tourism development, sustainability and local communities
TRANSCRIPT
/
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?