183

Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 9, No 1, 183–199 (2008)

Environmental management

* For correspondence.

sPatial distribution of natural resources and their contribution to regional develoPment. the case of greece

S. PoLyZoSa, G. aRabaTZISb*aEngineering School, Department of Planning and Regional Development,

University of Thessaly, Pedion Areos, 38 334 Volos, Greece E-mail: spolyzos@uth.gr bDepartment of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, Democritus University of Thrace, 193 Pantazidou Street,68 200 Orestiada, Greece E-mail:garamp@fmenr.duth.gr

abstract. Traditionally, according to many regional development theories, the contribution of natu-ral resources is considered of definitive importance to economic regional development and to the existence or lack of regional inequalities. Gradually, however, economic and technological evolution has altered the significance of natural resources to regional development and has brought other to the forefront more important factors that greatly affect the level of economic development in each region. This article studies the contribution of natural resources to the economic development of the prefectures of Greece, a country characterised by strong inequalities both on prosperity and spatial concentration levels. More specifically, the resources are initially distributed into basic categories, followed by an examination of the correlation that exists between each resource and the whole group of resources and five different indicators of prosperity related to the prefectures of Greece.

Keywords: natural resources, regional development, Greece.

aIMS and backGRound

Regional inequalities in Greece present a considerable magnitude and despite the efforts made during the last four decades, the forces at their root have proven to be more powerful than enforced policy measures, since these inequalities continue to exist as a major economic and social problem1–4. Large amounts were spent after the 60’s for the reduction of regional inequalities through the implementation of public investments, aiming to promote the economic development of regional prefectures. Support was given to the sectors of agriculture, manufacturing and tourism. Infrastructure was built and incentives for regional development were instituted through the developmental laws, in order to turn the geographically ‘re-mote’ prefectures into more attractive areas and potential sites for investments.

184

however, the ‘regional problem’ remains, with a large number of Greek pre-fectures shrinking in population and not following the pace of more developed regions as regards to their economic situation. Such developments justifiably lead to concerns related to the effectiveness of applied regional policies, but mainly regarding the reasons causing this unbalanced development.

In the bibliography, classical and neoclassical theories in particular, often claim that the reasons behind these regional inequalities are generally the natural and geographical characteristics of regions and the unequal distribution of natural resources, such as the climate, geology, raw materials, etc.5,6 natural resources, also known as natural endowment, offer comparative advantages to the regions that possess them, and reinforce their developmental process, since they are either used directly in the primary sector for the production of goods or as an end product, or indirectly, to attract manufacturing businesses from the secondary sector that will exploit the said resources7,8.

contradictory views are also found in the bibliography, according to which the existence of natural resources is not considered a basic precondition for economic development in our day and age, since a shortage of natural resources may hinder development, but can in no way render it impossible6. In other cases, it is reported that the formulation of a competitive advantage in any region mainly depends on scientific knowledge, the level of applied technology and its productive dynamism9. In fact, characteristic examples mentioned are those of countries such as Japan, Taiwan, etc., which exhibit a remarkable economic development, while lacking in natural resources or at least being on a pair with other neighbouring countries.

It is obvious that natural resources, qualitative or quantitative, promote economic development and create preconditions for employment and prosperity. nevertheless, in the case of certain regions, the existence of natural resources does not suffice to counterbalance their disadvantages and to create a substantial competitive advantage that would lead to a relatively satisfactory level of develop-ment. besides, it may also be the case that a region with such resources is unable to adequately exploit them or that their exploitation is transferred to other regions by various means.

ThE ‘REGIonaL PRobLEM’ In GREEcE

Τhe ‘regional problem’ in Greece and spatial economic inequalities in general, are issues that greatly concern not only the public opinion, but also politicians and the public administration. Many Greek prefectures are unable to follow the pace of economic development observed in economically vibrant prefectures, despite the fact that they possess sufficient natural resources, and their social and cultural activities are downgraded. The ‘regional problem’ can be viewed under two differ-ent perspectives. The first is linked to the unequal geographical distribution of the

185

population and of productive activities, and the second relates to the differences in the levels of prosperity amongst the people living in the various prefectures.

The conclusions from the first consideration show that 50% of the population and 55-60% of productive activities in Greece are located in the broader urban areas of attica and Thessaloniki, with these figures increasing if the ‘satellite’ prefectures of attica are also included in the calculations. The concentration of the population in the rest of the country is relatively small, and this indirectly contributes to the unequal spatial distribution of productive and social infrastructure, services and opportunities for development, and to the overall state of the production sector’s structure.

Many Greek regions are characterised by a feeling of abandonment, since they present major developmental shortcomings, both in relation to the national and Eu average; there is intense criticism in these areas against the ’State of athens’, which seems indifferent to their fate. at the same time, it is reported that they share an ‘inner periphery’ status, since they are the least developed regions of a country (Greece) which is itself also one of the least developed countries of the Eu-15 (Ref. 10).

