SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DESTINATION MANAGEMENT Multiple … · Sustainable tourism destination management, multiple case study from Lapland Main subject Tourism marketing and management

University of Eastern Finland

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies

Business School

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DESTINATION MANAGEMENT

Multiple case study from Lapland

Master’s thesis, Tourism Marketing and Management

Ella Väänänen 299758

May 2020

2

Abstract UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies

Department Business School

Author Ella Väänänen

Supervisor Raija Komppula

Title Sustainable tourism destination management, multiple case study from Lapland

Main subject Tourism marketing and management

Level Master’s degree

Date 16.5.2020

Number of pages 86+1

Abstract The purpose of the thesis is to gain understanding of sustainable tourism destination in Lapland. Many destinations considered themselves as sustainable, however tourism research still argues there are significant shortcomings in implementing sustainability. This study tries to provide an insight on the sustainable destination management practices in Lapland. Sustainability needs to be managed, monitored and measured to be effective and to deliver the best possible outcome. This research is conducted using a qualitative approach. The research is an intensive and intrinsic multiple case study research from Lapland. Semi-structured theme interviews were used for data collection. The interview questions were based on the theory of sustainable destination management. Nine interviews were carried out, three in each case study destination: Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs. The interviewees were tourism professionals from a variety of backgrounds. The chief executive officers from each respective DMO were interviewed and snowball sampling and previous destination knowledge determined the rest of the interviewees. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to analyse the data. The findings show that whereas Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs are sustainable by nature, clear guidelines for implementing and monitoring sustainability still cease to exist yet. Sustainability is not currently systematically monitored or measured in any of the case study destinations. This reveals the need for the recent national sustainability programme. Ecological aspect of sustainability is currently the most highlighted aspect in according to over half of the interviews. However, economic sustainability indicators are seen as the most important. The DMO’s play an important role in sustainable destination management with businesses, municipality and joint responsibility. Many concrete actions have already been taken to improve sustainability in these destinations, but resources and workload as well as cooperation and engagement are seen as challenges in sustainable destination management.

Key words

Sustainable management, sustainability monitoring, sustainability indicators, ETIS, Lapland

3

Tiivistelmä ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO Tiedekunta Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta

Yksikkö Kauppatieteiden laitos

Tekijä Ella Väänänen

Ohjaaja Raija Komppula

Työn nimi Kestävä matkailukohteen johtaminen, monitapaustutkimus Lapista

Pääaine Matkailun johtaminen ja markkinointi

Työn laji Pro Gradu -tutkielma

Aika 16.5.2020

Sivuja 86+1

Tiivistelmä Tutkielman tavoitteena on selvittää, miten kestäviä matkakohteita johdetaan Lapissa. Monet matkakohteet ilmoittavat olevansa kestäviä, mutta aiemmat tutkimukset ovat tuoneet ilmi puutteita kestävyyden toteutuksessa ja toimeenpanossa. Tämä tutkimus pyrkii selvittämään, miten kestävyyttä lähestytään ja minkälaisia kestävyystoimia Lapissa harjoitetaan. Kestävyyttä täytyy johtaa, monitoroida ja mitata, jotta se olisi vaikuttavaa ja että se tuottaisi matkakohteelle suurimman mahdollisimman hyödyn. Tutkimus toteutettiin laadullisena tutkimuksena. Tutkimus on intensiivinen ja itsessään arvokas monitapaustutkimus Lapista. Aineisto kerättiin puolistrukturoidulla teemahaastatteluilla. Haastattelukysymykset pohjautuivat kestävään matkailukohteen johtamisteoriaan. Yhteensä yhdeksän haastattelua tehtiin, kolme jokaisesta tapaustutkimuskohteesta: Leviltä, Ruka-Kuusamosta ja Ylläkseltä. Haastateltavat edustavat erilaisia taustoja ja rooleja kohteiden matkailualalla. Kohteiden matkailun alueorganisaatioiden toimitusjohtajat olivat haastatteluissa ensimmäisinä mukana ja loput haastateltavista valittiin lumipallo-otannalla ja aikaisempaan aluetuntemukseen pohjautuen. Haastatteluista kerätty aineisto analysoitiin laadullista sisältöanalyysiä käyttäen. Päätulokset osoittavat, että kestävyys kulkee punaisena lankana Levillä, Ruka-Kuusamossa ja Ylläksellä. Siitä huolimatta selkeitä ohjeita kestävyyden toteuttamiseen ja mittaamiseen ei vielä ole. Kestävyyttä ei mitata, eikä monitoroida systemaattisesti missään tapaustutkimuskohteessa. Tulos osoittaa, että vasta julkistettu kansallinen kestävyysohjelma koetaan tärkeäksi ohjenuoraksi. Yli puolet haastateltavista totesivat, että kestävyyden ekologinen ulottuvuus on eniten pinnalla. Siitä huolimatta taloudelliset indikaattorit koettiin tärkeämmiksi. Matkailun alueorganisaatioita pidetään tärkeitä tekijöinä kestävyyden johtamisessa, kuten myös jokaista yrittäjää, kuntaa ja jaettua vastuuta. Monia konkreettisia toimia on tehty kestävyyden parantamiseksi, mutta pienet resurssit, suuri työtaakka, yhteistyö ja matkailutekijöiden sitouttaminen ovat haasteita kestävässä johtamisessa näissä matkailukohteissa. Avainsanat

Kestävä johtaminen, kestävyyden monitorointi, kestävyysindikaattorit, ETIS, Lappi

4

Table of Contents

1.1 Research background ...................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1.1 Sustainability in current tourism management practices ........................................................................ 7

1.1.2 Previous studies ....................................................................................................................................... 9

1.2 Objectives and research questions ................................................................................................................ 10

1.3 Approach, context and limitations ................................................................................................................ 12

1.4 Lapland as a tourism destination .................................................................................................................. 13

1.5 Key concepts ................................................................................................................................................ 14

1.6 Structure of the thesis ................................................................................................................................... 16

2 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DESTINATION MANAGEMENT ...................................................................... 17

2.1 Sustainability in tourism ............................................................................................................................... 17

2.2 Aspects of sustainable tourism ..................................................................................................................... 19

2.3 Sustainable destination management ............................................................................................................ 22

2.3.1 Sustainability and destination competitiveness ..................................................................................... 22

2.3.2 DMO in sustainable tourism destination management ......................................................................... 23

2.3.3 Stakeholder cooperation ........................................................................................................................ 24

2.4 Assessing and monitoring sustainable destination management .................................................................. 26

2.5 Sustainability indicators ............................................................................................................................... 29

2.5.1 Sustainability indicators in tourism ....................................................................................................... 29

2.5.2 ETIS by European Commission ............................................................................................................ 32

2.6. Sustainable tourism policies and programmes in Finland ........................................................................... 38

3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 42

3.1 Research approach ........................................................................................................................................ 42

3.2 Data collection methods ............................................................................................................................... 43

3.3 Data analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 46

4 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................................... 48

4.1 Approach to sustainable tourism management ............................................................................................. 48

4.1.1 Sustainability aspects ............................................................................................................................ 48

4.1.2 Sustainable destination management strategy ....................................................................................... 50

4.2 Leadership on sustainable tourism management .......................................................................................... 51

4.3 Measuring and monitoring sustainable tourism management ...................................................................... 54

5

4.4 Concrete actions ........................................................................................................................................... 58

4.5 Current and future challenges ....................................................................................................................... 62

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 67

5.1 Discussion of the findings ............................................................................................................................ 67

5.2 Theoretical contributions .............................................................................................................................. 71

5.3 Managerial implications ............................................................................................................................... 72

5.4 Critical evaluation of the research ................................................................................................................ 74

5.5 Suggestions for future research .................................................................................................................... 75

References ............................................................................................................................................................... 77

6

Table of figures

Figure 1. Positioning of the study ........................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2. The aims of sustainable tourism (Lane 1994) ......................................................................... 17

Figure 3. Hierarchy of needs of a destination (Iunius et al 2015) ........................................................... 22

Table of tables

Table 1. Tourism destinations in Lapland in numbers (Ruka-Kuusamo 2019, Visit Levi 2019, Visit

Ylläs 2019, Metsähallitus 2019) ............................................................................................................. 13

Table 2. Key concepts of the study ......................................................................................................... 15

Table 3. Comparison of popular sustainability assessment tools (Schianetz et al 2007) ........................ 27

Table 4. The benefits of sustainability indicators (UN 2007) ................................................................. 30

Table 5. ETIS core indicators (European Commission 2016) ................................................................ 32

Table 6. Data collection interviews ......................................................................................................... 43

Table 7. The most highlighted aspect of sustainable tourism ................................................................. 48

Table 8. Actors responsible for sustainable tourism destination management ....................................... 52

Table 9. Sustainability monitoring in Lapland ........................................................................................ 55

Table 10. Examples of actions contributing to sustainable tourism ....................................................... 59

Table 11. The biggest challenges in developing sustainability in a destination ..................................... 62

Table 12. The current level of sustainability in case study destinations ................................................. 65

7

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research background

1.1.1 Sustainability in current tourism management practices

Management practices and strategies in the global tourism industry have faced the need to add

sustainable development in the agenda (Ritchie and Crouch 2003). In the recent years sustainability has

gained extensive attention in tourism research and UNTWO listed it as one of the main consumer travel

trends in 2019. Sustainability in tourism is often associated with nature and environment, nevertheless

equally as important are the economic and socio-cultural aspects. Researchers agree that sustainability

and destination competitiveness are closely linked, therefore, it should be a perspective of interest for

all successful tourism destinations.

