Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only. Not for reproduction or distribution or commercial use.

This article was originally published by IWA Publishing. IWA Publishing recognizes the retention of the right by the author(s) to photocopy or make single electronic

copies of the paper for their own personal use, including for their own classroom use, or the personal use of colleagues, provided the copies are not offered for sale and

are not distributed in a systematic way outside of their employing institution.

Please note that you are not permitted to post the IWA Publishing PDF version of your paper on your own website or your institution’s website or repository.

Please direct any queries regarding use or permissions to waterpolicy@iwap.co.uk

Analysis and evaluation of the operational status of municipal

wastewater treatment plants in the Dodecanese prefecture

in Greece

Chrysi S. Laspidoua,*, Stylianos E. Gialisa, Athanasios Loukasa

and Athanasios Kungolosb

aCivil Engineering Department, University of Thessaly, Pedion Areos, Volos GR-38334, Greece.

*Corresponding author. Fax: þ 30 2421074169. E-mail: laspidou@uth.grbDepartment of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, Pedion Areos, Volos GR-38334, Greece

Abstract

Data from municipal and private wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) in the Dodecanese prefecture in Greece

was collected via a questionnaire and personal interviews, and was analyzed with respect to the operational status

of the plants. The data was compared with the latest reports by the Greek Ministry of the Environment, which is

what is officially reported at a national level and to the European Union (EU), and what judges Greece’s

compliance with EU Directives. Our assessment is that the picture presented by the Ministry is limited and

optimistic when compared to reality, with many plants going unreported. This confirms what other researchers

have reported previously, and presents an update on operational status, specifically for the highly touristic and

ecologically sensitive island area of the Dodecanese. A short survey of the private WWTPs belonging to hotel

establishments reveals that, although they are expected to treat a large percentage of the wastewaters produced in

the islands during summer months, most of them operate poorly, while no regular checks are performed by public

health officials.

Keywords: Dodecanese prefecture; Private wastewater treatment plant; Wastewater treatment plant;

Wastewater treatment plant operational status

1. Introduction

As a member state of the European Union, Greece has to comply with EU Wastewater Treatment

Directive 91/271/EEC. According to Article 4 of the Directive, member states should ensure that urban

wastewater entering collecting systems shall, before discharge, be subject to secondary treatment or an

equivalent treatment (CEC, 1991). This EU directive and its consecutive amendments have been adapted

doi: 10.2166/wp.2010.212

q IWA Publishing 2011

Water Policy 13 (2011) 287–297

to Greek legislation with the corresponding national directive KYA 5673/400/97, which classified all

Greek agglomerations into three priorities (A, B and C) (YPECHODE, 2007):

. Priority A includes all agglomerations of more than 10,000 population equivalents (p.e.) which

discharge their wastewaters to ‘sensitive’ water bodies, and had a deadline for completion of all

collection and treatment works of 31/12/1998;. Priority B includes all agglomerations of more than 15,000 p.e. which discharge their wastewaters to

‘regular’ water bodies, and had a deadline for completion of all collection and treatment works of

31/12/2000;. Priority C includes all agglomerations of more than 2,000 p.e. not included in the above categories,

and had a deadline for completion of all collection and treatment works of 31/12/2005. Priority C also

includes all agglomerations of less than 2,000 p.e. that are connected to a sewerage network.

According to the Greek Ministry of the Environment, 92% of the total population that should have

their wastewater treated is served by a WWTP, while 86% of the population is served by a sewerage

network (YPECHODE, 2007). What is troublesome is the fact that, while the numbers published by the

Ministry of the Environment seem optimistic, the reality appears to be somewhat grim. Tsagarakis et al.

(2001) conducted a study of the status of municipal WWTPs in Greece and found that, although a lot of

these plants were indeed built, many of them were not operating as expected. Specifically, they found

that 5.4% of the plants (21,850 p.e.) failed before they even started operation (operational failure is

defined for plants that operated for less than 10% of their expected time and/or were closed down for

8 years or more since construction). Furthermore, 41.9% of the plants (1,564,877 p.e.) were either under

construction, or incomplete (construction work had ceased for over a year, or construction was

completed but plants were not in operation). Only 52.7% (6,608,186 p.e.) of the existing plants were

operating as they should. The problem was even greater for small installations (500–10,000 p.e.

capacity): the Ministry of the Environment reported that, as of 2007, the group with the largest

deficiencies was Priority C, since 163 agglomerations that should be served by a WWTP were not being

served by one. On the other hand, Tsagarakis et al. (2001) report that one in three of the existing small

plants are problematic and not operational.