The conclusions from the second consideration point to significant inequalities in the mean prosperity levels of the prefectures, according to various indicators. although studies made during the last decade for Greece have acknowledged the existence of regional inequalities, the picture drawn for interregional inequalities is different, and varies according to the measurement tool used on each occasion. The final results of these studies do not converge, thus, providing an unclear image of the development of inequalities through time. consequently, some studies come to the conclusion that there is a gradual convergence in the levels of development11, some state that the spatial polarisation is maintained and there is no immediate prospect of economic convergence1 and others observe that a slight trend for con-vergence is emerging3,4,12. The common conclusion that all these studies do share their concern about the imminent increase of inequalities in the near future.

The above-mentioned studies primarily deal with an estimation of the level of prosperity and development in each region, and ignore the unequal spatial distribution of the population or the form of economic spatial polarisation. This means that the diachronic changes in spatial concentrations and the inequalities they cause are not examined, since there is logically a two-way relation between concentrations and levels of development. a possible reason for the inconsistent observations from the various quantitative analyses performed is that a great variety of techniques and statistical data have been used.

In order to depict the interregional inequalities on a prefecture level in Greece in the present study, and to explore their relation with the resources of each pre-fecture, 5 indicators will be used in alternate mode. Five indicators have been selected instead of one in order to increase the survey’s reliability, given that each

186

indicator presents the level of economic development in Greek prefectures in a different way. More specifically, the indicators used are:

(i) Prosperity indicator (PRoS), which was formulated by calculating the GdP per capita of each prefecture (i.e. the ratio of the GdP to the total population), the per capita consumption of electrical power in the home, the private cars in circula-tion per 1000 inhabitants and the per capita bank savings.

(ii) Synthetic prosperity indicator (S-PRoS), which includes additional ‘in-formation’ for each prefecture; this indicator has been calculated in another study10 and has been constructed in such a way that it includes all aspects of a region’s developmental identity.

(iii) Per capita GdP (Pc-GdP), after the necessary corrections to reduce the errors involved in its calculation, which place the prefectures of attiki and Thes-saloniki in lower positions than those indicated by all the other data.

(iv) GdP in purchasing power units (PuR-GdP).(v) declared income per inhabitant (dInc).Regardless of the way in which the prosperity level is calculated, the predomi-

nance of prefectures with large population concentrations in Table 1 is clear and somewhat pronounced. In addition, the range of inequalities amongst the remain-ing prefectures in the country is relatively extensive. For example, the prosperity level of the prefecture of attica is approximately three or four times higher than that of prefectures in the final ranking positions.

naTuRaL RESouRcES and REGIonaL dEVELoPMEnT

a diachronic and historical examination of the relation between natural resources and economic prosperity leads to the reasonable conclusion that the natural re-sources of a region contribute to its development, since they function as a basic, dynamic agent for regional development and to a great extent predefine the focus and scale of economic activities in a specific area. They constitute ‘natural wealth’ and, therefore, their exploitation creates the preconditions for employment and economic prosperity. From a different perspective, each region’s natural resources function as a productive coefficient and consequently, it is logical that their ex-ploitation, under certain circumstances, should affect the economic development of the area where they are located.

according to the classical and neoclassical theory, the various rates of regional development and the different population density between areas is an outcome of the spatial unequal distribution of natural resources (climate, geology, raw mate-rials, etc.). The comparative advantages of economic activities are regulated by climatic or geological factors, and explain why some regions are more developed than others5, while limited quantities of natural resources and production coef-ficients are the primary factors restricting economic development.

187

table 1. Prosperity data of prefecturesPrefectures Pros s-Pros PX-GdP (E) PuR-GdP dInc(E)

1. attiki 134.81 65.8 17907 17.046 6950 2. aitoloakarnania 50.50 22.7 10795 10.795 3203 3. viotia 84.93 32.4 16938 30.769 3935 4. Evia 80.26 30.9 13397 13.397 4170 5. Evritania 52.06 10.7 10037 10.037 1751 6. Fthiotida 72.37 30.3 14624 14.624 3572 7. Fokida 65.32 23.8 11157 11.157 2486 8. argolida 80.64 37.3 14086 14.086 3476 9. arkadia 70.62 28.9 12162 12.162 349510. achaia 79.80 35.0 12846 12.846 436311. Ilia 55.72 18.6 9526 9.526 238012. korinthia 84.42 29.6 10785 15.631 358813. Lakonia 68.13 25.9 10392 10.392 276814. Messinia 67.51 26.3 11963 11.963 324415. Zakinthos 90.20 36.1 12333 12.333 368016. kerkyra 93.96 38.6 13060 13.060 397217. kefallinia 93.96 38.6 13173 13.173 393118. Lefkada 69.32 33.3 13056 13.056 367419. arta 54.17 19.7 8170 8.170 308420. thesprotia 58.78 18.7 8334 8.334 323721. Ioannina 72.55 30.0 12399 12.399 411622. Preveza 62.67 25.7 9703 9.703 347323. karditsa 66.08 22.2 12013 12.013 310724. Larisa 74.23 32.2 14570 14.570 406925. Magnisia 86.24 36.6 15278 15.278 443026. Trikala 63.01 26.1 11975 11.975 335827. Grevena 61.26 21.3 10126 10.126 295928. drama 82.03 25.5 11429 11.429 388129. Imathia 80.83 29.7 13028 13.028 368630. Thessaloniki 108.62 52.4 17699 17.699 529531. kavala 91.51 34.4 13679 13.679 427332. kastoria 81.19 28.9 14653 14.653 339033. kilkis 71.06 26.2 14284 14.284 322934. kozani 92.98 31.5 17647 17.647 462635. Pella 69.16 25.3 11759 11.759 315836. Pieria 70.17 31.2 11100 11.100 323037. serres 66.31 23.6 10152 14.144 309038. Florina 64.39 21.8 12793 12.793 358239. chalkidiki 77.22 30.9 13662 13.662 296540. Evros 70.84 29.7 13306 13.306 392741. Xanthi 64.17 27.6 11994 11.994 370242. rodopi 56.37 27.2 9991 9.991 317043. dodekanisos 112.28 50.8 18356 18.356 435544. kyklades 102.67 44.4 16798 16.798 459545. Lesvos 81.19 30.1 15952 15.952 362846. Samos 92.45 37.6 14037 14.037 391947. chios 87.50 34.3 12217 12.217 465148. Irakleio 97.26 40.8 14486 14.486 409449. Lasithi 93.20 38.1 16179 16.179 397150. Rethymno 85.55 33.0 14144 14.144 349951. chania 96.06 40.0 14979 14.979 4121

