Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 9, No 1, 183199 (2008)

Environmental management

Spatial distribution of natural resources and

their contribution to regional development. The
case of Greece
S. Polyzosa, G. Arabatzisb*
Engineering School, Department of Planning and Regional Development,
University of Thessaly, Pedion Areos, 38334 Volos, Greece
E-mail: spolyzos@uth.gr
b
Department 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
a

Abstract. Traditionally, according to many regional development theories, the contribution of natural 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 problem14. Large amounts were spent after
the 60s 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 remote prefectures into more attractive areas and potential sites for investments.
*

For correspondence.

183

However, the regional problem remains, with a large number of Greek prefectures 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 development. 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
he 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 different perspectives. The first is linked to the unequal geographical distribution of the
184

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 sectors
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 convergence 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 prefecture, 5 indicators will be used in alternate mode. Five indicators have been
selected instead of one in order to increase the surveys reliability, given that each
185

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 circulation per 1000 inhabitants and the per capita bank savings.
(ii) Synthetic prosperity indicator (S-PROS), which includes additional information 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 regions
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 Thessaloniki 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 predominance of prefectures with large population concentrations in Table 1 is clear and
somewhat pronounced. In addition, the range of inequalities amongst the remaining 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 resources 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 regions natural resources
function as a productive coefficient and consequently, it is logical that their exploitation, 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 materials, 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 coefficients are the primary factors restricting economic development.
186

Table 1. Prosperity data of prefectures

PROS
Prefectures
1. Attiki
134.81
2. Aitoloakarnania
50.50
3. Viotia
84.93
4. Evia
80.26
5. Evritania
52.06
6. Fthiotida
72.37
7. Fokida
65.32
8. Argolida
80.64
9. Arkadia
70.62
10. Achaia
79.80
11. Ilia
55.72
12. Korinthia
84.42
13. Lakonia
68.13
14. Messinia
67.51
15. Zakinthos
90.20
16. Kerkyra
93.96
17. Kefallinia
93.96
18. Lefkada
69.32
19. Arta
54.17
20. Thesprotia
58.78
21. Ioannina
72.55
22. Preveza
62.67
23. Karditsa
66.08
24. Larisa
74.23
25. Magnisia
86.24
26. Trikala
63.01
27. Grevena
61.26
28. Drama
82.03
29. Imathia
80.83
30. Thessaloniki
108.62
31. Kavala
91.51
32. Kastoria
81.19
33. Kilkis
71.06
34. Kozani
92.98
35. Pella
69.16
36. Pieria
70.17
37. Serres
66.31
38. Florina
64.39
39. Chalkidiki
77.22
40. Evros
70.84
41. Xanthi
64.17
42. Rodopi
56.37
43. Dodekanisos
112.28
44. Kyklades
102.67
45. Lesvos
81.19
46. Samos
92.45
47. Chios
87.50
48. Irakleio
97.26
49. Lasithi
93.20
50. Rethymno
85.55
51. Chania
96.06

S-PROS
65.8
22.7
32.4
30.9
10.7
30.3
23.8
37.3

28.9
35.0
18.6
29.6
25.9
26.3
36.1
38.6
38.6
33.3
19.7
18.7
30.0
25.7
22.2
32.2
36.6
26.1
21.3
25.5
29.7
52.4
34.4
28.9
26.2
31.5
25.3
31.2
23.6
21.8
30.9
29.7
27.6
27.2
50.8
44.4
30.1
37.6
34.3
40.8
38.1
33.0
40.0

PX-GDP (E)
17907
10795
16938
13397
10037
14624
11157
14086

12162
12846
9526
10785
10392
11963
12333
13060
13173
13056
8170
8334
12399
9703
12013
14570
15278
11975
10126
11429
13028
17699
13679
14653
14284
17647
11759
11100
10152
12793
13662
13306
11994
9991
18356
16798
15952
14037
12217
14486
16179
14144
14979