With the rise of sustainable development and sustainable tourism, new approaches on destination

management are needed. Destination managers, developers and DMO’s now need to include

sustainable tourism development in their strategies and policies (Welford and Ytterhus, 2004) The

curiosity of sustainable tourism management is the complexity and the fact that all destinations are

different. Additionally, an accepted notion is that all destinations are different, therefore, no detailed

guidebook for managing sustainability in a destination exists (e.g. Ritchie and Crouch 2010). However,

researchers have managed to establish some guidelines. A successful, all-encompassing sustainable

destination management strategy includes both immediate and long-term actions (Brokaj 2014)

According to Sharpley (2000), sustainable tourism developers and managers often find this

challenging. He stresses the importance of wide community involvement in planning, development and

control of tourism in sustainable tourism development strategies. Sustainability has been recognised as

the way to a brighter future in tourism while boosting sustainable development in regional economies

(Brokaj 2014).

8

Managing a destination in a sustainable way can be facilitated with a clear strategy. A sustainable

tourism strategy differs from traditional tourism strategies with its holistic approach, whereas the

traditional ones focus on marketing or financing (Lane 1994). He proposes four keys to creating a

successful sustainable tourism strategy: the people behind the strategy are skilled in tourism

development but also in economic, ecological and social analysis, all interest groups are consulted,

industry’s openness with locals and the evolvement of the strategy and long-term thinking.

“Sustainability needs evidence, not declarations.” (Modica 2015, 55)

However, these sustainability strategies and actions need to be measured and monitored in order to

demonstrate the success, shortcomings and to contribute towards more efficient sustainable

management and development of a tourism destination. Developing tangible and consistent measures

can be done on different levels: “national, regional and local” (Wanner et al 2020, 10). Practical

approaches are needed to avoid sustainable tourism development from turning into “propaganda or a

slogan” (Ko 2005, 434). As sustainability schemes are in many cases established and managed by

DMO’s, a need for measuring tools has emerged and the tourism field has started adopting the use of

sustainability assessment tools, including sustainability indicators as a measuring and monitoring tool.

These indicators, published by organisations like the European Commission and World Tourism

Organization among many others, present a set of core and additional indicators focusing on different

aspects of sustainability in a destination. The core indicators are implemented as they are, however, the

additional indicators can be fit to the needs and aims of a destination, making them very flexible

systems. Sustainable development risks losing its’ essence if appropriate indicators are not used for

monitoring (Jovičić 2013). Understanding the sustainability indicators is crucial for sustainable

destination management, development and destination competitiveness, as quantifying the

sustainability actions provides evidence for managers and decision-makers whether the right actions are

taken or not.

9

1.1.2 Previous studies

Previously, sustainability in tourism research has focused on the concept of sustainable destinations,

including sustainable development as well as environmental issues, stakeholder cooperation, and nature

and rural tourism destinations. Some frameworks have been created for DMO’s and other management

to approach sustainable destination management, including the Ritchie and Crouch (2010) model of

destination competitiveness and sustainability in Brazilian setting.

Although sustainability assessment tools, including sustainability indicators, have been studied in

tourism research, attention has been given on application and implementation of the indicators (see

Canna and Theuma, 2013) rather than on the development ideas gained from sustainability indicators,

making the concrete empirical studies scarce. For implementing the sustainability indictors, new

support tools have been developed, Group Decision Support System by Cismaru (2015) and

Sustainable Rural Development Index based on SWOT analysis by Hashemi and Ghaffary 2017.

Franzoni (2015) proposed a framework on how different aspects of sustainable tourism on different

levels are related to each other for measuring the sustainability performance, however her approach to

sustainability covered social, economic and competitive aspects rather than ecological and the

ecological aspects were embedded in the social one.

Moreover, despite DMO’s significant role in the implementation of sustainability indicators, research

tends to focus on quantifying and selecting the relevant indicators, rather than finding out who should

be in charge of sustainability monitoring, the application process, or the outcome. The reviewed ETIS

indicator set was published in 2016, therefore, it might be that destinations have not yet fully

implemented them yet.

Tourism in Lapland has been studied from many viewpoints of sustainability. Some examples of

studies from Lapland include studies where the socio-cultural aspect has been approached from the

10

viewpoint of local participation (Tuulentie, 2007) and local opinions (Jokinen and Sippola, 2007).

Economic aspect includes researches about the supply chains (Rusko et al 2008), planning and

development (Kauppila et al 2009) and sustainability evaluation in tourism product development

(Garcia-Rosell and Mäkinen 2013). Tourists’ perceptions to climate change (Tervo-Kankare et al

2013), use of bio-waste and erosion (Piippo et al 2014) sustainable growth and land use (Tyrväinen et

al 2014) are examples of the ecological approaches.

1.2 Objectives and research questions

Figure 1. Positioning of the study

The aim of this thesis is to concentrate on sustainability on destination management level (Figure 1).

Although sustainable tourism has been in discussion for 30 years, the actual implementation of more

sustainable tourism has been unhurried (Agyeiwaah et a 2017). The major purpose of this study is to

research, with the help of these three case studies, the state of art of sustainability management in

Finnish Lapland. Relatively little light has been shed on actual ways and experiences of managing

sustainable tourism destinations in rural areas with the help of sustainability indicators. This study

wants to generate an overall vision of what is needed and done, to successfully monitor sustainability

by conducting interviews with industry professionals and DMO’s in three different tourism destinations

11

in Northern Finland. Instead of pointing out which of these destinations is the most sustainable, this

study aims at establishing an overall image of the sustainable destination management in Lapland by

comparing the case study destinations.

- What are the sustainable management strategies that are being followed in Lapland?

How are these practices, including the sustainability indicators, implemented by DMO’s and

tourism companies and other operators? How do the sustainability indicators profit the destination?

What are they being used for?

- What is the role of the DMO in sustainable tourism destination management?

Destinations need to be more sustainable, but what can the DMO do to facilitate and improve

sustainability?

- How is sustainability monitored and measured in Lapland?

Is sustainability transparent in the case destinations Levi, Ruka and Ylläs? All have their own

guidelines to follow, but what are the actions taken to verify sustainable destination development

takes place? Do these destinations have any kind of sustainability measurement policy on

destination level and what is it like, do they use ETIS, why not. This question wants to find out

what do they measure, why and how?

- What are the concrete actions taken to improve sustainability in Lapland?

What have the destinations done so far to improve sustainability?

- Challenges and future prospects

This question tries to identify the biggest challenges and foresee what can be done to prevent and

avoid the barriers that stop sustainable development. What are the biggest obstacles? Are there

political or managerial reasons for challenges in implementing sustainability?

The objective is to establish more understanding in of sustainable destination management in Lapland.

This includes the sustainability monitoring approach and actions to find out on which step of the

12

sustainability ladder the case study destinations are on. However, the results cannot be generalised, as

this in-depth case study provides an insight in specific destinations and their managerial actions. Yet,

managers in similar resorts and nature destinations can use the research and findings as a base for

future studies.

1.3 Approach, context and limitations

The approach used in this study is qualitative research approach. This study seeks to understand

sustainable tourism destination management as a phenomenon in Lapland, where sustainability is a

very current topic. Finland as a tourism destination relies on outdoor activities and clear nature,

therefore sustaining a balance between tourism activities and local life is regarded as one of the main

objectives of sustainable tourism management and development.

Three tourism destinations have been chosen for this case study. They are all skiing centres, the biggest

ones in Finland, with activities aimed for Finnish and foreign visitors. The data is collected by

conducting interviews with CEO’s of local DMO’s, tourism businesses and other tourism sector actors.

Some issues in sustainable tourism development cannot be explained with quantitative data, therefore,

qualitative studies can bring out valuable stakeholder insights (Ko 2005). The three case study

destinations are among the biggest tourism destinations in Lapland and they were chosen to provide an

understanding about the state of sustainable tourism destination management, however, some other

destinations might interpret sustainability in other ways.

A possible limitation for the study is that as interviews are conducted in Finnish, some

misinterpretations might occur when translating the answers into English. The intake is limited to three

interviews per destination and these results might not reflect everyone’s opinions in the destination

areas.

13

1.4 Lapland as a tourism destination

In Finland, one northern destination called Lapland has managed to establish an image of a truly unique

place. Ultimately a Finnish region, Lapland covers around 1/3 of the Finnish land mass and it is known

for beautiful arctic nature and vast landscapes. It has been a popular destination for Finnish skiers since

the first ski lift opened in Levi in 1964 (Visit Levi 2019) but has seen a significant raise in foreign

visitor numbers in the recent years. Notably countries such as the UK, Israel, Central Europe, Japan and

China are well represented, although the visitor profile and country of origin vary in each destination.