Sources: Refs 10, 13-15, own processing.

188

The cause of the geographic concentration of activities and the regional de-velopment was identified by Marshall16. according to Marshall, firms may choose to concentrate in a given location, because of information spillovers, availability of specialisation inputs and the natural advantages. Moreover, the classic heck-scher–ohlin model of interregional trade predicts that a region abundant in a particular resource will produce and export products which are relatively intensive in that resource.

In order to examine which sources of geographic concentration are most consistent with data kim17 documents the long run trends in uS regional spe-cialisation. Moreover, in a recent article kim18 attempted to differentiate between geographic concentration caused by natural advantages and spillovers by control-ling for factor endowments. by using the Rybczynski regression estimates, kim found that factor endowments explain a large amount of the geographic variation in uS manufacturing over time as predicted by the standard general equilibrium model of interregional trade.

In another work, Ellison and Glaeser19 attempted to provide a more theoreti-cally motivated measure of geographic concentration. an important feature of the Ellison–Glaeser measure is that it corrects the differences in the size of plants and differences in the size of the geographic areas. The Ellison–Glaeser measure could not effectively distinguish between the spillovers and the natural advantages of industry concentration.

as mentioned above, natural resources contribute to the economic develop-ment of a region through the primary exploitation of the resources themselves or by attracting businesses involved in secondary processing of resources. The existence of natural resources is a parameter that affects the placement of relevant businesses since the availability of raw materials creates comparative advantages for the regions and for their companies. Τhis is, however, not the single or most important factor, since quite often incentives provided through state intervention and other socio-economic characteristics affect the businesses’ chosen location accordingly17.

The basic discussion on the relation between natural resources and regional prosperity contains two questions: The first concerns the ability of natural re-sources to sufficiently counterbalance any disadvantages of a region and create the conditions for a relatively satisfactory level of development. The second question is related to the degree of exploitation of natural resources by the regions where they are located and the probability of their exploitation being transferred to other regions.

Infrastructure development renders such a transfer more and more feasible. For example, water resources can be transferred in closed or open pipes and benefit regions bordering on the ones they originate from, or the total benefit from the tour-ism development of a region may not be enjoyed by the said area which boasts the

189

sites of natural beauty or locations by the coast, but rather by the owners of hotel units in large urban centers which accommodate the tourists in question. Further-more, the benefit that arises in a region from the existence of a natural resource, such as lignite, may be counterbalanced by the pollution that the exploitation of this resource causes to the surrounding area.

The resources used in this paper, which are examined as to their contribution to the economic development of the regions in which they are located, belong to the following categories: cultural, agricultural, forests, sea and coasts, mining wealth–water potential.

Cultural resources. cultural resources do not belong to natural resources, however, since they ‘exist through time’, they function in parallel to natural resources, which is why they are included in this study. cultural resources involve settlements and monuments that add a degree of attraction to the area in which they are located (traditional settlements, important traditional settlements, cultural monuments and monuments of international interest). Such resources can contribute to economic development by promoting tourism, either in combination with other resources or independently. Moreover, they create an improved residential environment and a better quality of life for the local people20.

Agricultural resources. agricultural resources refer to the cultivated agricultural land in each prefecture; they are split into categories, which define their standard of productivity (level, semi-level, mountainous, irrigated)21,22. We believe it is self-evident, that agricultural resources should also include the factor ‘productivity’ or ‘efficiency’ of the soil, so that their classification is linked to the economic value of the production. however, it is extremely difficult to determine the latter with the statistical data at our disposal. Furthermore, the performance of the agricultural land often depends on the type of crop, the method of cultivation (intensive or ex-tensive), the existence of a market for the sale of agricultural goods at competitive prices, the degree of standardisation and the marketing of agricultural products, etc. In addition, it is possible to combine agricultural resources with forest resources, cultural resources and the presence of the sea thus creating the conditions for the development of specialised, alternative forms of tourism (agro-tourism, ecotour-ism, mountainous tourism).

Forest resources. These resources include forested areas and the national parks of each prefecture. Forest resources can contribute to economic development through the exploitation of wood and forest products in general, and also through the upgrading of the natural environment, which has an impact on any prefecture, turning it into an attractive destination for tourists23.

