Tourism Management Perspectives 11 (2014) 10–17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management Perspectives

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / tmp

Natural quiet: An additional feature reflecting green tourismdevelopment in conservation areas of Greece☆

Nefta-Eleftheria P. Votsi a,⁎, Antonios D. Mazaris a, Athanasios S. Kallimanis b, John D. Pantis a

a Department of Ecology, School of Biology, Aristotle University, 54124, U.P. Box 119, Thessaloniki, Greeceb Department of Environmental and Natural Resources Management, University of Patra, 30100, Seferi 2, Agrinio, Greece

☆ This research has been co-financed by the EuropeanESF) and the Greek national funds through the OperatLifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference FFunding Program: Heracleitus II. Investing in knowledgeSocial Fund.⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2310 998254; fax: +

E-mail addresses: nvotsi@bio.auth.gr (N.-E.P. Votsi), am(A.D. Mazaris), akallim@upatras.gr (A.S. Kallimanis), pant

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.02.0012211-9736/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 21 June 2013Accepted 17 February 2014Available online xxxx

Keywords:Green tourismQuietnessConservation areaNatura 2000 network

The role of nature in tourism is widely acknowledged; yet, information remains limited about the determinantsof green tourism development within conservation areas. Here, we aimed to provide a framework for exploringthe supportive role of quietness in green tourism development. Because natural quietness is expected to facilitateconservation and promote environment-friendly tourism, we tested whether quiet areas within conservationsites in Greece indicate “hotspots” of green tourism. We found that the percentage of quietnesswas related to en-vironment-friendly tourism, indicating that the acoustic value of a site contributes towards driving the pattern ofgreen tourism. When more than 30% of the surface area of a conservation site was quiet, activities supportinggreen tourism were significantly higher. This threshold implies that both the conservation and acoustic value ofa site are important in environment-conscious tourism destinations. Overall, we suggest that the acoustic qualityof a site might function as a tool for management, facilitating the identification of green tourism “hotspots”.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Natural areas are viewed as magnets attracting tourism (Baker, 1986;Driml & Common, 1996). Yet, inefficient management and uncontrolledtourist development could cause ecological damage to the naturalenvironment, particularly if the type of tourism retains mass industryprinciples (Archer & Copper, 1994; Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005). Aplausible reduction in biodiversity values, as a result of unrestrainedtourism, might be linked to the loss of the touristic value and the eco-nomic significance of a site (Hall, 2010; Pablo-Romero & Molina,2013). Therefore, tourism could only be tailored to fit the needs andprinciples of biodiversity conservation if ecological impacts are takeninto account, and common policy recommendations about natureprotection and cultural values are applied (Catibog-Sinha, 2010; Liu,Li, & Pechacek, 2013).

In recent decades, conservation areas have become one of the mostimportant forms of land use in the modern world (Gantioler et al.,2010), with the aim of protecting biodiversity. It has been suggested

Union (European Social Fund –

ional Program “Education andramework (NSRF) — Researchsociety through the European

30 2310 998379.azaris@bio.auth.gr

is@bio.auth.gr (J.D. Pantis).

that this global need for biodiversity conservation might support theinvolution of tourist development under an environment-focusedapproach. In 1995, three international organisations, the World Travel& Tourism Council, the World Tourism Organization and the EarthCouncil, adopted Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry: TowardsEnvironmentally Sustainable Development. This agenda supports the pro-motion of tourism under a healthy, productive and natural frameworkby further recognising the need for the conservation, protection and re-habilitation of ecosystems (WTTC, WTO, & Earth Council, 1995). Withinthis context, the economic benefits of tourism in conservation areascould only be guaranteed if biodiversity protection is supported(Dharmaratne, Sang, & Walling, 2000; Sodhi & Ehrlich, 2010; Walpole& Goodwin, 2001).

An increasing number of studies have begun to highlight the value ofquietness in natural environments (Klijn, Buij, Dijkstra, Luttik, &Veeneklaas, 2000; Pan & Ryan, 2007). The emotional experience gainedby visitors is often expressed as a sensory perception of silence (Booi &van den Berg, 2012) and tranquillity (Jackson et al., 2008). Regardless ofthe terminology used, the absence of noise is often referred to as silence.Consequently, the visual and auditory perception of well-being relatedto an environment free of human disturbance (defined as tranquillity)reflects the value of natural quiet. The importance of quietness hasreceived broad acknowledgement within the framework of a series ofprojects and policies undertaken at national and international levels.This action supports the need to identify and conserve quiet areas(QAs) as sites of a high acoustic value [defined on the basis of the direc-tive 2002/49/EC (European Commission)]. QAs could potentially attract

1 The day–evening–night level Lden in decibels (dB) is defined by the following formula:

Lden ¼ 10 log1=24 12 � 10Lday=10 þ 4 � 10 Leveningþ5ð Þ=10 þ 8 � 10 Lnightþ10ð Þ=10h i

in which:

— Lday is the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in ISO 1996-2: 1987,determined over all the day periods of a year,

— Levening is the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in ISO 1996-2:1987, determined over all the evening periods of a year,

— Lnight is the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in ISO 1996-2:1987, determined over all the night periods of a year.