Unspoilt nature, the cleanest air in the world (Ilmatieteenlaitos 2018), safety, unforgettable northern

lights, snow, reindeer and Santa Claus are popular motivators for visitors coming to Lapland.

Table 1. Tourism destinations in Lapland in numbers (Ruka-Kuusamo 2019, Visit Levi 2019, Visit Ylläs 2019, Metsähallitus 2019)

Levi Ruka-Kuusamo Ylläs

Inhabitants in 2018 890 15 386 850

DMO Visit Levi Ruka-Kuusamo

Matkailu ry

Visit Ylläs

Slopes 43 35 63

Cross-country ski tracks 230km 170km 330km

Bed nights in 2018 600 000 Over 600 000 549 200

Beds 24 500 12 000 Over 23 000

Levi, Ylläs and Ruka-Kuusamo are some of the biggest ski centre destinations and the most known

tourism destinations in Lapland (Table 1). Although Ruka-Kuusamo isn’t geographically located in the

region of Lapland, in the Finnish tourism marketing it has been accepted as a part of Lapland as it

shares similar nature, activities and heritage as Lapland. Ylläs consists of four villages, located around

or in proximity of the fell. Ruka-Kuusamo is located in the municipality of Kuusamo and Levi in

Kittilä. They all boast ski centres, outdoor activities, world-class accommodation like snow hotels and

glass villas for spotting the northern lights from one’s bed. All three destinations can be reached via

14

plane from Helsinki, Kuusamo has its’ own airport and both Ylläs and Levi are in close proximity of

the Kittilä airport. Charter flights from Europe frequent the airports during winter season. Ylläs is

reputable for nature (Cornelisse 2020, Tuulentie and Mettiäinen 2007), and Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo

considered more a young and party resorts (Cornelisse 2020). The tourism activities in Lapland are

very seasonal with winter being the busiest time of the year. These nature-based destinations have tried

tackling the problem with activities like mountain and fat-biking, fishing, hiking and summer sled

tracks. Sustainability policies have been built for Levi, Ylläs and Ruka-Kuusamo, but basic issues still

arise, an example of this is the lack of recycling bins for visitors at cabins (Lapin Kansa 25.10.2019).

Studying these three destinations provides a valid overview on the state of sustainable tourism

management in the Finnish Lapland.

A challenge these destinations have faced is the pressure the crowded winter weeks put on the

destination and the nature which has led to attempts to establish a name for Lapland as a summer

destination for foreign visitors to fight the seasonality. In the warmer month’s accessibility is an issue;

Lapland can only be reached via Helsinki, and flights can be expensive and scarce. Furthermore, many

locals are employed by tourism service providers but part-time work and recruiting for seasonal jobs

has proved demanding, leading to companies looking at other, often lower income countries like

Estonia and Poland. Adding to this, with growing tourism demand service providers are eager to

develop and grow their products and services. These reasons justify the need of this study looking into

how well sustainable tourism destination development is managed in Lapland.

1.5 Key concepts

In this chapter, the key concepts of the study are presented. These concepts are used and discussed in

both theoretical and empirical parts of this research.

15

Table 2. Key concepts of the study

Tourism destination A tourism destination can be a landmark, a city, a region, a country, a continent or a

place (Lumsdon, 2000), or simply a place visited by tourists (Lemmetyinen 2010).

Laesser and Beritelli (2013) propose three perspectives on destinations: a

geographical entity, a network of suppliers, or, developing further, a network

created for meeting customer’s demands. Developing from that, Lapland as a

destination is a region and a geographical entity, the case studies in question are

entities “where different stakeholders, such as companies, public organizations,

hosts, and guests interact through cocreation of experiences.” (Saraniemi and

Kylänen 2011, 133)

Sustainable tourism Hunter (2002, 9) defines sustainable tourism as “finding an appropriate balance

between tourism-related economic development, environmental protection, and the

satisfaction of the needs and desires of tourists and local residents.” In this study,

the focus is on these three aspects. Researchers agree that successful implementing

of sustainable tourism considers all aspects as equally important.

Destination management Destination management includes actions of planning, lobbying, marketing and

service coordination (Laesser and Beritelli 2013). Destination management aims at

coordinating and harmonization of goals of different stakeholders (Miočić et al

2016) and it is widely acknowledged that stakeholder engagement and cooperation

is a crucial part of destination management. These actions are often taken by a

DMO.

DMO In this study, DMO’s are referred as destination management, rather than

destination marketing organisations. The scope of DMO’s coverage is can vary

significantly, ranging from towns to countries (Blain et al 2005). This study shares

the perspective that, whereas Wang and Pizan (2011) stated that a DMO’s main task

was to increase visitor numbers at a destination, they also manage destination

network and encourage collaboration between destination actors (Pechlaner et al

2012) as well as help organisations and individuals of a destination to accomplish

common goals (Miočić et al 2016).

16

1.6 Structure of the thesis

The study starts with explaining the current situation of sustainable destination development and

management and its’ importance for tourism destinations. Previous studies, approach, context,

limitations and Lapland as a destination, as well as key concepts are also defined in chapter one.

The second chapter, Sustainable tourism destination management, provides a literature review of

sustainable management as a concept and its’ development and different aspects in tourism. The

chapter presents different theories and reasoning behind why sustainable tourism destination

management is needed. Additionally, sustainable destination management is studied with a focus on

competitiveness and the role of the DMO’s, including the importance of stakeholder cooperation and

engagement. The chapter 2.4 presents sustainability assessment tools and the data collection process as

well. Chapter 2.5 focuses on sustainability indicators, as this tool will be the base for the empirical

study, especially the European Commission indicator system ETIS is paid attention to. Sustainable

tourism policies and programmes in Finland and Lapland studied in chapter 2.6. The research

methodology, including research approach, data collection and analysis are studied in the chapter three,

followed by findings in chapter four. Lastly, the research is discussed alongside main findings,

theoretical contributions, managerial implications and evaluations of the study and suggestions for

future studies are made.

17

2 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DESTINATION MANAGEMENT 2.1 Sustainability in tourism

Sustainability started to raise its head globally when travelling experienced a substantial boom in the

1980’s with the development of leisure travel (Welford and Ytterhus 2004). Arguably the most known

definition of sustainable development is from the Brundtland Report 1987, defining it as “development

that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

own needs.” Farrell (1992), among others, stresses the importance balanced development of economy,

environment and the society.

The term sustainable tourism was acknowledged as opposed to mass tourism, trying to provide a

solution to the negative effects of mass tourism (Welford and Ytterhus 2004). It was derived from

sustainable development and is now understood, as defined by Lane (1994, cit. in Hunter 1997, 850), as

“a set of principles, policy prescriptions, and management methods which chart a path for tourism

development such that a destination area’s environmental resource base (including natural, built, and

cultural features) is protected for future development.” Despite the extensive attention on sustainable

development and sustainable tourism, Welford and Ytterhus (2004) stated that the field is still lacking a

precise definition of sustainable tourism and the current definitions can be wrongly interpreted.

Figure 2. The aims of sustainable tourism (Lane 1994)

18

Tourism field and research has acknowledged the possible negative effects of tourism. Loss of natural

landscapes, congestion, environmental and cultural degradation (Brokaj 2014) in a destination can be

caused by tourism. Ironically, tourism can ruin the tourist experience according to Welford and

Ytterhus (2004) and they claim that tourists destroy tourism. Other issues tourism field has faced are

exploitation of developing nations as work force, greenhouse gas emissions and contribution to climate

change, Westernization and pollution to mention a few. The environmental aspect is often on the

forefront when discussing sustainable tourism in medias, however, as e.g. Curtin and Busby (1999)

point out, also social and economic implications are part of sustainable tourism development (Figure

2). Moreover, Welford and Ytterhus (2004) remind that cultural impacts of tourism are equally as

important in tourism development. Although the environmental aspect might get more publicity, Timur

and Getz (2008) gather from past researches the economic and social aspect have been dominating

assessments and developed more than the environmental dimension.

Despite the clear benefits of sustainability in destination management, various issues still exist.

Stakeholder engagement can be too challenging or neglected, and as Brokaj (2014) states, there are still

gaps in planning and actually implementing sustainable tourism. Furthermore, she mentions Huybers

and Bennett’s (2003) notion that the currently practised tourism management can have an

unobjectionable effect on the environment and society that can compromise tourism development and

the economy. The tourism industry suffers from the lack of clear guidelines for sustainable tourism as

they tend to generalise, however, the continuous movement towards actions that support sustainable

development are more important than a clear-cut goal (Welford and Ytterhus 2004). In order to

efficiently tackle these issues, active and competent sustainable destination management is vital.

Green tourism is sometimes used as a synonym for sustainable tourism (Mihalič 2014). Hunter (2002)

defines two distinguished interpretations of green tourism, ‘weaker, lighter green’ and ‘stronger, darker

green’. Lighter green product-focused interpretations stress the importance of continued economic

growth, maintaining sufficient environmental quality in order to for existing tourism products and

services to survive, as well as the continuation of new product development at new and existing

location. However, Hunter argues this interpretation focuses too much on economic growth which

19

causes overlooking of sustainability and natural resources unless they provide economic interest.