Coastal regions. These resources refer to the length of the coastline and of the beaches. The coastal environment and coastal waters are a vitally important resource

190

for Greece, since they are used for the purposes of tourism, fishing, leisure, etc., or as a characteristic of natural beauty. They create a temperate climate and increase the attractiveness of areas, as a place of residence and activity8,24. For Greece in particular, studies have shown that these resources are of decisive importance in shaping the appeal of each area to tourists25–27. however, although in theory tour-ism has the implicit ability of economically promoting areas in decline and with a shrinking population, the overall experience from Europe and the Mediterranean has not presented encouraging results25.

Mining wealth and water potential. These resources include: on the one hand, the value of the existing and 50% of the value of the potential mining wealth of each prefecture, and on the other, the water potential. The exploitation of mineral wealth is conducive to the economic development of the areas where it is located, creates employment and, on a secondary basis, attracts businesses to the area, particularly when transportation costs necessitate on-site exploitation. In the same way, water potential is a natural resource that supports the exploitation of all other resources and helps in the proper functioning of economic activities.

In order to render the values that correspond to the resource indicators of each prefecture comparable, a transformation is made based on the following relation:

Pi= minmax

min

xxxxi

−−

(100) (1)

where xi is the initial indicator, xmax – the highest price of the index, xmin – the low-est price of the index.

Through this method, the primary values of the indicators are transformed on a percentage scale, simultaneously maintaining the proportionality of the relations of the primary values in the converted values.

Table 2 presents the collective data related to the natural resources of each prefecture, transformed on a scale of 1-100. The data in Table 2 lead to the conclusion that the spatial distribution of the above-mentioned resources is not equilateral. There are, therefore, some areas with large ‘quantities’ of one or more resources, while others appear relatively ‘poor’. What is then the relation between resources and the level of prosperity? That is the question that will be of concern to us thereafter.

rEsuLts

In this unit, we use the SPSS statistical program to estimate the Pearson correla-tion coefficients between the indicators of prosperity and natural resources for the 51 Greek prefectures. The results of the estimations are presented in Tables 3 to 7. after evaluating the results from the estimations of the correlation coefficients

191

table 2. collective data on resources per prefecture of GreecePrefectures all

cultural resources

all coasts

all forest resources

all agri-cultural

resources

all mining wealth and

water potential

all re-sources

1. attiki 2.37 1.74 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. aitoloakarnania 10.20 16.84 8.42 38.23 12.19 33.12 3. viotia 20.53 6.60 8.91 60.29 6.46 40.01 4. Evia 12.33 31.48 7.84 35.69 6.61 36.41 5. Evritania 35.62 0.00 59.84 28.72 3.41 50.12 6. Fthiotida 10.26 9.89 18.73 63.46 0.88 40.19 7. Fokida 51.87 24.60 32.51 28.73 56.59 77.31 8. argolida 29.56 17.42 2.77 50.96 16.28 45.80 9. arkadia 27.50 7.77 16.34 45.98 12.49 42.9810. achaia 5.21 7.66 4.61 21.43 1.13 14.4311. Ilia 8.27 25.74 5.64 54.08 9.52 40.2012. korinthia 20.59 13.29 7.22 41.42 2.12 32.6113. Lakonia 87.77 29.01 3.25 71.38 2.14 77.0114. Messinia 20.67 24.96 5.03 54.62 2.05 41.8615. Zakinthos 7.32 46.67 3.34 34.93 8.66 39.2516. kerkyra 40.72 32.94 0.26 21.54 8.89 40.6517. kefallinia 21.97 83.93 17.30 34.25 5.33 64.4718. Lefkada 31.07 58.71 3.75 39.47 91.29 89.5419. arta 25.11 3.59 13.12 28.95 32.96 40.4020. thesprotia 23.53 31.44 3.86 32.69 4.34 37.1921. Ioannina 19.32 0.00 17.93 16.41 0.74 20.2922. Preveza 19.20 36.40 3.42 36.00 41.78 53.8823. karditsa 1.54 0.00 6.65 62.18 1.34 27.3424. Larisa 6.71 4.20 3.85 60.48 2.72 29.8925. Magnisia 15.03 25.69 3.34 31.07 6.21 31.2726. Trikala 15.32 0.00 10.87 32.74 3.36 23.5027. Grevena 0.89 0.00 100.00 8.68 13.31 80.0528. drama 7.24 0.00 19.57 41.25 7.66 28.9829. Imathia 7.84 0.46 4.88 3.63 13.64 23.8430. Thessaloniki 1.70 2.49 0.30 10.41 1.46 4.7831. kavala 14.38 24.55 4.58 28.14 100.00 68.0832. kastoria 23.67 0.00 16.11 41.35 6.57 33.8633. kilkis 0.00 0.00 7.70 100.00 16.71 48.8334. kozani 4.35 0.00 3.52 45.67 72.91 49.6635. Pella 3.18 0.00 6.09 47.95 0.54 21.6636. Pieria 3.07 11.58 12.95 34.14 3.43 24.6837. serres 6.09 2.34 6.60 62.45 10.66 34.0438. Florina 10.35 0.00 29.56 71.23 79.05 75.6439. chalkidiki 30.70 65.62 22.94 75.08 10.33 81.5440. Evros 10.25 12.34 12.40 83.20 16.48 53.0141. Xanthi 6.09 8.27 10.25 37.37 9.44 27.2242. rodopi 16.45 11.63 11.59 59.84 4.62 40.5643. dodekanisos 36.08 57.10 6.02 15.99 4.21 47.1944. kyklades 100.00 100.00 0.14 33.09 16.71 100.0045. Lesvos 15.58 59.26 4.46 52.73 2.09 52.7846. Samos 19.96 68.47 5.66 30.59 5.02 50.9847. chios 25.36 47.31 2.73 20.91 6.24 39.9148. Irakleio 11.52 10.52 0.00 38.11 0.49 22.8349. Lasithi 34.00 55.27 4.70 56.44 4.97 61.4550. Rethymno 28.76 25.96 0.46 49.25 7.85 43.8851. chania 19.42 19.80 7.93 32.23 2.46 31.47