PUR-GDP
17.046
10.795
30.769
13.397
10.037
14.624
11.157
14.086

12.162
12.846
9.526
15.631
10.392
11.963
12.333
13.060
13.173
13.056
8.170
8.334
12.399
9.703
12.013
14.570
15.278
11.975
10.126
11.429
13.028
17.699
13.679
14.653
14.284
17.647
11.759
11.100
14.144
12.793
13.662
13.306
11.994
9.991
18.356
16.798
15.952
14.037
12.217
14.486
16.179
14.144
14.979

DINC(E)
6950
3203
3935
4170
1751
3572
2486
3476

3495
4363
2380
3588
2768
3244
3680
3972
3931
3674
3084
3237
4116
3473
3107
4069
4430
3358
2959
3881
3686
5295
4273
3390
3229
4626
3158
3230
3090
3582
2965
3927
3702
3170
4355
4595
3628
3919
4651
4094
3971
3499
4121

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

187

The cause of the geographic concentration of activities and the regional development 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 HeckscherOhlin 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 specialisation. Moreover, in a recent article Kim18 attempted to differentiate between
geographic concentration caused by natural advantages and spillovers by controlling 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 theoretically motivated measure of geographic concentration. An important feature of the
EllisonGlaeser measure is that it corrects the differences in the size of plants and
differences in the size of the geographic areas. The EllisonGlaeser measure could
not effectively distinguish between the spillovers and the natural advantages of
industry concentration.
As mentioned above, natural resources contribute to the economic development 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. his 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 resources 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 tourism development of a region may not be enjoyed by the said area which boasts the
188

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. Furthermore, 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
wealthwater 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 selfevident, 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 extensive), 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, ecotourism, 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
189

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 tourists2527. However, although in theory tourism 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=

xi x min
(100)
x max x min

(1)

where xi is the initial indicator, xmax the highest price of the index, xmin the lowest 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 correlation 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
190

Table 2. Collective data on resources per prefecture of Greece

All
All forest All agriAll
Prefectures
cultural
coasts resources cultural
resources
resources
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.

Attiki
Aitoloakarnania
Viotia
Evia
Evritania
Fthiotida
Fokida
Argolida
Arkadia
Achaia
Ilia
Korinthia
Lakonia
Messinia
Zakinthos
Kerkyra
Kefallinia
Lefkada
Arta
Thesprotia
Ioannina
Preveza
Karditsa
Larisa
Magnisia
Trikala
Grevena
Drama
Imathia
Thessaloniki
Kavala
Kastoria
Kilkis
Kozani
Pella
Pieria
Serres
Florina
Chalkidiki
Evros
Xanthi
Rodopi
Dodekanisos
Kyklades
Lesvos
Samos
Chios
Irakleio
Lasithi
Rethymno
Chania

2.37
10.20
20.53
12.33
35.62
10.26
51.87
29.56

27.50
5.21
8.27
20.59
87.77
20.67
7.32
40.72
21.97
31.07
25.11
23.53
19.32
19.20
1.54
6.71
15.03
15.32
0.89
7.24
7.84
1.70
14.38
23.67
0.00
4.35
3.18
3.07
6.09
10.35
30.70
10.25
6.09
16.45
36.08
100.00
15.58
19.96
25.36
11.52
34.00
28.76
19.42

1.74
16.84
6.60
31.48
0.00
9.89
24.60
17.42

7.77
7.66
25.74
13.29
29.01
24.96
46.67
32.94
83.93
58.71
3.59
31.44
0.00
36.40
0.00
4.20
25.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.46
2.49
24.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.58
2.34
0.00
65.62
12.34
8.27
11.63
57.10
100.00
59.26
68.47
47.31
10.52
55.27
25.96
19.80

0.51
8.42
8.91
7.84
59.84
18.73
32.51
2.77

16.34
4.61
5.64
7.22
3.25
5.03
3.34
0.26
17.30
3.75
13.12
3.86
17.93
3.42
6.65
3.85
3.34
10.87
100.00
19.57
4.88
0.30
4.58
16.11
7.70
3.52
6.09
12.95
6.60
29.56
22.94
12.40
10.25
11.59
6.02
0.14
4.46
5.66
2.73
0.00
4.70
0.46
7.93