Proactivity, development planning and monitoring the change of natural environment are emphasized

in the darker green interpretations on sustainable tourism. Here, tourism has to provide benefits and

actions are cautionary and knowledge-based (Hunter 2002). Actions are not taken solely in the interest

of tourism development, but to improve the state of nature and environment with the help of multiple

management approaches and instruments. Darker green tourism actions should be considered by

DMO’s, when establishing and developing strategies, lighter green tourism can be interpreted as

greenwashing.

As pointed out by multiple researchers including Farrell (1992), Sharpley (2000), Timur and Getz

(2008), Ritchie and Crouch (2003) and WTO (2004), economic, ecological, social and cultural

dimensions are all part of sustainable tourism. A destination has to take all dimensions into account in

order to provide economic growth while developing the destination area and within the ecological

limits. Sustainable development of tourism at destination areas is an important issue (Hunter 2002, 19)

and when implemented well, can offer better living conditions to locals alongside increasing visitor

satisfaction and conserving the environment. Although often intertwined, the different aspects will be

studied in the next chapters to clarify their meaning in sustainable tourism destinations.

2.2 Aspects of sustainable tourism

Sustainable tourism is often divided into three main aspects, economic, ecological and socio-cultural.

Despite the fact that tourists are showing an interest in the impact of tourism in the environment

(Tyrväinen et al 2014), with the increasing number of tourists globally, the ecological resources in

destinations are put under immense pressure. The reckless use of fresh water, demolishment of forests

and untouched nature, construction of hotel complexes and increasing need for more transportation are

some negative effects of tourism. Many destinations depend on the nature around them and in case of

“decline in value” of the natural attraction, the destination could suffer extensively (Ritchie and Crouch

20

2003, 44). In rural and nature-based destinations, like the Finnish Lapland, the need for ecological

sustainability is significant.

Rutty et al (2015) studied various impacts of tourism in ecology. As tourism sector expands, emissions

from tourism are expected to grow. More and more of land space is used for constructing

accommodation services, transportation infrastructure, golf courses, shopping malls, waste

management facilities, and ski areas which leads to risking biodiversity (Rutty et al). Fresh water

consumption is a major issue in tourism. Visitors use more water on travels than at home (Gössling

2012), yet fresh water is crucial for the industry. Fresh water is uses virtually everywhere, for example

directly for hygiene, activities like pools, spas and wellness, watering gardens and gold courses,

laundry, housekeeping and maintenance (Gössling et al 2014, Rutty et al 2015, Diaz et al 2007).

Excessive water consumption of tourism industry can threaten countries with limited water resources

(Rutty et al 2015, WWAP 2012) which can limit tourism, and vice versa. However, fresh water is often

scarce in developing countries and as an important notion brought up by Ritchie and Crouch (2003) on

ecological aspects often needing a steady economic base implicates, the access to fresh water can

remain a problem in lower GDP countries.

Food consumption is something all tourists have to do. Local food is more sustainable as shipping food

from far increases the use of fossil fuels and emission levels (Garrod, 2015) Transportation, including

air travel, is a significant part of tourism. Although the development of biofuel for aircrafts is in

process, air travel still contributes towards greenhouse gas emissions, higher noise levels and reduction

of air quality (Peeters and Bongaerts 2015). In 2005, tourism was responsible for 5% of the global

anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (UNTWO-UNEP-WMO 2008).

Today, sustainable tourism can effectively contribute to the economic sustainability of a destination.

Tourism has grown to be an important economic factor, the revenues it generates are outpacing the

world economy in growth numbers and, correspondingly, tourism industry reached it 9th consecutive

year of growth, despite occasional fluctuations (UNTWO 2019). In Finland, over 22 million bed nights

21

were recorded in 2018 with Finnish travellers covering the majority of them, 15,4 million. Since

tourism industry has become as important as forestry in Finland, it fosters almost 29 000 enterprises

and directly employs 140 200 workers (Finnish Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment 2019,

Business Finland 2019).

Economic sustainability is seen to increase the living conditions of the locals and to contribute toward

the host population. The key issue in economic sustainability in tourism destinations is committing to

both immediate (Brokaj 2014) and long-term plans (Ritchie and Crouch 2003). Ritchie and Crouch

(2003) list matters crucial for economic sustainably as follows: tourism generated revenue should be

reasonably distributed among the relevant community, local labour should be utilized as widely as

possible in projects both directly and indirectly supporting tourism development, seasonality issue of

tourism demand confronted to increase job security and opportunities from top to lower-level jobs

generated. Tourism income can be invested in facilities in the host community to expand services and

infrastructure for local as well as used in investing in new tourism products and services or in

sustainability actions.

Sociocultural tourism impacts can positively contribute to the well-being of locals (Ritchie and Crouch

2003), quality of life, revitalization of traditions and pride in community (Mbaiwa 2005, Long 2012).

Sociocultural exchange occurs when host communities interact, directly or indirectly, with tourists

(Wolf 1977) and these more or less authentic experiences are often what tourists seek (Ritchie and

Crouch 2003).

Local heritage, traditions and ways of living need to be supported, yet possibly showcased with the

accordance and permission of the locals. Crime, prostitution, gambling and diminishing of indigenous

languages and cultures (Ritchie and Crouch 2003, Rutty et al 2015) are examples of the negative

impacts of sociocultural changes. Although Rutty et al (2015) point out that sociocultural sustainability

and its’ impacts often have negative connotations in the tourism literature, their research emphasizes

the positive sociocultural impacts on hosts’ wellbeing. Additionally, they point out that the assessment

22

of sociocultural changes has provided challenging as the impacts vary depending on the local

conditions and tourists in question.

Ritchie and Crouch (2003) add a fourth, political/governance environment aspect to basic idea of

sustainable tourism. According to them, all need to be found answers for, for achieving sustainability.

Additionally, to the three aspects discussed, Inskeep (1991) also saw responsibility towards visitors and

global justice and equity as criteria for sustainable tourism.

2.3 Sustainable destination management

2.3.1 Sustainability and destination competitiveness Sustainable tourism destination management is managing the sustainable tourism development. With

the vision of the destination in mind, it includes goal setting, making choices careful consideration of

trade-offs (Ritchie and Crouch 2003). Sustainable tourism management has seen many different

definitions in tourism research, yet it can be explained easily: “the incorporation of principles of

sustainable tourism into tourism strategies and operations” (Fodness 2016, 2).

Destination's

Competitiveness

Destination's Image and Brand

Destination's Attractions and Partnerships

Destination's Security and Safety

Destination's Resources

Figure 3. Hierarchy of needs of a destination (Iunius et al 2015)

23

Sustainability is playing a growing role in the decision-making process of a tourist, and it can bring

competitive advantage to a destination. Eco-friendly hotels, carbon dioxide offsetting, the avoidance of

big chain hotels and travelling by land derive from the demand for sustainability. For destination

management, sustainability can be a significant success factor; UNTWO (2019) examined societal

changes in tourism in the annual International Tourism Highlights 2019 Edition and concluded that

there is a clear connection between sustainability and competitiveness, moreover, a connection between

sustainability and the quality of the tourism experience has been found (Cismaru 2015). From 101

UNTWO Member States examined, 100% stated sustainability as their tourism policy objective.

Successful sustainable destination management contributes largely to destination competitiveness.

Cucculelli and Goffi (2016) studied the connection between sustainability and destination

competitiveness in small Italian villages and reached the conclusion that managers should pay serious

attention on sustainable tourism policy and destination management. Unquestionably, in order for a

destination to be competitive, it has to take care of its’ resources (Figure 3). Ritchie and Crouch state

that “competitiveness without sustainability is illusory” (2003, 49). A competitive destination is more

than the revenue generated and bed nights, it is maintaining the balance between stakeholders and

nature and developing it for better (Cucculelli and Goffi 2016).

2.3.2 DMO in sustainable tourism destination management In many destinations, DMO’s are in charge of destination management and implementation and

development of sustainability actions and programmes. Miočić et al (2016) suggest a change in the role

of DMO’s compared to before: According to their research, destination marketing companies are

shifting towards public administration, which results in administrative destination management

organizations, a statement also made by Volgger and Pechlaner (2014). The study stresses that a

sustainable and competitive tourism destination crucially needs systematic destination management. A

destination is bound to have an efficient and committed DMO as a leader, if it wishes to be sustainable

and competitive (Ritchie and Crouch 2003). Presenza et al (2005) state that whereas marketing used to

be the primary responsibility of a DMO, recently actions linked with destination competitiveness and

sustainability are also embedded in the role of a DMO who can be seen as a “destination developer”, as

24

DMO’s represent the destination as a whole (Cismaru 2015). The DMO should have a vision of the

destination for which a development plan is needed, and these goals need to follow the main ideas of

sustainable tourism development (Zabetta et al 2014). Destination management should also consider

that sustainable tourism can create more sustainable tourism by encouraging and promoting itself

(Ritchie and Crouch 2003). Sustainability policies and regulations are often an effective way to handle

sustainable tourism development, increasing visitor numbers force destinations and DMO’s to take

action. Often being the driving forces behind sustainability programs, the role of the DMO as a key

actor in successfully implementing sustainability assessment tools such as sustainability indicators has

been recognised (Modica et al 2018).