Sources: Refs 15, 25, 27-29, own processing.

192

between the indicators of development and natural resources in general terms, we find that they do not correspond to our initial expectations, i.e. that there would be a positive relation between the correlated variables. First of all, we observe that significance has low prices, as defined by the prices of distribution, t, and a negative relation in many cases between the correlated variables. Furthermore, the differentiations that appear in the results, depending on the use of the five selected indicators, are not great, which means that it is possible to consider the results reliable as regards the economic development variable.

In Table 3, the results of the correlation between the five prosperity indicators and cultural resources are presented. These results show that there is no statistical significance between the correlated variables, and in some cases the relation ap-pears negative; relevant results are obtained when the whole group of resources is used. The conclusion, which arises from this analysis, is that the resources of this category can not create terms for development in the prefectures where they are located, since their contribution to economic prosperity is insignificant.

In Table 4, there is a detailed presentation of the results from the calculation of the correlation between the five indicators of prosperity and agricultural resources. The results show that the relation of each individual agricultural resource, and of the whole group in total, is negative, and that there is statistical significance between the variables. We are, therefore, able to conclude that the contribution of agricultural resources to the formulation of the level of economic prosperity is relatively smaller than the contribu-tion of the other sectors of the economy. The probability of inadequate exploitation of agricultural resources is rather unlikely, given the fact that Greece has a long tradition in the primary sector in relation to the other economic sectors.

table 3. correlation coefficients between indicators of prosperity and cultural resource

Indicatortraditional cities and villages

Remarkable traditional cities and villages

cultural monuments

Monuments with interna-tional interest

all traditional and remark-able traditional cities and villages, cultural monu-

ments, and monuments with international interest

Pros 0.041(0.778)

0.144 (0.313)

–0.106 (0.458)

0.136 (0.341)

0.082 (0.566)

s-Pros 0.050 (0.728)

0.144 (0.314)

–0.119 (0.405)

0.110 (0.442)

0.077 (0.620)

PS-GdP –0.011 (0.937)

0.073 (0.612)

–0.139 (0.331)

0.132 (0.355)

0.032 (0.825)

PuR-GdP –0.086 (0.546)

–0.010 (0.947)

–0.095 (0.507)

0.199 (0.162)

–0.016 (0.911)

dInc –0.155 (0.278)

0.007 (0.963)

–0.281* (0.046)

–0.064 (0.657)

–0.136 (0.340)

notes: n=51, values of significance of t in the parentheses; * correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

193

table 4. correlation coefficients between indicators of prosperity and agricultural resources

Indicator Level ru-ral areas

Semi-moun-tainous rural

areas

Mountain-ous rural

areas

all rural areas

Irragable rural areas

all rural areas and the 50% of irrigable areas

Pros –0.324 (0.020)

–0.143 (0.318)

–0.272 (0.053)

–0.456 (0.001)

–0.448 (0.001)

–0.530 (0.000)

s-Pros –0.299* (0.033)

–0.178 (0.210)

–0.316* (0.024)

–0.467** (0.001)

–0.415** (0.002)

–0.519** (0.000)

Pc-GdP –0.067 (0.638)

–0.040 (0.780)

–0.200 (0.160)

–0.153 (0.283)

–0.254 (0.072)

–0.236 (0.095)

PuR-GdR 0.051 (0.721)

0.015 (0.919)

–0.178 (0.213)

–0.014 (0.923)

–0.052 (0.717)

–0.038 (0.793)

dInc –0.248 (0.079)

–0.257 (0.068)

–0.379** (0.006)

–0.483** (0.000)

–0.330* (0.018)

–0.481** (0.000)

notes: n=51, values of significance of t in the parentheses; *correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); **correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

table 5. correlation coefficients between indicators of prosperity, coastal regions and forest re-sources

Indicator Length of coasts

Length of sandy coasts all coasts Forest areas national

forestall forest re-

sourcesPros 0.364

(0.09)0.148 (0.30)

0.315 (0.024)

–0.471 (0.000)

–0.153 (0.284)

–0.244 (0.085)

s-Pros 0.352* (0.011)

0.168 (0.240)

0.315* (0.024)

–0.540** (0.000)

–0.157 (0.270)

–0.264 (0.061)

