No abstract

Extension of spatial planning from land to the marine space has recently become a key procedure for tackling the growing environmental and blue growth related challenges. However, given the transboundary nature of the sea (facilitating the flow of all kinds of materials and calling for special considerations in terms of resource and ecosystem management) not all the philosophy, planning models and procedures can be "transplanted" from terrestrial to marine spatial planning. Governance issues are subject to the same limitation. This paper discusses key differences in the marine environment (compared to the land), which affect marine spatial planning and governance and is structured around the following key issues: (i) the public status of the sea, which involves a wide spectrum of stakeholders (among them the maritime regimes), (ii) the sovereign rights in the sea that are not separately defined by each state but by UNCLOS (especially beyond the territorial waters), (iii) the geopolitical constraints on proclaiming EEZs that reduce the area within which each coastal country can practice MSP, (iv) the usually non-defined administrative limits in the marine parts of a coastal country that impede decentralization of competencies and decision making, and (v) the lack of geospatial and socioeconomic and cultural data, which creates uncertainty both for the planners and decision-makers. This article concludes by highlighting the need for adopting a tailor-made MSP research agenda and by stressing the need to enhance crossborder cooperation as well as to make transboundary considerations when planning in the sea.

Maritime and coastal areas play an important role in the development of human activities and are a substantial influence on the economies of their respective hinterlands. Seas and coasts are among the most complex, vulnerable and sensitive to all natural ecosystems, and their management presents various problems and difficulties especially in our era of climate change in which coastal cities and populations face a range of serious threats (including rising sea levels). The singularity of these areas necessitates an equally singular handling of the issues of their land development and management.At the start of the 21st century the critical issue of the spatial regulation and organization of the seas and coasts is a key priority for Greece and the Mediterranean in the era of climate change. There can be no doubt that the Mediterranean's coastal and marine areas are facing ever greater risks from natural disasters and human pressures alike.Given the experience of EU and UN programs and projects initiated and run by other international organizations which have shown that implementing sustainable spatial development in the coasts and seas is anything but easy, there is clearly a great need for coordinated action and co-operation at the transnational and international level. During the past decade the EU has adopted a strategy for the maritime environment which was incorporated in an Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) (a European vision for the seas and the oceans). In the framework of the above policy the Commission launched in 2008 a road map for the Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) as the basic means for the implementation of the (IMP) and a fundamental tool for the sustainable development of the European seas and coasts.

Thermalism -now known as spa tourism -is an age-old activity in Greece, with a long and rich tradition. Through the millennia, Greece has not only managed to maintain the activity of thermalism intact, but has developed it even further, particularly in more recent times (especially since the beginning of the 19th century). Until the middle of the 20th century, Greece invested in quite a high number of spa facilities at various hot springs located throughout the country. Both domestic and foreign visitors were offered a very satisfactory level of spa services -mainly of a therapeutic nature -for a long period of time in the recent past. However, as perceptions concerning thermalism began to change at the end of the 20th century, new, more 'modern' facilities, exclusively dedicated to offering luxury services for health and well-being began to 'pop up' in the same areas, next to the 'classic' type of therapeutic spa facilities. It is certain that however much contemporary trends may force spa tourism to swing toward providing increasingly less therapeutic services, the relegation or supersession of the 'classic' type of facilities and services in the end will not constitute a solution, especially for local communities and the development of those areas. The present article is the result of extensive field research (the completion of questionnaires) conducted by the authors in the spa town of Kamena Vourla (the second-most important spa town in Greece). It is within the framework outlined above that the article attempts to sketch the various characteristics/profiles of visitors to 'modern' and 'classic' style facilities. The ultimate aim of this research is to suggest that the new type of facilities and their 'tourists' do not constitute a one-way street for the local development of hot springs areas; rather, on the contrary, they may indeed pose a trap if not broadened and suitably combined with the 'classic' type of therapeutic facilities already in place. Finally, based on the conclusions drawn from the research conducted, the article attempts to determine a suitable form of organization that may prove advantageous to spa tourism destinations. It is hoped that this type of organization might help these areas experience viable economic, social, environmental and other development, as viewed within the context of contemporary perceptions and trends.