Presenza et al (2005) propose a DMO has two fundamental functions: External destination marketing

and Internal destination development. With these two different functions, DMOs act as “boundary

spanners” (Sheehan et al 2016). The first refers to branding and positioning targeted to the audience

outside the destination. Sustainability should be incorporated into these actions once functioning

sustainability regulations are put in place at the destination. The latter, Internal destination

development, consist of tourism development and maintaining. In this framework stakeholder

coordination and engagement is presented as a core competency of destination competitiveness and

sustainability.

2.3.3 Stakeholder cooperation Stakeholder cooperation as one of the key elements in tourism has been widely accepted. For a

destination to be sustainable and successful, all stakeholders need to be taken into consideration.

Therefore, engaging and managing stakeholders when developing sustainability policies is critical

(Timur and Getz 2008, Zabetta et al 2014) and it has widely been recognised as the responsibility of the

DMO. Tourism stakeholders have been said to apply sustainability practices very slowly (Mihalič

2014), therefore, the encouragement and support from the DMO are of high importance. Tourism

service providers and other workers at the destination, local residents and community, tourists,

landowners, local and regional governments are all to be considered and heard when managing and

25

developing a destination sustainably. Thus, the implementation of sustainable actions can be

problematic (Lane 1994). But, as suggested by Moisey and McCool (2001), common goals are the key

for achieving sustainability. Hence, it is critical that stakeholders share somewhat the same

understanding about sustainability and sustainable tourism destination management.

Miočić et al (2016) conducted a study in Croatia to discover that carrying capacity of the environment

and its future sustainable development are issues not recognised by entrepreneurs and government

representatives. Deriving from this issue, Ghanem and Elgammal (2016) stated that DMO’s duties also

include online sustainability communication (OSC), i.e. communicating sustainability to all stakeholder

online, for example tourism businesses, to establish a mutual understanding and a goal. Additionally,

the pros of effective OSC include encouraging stakeholders and collaboration towards sustainable

tourism development. Ghanem’s research points out the lack of environmental and sociocultural

aspects of sustainability on DMO webpages, stating that they mainly focus on economic aspects. The

three aspects should be balanced in order for the DMO to increase stakeholder engagement and to

encourage them to pursue DMO’s sustainability actions. Despite the recognition of importance of

stakeholder engagement and clear sustainability goals, Timur and Getz (2009) conducted a research on

sustainable tourism in urban settings and discovered that “sustainable tourism had different meanings

to various stakeholder groups in each urban destination.” They state it is a result of poor

communication and unformal discourse which could be solved with an interconnected and organised

model called sustainability networks.

DMO can act as a forum for stakeholders. In Europe a big part of tourism businesses are small and

medium sized companies (Lemmetyinen 2010) and with combining forces SME’s can create more

value to their business than solely with their own, potentially limited, budget and skills and knowledge,

as well as implement sustainability actions. Therefore, Lemmetyinen (2010) calls for cooperation rather

than competition The DMO can be a platform for tourism businesses guiding them to cooperate in

sustainable management and development.

26

2.4 Assessing and monitoring sustainable destination management This chapter will study and compare some tools frequently used in sustainable destination management.

Multiple assessment tools and frameworks have been developed to measure sustainability and

sustainable development in tourism destinations (Table 3).

27

Table 3. Comparison of popular sustainability assessment tools (Schianetz et al 2007)

Assessment tool

Type of tool Aim Aspects Strengths Weaknesses In tourism

Sustainability Indicators

A strategic tool for decision-makers (WTO 2004)

Monitors and measures sustainability in a destination (European Commission 2016)

Environmental, social and economic aspects

Flexible, uses successfully both quantitative and qualitative data

Lack of consensuses (Tanguay et al 2013, Torres-Delgado and Saarinen 2014)

One of the most used assessment tools (WTO 2004)

Environmental Auditing

A part of environmental management process

Focuses on local impacts and on-site operations and seeks for areas for improvement


Flexible and easy to combine with other tools, works for a range of tourism operations

Needs a competent team to be effective

Not often applied but has potential to monitor sustainability performances (Ding and Pigram, 1995)

Ecological Footprint

A tool for estimating human actions on land area

Measures the impact a holiday product has on the environment (WWF-UK 2002)

Ecological Simple and transparent, offers help comparison on a wide range, can be applied from single service providers to countries

Has been criticized on analytical soundness (Hunter and Shaw 2007)

According to the WWF-UK (2002), a feasible tool for responsible tourism, often used in calculating the effects or air travel (see Gössling 2002, Hunter and Shaw 2007)

Environmental Impact Assessment

A tool for decision-making

Assesses environmental impacts of new projects and projects in the planning phase

Social, cultural and economic aspects +more

Flexible, objective-oriented

Monitors only the beginning of the projects, lack of follow-up. A gap between research and application (Morgan 2011)

In tourism field in use in specific projects (e.g. marinas, airports, eco resorts) rather than the whole destination

Multi-criteria Analysis

A decision-support tool for regional sustainability assessment (Nijkamp and Veeker 2000)

Used in environmental planning and project evaluation (Pohekar and Ramachandran 2003)

Can be used for comparing sociocultural, economic and environmental impacts (see Zografos and Oglethorpe 2004)

Large number of qualitative and quantitative data can be used. Offers more information than indicators, with help of data standardisation, ranking and weighting

Needs experts from different fields for assessment team which can be expensive, can’t take unforeseen changes into consideration

Has been used in tourism research with different case study destinations

Adaptive Environmental assessment

A tool for understanding and exploring possible scenarios in management (Van den Belt 2004)

Creating a simulation model of environmental, economic and social system that could be influenced by the development


Offers more information on sustainability aspects that have caused changes in the environment, social aspects and market

Models can be generic and only predict elementary predictions

A sustainable tourism development framework for effects was created based on AEA (Walker 1999), yet more research and application are still needed (Bisset and Tomlinson 2000)

Life-cycle Assessment

A decision-support tool

Assesses the environmental performance of a product, process or activity covering the whole lifetime

Assesses mainly environmental and global impacts

Offers help avoiding trade-offs between mediums and production stages, can assess direct a and indirect impacts cumulatively

Complex, data collection can be expensive and time-consuming, difficult to include qualitative data

Promoted yet seldom used

28

The need for sustainability measurements is evident as more and more sustainability programmes are

established and put into action. Policies and measures need to be theoretically valid but also work

practically (Liu 2003), moreover, monitoring and measuring has been cited as the major problem in

sustainable development (Butler 1999). Suitable tools are needed for the implementation of concepts

like sustainability (Schianetz et al 2007). An assessment tools often form from a step-by-step

assessment procedure and potentially an algorithm to implement the concept, the development areas are

defined by important objectives and the actions should be evaluated (Schianetz et al 2007). Some

sustainable tourism development tools and concepts are criticized to be used solely as marketing tools

(Ko 2005, Schianetz et al 2007) which could potentially lead to greenwashing. Whereas economic

sustainability can be perceived as easier to measure, assessment tools are useful for sociocultural and

ecological sustainability. Measuring ecological and sociocultural require time, many years (Agyeiwaah

et al 2017), and assessment tools can provide clear instructions for this process.

Alongside the assessment tools in Table 3, some researchers have contributed to the tools as well. Ko

(2005) proposed a procedure for assessing sustainable tourism development. He introduces two tourism

sustainability assessment maps based on the human system (political, economic and socio-cultural

aspects, service quality) and the ecosystem (general environmental aspect, ecosystem quality,

biodiversity, environmental policy and management). His study suggests that comparison between past

and current state is needed to measure the sustainable tourism development. Ko suggests measuring the

“weak” sustainability, including the change in the quality of life of the host population and in the

natural environment, could be a better option for assessing the success of sustainability than “pursuing

the idea of indefinite continuation of a situation” (2005, 435).

Data collection for assessment tools can happen in multiple ways, depending on the tools used. Both

quantitative and qualitative data can be required. For sustainability indicators, WTO (2004) suggests an

exhaustive list of means to portray indicators, both qualitative and quantitative measurements. Raw

data, rations and percentage represent the quantitative means, where numbers used for comparison have

been gathered over time. Raw data refers to, for example, numbers measuring tourism flow (visitors per

year, daily spending, travelled distance from origin to destination). Ratios study relationships in data

29

and can include indicators defining the numbers of locals versus tourists during high season whereas

percentages reveal the amounts out of totals and can be used to comparison e.g. percentages of changes

in tourist arrivals during the past years. National statistical institutions should be considered as the main

source of quantitative data (Blancas et al 2011). Easily accessible, trustworthy and often free data

provides a good basis and a starting point for data collection.

Qualitative measurements start with category indices, e.g. grades in the environmental programmes and

certification systems. Normative indicators can be found in tourism management and operation

(existence of development plans on local, regional or national level or “yes or no” evaluation

questionnaires). Labels, certifications and diplomas, with independently administered checklists like

the Blue Flag certificate, form the measurement group Nominal indicators. Opinion-based indicators

collect qualitative data from numerical questionnaires and therefore quantified. Exit questionnaires for

visitors and local questionnaires are suggested for gaining information about satisfaction in tourism,

which are the baseline issues in sustainable tourism (WTO 2004.)