Pc-GdP 0.305* (0.030)

0.016 (0.913)

0.215 (0.130)

–0.376** (0.008)

–0.145 (0.311)

–0.215 (0.131)

PuR-GdP 0.163 (0.252)

–0.070 (0.627)

0.080 (0.576)

–0.308 (0.028)

–0.103 (0.471)

–0.162 (0.255)

dInc 0.177 (0.213)

–0.043 (0.766)

0.102 (0.478))

–0.529** (0.000)

–0.156 (0.273)

–0.261 (0.065)

notes: n=51, values of significance of t in the parentheses; *correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); **correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The results in Table 5 concern the correlation between the indicators of pros-perity and the resources related to the existence of the sea and forests and indicate that there is a statistical significance for the first resource category and a positive relation between those resources and prosperity, while, in contrast, there is a nega-tive relation for forest resources and no statistical significance. Since the existence of the sea in Greece is linked to tourism, we consider that the contribution of tour-ism to the attainment of a satisfactory income per capita is significant and greater in relation to the other resources. on the contrary, the results concerning forest

194

resources are similar to the results of agricultural resources and, consequently, we can deduct that the primary sector does not assist in the formulation of compara-tively high per capita income.

Let us now examine the correlation between the five indicators of prosperity and the mining wealth and water potential of the prefectures. From Table 6, we see that this relation is statistically insignificant and negative. Therefore, as above, we come to the conclusion that these resources make a minimal contribution to eco-nomic development or at least, smaller than the other sectors of the economy.

table 6. correlation coefficients between indicators of prosperity, mining wealth and water poten-tial

Indicator Value of certain and 50% of probable mining wealth Water potential Mining wealth and water

potentialPros 0.064

(0.656)–0.261 (0.053)

–0.236 (0.095)

s-Pros –0.049 (0.730)

–0.144 (0.312)

–0.154 (0.279)

Pc-GdP 0.149 (0.296)

–0.223 (0.115)

–0.175 (0.218)

PuR-GdP 0.079 (0.583)

–0.196 (0.167)

–0.169 (0.235)

dInc 0.086 (0.549)

–0.140 (0.329)

–0.112 (0.435)

notes: n=51.

We will now estimate the correlation between the prosperity indicators and the various totals ‘coastal resources + cultural resources’, ‘coastal resources + agricultural resources’, and ‘coastal resources + forest resources’, in order to check the complementarity of resources linked to coastal regions and cultural, agricultural and forest resources. The results of these estimations appear in Table 7, and show that there is no complementarity between the combinations of resources given above, since the correlation values between the prosperity indicators and the resource totals are not statistically significant and in many cases are negative.

From the international bibliography, there seem to be very few examples of a successful complementarity between tourism and agricultural employment, despite the efforts that have been made to develop agro-tourism and reduce the fluctuations of the agricultural income due to the seasonal nature of agricultural production25. on the contrary, in many cases the additional income provided by tourism tends to inhibit rather than encourage a more rational organisation of agriculture, favouring the maintenance of small, non-productive areas of agricultural land.

195

table 7. correlation coefficients between indicators of prosperity and coastal, forest and all other resources

Indicator all coasts and cul-tural resources

all coasts and rural resources

aall coasts and forest resources

all the natural re-sources

Pros 0.240 (0.089)

–0.049 (0.734)

–0.193 (0.175)

–0.193 (0.330)

s-Pros 0.236 (0.094)

–0.056 (0.699)

–0.231 (0.102)

–0.165 (0.246)

Pc-GdP 0.152 (0.286)

0.073 (0.609)

–0.188 (0.187)

–0.055 (0.703)

PuR-GdP 0.059 (0.683)

0.057 (0.691)

–0.157 (0.272)

–0.048 (0.736)

dInc –0.003 (0.984)

–0.244 (0.085)

–0.390 (0.005)

–0.379* (0.006)

notes: n=51, values of significance of t in the parentheses; *correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

dIScuSSIon

The empirical research outlined above leads to the conclusion that the economic development of prefectures in Greece does not present a positive and statistically significant correlation with the existence of natural resources. on the contrary, in most cases the correlation is negative and not statistically significant. Two explana-tions may serve to justify the results of the afore-mentioned analysis.

according to the first explanation, it is possible that the prefectures with natural resources are unable to exploit them for various reasons, which means that a large part or all resources are exploited (or ‘absorbed’) by prefectures with a more powerful economy. as mentioned above, the ‘transportation’ of mineral resources, water resources and resources linked to the existence of the sea or of cultural monuments – which are joined to tourism development – is feasible, and their exploitation can then be carried out by prefectures that possess the appropri-ate infrastructure, know-how and productive dynamism.

The second explanation is related to the ability of natural resources to guarantee the economic development and prosperity of a region, and to what extent these are exploited, due to a lack of adequate infrastructure that will allow the goods produced to be sold at low prices or on competitive terms. In our days and times, it is taken for granted that the return on employment that natural resources offer on a primary level, is not able of transforming the level of prosperity. Therefore, employment in agriculture, stock-breeding or fishing does not lead to the same level of income in comparison with employment in industry, home industry and the services sector.