11N.-E.P. Votsi et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 11 (2014) 10–17

tourism, as they constitute areas that are free of anthropogenic noise(Caffyn & Prosser, 1998). Hence, the existence of a QA presupposesthe lack of human dominated soundscapes and, thus, the lack of activi-ties that are considered to alter habitats and degrade ecosystems. QAscould also be used to preserve the natural environment while improv-ing themental health and negative psychological conditions (i.e. reduc-tion of stress, annoyance and symptoms of depression) of individuals(Maas, Verheij, Groenewegen, de Vries, & Spreeuwenberg, 2006). QAslocated in open countryside are mostly composed of forests and semi-natural areas absent of roads (Votsi, Drakou, Mazaris, Kallimanis, &Pantis, 2012). Therefore, QAsmight be associatedwith the developmentof green tourism, since they offer natural quiet as an additional ecosys-tem service to the processes that are gained when the biodiversity con-servation of protected areas is guaranteed (Barber et al., 2011; Kepe,2001). Moreover, QAs provide the appropriate background for thestatus of quietness, from which feasible green tourism activities couldbe efficiently established.

The general concept of green tourism embraces natural quiet andpleasantness as a way to avoid the impacts of mass tourism (Jones,1987). Green tourism serves the recommendations and plans of Agenda21, and is focused on sustainable development, supporting the use of en-vironment-friendly technology, promoting the socio-cultural initiativesand achieving conservation targets in areas of high biodiversity value.According to Travis (1987), green tourism is “the phenomenon of peopleaway from their usual habitat in pursuit for leisure activities in thecountry and ski resorts”. From a tourism management perspective,green tourismmay be considered as a form of tourism that is correlatedwith social, economic and environmental profits offered by nature(Jones, 1987). Green tourism operates within conservation areaswhere the exploitation of natural resources in a wild or undevelopedform is permitted, with a major focus onmaintaining the attractivenessand viability of these areas (Eagles, McCool, & Haynes, 2002). Greentourism actually incorporates the principles of ecotourism, and developsthe environmentally responsible travel and visitation of natural areas(Cavaliere, 2010; Hidinger, 1996).

It is important to acknowledge the value of quietness as an environ-ment-friendly service, while integrating the core principles of greentourism (Jones, 1987). Therefore, the development of an efficient andprecise way to identify QAs in natural areas has become critical for thegrowth of green tourism, as well as the conservation of natural areas.The Natura 2000 network of conservation areas, which represents thecornerstone of the European strategy for biodiversity conservation(Chiarucci, Bacaro, & Rocchini, 2008), promotes conservation and eco-system protection by further supporting the sustainable provision ofecosystem goods and services (Bastian, 2013). The directives on whichthe network was established (Birds Directive: 2009/147/EC & HabitatsDirective: 92/43/EEC) support the economic, social, cultural and regionalrequirements for the management processes involved in designatingthese areas (Alphandéry & Fortier, 2001). Consequently, certain humanactivities, which do not pose a threat or pressure to biodiversity, aresupported.

The present study aimed to introduce a reliable coarse scale, timeand cost efficient methodology to investigate whether quietness couldbe considered as a predictor of the value of natural areas and, hence,indicator for green tourism development. We considered quietness tobe an additional ecosystem service that, by definition, could benefitand facilitate conservation and promote environment-friendly tourism.Within this framework, we identified QAs at a national level (Greece),and overlaid them with the Natura 2000 network. To evaluate whetherthe properties of the two integrated networks promote green tourism,we explored whether different levels of quietness and the presence ofspecific land use types favoured certain human activities. Therefore,the significant correlation of quiet conservation areas with activitiessupporting green tourism was considered as an indicator of ideal areasthat fulfil all requirements towards supporting the development of en-vironmentally sustainable tourism.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

Greece is located in the southeast Mediterranean Basin, and coversan area of 131,957 km2 (Fig. 1). The country has an extreme diversityin countryside landscapes, including the traditional components thatare recognised in rural areas, as well as forestry areas where alternativeforms of tourism could potentially be promoted. Greece also containshundreds of islands and a coastline of around 15,000 km, which, alongwith the country's favourable climatic conditions, could lead to therapid development of green tourism based on the natural folkloric,gastronomic and architectural heritage of remote areas (Anthopoulou,2000). Greece is already renowned for its tourism resorts, includingthe capitol city of Athens and the island of Crete.

2.2. Methodological approach

The proposedmethodological framework involved a) implementinga spatial model for QA identification, b) integrating the QA networkwith the Natura 2000 conservation network, and c) investigatingwhether sites in the integrated network, which reflect natural quietness,actually favour green tourism development compared to conservationsites that are not considered quite.

2.2.1. Identifying QAsWe applied Geographical Information System (GIS) technologies to

assist in the identification of QAs within the conservation areas of theNatura 2000 network. We used the Corine Land Cover 2000 database(http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data#c12=corine+land+cover+version+13, last accessed 18 January 2013), because it providesthebest available land cover data at 250-m resolution. At this resolution,it is feasible to form a common land unit for the assessment of QAs andNatura 2000, with the common layer being used to assess the land usetypes of the two networks.

Based on the established designation of QAs in Greece, we identifiedthemain noise sources and sound levels generated by humans, based onexisting literature reviews (among others Good Practice Guide on PortArea Noise Mapping and Management, 2008; Jackson et al., 2008;Ramis, Alba, Garcia, & Hernàndez, 2003). The cumulative effect ofnoise sources was also taken into account. We then buffered eachnoise source, by applying the mean radius value, assuming that thesound pressure level of the sources fell below the critical threshold(60 dB of Lden1), according to the basic principles of acoustics (Table 1).By overlaying the buffered noise sources onto a map of Greece, we de-fined the QA network. Finally, we excluded areas smaller than 10 km2

from our analysis, as the quiet status of such small areas could be ambig-uous (Votsi et al., 2012).