2.5 Sustainability indicators 2.5.1 Sustainability indicators in tourism

Currently, the statistics and data used in monitoring destinations has been too narrow, focusing on hard

numbers like visitor arrivals and satisfaction, and employment surveys (European Commission 2016).

These numbers provide little information on the socio-cultural and environmental aspects of tourism.

A tourism destination can monitor its’ sustainability by utilizing sustainability indicators and multiple

sets of sustainability indicators have been developed for destinations to be used as such or as a base.

Managers and decision-makers of both developing and already established destinations can profit from

sustainability indicators (Blancas et al 2011). Sustainability indicators quantify the development

of important factors in sustainable tourism, economic, social and environmental, in a specific region

(Kristjánsdóttir et al 2017). Being widely endorsed in tourism planning and management (Torres-

Delgado and Saarinen 2014), they provide information for making valid managerial decisions (WTO

30

1995) and decrease the risk of poor decisions made unknowingly (Jovičić 2013). They have many

benefits (Table 4) and are a flexible system to suit every destination’s own situation and needs. Blancas

et al (2011) defines the main functions of sustainability indicators as conducting comparative analysis

and characterization of destinations, defining of benchmarking practices and quantifying sustainable

tourism objectives. Indicators have also been recognised to be a useful way for benchmarking (WTO

2004), also, some labels, like the eco-label Green Globe, are based on sustainability indicators

(Schianetz et al 2007).

Table 4. The benefits of sustainability indicators (UN 2007)

Sustainability indicators...

Provide policymakers help for decision-making by making the information simpler, clearer and easier accessible

Provide tools to incorporate knowledge (both physical and social science) into decision-making

Measure and calibrate decision-making process to reach sustainable development goals

Indicate warning signs to avoid economic, social and environmental setback

Can be used as a means to communicate ideas, thoughts and values

Don’t require costly data-collection processes, as the information is often based on existing data

The core indicators consider matters important for sustainable development in most countries (UN

2007), to keep consistency in the sustainable development assessment (Tanguay et al 2013). The issue

is although some sustainable tourism indicators have been created and researched academically, some

researchers still argue they too complex to be put in use (see Tanguay et al 2013). Hence, toolkits and

guidelines have been created to help companies and DMO’s and other stakeholders through the process

of implementing and measuring sustainability indicators.

31

Different sets of indicators are proposed by multiple sources. In Europe, the most used are arguably the

European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) by the European Commission which also offers a toolkit

for putting the indicators in use. Some researchers have collected their own indicator sets based on the

ETIS and WTO indicators (Blancas et al 2011, Tanguay et al 2013, McLoughlin and Hanrahan 2015)

or other national indicators like the Spanish system of environmental tourism indicators (Pulido et al

2009). In this study, a more thorough introduction of ETIS is provided as it is seen as relevant in this

multiple case study.

Data for sustainability indicators can be derived from qualitative and quantitative sources such as

statistics, questionnaires and SWOT analysis (Hashemi and Ghaffary 2017) while the data can be

quantified and analysed by using percentages and comparison (UN 2007, WTO 2004). For indicators to

be successfully quantified and measured, the access to enough statistical data is crucial (Tudorache et al

2017, Blancas 2011).

As previously discussed, stakeholders should have a unified understanding and goals in sustainable

tourism destination development. This applies also when developing sustainability indicators for a

destination (Kristjánsdóttir 2017) as stakeholders’ needs are analysed (Tudorache et al 2017) when

selecting relevant indicators. Hence, the study by Tanguay et al (2013) discusses the event where the

stakeholders formed a Policy Framework for Sustainable Tourism in Gaspésie, which also included a

list of indicators, in order to consider all strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in the region.

Predicting problems is seen as the most useful task of indicators. Nevertheless, also other valuable

indicator genres exist. Early warning indicators, indicators of stresses on the system and four different

measures, namely current state of industry, impact of tourism development on the biophysical and

socio-economic environments, management effort and management effect have been identified.

Especially early warning indicators provide crucial information to tourism managers and DMO’s to be

proactive rather than reactive on negative effects on tourism. (WTO 2004). A destination can choose

the indicators used by analysing previous relevant studies (Tanguay et al 2013) and use suggested

32

indicators sets as they are or modify them to fit the needs and profile of a destination. According to

Jovičić (2013), the indicator set shouldn’t be too time-consuming or costly, but comprehensive, yet

compact, to provide useful data. The indicators should be reviewed regularly (European Commission

2016), every three to every five years (Tanguay et al 2013, Tudorache et al 2017) as tourism field is

known to sometimes undergo significant changes in short periods of time.

2.5.2 ETIS by European Commission

In 2013 (reviewed in 2016) the European Commission presented a management tool, a monitoring

system and an information tool for assessing sustainable tourism performance for destinations, named

the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS). It is based on core and optional sustainability

indicators covering destination management, socio-cultural impact, economic value and environmental

impact. The ETIS Toolkit includes a seven-step process to implement ETIS into a management tool.

By following the clear guidelines, a destination can engage stakeholders and identify and commit to

both immediate as well as long-term concerns by establishing an effective strategy. ETIS provides

support for analysing, managing, monitoring and evaluating sustainable development (Wanner et al

2020).

Table 5. ETIS core indicators (European Commission 2016)

Section A DESTINATION MANAGEMENT 3 core indicators

Section B ECONOMIC VALUE 10 core indicators

Section C SOCIAL AND CULTURAL IMPACT 13 core indicators

Section D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 17 core indicators

-Sustainable tourism public policy -Customer satisfaction

-Tourism flow -Tourism enterprises performance -Quantity and quality of employment -Tourism supply chain

-Community/social impact -Health and safety -Gender equality -Inclusion/accessibility -Protecting and enhancing cultural heritage, local identity and asset

-Reducing transport impact -Climate change -Solid waste management -Sewage treatment -Water management -Energy usage -Landscape and biodiversity protection

33

The ETIS consists of 43 core indicators that are divided into four groups: Destination management,

Economic Value, Social and cultural impact and Environmental impact (Table 5). As well as to

conduct comparison and benchmarking, these core indicators provide a healthy basis for effective

destination management. A destination should only consider supplementary indicators once the

measuring and monitoring of core indicators has been established (European Commission 2016.)

Destination management contains the least indicators, only three core indicators, the first criteria is

sustainable tourism public policy, where the percentage of certifications and label for environmental,

quality, sustainability or corporate social responsibility is counted. Customer satisfaction measures

overall satisfaction in tourism experience of a tourist as well as the percentage of repeat visitors.

Section B, Economic Value consists of 10 core criteria. Tourism flow includes the core indicator for

measuring the number of bed nights and same-day visitors per month, daily spending and contribution

of tourism towards the GDP. Tourism enterprises performance indicates length of stays and occupancy

rates, whereas quality and quantity of employment focus on tourism employee and seasonal worker

number. The percentage of locally sourced food, beverages, products and services are measured in the

Tourism supply chain indicator.

Indicators in five different criteria form the section C: Social and cultural impact. The first indicators

measured are satisfaction of locals towards the tourism and numbers of tourists, bed places and second

homes per residents and local homes. Health and safety indicate the percentage of tourists filing a

police complaint. Gender equality indicators focus on the ratio of men and women as employees in the

tourism sector and on women as general managers of tourism enterprises. Inclusion/accessibility

consists of four percentage indicators: commercial accommodation establishments partaking in an

accessibility information scheme as well as public transport and tourist attractions accessible for the

disabled. The last criteria in this section indicates the locals’ satisfaction with tourism on destination

identity and the percentage of events in the destination focusing on local culture and heritage.

34

Environmental impact, being the biggest section with 17 core indicators starts with four indicators

studying the transportation and local public transportation used by visitors, average distances travelled

to the destination and average carbon footprint. The enterprises involved with climate change

mitigation programmes and actions is one of the two indicators in criteria climate change, the other one

being the percentage of tourism infrastructure located in “vulnerable zones”. Waste management is

tackled with three indicators: a tourist’s annual waste production compared to a local’s, percentages of

tourism enterprises who separate waste, and total waste recycled when comparing tourists and locals.

Sewage treatment indicator measures how much water is treated before discharge and water

management indicates a tourist’s water consumption compared to a local’s and enterprises decreasing

water consumption and using consuming recycled water. A tourist’s energy consumption, enterprises

engaging in using less energy and the use of energy from renewable sources are the indicators in the

criteria energy usage. Lastly, landscape and biodiversity production are measured in percentages of

local enterprises rooting for protecting, conservation and managing the biodiversity and landscape of

the destination.

Additionally, to the core criteria, European Commission suggests supplementary indicators that

destinations are encouraged to use according to their needs and goals. When ETIS was first published

in 2013, it consisted of 27 core and 40 optional indicators, but after the testing phase, the indicators

were reduced to 43 core indicators. In the 2016 version, three examples of supplementary indicator sets

have been published, for maritime and coastal tourism, accessible tourism and transnational cultural

routes. Criteria for these indicators are passengers and ports, water quality and beaches (maritime and

coastal), sustainable tourism policy, equality/accessibility, reducing transport impact (accessible

tourism) and destination management, entreprise and resident surveys for transnational cultural routes.