In many prefectures, the secondary exploitation of natural resources is not related to their primary exploitation; as a result, the advantages gained from the

196

existence of natural resources in one prefecture are transferred to prefectures with a developed secondary sector of the economy. consequently, the inter-sec-toral relations that develop between the activities of sectors that make a definite contribution to economic development, such as the industrial, home industry and services sector, and the sectors exploiting natural resources, are weakened within the prefectures where the resources are located; this occurs, since the basic pre-condition for the economic development of an area is the existence of a strong, two-way relation between the primary and the industrial sector. It is a known fact, that the reduction of interregional transportation costs has a corresponding impact on the dependence of industries on the geographical location of raw materials, and in many cases, the benefits that arise from the placement of a business near to a major urban centre (concentration economies, etc.) counterbalance the cost of transporting the raw materials24.

kim18 showed that the sources of uS regional comparative advantage changed over time as technological advances in production and transportation altered fac-tor intensities and factor mobility. as manufacturing becomes increasingly capital intensive, capital also becomes an important sources of comparative advantage. however, as capital becomes increasingly mobile, its importance as a source of comparative advantage declines.

Let us now attempt to explain the above-mentioned results through various analyses. First, we will diachronically examine the participation percentage of the added value of certain basic sectors of the economy in the total GdP of Greece.

an overall consideration of the diachronic transformation of the participa-tion percentage of the added value of the most basic sectors of the economy in the GnP of Greece, with the help of Fig. 1, which was created using statistical

fig. 1. Transformation of the percentage of added value of the most important sectors of the economy in relation to the total GnP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1995

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

% G

DP

Agriculture, forestry

Fishing

Mining and quarring

Manufacturing

Trade

Hotels andrestaurantsFinancialintermedationReal estate andbusiness activities

197

data from nSSG (Ref. 30), provides some explanation about the results that have arisen. The figure presents the size and change in percentages during the years 1995-2001. The natural resources included in this research are directly linked to the productive fields of agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining and quarrying, hotels and restaurants. The share of these sectors’ products in the formulation of the country’s GnP is limited, if compared to the share of other sectors, such as manufacturing, trade, financial intermediation, real estate and business activities. consequently, the contribution of these sectors to the promotion of economic development and prosperity is smaller, when correlated with the other sectors of the economy.

yet, the percentages related to the two sectors of agriculture and forestry, hotels and restaurants, whose share in the GnP is greater compared to the other sectors linked to natural resources, as can be seen in the figure, are steadily decreasing. as expected, this reduction in percentages is having an effect on the economy and the relative position of those prefectures where the above-mentioned sectors are de-veloped in conjunction with the level of prosperity and economic development.

The next analysis, for the justification of the results mentioned above, concerns the relation between natural resources and certain social and economic character-istics of the prefectures. More specifically, the correlation coefficient of resources is examined in relation to: (a) the percentage of the urban population in each pre-fecture, (b) the percentage of change in the population of each prefecture during the decade 1991-2001, (c) the share of the primary sector in the overall economy, (d) the share of the secondary sector in the overall economy, (e) the share of the tertiary sector in the overall economy, (f) the number of new houses built during the period 1998-2002 per 100 inhabitants, (g) the productive dynamism of each prefecture, and (h) the population characteristics of each prefecture.

The productive dynamism of each prefecture results from the calculation of the overall development of its products, of employment and of the productive structure of its economy. For the analysis, we used an indicator estimated in another study, which includes productivity, the mean transformation of the GdP and the changes in employment over the last decade17. also from the above-mentioned study, we obtained the indicator concerning population characteristics, which was estimated in conjunction with the changes in the population during the last decade, the urban concentration of the population, the percentages of the population living in flat and semi-mountainous areas, natural and demographic health and the educational level of each prefecture.

Table 8 presents the results from calculating the correlation of the variables men-tioned above. With the exception of the rational and expected high correlations that exist between (a) the variables related to agricultural resources and mineral wealth and the primary sector, and (b) the resources related to the sea which indirectly make a reference to tourism and the tertiary sector, the remaining natural resource indica-tors present low and often negative values in the correlation coefficients.

198

table 8. correlation coefficients between natural resources and social/economic characteristics

Indicator

urban popula-

tion (%)

changein population

(%)

Primary sector

Secondary sector

Tertiary sector

number of new

houses per 100 inabit-

ants

Productive dynamism

Population index

cultural resources

–0.340* (0.015)

–0.110 (0.441)

–0.095 (0.508)

–0.281 (0.045)

0.321* (0.022)

0.407** (0.003)

–0.258 (0.068)

–0.284 (0.043)

all coasts –0.381** (0.006)

0.082 (0.568)

–0.159 (0.265)

–0.311* (0.026)

0.385** (0.005)

0.622** (0.000)

0.065 (0.648)

–0.080 (0.579)

all forestal resources

–0.338** (0.015)

–0.176* (0.0217)

0.263 (0.062)

–0.105 (0.462)

–0.051 (0.723)

0.157 (0.270)

–0.324** (0.020)

–0.290** (0.039)

Mining wealth and water potential

–0.465** (0.014)

–0.334* (0.017)

0.844** (0.000)

0.071 (0.622)

–0.574** (0.000)

0.104 (0.467)

–0.149 (0.298)