Another important aspect of Priority C agglomerations is that many of these small communities are

found in the Greek islands and face a number of specific issues, namely that they: (i) represent the core of

Greece’s tourist industry; (ii) experience a heavy seasonal rise in population; (iii) mostly discharge their

treated effluents to the sea and other sensitive ecosystems; and (iv) deal with issues of insularism.

Specifically, the Dodecanese prefecture lies at the south-eastern border of Greece with a population of

200,000 unequally distributed among 14 populated islands, creating strong contradictions amongst the

two major urban centres of Rhodes and Kos and the various small isolated islands (e.g. Agathonisi or

Arkoi). Rhodes, with an area of 1,410 km2 and a population of 117,000 people, is the largest island of

the Dodecanese and the fourth largest island in Greece. Except for Rhodes and Kos (administratively

divided into ten and three municipalities, respectively), all other Dodecanese islands have a unique

municipality. The need to address the operation of small and decentralized WWTPs in Greece is urgent,

while a special look of their status in the Greek islands is warranted (Avlonitis et al., 2002). The purpose

of this paper is to analyze and evaluate the operational status of municipal WWTPs in the Dodecanese,

Greece. This type of theoretically informed empirical research is important because it sheds light on

issues and trends that official reports fail to show.

C. S. Laspidou et al. / Water Policy 13 (2011) 2 –287 97288

2. Materials and methods

In order to compare the official picture, published nationally and presented to the EU, regarding the

operational status of municipal WWTPs in Greece to the real picture, we contacted the Ministry of the

Environment and received their most recent reports on the number and operational status of municipal

WWTPs in Greece. A more extensive survey was conducted for the Dodecanese. We formulated a

questionnaire that was sent out to all municipalities of the prefecture. Below, we present the data that

were provided from these two sources.

The questionnaire addressed the following points:

. status of WWTP (operational status, location, area, status of connection with existing sewerage

network);. short history and cost data (dates of construction and commencement of operation, who was/is

responsible for construction and Operation & Maintenance of the plant);. special features and potential of WWTP: number of p.e. currently (and potentially) served, peak

population during tourist season, level of treatment performed (primary, secondary, tertiary), type of

treatment (activated sludge, biofilters, natural systems, etc.), flow rate and effluent quality, disposal

site of treated effluents and whether any effluent recycling is done;. WWTP problems (financial, technical, personnel, management issues, future needs and/or other

problems of the plant).

Since a large portion of the population served in the islands consists of tourists, we collected data on

the number and size of hotel establishments in the Dodecanese, in order to assess the number of

additional p.e. that overload the WWTPs during the spring/summer months. Many of these

establishments are obligated by law to operate small on-site WWTPs to treat their wastewaters before

discharging their effluents either to the sewerage network or directly to a natural water body.

Furthermore, we interviewed Public Health Inspectors responsible for monitoring compliance of effluent

water quality with national regulations to get information on the degree of operation and compliance of

the private small WWTPs. All data collected were analyzed in a GIS environment, facilitating our

analysis relevant to plant location, respective distance from urban centres, degree of connectivity with

sewerage networks, and proximity to the sea.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Ministry of the environment data

We received the most up-to-date official data reported by the Ministry of the Environment regarding

the operational status of municipal WWTPs in Greece for Priority A, B and C agglomerations. Since the

focus of this paper is on Priority C agglomerations, we only present an analysis of the data regarding all

priorities for the two largest urban centres in Greece: Athens and Thessaloniki. These two centres belong

to the regions of Attica and Central Macedonia, respectively, and contain over 60% of the country’s

overall population. Table 1 shows the number of municipal WWTPs for all priorities, according to their

operational status. Four official distinctions are made by the Ministry: operational, non-operational,