The indicators in these criteria should be used as a starting point and an example for identifying

supplementary indicators, as they have been tested in destinations. Supplementary indicators can

support core indicators and they can be identified after the core indicator are studied.

Rural destinations, like destinations in the Finnish Lapland, can compose their own set of

supplementary indicators, for example focusing on criteria like sustainable tourism policy, quality and

35

quantity of employment and resident satisfaction on tourism. Inspiration for supplementary indicators

can also be drawn from WTO (2004) that has defined indicators for different types of destinations,

mountain destinations and parks and protected area indicators could possibly be considered as useful

for Lapland.

In order to successfully put the indicators into action, the European Commission published a step-by-

step guide aimed for the DMO’s named the ETIS Toolkit. A local destination coordinator plays a vital

part in the implementing process. The duties include, but are not limited to, planning and coordinating

the use of ETIS, managing stakeholders, monitoring the indicators, marketing activities, organising

trainings and research. The local destination coordinator can be chosen from the DMO, tourism boards

or tourism authorities, as long as the person is motivated, able to manage and can be entrusted with

possibly sensitive data (European Commission 2016).

The seven steps to successfully implementing the ETIS Toolkit start with step one, raising awareness

about it among all stakeholders. If possible, this should be done with the help of local authorities. This

can result in increasing participation and support towards the effort.

Destination profile creation by defining boundaries is the second step, for this European Commission

offers a destination profile form. The profile form offers useful information for managing and provides

help for the data collection process.

Once the profile has been created, a Stakeholder Working Group needs to be established in step three.

The group will consist of organisations and individuals involved with tourism in the destination and it

will be led by the local destination coordinator with the staff and possibly the regional tourism

organisation. The scope of fields represented in the group is encouraged to be broad: covering, but not

limited to, the DMO, developers, tourism service providers, different tourism associations and

authorities, transportation responsibles and professionals working with waste management and energy.

36

The aim of the Stakeholder Working Group is to collect wide data from the destination; therefore, the

group needs to be flexible as not all aspects can always be covered in the beginning phase. A meeting

should be organised, where the benefits of ETIS will be communicated to members, focusing on

getting everyone engaged in the process and establishing a timeframe for data collection. The local

destination coordinator should present the core indicators to the group and encourage discussion on

their relevance and data collection methods.

Establishing roles and responsibilities takes place in the fourth step in order to facilitate the data

collection process, according to the participants’ interests. With the encouragement of the local

destination coordinator, targets and actions plans should be pursued by following clear roles defined

accordingly.

Step five is the data collection phase. It entails grouping all relevant data together, rather than creating

new data. However, it might be needed if there is no data available for some relevant indicators, as the

Stakeholder Working Group might see importance in some previously unexamined indicators.

Once data collection is underway, the results can be analysed and reviewed in a group meeting. A

destination datasheet by the European Commission, where the data can be collected and submitted by

the stakeholders, helps in the process. Based on the data, targets and action plans can be decided,

prioritising the matters the group finds crucial in order to make an action plan based on these

immediate issues.

The last step of the process underlines the importance of “ongoing development and continuous

improvement” (ETIS 2016). The goal is to establish a longer-term, up to three years, strategy. All

group members must keep working on contributing towards the improvements, although during the

scope of the strategy, the indicators and data need to be reviewed, expanded and adapted to fit the

37

situation. Once enough data has been collected, it will provide insights on how the destination has

evolved.

ETIS has been implemented in some European destinations. The use of ETIS can encourage

destinations to implement already existing or to develop their own sustainability labels. Slovenia took

part in the pilot phase of ETIS and created a national sustainability program Slovenia Green, including

a scoring system based on ETIS and Global Sustainable Tourism Council criteria for destinations to

thrive towards sustainability and since the established of the program in 2015, over 10 hotels and

destinations have successfully undergone the demanding process. Catalonia, similar to Slovenia, has

also implemented a scoring system for sustainability in destinations. Implementing ETIS provides data

of today, however some countries and destinations have set targets on indicators to maintain the

continuous development and benchmarking. (European Commission 2016). In Romania, the ETIS was

tested in the DIMAST project, which aimed at developing an innovative system for decision-support

that could provide support in adopting the most suitable development policies. Whereas ETIS was the

base for the project, only 11 ETIS indicators were eventually used, due to the lack of data and

relevancy (Tudorache et al 2017). McLoughlin et al (2020) applied ETIS in County Donegal, Ireland

and they were able to identify clear development areas, such as waste treatment. The application also

provided information on the economic, socio-cultural and ecological impacts of tourism in the area.

The researchers point out his information can also help local stakeholders in planning and developing a

new tourism policy.

The engagement of the stakeholders in the analysing process of the indicators results can be fruitful, as

seen in Italy. It led to raising awareness and understanding of the importance of a destination label

encompassing the five cooperating territories included in this specific ETIS implementation process.

With initiative of the local destination marketing network, they were able to implement concrete

development actions after analysing the indicators, and therefore improved the public transport to the

region. (European Commission 2016). Also in Italy, in Sardinia, obtaining data from residents in face-

to-face interviews turned out informative by pointing out clear areas of development, revealing that

locals felt their contribution to tourism management and planning was minimal. The implementation of

ETIS has pointed out some deficiencies in gathering visitor data (Canna and Theuma, 2013) but many

38

also acknowledge and praise it for bringing stakeholders together and facilitating cooperation (Zabetta

et al 2014).

While being one of the most used tools for evaluating tourism sustainability in a destination (Twining-

Ward and Butler 2002, WTO 2004, Blancas et al 2011) some criticism towards sustainability indicators

has been raised. In the study of Brasov County, Tudorache et al (2017) were faced with difficulties in

collecting data, which limits the use of some indicators. The results in their study are clear: With

quantitative indicators there was a lack of official statistical data, quantitative and qualitative indicators

lacked surveys on visitors, surveys on residents in general and surveys on residents on tourism business

were non-existent. Also, the difficulty of obtaining statistical data on local level has been pointed out

(Modica et al 2018). Whereas UN encourages destinations and DMO’s to start implementing ETIS

even when not all data is necessarily available, some studies have been forced to drop out some

indicators (e.g. Tanguay et al 2013) due to lack to data. This might lead to distortion or bias results and

possibly give a better or worse image of the destination sustainability than in reality. Despite this, the

European Commission (2016) encourages destinations to start the process and take actions based on the

data they can easily access.

Although indicators are gaining success in sustainable tourism management, they can still be

interpreted in various ways. A huge range of indicators can lead to difficulties as previous research has

pointed out, lack of consensuses when it comes to selecting the sustainable tourism indicators, as

indicators used in researches were almost never the same (Tanguay et al 2013) as well as in the

minimum number of indicators needed for quantifying sustainability (Torres-Delgado and Saarinen

2014).

2.6. Sustainable tourism policies and programmes in Finland

Tourism business is considered as a great opportunity for Finland. In 2016, the “Government policy

regarding the priorities in the updated Arctic strategy” was released after a strategy session, slightly

39

redefining the goals originally published in 2013. One of the three main priorities was concerning

sustainable tourism, more specifically focused on “sustainable travel destination programme, tailored

cooperation among sectors, spearheading marketing of international tourism and developing stopover

services” (Prime Minister’s Office, Finland 2016). Therefore, the Arctic Sustainable Tourism

Destination project 2018-2019 (Arktinen Kestävä Matkailudestinaatio -projekti) was established,

aiming to develop sustainability actions in Finnish tourism businesses and destinations, implement

marketing actions to enhance Finland’s image as a sustainable destination and country as well as guide

incoming tourists and tour operators to act according to the sustainability principles (Business Finland

2019). To help reach these goals, among many other actions, a sustainability label named Sustainable

Travel Finland was created and launched.

Sustainable Travel Finland is a certification programme and a sustainable development path for tourism

companies and destinations established by Visit Finland in 2019. It was in the piloting stage in 12

destinations during 2019, one of them being Ruka-Kuusamo, and companies throughout Finland. Levi

joined the programme once the piloting phase was over. The programme shares similarities with other

sustainability strategies, however, issues raised from surveys in Finland have been incorporated in the

programme. The programme includes an indicator set for destinations to follow their sustainability.

This is vital especially in rural regions, as discovered by Wanner et al (2020). Deficient long-term

implementation and monitoring when applying strategies can result from lack of indicators to follow. A

clear majority of the certifications accepted for the programme are aimed at improving the ecological

aspect of tourism. Only two of the currently listed 15 certifications emphasize investing in local

culture, respectively, only two emphasize the economic sustainability. In order for sustainability to be

credible and effective, all the three pillars should be equally important.