2.2.2. Integrating QAs and conservation areasThe Natura 2000 network contains 419 sites in Greece, of which 202

and 241 are designated as Special Protection Areas and Sites of Commu-nity Interest, respectively. After taking overlapping areas into account,

Fig. 1. The geographical position of Greece in relation to Europe and its altitudinal range.

12 N.-E.P. Votsi et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 11 (2014) 10–17

these sites covered a total area of 42,949 km2, representing approxi-mately 27.2% of the terrestrial area of Greece and 6.12% of the country'sterritorialwaters. After defining theQAnetwork,we overlaid theNatura2000 network, and intersected the two networks. As a result, the inte-grated network contained common areas covered by the two networks,which represented sites of both high biodiversity and acoustic value(Fig. 2). Finally, we calculated the cover of each Natura 2000 site thatwas also recognised as a QA.

2.2.3. Natural quiet as an indicator of green tourism developmentSites that belong to the integrated network are, by default, areas that

could support high biodiversity value, and are subjected to limitedanthropogenic related processes. However, to justify whether thesesites could be considered as “hotspots” for green tourism, a quantitativeindicator is required. For each Natura 2000 site, human activities thatmay influence conservation and management were a priori classifiedand systematically recorded. These data were collected by expertswith the responsibility of each Member State, according to StandardData Forms based on the Commission Decision of 18 December1996, concerning the site information format for the proposed

Table 1The various human-induced noise sources as well as the buffer zones implemented for each nidentify ‘noisy’ areas in Greece. In each case, after defining the noise levels (dB) of each noise stance that the sound level of each noise source falls below the 60 dB of Lden (threshold of qu

Noise sources

Road system (high-quality carriageway, dual carriageway and regional roads)Railway systemResidential areas (N10,000, N1000 inhabitants)Industries (major industrial centres, local industries)Construction sites (Corine code: 133)Recreational activities (green urban areas [Corine code: 141], sports and leisure activities[Corine code: 142])

Airports (the most highly traffic load, major airports)PortsMultiple noise sources

For a detailed description of the methodological approach, please consult Votsi et al. (2012).

Natura 2000 sites (EC, 2000). From a total of 155 recognised recordedhuman activities, we selected 66 that could be related to tourism activ-ities. We grouped the selected activities into three categories, namely:a) green tourism activities (n=10), b) deterrent for green tourism activ-ities (n= 30), and c) all forms of tourism activities (n= 26) (Table 2).To evaluate the performance of these sites, we examined the relation-ship between the number of activities and the percentage of quietnesswithin the conservation areas using Spearman correlation. In addition,in an attempt to examine any potential difference in the abundance ofgreen tourism activities between sites with high and low QA cover, weperformed a non-parametric Mann–Whitney test. To proceed with thepairwise comparisons in activity abundance,we grouped sites by apply-ing different thresholds of % QA cover.

3. Results

We found that 315 out of the 371 Natura 2000 sites have a percent-age of quietness, covering the 58.98% of national Natura 2000 networksurface area. Land use composition results demonstrated that theintersected network primarily contained forested and semi-natural

oise source and for their potential combinations that were taken into account in order toource we performed a distance-based methodology which allowed us to compute the dis-ietness, according to 2002/49/EC Directive's recommendations).

Buffer zone (km)

0.8, 0.6, 0.550.651, 0.51.1, 0.510.7

1.5, 0.90.6Two, three, and four noise sources: 100%, 150%, and 200% increase of the applied bufferzone respectively

Fig. 2. The appliedmethodological approachwith a view to determining the integrated network of protected and quiet areas that could potentially constitute “hotspots” for green tourism.

Table 2The various facilities as they are grouped in the three categories related to tourism activities with the number of protected areas they are recorded in.

Green tourism activities (number of sites) Deterrent for green tourism activities (number of sites) All forms of touristic activities (number of sites)

Cultivation (202) Use of pesticides (98) Communication networks (26)General forestry management (70) Removal of hedges and copses (18) Railway lines, TGV (20)Forest planting (9) Forestry clearance (19) Port areas (22)Animal breeding (42) Forest exploitation without replanting (13) Airport (9)Leisure fishing (76) Burning (118) Aerodrome, heliport (4)Hunting (259) Bait digging (2) Bridge, viaduct (17)Agricultural structures (24) Taking/Removal of fauna, general (32) Tunnel (9)Paths, tracks, cycling tracks (81) Taking from nest (falcons) (9) Energy transport (3)Improved access to site (28) Trapping, poisoning, poaching (56) Electricity lines (40)Outdoor sports and leisure activities (12) Taking/Removal of flora, general (45) Pipe lines (1)

Pillaging of floristic stations (3) Shipping (21)Sand and gravel extraction (30) Sport and leisure structures (13)Removal of beach materials (7) Golf course (1)Exploration and extraction of oil or gas (2) Skiing complex (13)Mines (7) Stadium (1)Open cast mining (20) Circuit, track (3)Salt works (7) Hippodrome (1)Urbanised areas, human habitation (70) Attraction park (6)Dispersed habitation (59) Sports pitch (4)Industrial or commercial areas (18) Interpretative centres (5)Factory (11) Nautical sports (28)Industrial stockage (3) Walking, horse riding and non-motorised vehicles (30)Discharges (1) Motorised vehicles (22)Pollution (11) Mountaineering, rock climbing, speleology (36)Air pollution (6) Gliding, delta plane, paragliding, ballooning (1)Soil pollution (9) Skiing, off-piste (9)Trampling, overuse (44)Military manoeuvres (26)Vandalism (2)Landfill, land reclamation and drying out, general (16)

13N.-E.P. Votsi et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 11 (2014) 10–17

14 N.-E.P. Votsi et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 11 (2014) 10–17

areas (83.04%). Agricultural areas represented 12.99% of the inte-grated network. Wetlands and water bodies represented only asmall percentage of the integrated network (1.2% and 0.85%, respec-tively) (Appendix).