C. S. Laspidou et al. / Water Policy 13 (2011) 2 –287 97 289

under construction and needed. As we can see from Table 1 and from an analysis of the data for

the rest of the country, only one Priority A WWTP is under construction, the one in Attica, while all

others are operational. It should be noted here that according to the EU Wastewater Treatment Directive,

all Priority A plants should have been operational by the end of 1998 and that these establishments

serve a large portion of the population (over 10,000 p.e.). Attica is the only region in Greece in which

Priority B plants are needed; in actuality, half of the Priority B plants in Attica are under this

classification, while both Attica and Central Macedonia are almost the only regions in the country that

have Priority B WWTPs that are non-operational. As far as Priority C plants in the two regions are

concerned, we see that many more plants (both in absolute numbers and in relative terms) are either

operational or needed in Central Macedonia, even though the population in Attica is approximately four

times larger than that in Central Macedonia. This could be attributed to the fact that the population in the

former is more concentrated and urbanized, while the area of the latter region is significantly larger.

The operational status of municipal WWTPs for all regions in Greece, as reported by the Greek

Ministry of the Environment, for Priority C agglomerations is mapped in Figure 1. The size of the pie in

the figure is proportional to the number of municipal WWTPs in each region. It is obvious that a large

number of Priority C plants are either not operational, or need to be constructed, or are under

construction. For all regions, less than 50% of plants are in operation. When compared to the total

number of WWTPs reported by the Ministry of the Environment, we see that over 75% of the plants are

classified as Priority C plants and are extensively dispersed around the country, while many of them are

found in isolated mountainous or island communities.

3.2. Questionnaire data

We present a compilation of all data collected by the questionnaire in Table 2.

WWTPs were constructed with EU funding for the most part, while there were national- and

municipal-level contributions. For most WWTPs, construction and/or operation was initiated in the

1990s. There are serious problems with the connectivity of all communities to an existing sewerage

network. Almost all WWTPs report an acceptable effluent quality and a sufficient plant capacity to serve

all p.e.’s, even during the high tourist season (with the exception of Kos). Most WWTPs use the

extended aeration activated sludge method and most provide tertiary treatment. Effluents are most

commonly discharged to the sea, or to nearby rivers.

Table 1. Number and operational status of municipal WWTPs for the regions of Attica and Central Macedonia, as reported by

the Ministry of the Environment (YPECHODE, 2007).

Attica region Central Macedonia region

Priority A Priority B Priority C Priority A Priority B Priority C

Status No.

Total

(%) No.

Total

(%) No.

Total

(%) No.

Total

(%) No.

Total

(%) No.

Total

(%)

Operational 1 50 1 13 4 19 3 100 8 80 25 34

Non-operational 0 0 2 25 0 0 0 0 1 10 6 8

Under construction 1 50 1 13 1 5 0 0 1 10 5 7

Needed 0 0 4 50 16 76 0 0 0 0 38 51

Total 2 100 8 100 21 100 3 100 10 100 74 100

C. S. Laspidou et al. / Water Policy 13 (2011) 2 –287 97290

Our overall assessment of the responses received, especially when put in the context of the personal

interviews we conducted, was that the picture presented by the municipalities on the questionnaires was

an idealized one, for the most part. Most WWTPs reported either no problems, or only minor technical

problems with pumps and electronic equipment in the plant. The effluent water quality seemed to be in

compliance with regulations, even during the summer months. Plant size was reported sufficient to cover

the needs of the p.e. in the area. Most plants did not appear to be in need of extra funding. An exception

to all questionnaires was the one from Kos, which presented a more ‘realistic’ picture. They reported

a need for expansion and thus a need for extra funding, as the p.e. served exceeded plant capacity,

especially during summer months. Effluent quality reported did not meet the regulated standards

for the summer months; furthermore, the need for technical personnel available on a permanent basis

was emphasized.

Fig. 1. Regions and municipal WWTPs in Greece according to their operational status, as reported by the Greek Ministry of the

Environment for Priority C agglomerations (YPECHODE, 2007).

C. S. Laspidou et al. / Water Policy 13 (2011) 2 –287 97 291

Tab

le2

.C

om

pil

atio

no

fd

ata

coll

ecte

db

yth

eq

ues

tio

nn

aire

sen

to

ut

toal

lm

un

icip

alit

ies

inth

eD

od

ecan

ese

Pre

fect

ure

.(A

llW

WT

Ps

are

exte

nd

edae

rati

on

acti

vat

edsl

ud

ge

syst

ems,

exce

pt

for

the

Pet

alo

ud

on

/Kre

mas

tiW

WT

P,

wh

ich

isa

bio

-blo

cksy

stem

).