–0.314* (0.025)

all rural areas

–0.045 (0.000)

–0.206 (0.147)

0.694* (0.000)

0.172 (0.226)

0.559** (0.000)

0.224 (0.113)

0.188 (0.187)

0.005 (0.974)

all rural areas and

–0.536** (0.034)

–0.350* (0.027)

0.150 (0.725)

–0.062 (0.665)

0.029 (0.837)

0.058 (0.686)

–0.407 (0.003)

–0.534 (0.000)

*correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); **correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

These results lead us to conclude that those prefectures that possess natural resources are not characterised by large urban agglomerations, do not present a diachronic increase in their population, their economy is not productively dynamic and the characteristics of their population are ranked near the bottom of the scale. Therefore, either the economic and social characteristics of prefectures do not suffice in adequately exploiting their natural resources and their exploitation is carried out in other prefectures; or, the natural resources, as productive coefficients, do not suffice in order to create a satisfactory level of prosperity and economic development.

rEFErEncEs 1. k. SIRIoPouLoS, M. astErIou: Testing for convergence across the Greek Regions. Re-

gional Studies, 32(6), 537 (1998).2. y. IoannIdES, G. PETRakoS: Regional disparities in Greece: The Performance of crete,

Peloponnese and Thessaly. European Investment bank Papers, 5(1), 31 (2000).3. G. PETRakoS, G. saratsIs: Regional Inequalities in Greece. Papers in Regional Science,

76, 57 (2000).4. E. tsIonas: another Look at Regional convergence in Greece. Regional Studies, 36 (6), 603

(2001).5. n. kaLdoR: Why are necessary the Regional Policies? Regionale Politik and agrapolitik in

Europa, 22, 216 (1975).

199

6. L. LabRIanIdIS: Economic Geography. Patakis, athens, 2002 (in Greek). 7. R. conSTanZa: Frontiers in Ecological Economics. Edward Elgar, cheltenham, uk, 2001. 8. a. vLacHou: Environment and natural Resources. kritiki, athens, 2001 (in Greek). 9. M. PoRTER: The competitive advantage of nations. The Free Press, 1990.10. G. PETRakoS, G. PSychaRIS: Regional development in Greece. kritiki, athens, 2004 (in

Greek).11. n. konSoLaS, a. PaPadaSkaLoPouLoS, I. PLaSkoVITIS: Regional development in

Greece. Springer, berlin, 2002.12. G. FoToPouLoS, d. GIannIaS, P. LIaRGoVaS: Economic development and convergence

in Greek Regions 1970-1994: alternative Methodological approaches. Αeihoros, 1(1), 60 (2002) (in Greek).

13. nSSG: Statistical yearbook of Greece. athens, 1996 (in Greek).14. nSSG: national accounts GdP per Economic Sector and Prefecture. athens, 1999 (in Greek).15. S. PoLyZoS, G. PETRakoS: Industrial Location in creece: determinant Factors analysis

and Empirical Investigation. ToPoS, 17, 93 (2001) (in Greek).16. a. MaRShaLL: Principles of Economics. McMillan, 1920.17. S. kIM: Expansion of Markets and the Geographic distribution of Economic activities: The

Trends in u.S. Regional Manufacturing Structure, 1860-1987. Quarterly J. of Economics, 110, 881 (1995).

18. S. kIM: Regions, Resources and Economic Geography: Sources of u.S. Regional comparative advantage, 1880-1987. Regional Science & urban Economics, 29, 1 (1999).

19. G. ELLISon, E. GLaESER: Geographic concentration in u.S. Manufacturing Industries: a dartboard approach. J. of Political Economy, 105, 889 (1997).

20. h. coccoSIS, P tsartas: Sustainable Tourism development. kritiki, athens, 2001.21. ch. ZIoGanaS: Structure and development of Greek agriculture before and after accession

to the E.c. Quarterly J. of International agriculture, 32, 147 (1993).22. ch. ZIoGanaS, E. nIkoLaIdIS: Impact of Innovations on Structure and Efficiency of Farms.

Quarterly J. of International agriculture, 34 (1), 77 (1995).23. G. aRabaTZIS: Investment analysis in Forestry at national Level: The case of Forest Planta-

tions in the Prefecture of Pella. Ph.d Thesis, department of Forestry and natural Environment, aristotle university of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 2000 (in Greek).

24. d. WaLkER, k. chaPMan: Industrial Location. Papazisis, athens, 1992 (in Greek).25. P. koMILIS: Spatial analysis of Tourism. cPER, athens, 1986 (in Greek).26. S. PoLyZoS: analysis of Factors that Influence the Internat Tourist Flows in Greece. ToPoS,

18-19, 87 (2002) (in Greek).27. S. PoLyZoS: analysis of Factors that influence the Internal Tourist Flows in Greece. ToPoS,

(18-19), 87 (2002) (in Greek).28. P. kaVVadIaS: Indicators of Regional development in Greece. cPER, athens, 1992 (in

Greek).29. S. PoLyZoS: Interregional highways and Regional Economic changes: a Methodological

approach. Technika chronika, ii (1-2), 21 (2001) (in Greek). 30. nSSG: national accounts of Greece. athens, 2003 (in Greek).

Received 24 June 2007 Revised 18 July 2007