0.00
38.23
60.29
35.69
28.72
63.46
28.73
50.96

45.98
21.43
54.08
41.42
71.38
54.62
34.93
21.54
34.25
39.47
28.95
32.69
16.41
36.00
62.18
60.48
31.07
32.74
8.68
41.25
3.63
10.41
28.14
41.35
100.00
45.67
47.95
34.14
62.45
71.23
75.08
83.20
37.37
59.84
15.99
33.09
52.73
30.59
20.91
38.11
56.44
49.25
32.23

All mining
wealth and
water
potential
0.00
12.19
6.46
6.61
3.41
0.88
56.59
16.28

12.49
1.13
9.52
2.12
2.14
2.05
8.66
8.89
5.33
91.29
32.96
4.34
0.74
41.78
1.34
2.72
6.21
3.36
13.31
7.66
13.64
1.46
100.00
6.57
16.71
72.91
0.54
3.43
10.66
79.05
10.33
16.48
9.44
4.62
4.21
16.71
2.09
5.02
6.24
0.49
4.97
7.85
2.46

All resources
0.00
33.12
40.01
36.41
50.12
40.19
77.31
45.80

42.98
14.43
40.20
32.61
77.01
41.86
39.25
40.65
64.47
89.54
40.40
37.19
20.29
53.88
27.34
29.89
31.27
23.50
80.05
28.98
23.84
4.78
68.08
33.86
48.83
49.66
21.66
24.68
34.04
75.64
81.54
53.01
27.22
40.56
47.19
100.00
52.78
50.98
39.91
22.83
61.45
43.88
31.47

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

191

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 appears 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 contribution 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
All traditional and remarkRemarkable
Traditional
Monuments
able traditional cities and
traditional Cultural
cities and
with internavillages, cultural monuIndicator
cities and monuments
villages
tional interest ments, and monuments with
villages
international interest
PROS
0.041
0.144
0.106
0.136
0.082
S-PROS
PS-GDP
PUR-GDP
DINC

(0.778)
0.050
(0.728)
0.011
(0.937)
0.086
(0.546)
0.155
(0.278)

(0.313)
0.144
(0.314)
0.073
(0.612)
0.010
(0.947)
0.007
(0.963)

(0.458)
0.119
(0.405)
0.139
(0.331)
0.095
(0.507)
0.281*
(0.046)

(0.341)
0.110
(0.442)
0.132
(0.355)
0.199
(0.162)
0.064
(0.657)

(0.566)
0.077
(0.620)
0.032
(0.825)
0.016
(0.911)
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).

192

Table 4. Correlation coefficients between indicators of prosperity and agricultural resources

Semi-moun- MountainAll rural areas
Level ruAll rural Irragable rural
tainous rural ous rural
and the 50% of
Indicator
ral areas
areas
areas
areas
areas
irrigable areas

PROS

0.324
(0.020)
S-PROS 0.299*
(0.033)
PC-GDP 0.067
(0.638)
PUR-GDR 0.051
(0.721)
DINC
0.248
(0.079)

0.143
(0.318)
0.178
(0.210)
0.040
(0.780)
0.015
(0.919)
0.257
(0.068)

0.272
(0.053)
0.316*
(0.024)
0.200
(0.160)
0.178
(0.213)
0.379**
(0.006)

0.456
(0.001)
0.467**
(0.001)
0.153
(0.283)
0.014
(0.923)
0.483**
(0.000)

0.448
(0.001)
0.415**
(0.002)
0.254
(0.072)
0.052
(0.717)
0.330*
(0.018)

0.530
(0.000)
0.519**
(0.000)
0.236
(0.095)
0.038
(0.793)
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 resources
Length of
Length of
National
All forest reAll coasts Forest areas
Indicator
coasts
sandy coasts
forest
sources

PROS

S-PROS
PC-GDP
PUR-GDP
DINC

0.364
(0.09)
0.352*
(0.011)
0.305*
(0.030)
0.163
(0.252)
0.177
(0.213)

0.148
(0.30)
0.168
(0.240)
0.016
(0.913)
0.070
(0.627)
0.043
(0.766)

0.315
(0.024)
0.315*
(0.024)
0.215
(0.130)
0.080
(0.576)
0.102
(0.478))

0.471
(0.000)
0.540**
(0.000)
0.376**
(0.008)
0.308
(0.028)
0.529**
(0.000)