WW

TP

nam

e

Com

mu

nit

y

serv

ed

Min

imu

m

env

iro

n-

men

tal

stat

us

Act

ual

stat

us

Sew

erag

e

net

work

cov

erag

e

(%)

Co

nst

ruct

/

op

erat

ion

yea

r

Ori

gin

of

fun

ds

p.e

.

serv

ed:

min

/max

Ex

pan

sion

pla

nn

ed

Tre

atm

ent

lev

el

Effl

uen

t

mee

ts

regu

late

d

stan

dar

ds

Effl

uen

t

dis

char

ge

site

Rec

ycl

e

effl

uen

t

Rh

od

esR

ho

des

,

Iali

sso

s,

Ko

skin

ou

OO

50

19

94

/20

00

EU

80

%/

OW

N2

0%

12

,00

0/

40

,00

0

Yes

Sec

ond

ary

Yes

Sea

No

Ata

vir

os

Em

po

na

NR

O7

01

99

4/1

99

8E

U9

0%

/

OW

N1

0%

1,2

00

/

3,6

00

No

Sec

ond

ary

NA

Riv

erN

o

Ata

vir

os

Sia

nn

aN

RU

C7

0N

AN

AN

AN

oS

eco

nd

ary

NA

Riv

erN

o

Kam

eiro

sS

oro

ni

NR

UC

50

20

07

NA

NA

No

Sec

ond

ary

NA

Sea

No

Lin

do

sL

ind

os

NR

O5

0N

AN

AN

AN

oS

eco

nd

ary

NA

Sea

No

Pet

alo

ud

on

Kre

mas

ti,

Par

adis

i,

Pas

tid

a

OO

80

19

96

/19

98

EU

75

%/

OW

N2

5%

8,0

00

/

11

,00

0

No

Ter

tiar

yY

esS

eaN

o

Pet

alo

ud

on

Mar

itsa

NR

O1

00

19

99

/20

01

EU

10

0%

1,6

00

/

2,1

00

No

Sec

ond

ary

Yes

Riv

erN

o

Sy

mi

Sy

mi

NR

PO

30

NA

OW

N1

00

%N

AN

oN

AN

AS

eaN

o

Sy

mi

Sy

mi

NR

UC

30

NA

OW

N1

00

%N

AN

oN

AN

AS

eaN

o

Ko

sK

os

OO

96

19

90

/19

91

EU

87

%/

OW

N1

3%

22

,00

0/

45

,00

0

Yes

Ter

tiar

yN

oS

eaY

es,

40

%

Ko

sIr

akel

ido

nU

CU

C7

02

00

6N

AN

AN

oN

AN

AS

eaN

o

Kal

imn

os

Kal

imn

os

OP

O5

02

00

5/2

00

8E

U8

0%

/

OW

N2

0%

12

,00

0N

oT

erti

ary

NA

Sea

No

Kal

imn

os

Vat

hi

NR

NO

5N

AN

AN

AN

oN

AN

AS

eaN

o

Ler

os

Ler

os

OP

O8

01

99

6/2

00

7E

U1

00

%2

50

0/

60

00

No

Sec

ond

ary

Yes

Sea

Yes

,

10

%

Pat

mos

Pat

mo

sN

RN

O8

0N

AN

AN

AN

oS

eco

nd

ary

NA

Sea

No

Lei

pso

iL

eip

soi

NR

O8

01

99

7/2

00

0E

U1

00

%7

00

/

20

00

Yes

Sec

ond

ary

NA

Sea

No

Ast

ipal

aia

Ast

ipal

aia

NR

UC

50

20

07

EU

80

%/

OW

N2

0%

NA

No

Sec

ond

ary

NA

Sea

No

Ab

bre

via

tio

ns:

EU

:E

U’s

fun

ds;

NA

:d

ata

no

tav

aila

ble

;N

O:

no

t-o

per

atio

nal

;N

R:

no

tre

po

rted

;O

:o

per

atio

nal

;O

WN

:M

un

icip

alit

y’s

ow

nfu

nd

s;p

.e.:

po

pu

lati

on

equ

ival

ents

;P

O:

par

tly

-op

erat

ion

al;

UC

:u

nd

erco

nst

ruct

ion

.