A total of 1886 human activity records were available for 303 of theNatura 2000 sites (81.67% of all Natura 2000 network sites in Greece).The percentage of quietness was significantly positively correlatedwith the number of green tourism activities recorded within each site(Rs = 0.117, df= 301, p= 0.041). In contrast, we found no significantassociation between the number of deterrent for green tourism activities(Rs = 0.055, df=301, p= 0.338) or the number of all forms of touristicactivities (Rs = 0.044, df=301, p= 0.440) with respect to the percent-age of quietness within protected sites.

We found that green tourism activities exhibited significantly higherlevels of occurrence in Natura 2000 sites with more than 30% of quiet-ness (Ugreen tourism activities = 9757.00, p b 0.05). However, no suchcorrelation was detected for deterrent for green tourism activities andall forms of tourism activities (Table 3 and Fig. 3).

4. Discussion

This study demonstrated that natural quiet is associated with greentourism development. This finding indicates that the patterns of greentourism development are not only driven by the presence of high biodi-versity value, but are significantly affected by the acoustic value of agiven site, encompassing both attractiveness and reduced environmentalimpact (Langer, 1996). Moreover, the assessment of QAs showed that ahigh amount of quiet surface area is not protected in Greece, wheremea-sures to preserve quietness could be implemented. Alternatively, whensuch actions are not feasible, green tourismdevelopment should be imple-mented where possible, rather than unregulated growth. In quiet Natura2000 sites,where the fundamentals of green tourism could be implement-ed, we reaffirmed the special meaning of the quietness in protected areasunder the concept of natural quiet.

The expansion and heterogeneous structure of human demands onthe environment are clearly threatening natural resources. Ecologicalprocesses and areas of high conservation or tourism interest could beidentified by assessing the landscape background, through the identifi-cation of underlying land use types. Forests and semi-natural areaswerethe primary land-use types within the integrated network, highlightingtheir dominant role as reserves of life and human culture (Burneika &Kriaučiūnas, 2007). Forests form key policy targets that embrace thetourism–protection relationship, increasing the expected return of con-servation actions (Essex, 2000; Kirkby et al., 2010). Our analysis showedthe importance of effectively managing such areas with the view of pro-moting environmental appreciation, while simultaneously guaranteeingbiodiversity conservation.

Agricultural areas with low human pressure dominate conservationareas that are designated in artificial landscapes (Naughton-Treves,Holland, &Brandon, 2005). Agricultural landscapes contain a considerablereserve of biodiversity (Clergue, Amiaud, Pervanchon, Lasserre-Joulin, &Plantureux, 2005; Stoate et al., 2009). In parallel, these landscapes offer

Table 3The differences in the three categories of human activities in conservation areas with apercentage more than 30% cover of quietness.

Categories Mann–Whitney U

Asymp. sig.(2-tailed)

Effect size

N30% Of quietnessSum of activities 11365.00 0.894 −0.007Green tourism activities 9757.00 0.021a −0.132Deterrent for green tourism activities 10923.50 0.469 −0.041All forms of tourism activities 10940.00 0.467 −0.041

a The differences are significant at the 0.05 level.

unique scenic value, which attracts visitors (Arroyo, Barbieri, & Rich,2013; Meeus, 1993), providing an opportunity for the developmentof agroecotourism and agroentertainment (Cavaliere, 2010). Thesefeatures, in combination with a high quality acoustic environment,could reinforce the connection of tourists with regional identity, her-itage values, rural vitality and ambience (Choo & Jamal, 2009).Hence, a multifunctional agriculture scheme could be created, ensur-ing both the preservation of biological diversity and the traditions ofthe rural landscape, as well as contributing to the economy and itspositive externalities associated with conservation farming practices(Batie, 2003; Butler & Stiakaki, 2001). Therefore, the implementationof green tourism in agricultural areas could foster sustainabilitythrough the development of policies and decision making processesthat give special emphasis to environment-friendly practices (Castellani,2010).

Wetlands and water bodies were also identified as important landuse types in the integrated network. Water resources constitute one ofthe most preferable destinations for tourists (Pigram & Butler, 1995;Ryan, Ninov, & Aziz, 2012; Stein, Denny, & Pennisi, 2003), emphasisingthe need for these areas to be sustainably managed in relation to biodi-versity conservation concepts. Furthermore, previous research hasshown that the benefits of water resources are difficult to quantify,and are often slow to be realised (Agardy, 1994). Islands, which arealso included in this category, demonstrate significant differences andparticularities in comparison to continental areas. It is these special fea-tures that make islands attractive as tourist destinations (Coccossis,2001) and, thus, require careful design regarding their developmentand the exploitation of their resources, with the view of preservingtheir biodiversity.

Our analyses revealed that when the percentage of quietnessexceeds a certain threshold (30%), the activities that are undertaken inprotected areas are more likely to be related to green tourism. We ac-knowledge that the studied sites have diverse surface areas and history(i.e. culture) and could, thus, be subjected to a different number of activ-ities. However, it is likely that this threshold actually reflects the infra-structure and development that has been undertaken at these sites.Evenwithin large conservation areas, a high cover of quietness indicatesthat rather limited activities are implemented, thus ensuring ecosystemconservation. Therefore, in protected areas that have more than 30%surface area of quietness in their territory, policy-making decisionsshould be carefully designated to preserve these sites. Furthermore,only human activities that may be realised in an environment-friendly way should be permitted, to retain this important quietnesslevel.