0.153
(0.284)
0.157
(0.270)
0.145
(0.311)
0.103
(0.471)
0.156
(0.273)

0.244
(0.085)
0.264
(0.061)
0.215
(0.131)
0.162
(0.255)
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 prosperity 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 negative 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 tourism 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
193

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 comparatively 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 economic development or at least, smaller than the other sectors of the economy.
Table 6. Correlation coefficients between indicators of prosperity, mining wealth and water potential
Value of certain and 50% of
Mining wealth and water
Water potential
Indicator
probable mining wealth
potential

PROS

S-PROS
PC-GDP
PUR-GDP
DINC

0.064
(0.656)
0.049
(0.730)
0.149
(0.296)
0.079
(0.583)
0.086
(0.549)

0.261
(0.053)
0.144
(0.312)
0.223
(0.115)
0.196
(0.167)
0.140
(0.329)

0.236
(0.095)
0.154
(0.279)
0.175
(0.218)
0.169
(0.235)
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.

194

Table 7. Correlation coefficients between indicators of prosperity and coastal, forest and all other
resources
All coasts and cul- All coasts and Aall coasts and forest All the natural reIndicator
tural resources
rural resources
resources
sources

PROS

S-PROS
PC-GDP
PUR-GDP
DINC

0.240
(0.089)
0.236
(0.094)
0.152
(0.286)
0.059
(0.683)
0.003
(0.984)

0.049
(0.734)
0.056
(0.699)
0.073
(0.609)
0.057
(0.691)
0.244
(0.085)

0.193
(0.175)
0.231
(0.102)
0.188
(0.187)
0.157
(0.272)
0.390
(0.005)

0.193
(0.330)
0.165
(0.246)
0.055
(0.703)
0.048
(0.736)
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 explanations 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 appropriate 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
195

existence of natural resources in one prefecture are transferred to prefectures

with a developed secondary sector of the economy. Consequently, the inter-sectoral 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 precondition 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 factor 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 participation 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
18

Agriculture, forestry

16

Fishing

14

Mining and quarring

% GDP

12

Manufacturing

10

Trade

Hotels and
restaurants
Financial
intermedation
Real estate and
business activities

6
4

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1995

Year

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

196

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 countrys
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 developed 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 characteristics of the prefectures. More specifically, the correlation coefficient of resources
is examined in relation to: (a) the percentage of the urban population in each prefecture, (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 mentioned 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 indicators present low and often negative values in the correlation coefficients.
197

Table 8. Correlation coefficients between natural resources and social/economic characteristics

Number
Urban
Changein
of new
populaPrimary Secondary Tertiary
ProductivePopulation
Indicator
population
houses per
tion
sector
sector
sector
dynamism index
(%)
100 inabit(%)
ants
Cultural
0.340*
0.110
0.095
0.281
0.321*
0.407**
0.258
0.284
resources (0.015) (0.441)
(0.508) (0.045) (0.022) (0.003) (0.068) (0.043)
All coasts 0.381**
0.082
0.159 0.311* 0.385**
0.622**
0.065
0.080
(0.006) (0.568)
(0.265) (0.026) (0.005) (0.000) (0.648) (0.579)
All
0.338** 0.176*
0.263
0.105
0.051
0.157
0.324** 0.290**
forestal
(0.015) (0.0217) (0.062) (0.462) (0.723) (0.270) (0.020) (0.039)
resources
Mining
0.465** 0.334*
0.844**
0.071
0.574**
0.104
0.149 0.314*
wealth
(0.014) (0.017)
(0.000) (0.622) (0.000) (0.467) (0.298) (0.025)
and water
potential
All rural
0.045
0.206
0.694*
0.172
0.559**
0.224
0.188
0.005
areas
(0.000) (0.147)
(0.000) (0.226) (0.000) (0.113) (0.187) (0.974)
All rural 0.536** 0.350*
0.150
0.062
0.029
0.058
0.407
0.534
areas and (0.034) (0.027)
(0.725) (0.665) (0.837) (0.686) (0.003) (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. Regional 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).

198

 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. eihoros, 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 Plantations 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

199