C. S. Laspidou et al. / Water Policy 13 (2011) 2 –287 97292

A major discrepancy we identified is related to the number of municipal WWTPs in the Dodecanese

reported by the Ministry of the Environment vs the number we recorded from the questionnaires

(Figure 2). A possible reason for this discrepancy is that some of them were under construction, or were

soon to start operation; however, this is not significant enough to explain all differences (Tsagarakis

et al., 2000). Some of the plants were constructed by the municipalities, either with their own or EU

funds, and were not being reported to and/or recorded by the Ministry of the Environment. Given the

peculiarities of the Greek socio-institutional and political framework, e.g., poor and opaque planning

and management of infrastructure, contracting of public works by irrational criteria based on local

networks of political paternalistic relations, we can postulate that these plants were built without the

necessary planning that should have preceded their construction, and that their operation faces reliability

and effluent quality problems. A major problem that was identified is that, to a large extent, there has

been no sewerage network coverage to large parts of the area. Some areas that are locally covered (fully

or partly) by a network have been expecting to be connected to other networks of nearby municipalities

served by WWTPs. Such delays are usually due to a lack of funding. However, in the case of Rhodes, it

appears that local disputes and disagreements have blocked such construction. Once again, the situation

is indicative of poor planning and the hierarchy of public works construction; as a result, WWTPs are

constructed without first having secured the sewerage network connectivity that makes possible the

transport of wastewater to the plant. In Figure 2, we see large areas still not covered by a sewerage

network and thus not being served by nearby municipal WWTPs. Furthermore, we see that large areas of

south-eastern Rhodes and Karpathos island, as well as several smaller islands (Tilos, Nisiros, Patmos

and others) have no operational WWTP.

Another issue identified is that there are no specific measures taken to ensure that WWTP effluents are

recycled. According to questionnaire responses, only one of the WWTPs in the Dodecanese (Leros)

actually recycles a small percentage (10%) of effluent for agricultural irrigation, while the WWTP in

Kos has started effluent recycling in the summer of 2008. This issue becomes even more significant

given the fact that many of the islands face serious water shortage problems, especially during the

summer (Angelakis et al., 2003; Tsagarakis et al., 2004). Treated effluents could be used for irrigation of

parks, backyards, woodlands or even crops in some cases, as well as for groundwater recharge depending

on the degree of disinfection and treatment and the local geological, land use and water use

characteristics. Proper planning by funding agencies (EU or other government agencies) should include

an economic incentive for WWTPs to recycle their treated effluent. This could be done by making

effluent recycling a prerequisite before any funding is approved.

Regarding the small systems receiving wastewater from hotel establishments, we can see that, based on

the number of hotel beds reported by the Chambers of Tourism for the Dodecanese in 2009 (140,703 in

total, corresponding to 281,406 p.e. when 100% occupied), and given that only hotels with 50 beds or

more are obligated to treat their own waste, approximately 47% of wastewater generated in the prefecture

during the peak summer months is not treated in a centralized system, but rather in small systems. This

can be seen in Figure 3, in which we show the distribution of p.e.’s served by private hotel WWTPs and

municipal WWTPs. Specifically for the larger municipalities of Rhodes and Kos, the p.e.’s served by

private WWTPs exceed those served by municipal WWTPs. The problem with these small systems is that

they do not usually have strict discharge limits, or have no enforcement of limits at all. Historically, and in

the majority of cases today, even in the U.S.A., onsite treatment employs technologies that represent a

‘lowest common denominator’ approach (Crites & Tchobanoglous, 1998; Laspidou, 2006). Frequently,

the absolutely simplest, least expensive, and least monitored systems are the only ones employed.

C. S. Laspidou et al. / Water Policy 13 (2011) 2 –287 97 293

Moreover, our interviews of the Greek Public Health Officials in Rhodes revealed that there is no standard

monitoring frequency of plant operation and effluent quality for these small plants. Such checks take

place only after charges are being pressed against a specific hotel establishment and the purpose of the

check is merely to impose a fine, and not to ensure proper plant operation and high-quality effluents.