Green tourism development constitutes a means of achieving thisgoal. More precisely, tourism represents one of the most prominent in-dustries in Greece. Yet, while the need for sustainable development isoften highlighted by legislation, policy and strategy, these needs arenot always realised in practice (Pridham, 1999). Quietness in protectedareas could indicate areas suitable for green tourism development and,thus, contribute to sustainable tourismmanagement that offers benefitsat national and even international levels.

Research on tourism development tends to focus on the methodo-logical approach of visitor counts (Egoh, Drakou, Dunbar, Maes, &Willemen, 2012). Here, we developed an objective methodologicalframework that could provide a time and cost-effective quantitative in-dicator for the assessment, planning and management of green tourismdevelopment. Natural sounds reflect the natural properties of a givenarea and, also, provide an identity to social and cultural activities(Giaccardi, Eden, & Sabena, 2005). The term QA, as defined by the Envi-ronmental Noise Directive (END) (2002/49/EC), reflects areas with lowlevels of human noise that could be either silent or tranquil, offering pos-itive emotional experiences. Silence usually refers to areas that lack anysource of noise, while tranquillity implies a combination of low noiselevels and a perception of serenity and peace of mind. Quietness repre-sents a more technical term, which could be described by measuring

Fig. 3. The Natura 2000 network indicating conservation areas with more than 30% quietness, potentially representing “hotspots” for green tourism development.

15N.-E.P. Votsi et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 11 (2014) 10–17

sound levels and assessing their importance (Chen, Gregoire, & Maher,2005; Papadimitriou, Mazaris, Kallimanis, & Pantis, 2009; Waugh,Durucam, Korre, Hetherington, & O’Reilly, 2003). Within this context,quietness should be considered as an indicator of acoustic environmentalquality (e.g. silence, tranquillity) that does not jeopardise the culturaland environmental identity of the landscape (Mazaris, Kallimanis,Chatzigianidis, Papadimitriou, & Pantis, 2009).

Undoubtedly, the technique of overlappingmaps of biodiversity andhigh acoustic value constitutes a means of identifying quiet naturalareas. The preservation of QAs, especially in protected areas, mightpotentially counteract the continuously spreading impacts of environ-mental noise (Maffei et al., 2013). The methodological approach pro-posed in this study, which actually defines the geographical extensionof QAs in the natural environment,might present away of guaranteeingthe development of effective environmental management strategiestowards mitigating noise pollution.

In addition, our study revealed the important role of natural quiet byidentifying “hotspots” of green tourism development. The identificationand mapping of viable areas for green tourism development contributesto the EC's endeavour to include ecosystem services into conservationpolicy (Egoh et al., 2012). The innovative technique of overlappingmaps of biodiversity and acoustic value might represent a means ofidentifying areas of potential value for green tourism, which have beensubjected to limited development and urbanisation (see also Votsiet al., 2012). Furthermore, this technique could also be to identifyareas for preservation by restricting further development and humaninvasion.

5. Conclusions

Green tourism may contribute to the protection and the recovery ofthe cultural and environmental heritage of a site, the development oftourist activities and the economic recovery (Convention of BiologicalDiversity [CBD], 1993; Leitis, 2011; Ryan, 2010). Green tourism providesthe basis for shifting from a single enjoyment and satisfaction to stages ofgreater understanding, attitude change and environmentally responsible

behaviour, leading to a sophisticated form of cognitive tourism develop-ment embracing all types of environment-friendly tourism (Burneika &Kriaučiūnas, 2007; Coles, Fenclova, & Dinan, 2013; Kosiewicz, 2008).The benefits (i.e. cultural, financial and social) that could be achievedunder controlled, well designed tourism growth are likely to further facil-itate the reduction of potential conflicts (Hsu & Lin, 2013). However, indi-cators of green tourism development must be defined to realise thesestated endpoints. QAs and protected sites seem to act as drivers of greentourism; thus, the spatial assessment of these parameters could be usedto objectively define ideal areas for green tourism development. Whilethe introduction of tourism to conservation areas risks reducing their in-tegrity, the preservation of and respect for natural quietness present away to guarantee biodiversity conservation within the concept of greentourism.

Appendix. Land use type composition of the integrated network ofBiodiversity andAcoustic value inGreece. Thenomenclature is basedon Corine Land Cover 2000 database. The total area of each land usetype in the integrated network is depicted alongwith the % percent-age of these areas in the integrated network and in the Greekterritory.

Land use type

Hotspotsfor greentourism(km2)

Hotspots for greentourism in the total areaof the intersectednetwork (%)

Hotspots forgreen tourismin Greece (%)

Artificial Surfaces

111 (continuous urban fabric) 0 0 0 112 (discontinuous urbanfabric)

16.58

0.07 0.01

121 (industrial & commercialunits)"

0

0 0

122 (road & rail networks)

0 0 0 123 (sea ports) 0 0 0 124 (airports) 0 0 0

(continued on next page)

16 N.-E.P. Votsi et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 11 (2014) 10–17

(continued)

Land use type

Hotspotsfor greentourism(km2)

Hotspots for greentourism in the total areaof the intersectednetwork (%)

Hotspots forgreen tourismin Greece (%)

131 (mineral extraction sites)

0 0 132 (dump) 0 0 0 133 (construction sites) 0 0 0 141 (green urban areas) 0 0 0 142 (sport & leisure facilities) 0 0 0

