ΤΠΣ ΔΗΜΟΥ ΙΘΑΚΗΣ

SCENARIO 2 vs SCENARIO 3

I would like to start by thanking the administration for giving the chance to each individual who cares and has interests about ithaca's future to give his opinions.

I am new to ithaca as I bought a small house in the village of Stavros 3 years ago. I love the island and care about its future.

I believe a magical place like this one should navigate with care through changes, infrastructure development, tourism and urbanisation. Especially because of its spectacular qualities : if a granite rock cant be used as a diamond, the inverse is also true ;)

The following is mainly inspired from a comment written just before me by Mr Andrew Spyrou.

The comment is submitted in response to the recommendation of the Urban Planning Study to adopt Scenario 3 as the preferred model for Ithaca. From a careful reading and evaluation of all the technical and analytical data of the Study, it emerges that this option is not substantiated by the elements of the Study itself.

On the contrary, Scenario 2 (Limited Development – ​​Absolute Environmental Protection) is the only option that is fully in line with the real needs, constraints and trends recorded in the Study and that exist in Ithaca. Below, this conclusion is described in detail.

1. Demographics That Make Scenario 3 Unsuitable

Scenario 3 requires spatial redistribution, inland strengthening, and regional revitalization, which presupposes demographic stability or growth — conditions that do not exist according to the data in the document itself.

From the report, it seems clear that existing housing allocations and existing urban planning frameworks are more than adequate to accommodate both current and future populations, without requiring significant new development zones or shifting housing patterns. Scenario 3, which relies on the need for redistribution or reorganization, is not justified by any real spatial need.

Peak population estimates proves that there is no increasing tourist pressure that requires spatial expansion or relocation of activities.

2. Environmental and Climate Risks Countering Scenario 3

The Study warns of:
• Risk of sea level rise in low-lying coastal areas
• Flood risks from unconfined streams
• Landslide risks in settlements and road networks

Scenario 3 worsens the vulnerability of the island . Scenario 2 reduces it.

3. Water and Ecological Burden

Water resources are already under stress.

Increasing inland development — as proposed in Scenario 3 — will strain an already marginal system. Scenario 2, with a restriction on new consumption, is the only one compatible with the hydrological data.

4. Landscape and Biodiversity Protection – Sensitive Areas at Risk with Scenario 3

The Study highlights the extremely sensitive nature of the natural environment: Natura areas, UNESCO Geopark, archaeological sites, forests, wetlands and landscapes of unique natural beauty. Scenario 2, with the option of "absolute protection", is the only one that adequately responds to these needs, in contrast to Scenario 3 which promotes the redistribution of activities.

Landscape degradation from scattered tourist development is to be avoided at all cost. This is a short term view on the islands interests. The better we keep the island, the most value it will gain.

Scenario 3 attempts to shift tourism activity inland, without documenting that the hinterland is suitable for additional pressure and without taking into account the environmental sensitivity of these areas.
Scenario 2 extends protection zones and prevents these pressures.

also the Study reports conflicts between tourism and:
• Agriculture (olive groves, vineyards, horticulture)
• Livestock farming
• Small-scale productive activity

Scenario 3 places additional tourism pressure on rural landscapes. The SWOT analysis in the Study presents the economy of Ithaca as overly concentrated in the tertiary sector, and thus already overly dependent on tourism. The Study itself notes that the Primary Sector needs to be strengthened “against tourism activity” (page 455) — that is, that unilateral tourism development is considered insufficient and unsustainable. Scenario 2 complies with this need, while Scenario 3 ignores it and promotes even greater dependence. Scenario 2 strengthens the primary sector and reduces conflicts.

5. Infrastructure Constraints – Incompatibility with Scenario 3
- 5.1 Inability to serve dispersed areas. The Study emphasizes that providing networks to dispersed areas is objectively impossible and excessively costly. Scenario 3 promotes precisely this spatial dispersion. Scenario 2 limits it and respects infrastructural capabilities.

6. Internal contradictions in the Study weaken Scenario 3
6.1 The Study warns against scattered development, but Scenario 3 expands it.
6.2 The Study predicts demographic contraction, while Scenario 3 is based on a development logic more suitable for areas with population growth.
6.3 Infrastructure is characterized as inadequate for wider service of the hinterland, but Scenario 3 increases the load.

7. Conclusion – Scenario 2 is the only one compatible with the data of the Study.
The combined evaluation of all the above elements shows that:
• Demographic shrinkage does not allow for development dispersion
• Environmental and climate risks require limitation and protection
• Hydrological systems are already overloaded
• Landscape and biodiversity are at risk from the dispersion of tourism
• Infrastructure cannot serve the needs of Scenario 3

Of the three scenarios presented in the Study, Scenario 2 is the only Scenario that:
• Responds to real demographic data
• Protects natural resources
• Aligns with infrastructure capabilities
• Prevents climate vulnerability
• Ensures long-term environmental and social sustainability

I would be very grateful if this comment and the above points were taken into account when moving forward with the next stages of this process.

And if it is necessary to choose one of the three Scenarios, for all the above reasons, the rejection of Scenario 3 and the adoption of Scenario 2 are requested. Thus, Ithaca can become a shining example of excellent planning for its future.