Fig. 2. GIS data analysis of operational status of municipal and small private WWTPs and sewerage network connectivity in the

Dodecanese prefecture. [R: Reported by the Ministry of the Environment; NR: not-reported by the Ministry of the Environment].

C. S. Laspidou et al. / Water Policy 13 (2011) 2 –287 97294

3.3. Policy implications

The various problems and discrepancies presented in this study indicate that significant policy

measures must be taken, both on a national and on a local level of administration and planning. We have

identified that, at a national level, at least three different ministries are involved in the management of

WWTPs in Greece: the Ministry of the Environment, through the General Directorate for Environmental

Planning; the Ministry of Public Health, through the Directorate of Environmental Hygiene and Hygiene

Mechanics; and the Ministry of Finance, through the General Chemical State Laboratory. Unfortunately,

although these organizations are the major players in planning, licensing and monitoring of WWTP

facilities, they do not collaborate but function as isolated units and, in some cases, as competing actors.

Their operation is guided by responsibility evasion and lack of coordination, at least as far as wastewater

issues are concerned.

In the context of developing an integrated and visionary national water policy, the three ministries and

all relevant departments and organizations operating under them should be properly interconnected and

coordinated. Needless to say, this includes a large number of entities and their coordination could be a

formidable task, especially given the Greek institutional and administrative bureaucracy. An

independent body acting as an external coordinator could be a working solution: such a role could be

undertaken by the recently (2004) founded Environmental Inspectors Body. However, our research

shows that, almost 6 years after its foundation, it still remains at a defunct operational status, lacking

staff, political enhancement and organization. We postulate that a specific department within this body,

dealing exclusively with the monitoring and evaluation of WWTPs, could be a ‘high road’ policy

practice to help to overcome the present situation.

Strong policy measures are also needed at the regional and local level. As the Dodecanese study

reveals, local institutions suffer from symptoms already diagnosed at the national level of analysis. Local

government offices, such as the Department of Environmental Conservation of the Dodecanese

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Her

akle

idon

-Kos

Mun

icip

ality

Kos

Dik

aiou

-Kos

Mun

icip

ality

Rho

des

Arc

hang

elos

-Rho

des

Ata

viro

s-R

hode

s

Afa

ndou

-Rho

des

Ialis

sos-

Rho

des

Kam

eiro

s-R

hode

s

Lind

os-R

hode

s

Sou

th R

hode

s

Kal

lithe

as-R

hode

s

Pet

alou

don-

Rho

des

Pop

ulat

ion

equi

vale

nts

Hotel p.e.

Municipality p.e.

Fig. 3. Population equivalents served by hotel WWTPs (when 100% occupied) and municipal WWTPs for all municipalities in

the islands of Rhodes and Kos.

C. S. Laspidou et al. / Water Policy 13 (2011) 2 –287 97 295

Prefecture, must be properly interconnected with the above-mentioned national authorities and their

local representatives. Our survey showed that a systematic and periodic framework of inspections for

private and municipal WWTPs is almost absent; thus, qualified local authorities must be directly staffed

and enhanced in order to carry out these systematic inspections. Secondary level inspections conducted

by government officials should supplement these primary level inspections and ensure the integrity of

the whole monitoring mechanism and regulation enforcement. Private WWTP owners who fail to meet

regulated standards should be fined accordingly.

These obviously necessary organizational policy measures should be further expanded into two

important levels of planning and implementation: at the financial and technical support level. This study

underlines that, during the past 15 years, significant financial support has been directed to local

authorities in order to design and construct wastewater treatment facilities. EU funding played a major

role in the acceleration of this process. What is obvious is that poor and partial planning allowed many of

these establishments to be poorly functioning or completely unexploited.

For the operation of existing WWTPs, specific financial and technical support has to be directed at the

three following axes of intervention: (i) sewerage network completion and connection to the appropriate

municipal WWTP; (ii) proper staffing and management; and (iii) periodic maintenance and technical

support. Specifically for small and isolated islands that are too small to justify permanent technical

personnel, a technical support team operating under the prefecture’s rule and authority could cover their

needs. With regard to WWTPs that are either at the planning stage or under construction, approval for

further funding (already at risk due to present economic circumstances) should be accompanied by a new

evaluation of the needs served by each WWTP, as well as by their geographical location, to ensure a

well-balanced and evenly distributed network of municipal WWTP facilities.

