/

Metsäntutkimuslaitos Skogsforskningsinstitutet Finnish Forest Research Institute www.metla.fi

TOURISM DEVELOPMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Case studies from Finnish Lapland

Seija TuulentieD.Soc.Sc., senior researcher

Finnish Forest Research Institute

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

Quebec,17th March 2009

Basic issues

What is the role of tourism in rural change in remote northern regions?

What happens to the local communities in the context of tourism?

Who has got a say in tourism development?

How can local knowledge be better utilized in tourism sector?

Sustainability of tourism in remote regionsTourism is relatively more important in peripheral rural areas than in cities

’Underdevelopment’ is positive as far as tourism is concernedIn Finland, tourism is more important to Lapland than to other provinces

In many regions, tourist enterprises are practically the only employers in private sector

The idea of sustainability is nowadays an integral part of differents strategies but three rhetorical problems exist:

1) The concept remains unspecified, 2) it is used to justify a wide range of contradictory issues or 3) sustainability may be seen as a narrow issue related only to e.g. national parks

In sustainability discourse, ecological issues are recognized and economic issues seem to be important but social and cultural issues are seldom addressed

Tourism is important for Finnish Lapland

Our recent research projects Tourist destinations as landscape laboratories:Tools for sustainable tourism EU Life Environment –projectCoordinator: Arctic Centre, University of Lapland 2004-2007 Sustainable Use of Forests in Northern LaplandCoordinator: Finnish Forest Research Institute 2004-2008

show that local communities benefit from tourism sector both in terms of economy and demography

Research areas: 1) EU Life Environment project

0,00

20,00

40,00

60,00

80,00

100,00

120,00

140,00

160,00

180,00

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Kittilä

Sirkka

Köngäs

Kolari

Ylläsjärvi

Äkäslompolo

Seutukunta

Tourist centres have increased their population while other parts of municipalities are losing residents:The change in population numbers since 1985 in tourist centres and municipal centres in Kittilä and Kolari

2) Sustainable use of forests in Northern Lapland

= Sámi home region

Economic importance of nature-based sources of livelihood for the local economy in Inari (Pirkonen 2005)

Branch Total output

M€

Total output (gross)

M€

Employ- ment

man-yr

Gross employ-ment

man-yr

Reindeer husbandry 4.0 7.5 217 240

Metsähallitus, forestry 5.9 11.7 91 132

Private forestry 3.1 5.4 32 47

Wood industry 5.1 8.4 37 66

Metsähallitus, Natural Heritage Services 3.2 7.1 38 65

Tourism 56.5 107.4 703 1053

Tourist resorts consist of three structures: rural, urban and wilderness

linkki

linkki

linkki

•How are these spheres combined in an actual destination?

•Does one of them dominate?

Rural village and countryside with traditional livelihoods

Tourist resorts with urban structures

Wilderness areas as resource for tourism and villages

Social sustainability in focus

Social (and cultural) sustainability issuesContinuityRegional, local and ethnic identities EmploymentDwelling conditionsQuality of lifeThe possibility of local people to participate in decision-making

Social sustainability is in many ways intertwined with environmental and economic dimensions

Participation as a prerequisite for sustainability

Although sustainability can refer to a variety of issues, in our study the possibility to participate was regarded as the most important (Tuulentie 2007)

Why should local people be involved?Local knowledgePrevention of conflictDemocracy

Who should be involved?Increasing mobility - does local community exist?Increase in interest groupsDifferences in abilities to participate (time, education, expertise)

What effects participation has?Without concrete effects hearings are useless

Experiences of participation in the ski resorts in Finnish Lapland (three phases; cf. Butler 1980, 1993)

Exploration and involvement (approx. 1930s onwards)Home accommodationClose host-guest relationsVery small local enterprises

Development (approx. 1960s onwards)Tourism escaped from local hands – especially in 1980sParadoxically, the recession of the early 1990s restored close interaction for a while: wide negotiations between different parties

Consolidation (approx. 1990s onwards)The pace of change is still so fast that locals feel powerless: everything just appearsTourism offers work but it also makes living in the villages difficult : land too valuable for the villagersFeeling of undemocratic planning, big hopes for new Finnish legislation for land-use and construction (2000)

Tools to strenghten community cohesion

Development of the preconditions for participation: According to our survey and focus group interviews, local residents would like to have new kinds of local advisory committees or such to make participation easierPossibility to have a say from the beginning of planning processesThe question of trust: lack of confidence due to bad experiences in the past planning projects is quite common

More interaction between different groups:Seasonal tourism workers need to be attached to the local communityIn some villages, second home owners have their own associations co-operation with the locals neededTourist activities remain strange for the locals possibilities to be acquinted with the tourism sphere have been created

An example of an attempt to put sustainability into practice: Finnish Forest and Park Service’s sustainable nature tourism principles

1. Natural values are preserved and all activities promote nature conservation2. The environment is subjected to as little pressure as possible3. Local traditions and cultures are respected4. Visitors increase their understanding and appreciation of nature and cultures

5. Improved recreational facilities are provided for visitors6. Visitors are encouraged to enjoy both mental and physical recreation 7. Local economies and employment are promoted8. Publicity materials are produced responsibly and carefully9. Activities are planned and organised co-operatively

www.metsa.fi > natural heritage > protected areas > sustainable nature tourism

ConclusionsNature tourism destinations in Lapland as well as in many other remote regions are exceptional places

They combine urban structures with rural communities and use wilderness areas as places of consumption instead of former productive useIn this regard, municipal representative decision-making is not enough

Tourism is extremely important for the villages but, in spite of that, conflicts have arisen and will arise

Participatory practices have to be developed aslocal communities and cultures are part of tourism productunspoilt nature is an important tourist attractionimage matters in tourism business

Participatory processes have to be credibleImportant to notice that even the smalliest communities consist of people with different interests

Thank you!

Questions? Comments?