (0.4)

Sparse urban area Settlements 4.06 (1.8)

Settlements, infr. Settlements 3.09 (1.3)

Coastal rocky Bare rock Other 5.75 (2.5) 0.44 (7.7)

Quarry Other 0.49 (0.2)

Coastal sandy Sandy beaches Other 0.54 (0.2) 0.44 (81.3)

Freshwater Rivers Surface water 0.24 (0.1) 0.24 (100)

Wetlands Lakes–wetlands Surface water 0.07 (0.0) 0.04 (55.6)

Total 229.6 (100) 10.87 (4.7)



3. Conclusion: sustainability anddevelopment on small islands

The method developed in this paper for the estimation of the

sustainability state at the local scale and its application on two

islands has revealed a number of issues. The first of these

refers to the fact that the case studies are islands, which is very

helpful in defining and measuring people, material and energy

flows. A weakness is that separate estimations are necessary

for each island. Another issue refers to the difficulty of

conducting sustainability state estimations at the local scale.

As the level of detail grows, averages prove their limitations

and explicit spatial data are required, especially for environ-

mental issues. Some examples of how averages shade local

issues are grazing pressure that available data do not allow its

spatial allocation and water quantity and quality, where

acceptable average values may hide local problems. The last

issue is related to the need of constant monitoring to produce

useful results. As existing approaches of similar monitoring–

planning systems demonstrate (Policy Council, 2004), different

indicators require different monitoring time scales. The

method presented here provides a useful start for a monitor-

ing system and offers a conceptual context of the complex

issues involved as an initial but necessary step for sustain-

ability state evaluation and eventually planning for sustain-

able development at the local scale.

Acknowledgments

The method and its application were financed by the

ISTOS program (Innovation for Sustainable Tourism and

Services in the South Aegean, Action 1.1 of Activity 7.1, co-

financed by EC and the Greek Ministry of Economics and

Finance).

r e f e r e n c e s

Barrett, J., 1998. Sustainability Indicators and EcologicalFootprints the Case of Guernsey. John Moores University,Liverpool.

Bell, S., Morse, S., 1999. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring theImmeasurable. Earthscan, London.

Bell, S., Morse, S., 2004. Experiences with sustainabilityindicators and stakeholder participation: a case studyrelating to a ‘Blue Plan’ project in Malta. SustainableDevelopment 12, 1–14.

Copus, A.K., Crabtree, J.R., 1996. Indicators of socio-economicsustainability: an application to remote rural Scotland.Journal of Rural Studies 12 (1), 41–54.

Crabtree, B., Bayfield, N., 1998. Developing sustainabilityindicators for mountain ecosystems: a study of theCairngorms, Scotland. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 52, 1–14.

Fig. 4 – Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA index) to desertification for Paros and Antiparos Islands.



EEA, 2004. Indicator Factsheet, WEU11, www.eea.eu.int/indicators, accessed 09/09/2007.

European Commission, 2005. Measuring progress towards amore sustainable Europe: Sustainable developmentindicators for the European Union, data 1990–2005. Officefor Official Publications of the European Communities,Luxembourg, http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/library/index_en.htm, accessed 17/09/2007.

Ferrarini, A., Bodini, A., Becchi, M., 2001. Environmental qualityand sustainability in the province of Reggio Emilia (Italy):using multi-criteria analysis to assess and comparemunicipal performance. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 63, 117–131.

Kosmas, C., Kirkby, M., Geeson, N. (Eds.), 1999. Manual on KeyIndicators of Desertification and Mapping EnvironmentallySensitive Areas to Desertification. The MEDALUS Project:Mediterranean Desertification and Land Use. EC,Luxemburg.

Morse, S., Fraser, E.D.G., 2005. Making ‘dirty’ nations lookclean? The nation state and the problem of selectingand weighting indices as tools for measuringprogress towards sustainability. Geoforum 36 (5),625–640.

OECD, 2002. Environmental Data, Compendium 2002,Environmental Performance and Information Division.OECD, Paris.

Policy Council, 2004. 2004 sustainable Guernsey. Monitoringsocial, economic & environmental trends. Policy Council:The States of Guernsey.

Royle, S., 2000. Geography of Islands: Small Island Insularity.Routledge, London.

UNCSD, 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Development:Guidelines and Methodologies. United Nations, New York,http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/indisd/indisd-mg2001.pdf, accessed 09/09/2007.

Wiggering, H., Dalchow, C., Glemnitz, M., Helming, K., Mueller,K., Schultz, A., Stachowa, U., Zander, P., 2006. Indicators formultifunctional land use—Linking socio-economicrequirements with landscape potentials. EcologicalIndicators 6, 238–249.

Wilson, J., Tyedmers, P., Pelot, R., 2007. Contrasting andcomparing sustainable development indicator metrics.Ecological Indicators 7, 299–314.

Zoeteman, K., 2001. Sustainability of nations. InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 8,93–109.


Documents

Monitoring sustainability in insular areas