Agricultural Areas

211 (non-irrigated arable land) 990.57 4.71 0.75 212 (permanently irrigatedland)

198.17

0.94 0.15

213 (rice fields)

39.71 0.18 0.03 221 (vineyards) 21.13 0.10 0.01 222 (fruit trees & berriesplantations)"

42.03

0.20 0.03

223 (olive groves)

150.35 0.71 0.11 231 (pastures) 34.69 0.16 0.02 241 (annual crops associatedwith permanent crops)

0

0 0

242 (complex cultivationpatterns)

209.34

0.99 0.15

243 (land principally occupiedby agriculture withsignificant areas of naturalvegetation)

1,051.53

5 0.79

244 (agro-forestries)

0 0 0

Forest and Semi-natural areas

311 (broad-leaved forests) 2,922.86 13.92 2.21 312 (coniferous forests) 2,133.17 10.16 1.62 313 (mixed forests) 994.68 4.50 0.71 321 (natural grassland) 3,300.25 15.72 2.5 322 (moors & heathlands) 313.61 0.49 0.23 323 (Sclerophyllousvegetation)

4,285.65

20.49 3.24

324 (transitional woodlandscrub)

2,704.18

12.88 2.04

331 (beaches. dunes. sand)

39.45 0.18 0.02 332 (bare rocks) 120.71 0.57 0.09 333 (sparsely vegetated areas) 856.94 4.08 0.64 334 (burnt areas) 11.34 0.05 0 335 (glaciers & permanentsnowfields)

0

0 0

Wetlands

411 (inland marshes) 87.79 0.44 0.07 412 (peat bogs) 0 0 0 421 (salt marshes) 102.72 0.76 0.12 422 (salines) 6.54 0 0 423 (Intertidal flats) 0 0 0

Water Bodies

511 (stream courses) 17.25 0.09 0.01 512 (water bodies) 359.45 0.66 0.27 521 (coastal lagoons) 28.85 0.10 0.02 522 (estuaries) 0.47 0 0 523 (sea and ocean) 0 0 0

References

Agardy, T. (1994). Advances in marine conservation: The role of marine protected areas.Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 9, 267–270.

Alphandéry, P., & Fortier, A. (2001). Can a territorial policy be based on science alone? Thesystem for creating the Natura 2000 network in France. Sociologia Ruralis, 41,311–328.

Anthopoulou, T. (2000). Agrotourism and rural environment: Constraints and opportuni-ties in the Mediterranean less-favoured areas. In H. Briassoulis, & J. van de Straaten(Eds.), Tourism and the environment: Regional, economic, cultural and policy issues(pp. 357–371). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Archer, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The positive and negative impacts of tourism. In W.Theobold (Ed.), Global tourism: The next decade (pp. 69–91). London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Arroyo, C. G., Barbieri, C., & Rich, S. R. (2013). Defining agritourism: A comparative study ofstakeholders' perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tourism Management, 37,39–47.

Baker, P. R. (1986). Natural area destinations: The Moroccan experience. TourismManagement, 7, 129–131.

Barber, J. R., Burdett, C. L., Reed, S. E., Warner, K. A., Formichella, C., Crooks, K. R., et al.(2011). Anthropogenic noise exposure in protected natural areas: Estimating thescale of ecological consequences. Landscape Ecology, 26, 1281–1295.

Bastian, O. (2013). The role of biodiversity in supporting ecosystem services inNatura 2000 sites. Ecological Indicators, 24, 12–22.

Batie, S. S. (2003). The multifunctional attributes of north-eastern agriculture: A researchagenda. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 32, 1–8.

Booi, H., & van den Berg, F. (2012). Quiet areas and the need for quietness inAmsterdam. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,9(4), 1030–1050.

Burneika, D., & Kriaučiūnas, E. (2007). Some premises for balanced development of eco-tourism on the territory of Lithuania. Ekologija, 53, 10–15.

Butler, R., & Stiakaki, E. (2001). Tourism and sustainability in the Mediterranean: Issuesand implications. In D. Ioannides, Y. Apostolopoulos, & S. F. Sonmez (Eds.),Mediterra-nean Islands and Sustainable Tourism Development: Practices, Management and Policies(pp. 282–300). London: Continuum.

Caffyn, A., & Prosser, B. (1998). A review of policies for ‘quiet areas’ in the National Parksof England and Wales. Leisure Studies, 17, 269–291.

Castellani, V. (2010). Methodologies and indicators to assess sustainability in tourism andagriculture. (Doctoral Dissertation). Italy: University of Milano (Retrieved from:http://boa.unimib.it/handle/10281/10332#.UDCHwd0aPzM, Last accessed 18 January2013).

Catibog-Sinha, C. (2010). Biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism: Philippineinitiatives. (Special Issue). Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5, 297–309.

Cavaliere, C. (2010). Sustainable agroecotourism ventures for low-carbon societies. Paperpresented at the meeting of the Recreation Values & Natural Areas Symposium, Otago,New Zealand.

Chen, Z., Gregoire, B. J., Maher, R. C., et al. (2005, October). Acoustical monitoring researchfor national parks and wilderness areas. In. Audio Engineering Society Convention 119.Audio Engineering Society.

Chiarucci, A., Bacaro, G., & Rocchini, D. (2008). Quantifying plant species diversity in aNatura 2000 network: Old ideas and new proposals. Biological Conservation, 141,2608–2618.

Choo, H., & Jamal, T. (2009). Tourism on organic farms in South Korea: A new form of eco-tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17, 431–454.