4. Conclusions

We conducted a survey of the operational status of WWTPs (either municipal, or small and private) in

the prefecture of the Dodecanese and compared our findings to the corresponding official data reported

by the Greek Ministry of the Environment. Our assessment is that the Ministry reports a limited and

idealized picture, while the reality appears really problematic. The situation is even worse for the small

private WWTPs of hotel establishments that treat a large percentage of the wastewater produced in the

islands during the summer months. These small plants are often not operational at all and are subject to

almost no control by the authorities, unless a lawsuit arises. It is obvious that wastewater management in

Greece, especially for the highly touristic and ecologically sensitive island areas, has serious deficiencies

and is in need of integrated planning, monitoring, financial and technical support, and quality control.

There is still a lot to be done until priority C municipal WWTPs are completed and properly functioning,

and this research (which concentrated on the Dodecanese islands) can be expanded to many other

regions facing similar problems in the country, such as the Cyclades, Ionian and North Aegean islands,

as well as other small and remote communities in Greece, or the EU.

The analysis and evaluation of the operational status of WWTPs by means of theoretically informed

empirical case studies is a useful and interpretative methodology for researchers. Additionally, it can be

an important tool for use in overcoming the officially reported idealized picture of water and wastewater

treatment, and quality issues in Greece and abroad. A realistic and synergistic picture of the issues

involved is a necessary precondition for any rational, or even radical, intervention in this field.

C. S. Laspidou et al. / Water Policy 13 (2011) 2 –287 97296

Management and operation of WWTPs should not be marginalized as a special task left to groups of

experts and technocrats. Rather, since wastewater management is unavoidably connected to the wider

water use and environmental sustainability problems of our times, it should remain at the top of the

socio–political agenda for the years to come.

References

Angelakis, A. N., Bontoux, L. & Lazarova, V. (2003). Challenges and prospectives for water recycling and reuse in

EU countries. Water Science and Technology Water Supply, 3(4), 59–68.

Avlonitis, S. A., Poulios, I., Vlachakis, N., Tsitmidelis, S., Kouroumbas, K., Avlonitis, D. & Pavlou, M. (2002). Water

resources management for the prefecture of Dodekanisa of Greece. Desalination, 152(1–3), 41–50.

Council of European Communities (CEC) (1991). Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban wastewater treatment

(91/271/EEC). Official Journal of the European Communities, L135/40 (30 May) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/

water-urbanwaste/directiv.html (accessed 2 November 2010).

Crites, R. W. & Tchobanoglous, G. (1998). Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems. McGraw-Hill,

New York, USA.

Laspidou, C. S. (2006). Wastewater treatment in small communities by constructed wetlands. In Proceedings of the first Pan-

Hellenic conference on small and decentralized wastewater treatment units. Portaria, Greece, 8–9 April 2006 (in Greek).

Zouboulis, A., Kungolos, A., Samaras, P. & Prochaska, C. (eds). Grafima, Thessaloniki.

Tsagarakis, K. P., Mara, D. D., Horan, N. J. & Angelakis, A. N. (2000). Small municipal wastewater treatment plants in Greece.

Water Science and Technology, 41(1), 41–48.

Tsagarakis, K. P., Mara, D. D., Horan, N. J. & Angelakis, A. N. (2001). Institutional status and structure of wastewater quality

management in Greece. Water Policy, 3(1), 81–99.

Tsagarakis, K. P., Dialynas, G. E. & Angelakis, A. N. (2004). Water resources management in Crete (Greece) including water

recycling and reuse and proposed quality criteria. Agricultural Water Management, 66(1), 35–47.

YPECHODE (Greek Ministry of the Environment) (2007). Corporate Program Environment and Sustainable Development,

2007–2013. Greek Ministry of the Environment, Athens (in Greek).

Received 2 October 2008; accepted in revised form 7 December 2009. Available online 18 June 2010

C. S. Laspidou et al. / Water Policy 13 (2011) 2 –287 97 297