Clergue, B., Amiaud, B., Pervanchon, F., Lasserre-Joulin, F., & Plantureux, S. (2005).Biodiversity: Function and assessment in agricultural areas. A review.Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 25, 1–15.

Coccossis, H. (2001). Sustainable development and tourism in small islands: Some lessonsfrom Greece. (Special Issue). Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism andHospitality Research, 12, 53–58.

Coles, T., Fenclova, E., & Dinan, C. (2013). Tourism and corporate social responsibility: Acritical review and research agenda. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 122–141.

Convention of Biological Diversity (1993). Retrieved from. http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp (Last accessed 18 January 2013)

Dharmaratne, G. S., Sang, F. Y., & Walling, L. J. (2000). Tourism potential for financingprotected areas. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 590–610.

Driml, S., & Common, M. (1996). Ecological economics criteria for sustainable tourism:Application to the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics World Heritage Areas,Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4, 3–16.

Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F., & Haynes, C. D. A. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protectedareas: Guidelines for planning and management. Switzerland and Cambridge, UK:IUCN Gland (xv + 183 pp.).

Egoh, B., Drakou, E. G., Dunbar, M. B., Maes, J., & Willemen, L. (2012). Indicators formapping ecosystem services: A review. (111 pp.). European Commission EUR25456 – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability.Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

EC (European Commission). (2000). Natura 2000 Standard Data Form: Explanatory NotesBrussels.

Essex, S. (2000). Forest tourism and recreation: Case studies in environmental manage-ment. In X. Font, & J. Tribe (Eds.), Tourism Management, 22. (pp. 669–670). Walling-ford: CABI Publishing0-85199-414-8.

Farrell, B., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Seven steps towards sustainability: Tourism in thecontext of new knowledge. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13, 109–122.

Gantioler, S., Rayment, M., Bassi, S., Kettunen, M., McConville, A., Landgrebe, R., et al.(2010). Costs and socio-economic benefits associated with the Natura 2000 network.Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038Brussels: Institute for European Environmental Policy/GHK/Ecologic.

Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., & Sabena, G. (2005). The silence of the lands: Interactivesoundscapes for the continuous rebirth of cultural heritage. Proceedings ofCUMULUS Lisbon (pp. 163–168).

Good practice guide on port area noise mapping and management. (2008): Noise Manage-ment in European Ports (NoMEPorts).

Hall, M. C. (2010). Tourism and biodiversity: More significant than climate change?[Special Issue]. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5, 253–266.

Hidinger, L. A. (1996). Measuring the impacts of ecotourism on animal popula-tions: A case study of Tikal National Park, Guatemala. In E. Malek-Zadeh(Ed.), The ecotourism equation: Measuring the impacts. Bulletin Series. (pp.49–59) Yale Univ. Press, New Haven.

Hsu, H. C., & Lin, J. C. (2013). Benefits beyond boundaries: A slogan or reality? A casestudy of Taijiang National Park in Taiwan. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6,41–52.

Jackson, S., Fuller, D., Dunsfold, H., Mowbray, R., Hext, S., MacFarlane, R., et al.(2008). Tranquillity mapping: Developing a robust methodology for planning

17N.-E.P. Votsi et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 11 (2014) 10–17

support. Centre for Environmental & Spatial AnalysisUK: Northumbria Universi-ty, Bluespace Environments and the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.

Jones, A. (1987). Green tourism. Tourism Management, 8, 354–356.Kepe, T. (2001). Tourism, protected areas and development in South Africa: Views

of visitors to Mkambati Nature Reserve. South African Journal of Wildlife Re-search, 31, 155–159.

Kirkby, C. A., Giudice-Granados, R., Day, B., Turner, K., Velarde-Andrade, L. M.,Dueñas-Dueñas, A., et al. (2010). Themarket triumph of ecotourism: An economic in-vestigation of the private and social benefits of competing land uses in the PeruvianAmazon. PLoS One, 5, e13015.

Klijn, J. A., Buij, A. E., Dijkstra, H., Luttik, J., & Veeneklaas, F. R. (2000). The forgotten valuesof nature and landscape. Use and appreciation measured in money and emotional value.Wageningen: Alterra Green World Research.

Kosiewicz, J. (2008). The anthropological background of the philosophical reflection onnature and tourism. European Journal for Sport and Society, 5, 143–151.

Langer, G. (1996). Traffic noise and hotel profits—Is there a relationship? TourismManagement, 17, 295–305.

Leitis, E. (2011). The role of ecotourism in the reduction of anthropogenic load on Natura2000 territories throughout Latvia. Scientific Journal of Riga Technical University, 7,79–86.

Liu, C., Li, J., & Pechacek, P. (2013). Current trends of ecotourism in China's nature re-serves: A review of the Chinese literature. Tourism Management Perspectives, 7,16–24.

Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Greenspace, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? Journal of EpidemiologicalCommunity Health, 60, 587–592.

Maffei, L., Iachini, T., Masullo, M., Aletta, F., Sorrentino, F., Senese, V. P., et al. (2013). Theeffects of vision-related aspects on noise perception of wind turbines in quiet areas.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10, 1681–1697.

Mazaris, A.D., Kallimanis, A. S., Chatzigianidis, G., Papadimitriou, K., & Pantis, J.D. (2009).Spatiotemporal analysis of an acoustic environment: Interactions between landscapefeatures and sounds. Landscape Ecology, 24(6), 817–831.

Meeus, J. H. A. (1993). The transformation of agricultural landscapes in Western Europe.Science of the Total Environment, 129, 171–190.

Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M. B., & Brandon, K. (2005). The role of protected areas inconserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review ofEnvironment and Resources, 30, 219–252.

Pablo-Romero, M. del P., & Molina, J. A. (2013). Tourism and economic growth: A reviewof empirical literature. Tourism Management Perspectives, 8, 28–41.

Pan, S., & Ryan, C. (2007). Mountain areas and visitor usage—Motivations and determi-nants of satisfaction: The case of Pirongia Forest Park, New Zealand. Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 15(3), 288–308.

Papadimitriou, K. D., Mazaris, A.D., Kallimanis, A. S., & Pantis, J.D. (2009). Carto-graphic representation of the sonic environment. Cartographic Journal, 46(2),126–135.

Pigram, J. J., & Butler, R. W. (1995). Resource constraints on tourism:Water resources andsustainability. In R. W. Butler, & D. Pearce (Eds.), Change in tourism: People, places,processes (pp. 208–228). London: Routledge.

Pridham, G. (1999). Towards sustainable tourism in the Mediterranean? Policy andpractice in Italy, Spain and Greece. Environmental Politics, 8, 97–116.

Ramis, J., Alba, J., Garcia, D., & Hernàndez, F. (2003). Noise effects of reducing traffic flowthrough a Spanish city. Applied Acoustics, 64, 343–364.

Ryan, C. (2010). Ways of conceptualizing the tourist experience: A review of literature.Tourism Recreation Research, 35(1), 37–46.

Ryan, C., Ninov, I., & Aziz, H. (2012). Ras Al Khor—Eco-tourism in constructed wetlands:Post modernity in the modernity of the Dubai landscape. Tourism ManagementPerspectives, 4, 185–197.

Sodhi, N. S., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2010). Conservation biology for all. : Oxford University Press.Stein, T. V., Denny, C. B., & Pennisi, L. A. (2003). Using visitors' motivations to provide

learning opportunities at water-based recreation areas. Journal of SustainableTourism, 11, 404–425.

Stoate, C., Báldi, A., Beja, P., Boatman, N. D., Herzon, I., van Doorn, A., et al. (2009). Ecolog-ical impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe—A review. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 91, 22–46.

Travis, T. (1987). New tourism and new types of tourist attraction. Collana della ScuolaInternazionale di Scienze Turistiche di Roma, 17, 181–191.

Votsi, N. E. P., Drakou, E. G., Mazaris, A.D., Kallimanis, A. S., & Pantis, J.D. (2012).Distance-based assessment of open country quiet areas in Greece. Landscape andUrban Planning, 104, 279–288.

Walpole, M. J., & Goodwin, H. J. (2001). Local attitudes towards conservation andtourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation,28, 160-166.

Waugh, D., Durucam, S., Korre, A., Hetherington, O., & O’Reilly, B. (2003). Environmentalquality objectives, noise in quiet areas (2000-MS-14-M1). Synthesis Report, prepared

for the Environmental Protection Agency, by SWS environmental services (pp. 32). SWSgroup.

WTTC, WTO & Earth Council (1995). Agenda 21 for the travel and tourism industry:Towards environmentally sustainable development. London: WTTC.

John D. Pantis is professor of Ecology, and his research ex-pertise includes the fields of landscape and acoustic ecologyandwith a focus on applying this knowledge tomanagementand conservation of protected Areas. He is experienced instudying the structure, dynamics and also the potential im-

pacts of anthropogenic activities upon Mediterranean eco-systems. He served as the first President of the NationalMarine Park of Zakynthos, where he developed a series ofmethodologies regarding indices of environmental stresswhile he alsoworked on environmental education programstowards raising public awareness for ecology and conserva-tion. John Pantis has supervised 12 PhD students and partic- ipated in more than 20 research programs. Currently JohnPantis serves as the vice rector of Aristotle University.

Athanasios S. Kallimanis is assistant professor of Ecology,Natural Environment Conservation in the Department ofEnvironmental and Natural Resources Management at theUniversity of Patra. His research interest focuses oncomprehending the spatial patterns and network structureof ecological systems and their underlying mechanisms. Sofar his research has included both theoretical models and ob-servational studies on the role of spatial scale on the patternsand dynamics of ecological systems. Currently, he works onnetwork analysis of ecological interactions and networks ofprotected areas. Athanasios Kallimanis so far has worked inmore than 10 Greek and 4 European research projects.

Antonios D. Mazaris is a lecturer at the Department ofEcology at Aristotle University. His main research interestlies in thefields of conservation biogeography and numericalecology. His is investigating how patterns of biological diver-sity change over time and space. Towards this direction hehas worked on a series of different taxa (such as sea turtles,birds, and plants), under different ecological scales combin-ing aspects of population ecology, conservation biology andsimulation modelling. Furthermore, he is currently workingon the evaluation of the efficiency of existing networks ofprotected areas but also the development of new methodsfor reserve network selection and evaluation, and for exam-ining the connectivity and structure of such networks.

Nefta-Eleftheria P. Votsi is a PhD student at Aristotle Univer-sity where her dissertation focuses on the development of anintegrated network of Biodiversity and Acoustic value. Her pri-mary research interests include landscape ecology, acousticecology, ecosystem services and conservation biology. She'scurrently studying the role ofQuietness inprotected areas’pat-terns and mechanisms. She has also received a research grantfor her thesis, co-financed by the Greek Ministry of Educationand Religion Affairs and the European Social Fund, while shehas been training in soundscape studies in the Built Environ-ment Control Laboratory of the Architecture and Interior De-sign Department at the Second University of Napoli.