Like the ETIS Toolkit, Sustainable Travel Finland, covering all three aspects of tourism, offers a toolkit

for managing, marketing and developing sustainable tourism. In order to obtain the label, destinations

and companies need to undergo a seven-step process (Visit Finland 2019):

40

1. Commitment: formally deciding to develop sustainable tourism, agreeing to national

sustainability principles and choosing a coordinator

2. Increasing know-how: increasing know-how through Sustainable Travel Finland e-guide,

workshops and self-assessment

3. Development plan: formulating a sustainable tourism development plan, defining both short and

long-term goals for all aspects of sustainability

4. Responsible communication: Internationally publicizing the sustainable development actions

planned

5. Certification: Receiving a certificate. In tourism destinations at least 51% of the tourism

companies need to have the Sustainable Travel Finland label in order for the destination to

attain one.

6. Verification and measurability: confirming that sustainable tourism actions have been followed

for a year, committing to national sustainability indicators (will be published later in 2019)

7. Agreement on Sustainable Travel Finland: making a contract for the use and validity of

Sustainable Travel Finland label

As the programme was only launched in 2019, there are no results available yet, neither have the

sustainability indicators been published.

In the Finnish Tourism Strategy 2019-2028 and Action Plan 2019-2023 the role of the DMO includes

acting as a cooperation forum for tourism stakeholders, organising the destination marketing, providing

information, managing destination development and acting as a link between tourism business

enterprises and the national tourism organisation, Visit Finland. The strategy lists sustainable tourism

development as one of the main areas for making Finland a competitive destination with steering

businesses, destinations and tourists towards sustainable choices. These include sustainable tourism

education, making Sustainable Travel Finland programme nationwide, developing domestic travel by

efficient marketing, increasing all-year-round tourism with specific target groups and niche tourism

(e.g. luxury, wellness, food, congresses and events and family tourism) and developing accessibility.

41

The Finnish Tourism Strategy 2019-2028 and Action Plan 2019-2023 state the actions will be assessed

every two years while quantitative goals annually, based on the data submitted by the responsible

actors. Nevertheless, they have no notion of what the actions are if the data is missing or it cannot be

compared to previous data, which is a base for measuring success.

Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs are partly located in national parks. Therefore, they are subjected to the

Finnish forestry authority, Metsähallitus, that manages all state-owned land and water areas. The

Responsibility Policy however encompasses the whole Finland, making it very broad and vague.

Benefiting people, society and nature are main objectives of this policy and data on implementation of

the responsibility targets and measures are collected yearly. Currently, Ylläs is not partaking in a

national sustainability strategy but some sustainability projects are taking place.

42

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research approach

The approach chosen for this study is the qualitative approach. Qualitative studies aim to gain deeper

understand and insights on a specific case, whereas quantitative studies often try to prove a theory.

Studies with a qualitative approach “seek to arrive at an understanding of a particular phenomenon

from the perspective of those experiencing it” (Vaismoradi et al 2013, 398). In business research,

qualitative studies offer critical and reflexive views on matters. The questions answered can be why,

how and what kind and it is fit to use for developing business operations (Heikkilä 2014).

Because of the nature of the research questions (“how”), a valid research method for this study was

case study, as explained by Laine et al (2009). The phenomenon of sustainability and the

implementation of sustainability schemes and indicators hasn’t been studied widely in Finland; hence,

case studies are appropriate for their aim to increase understanding (Laine et al 2009). Three case

studies have been chosen for the research. The empirical part provides an intrinsic case study from

Lapland with three different destinations as examples. They are important tourism destinations in rural

Finland with similar tourism offers, which provides the viewpoint of sustainability in a place that

thrives from tourism. Three case studies were chosen to fully understand the concepts and situations of

sustainable destination management in Lapland and to possibly gain understanding and reasoning

behind why things work in one case destination but not the other.

As the aim of the study is to understand sustainable tourism destination management, it falls in the

category of intrinsic case study (Ridder 2017). In intrinsic case studies case studies are found

interesting as such to learn about them, the aim is not to generalize or to build theory (Stake 2005).

This multiple case study focuses specifically on the case study destinations Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and

Ylläs, three big tourism destinations in Lapland This study tries to provide as much information on

these destinations, making it an intensive case study. As opposed to an intensive case study, in an

43

extensive case study focuses in commonalities over cases and in identifying patterns on large scale

samples (Harré 1979.)

3.2 Data collection methods

The most used data collection methods in qualitative studies are interviews, surveys, observation and

data collected from different documents. They can be used separately, or used together, like in

triangulation (Tuomi and Sarajärvi 2017). In this research, the data was collected using interviews,

where the interviewer asks the questions out loud and the interviewee’s answers are noted down

accordingly (Eskola 1975). Using interviews as a data collection method in qualitative studies presents

many strengths. The question can be repeated, if needed, and the questions can be clarified to the

interviewee. Interaction and conversation are a part of the flexibility that interviewing includes,

furthermore, the order of the questions can be varied according to the interview and interviewee

(Tuomi and Sarajärvi 2017).

Table 6. Data collection interviews

L1 L2 L3 R4 R5 R6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Destination Levi Levi Levi Ruka-

Kuusamo Ruka-Kuusamo

Ruka-Kuusamo

Ylläs Ylläs Ylläs

Years in the destination (over/under five)

Under Over Over Over Over Under Under Over Under

Position in tourism/ company

DMO Actor Actor DMO Actor/ managerial

Actor/ managerial

DMO Actor/ managerial

Actor

Interview duration

27:22 45:56 51:03 14:38 46:36 28:53 57:34 25:03 59:56

44

Nine professionals working in tourism industry or closely with it were interviewed from the three

locations, Ruka, Levi and Ylläs, three from each (Table 6). The number of interviews was decided to

be nine beforehand. First, the chief executive officers of DMO’s of all destinations were contacted and

interviewed, as DMO’s are an important actor and often the initiator and the mediator in sustainable

tourism destination management. Once interviewed, snowball sampling was used (see Noy 2008). They

all gave recommendations and contact information for finding the next interviewee and about who

would be a good fit for the interview. Two interviewees were chosen as per author’s previous

knowledge about the destinations. L1 and R4 we’re asked for the interview face-to-face; others were

contacted via email and phone. Eventually, six more tourism project workers, entrepreneurs and other

tourism representatives agreed for the interview. The aim when selecting interviewees was to gain a

wide variety of backgrounds in terms of work experience and field of work in tourism, to ensure get a

broad overview in the sustainability in tourism in Lapland. Nine interviews were enough to reach

saturation, possibly because of the similar nature of the destination and the same sustainability

programmes followed.

The interviews have been appointed with numbers in random order like shows in Table 6. L1, L2 and

L3 represent interviewees from Levi, R4, R5 and R6 from Ruka-Kuusamo and Y7, Y8 and Y9 from

Ylläs. With the permission of the CEO’s of the DMO’s, their answers are not anonymous. Other

participants wished to remain anonymous, therefore, their precise positions and profession are not

revealed. The amount of work experience in Lapland for the participants ranged from less than six

months to around 30 years, with a rough average of 9 years.

After the first interviews, the questions were revised as they were not informative enough. As L1 and

R4 were the first two to be interviewed, they were approached via email to answer the questions added

later on. L1 provided the answers, however, R4 did not reply. Therefore, in chapter 4.3, there are some

shortcomings in the answers from participant R4. The questions sent afterwards to L1 and R4 were

“which sustainability indicators are the most important at your destination?” and “do you follow the

indicators from ETIS? If no, why not? Could you start monitoring and collecting the information for

them? If yes, how does it affect the end result, i.e. the sustainable destination management?”.

45

In order to gain information about a specific topic, the interview was constructed as a semi-structured,

thematic interview with main themes and questions focusing on the particular phenomena, in this case

sustainability management and monitoring. A semi-structured interview consists of a set of questions,

nevertheless, the interview process happens conversationally and informally (Longhurst 2009), and the

order of the questions and wording can be changed in the course of the interview (Eriksson and

Kovalainen 2008). Semi-structured interviews being probably the most used data collection method in

qualitative studies (Kichin and Tate 2000), it allows the interviewee to discuss matter important to them

(Longhurst 2009).

The interview was constructed of 10 questions with seven sub questions and additional questions that

were used if clarification was necessary, as the interviewees came from different fields and working

environments. In most of the interviews, however, more questions were asked in the course of the

interviewer to better understand the situation. To make the interview smoother and more proficient,

Tuomi and Sarajärvi (2017) suggest the interviewer to let the interviewee familiarise him/herself with

the questions prior the interview, which was the case in this study. This also avoids the feeling of being

in a quiz, when the interviewee has had time to think about important matters already. The ETIS

indicators from 2016 were attached to the questions. All the interviewees were of Finnish nationality;

therefore, all the interviews were conducted in Finnish. The interviews were conducted via phone and

Skype between the end of January and mid-March 2020. Before the start of the interview, the

interviewees were explained the aim of the thesis and the structure of the study. All interviews were

recorded and transcribed to facilitate the analysis process. As the author was already familiar with the

Levi, Ruka and Ylläs, no background information about the destination was asked in the interview,

only about the interviewee’s work experience. The questions followed focused on the research topic

already. The interview questions translated to English can be found in Appendix 1.

The ethical issues sometimes face when conducting and analysing semi-structured interviews are to do

with confidentiality and anonymity. The information collected needs to stay secured and that their

identities are not revealed; they also have the right to pull out at any time and withdraw their answers.

(Longhurst 2009). This was taken care of by asking the interviewees prior the interview, whether some

46

identifications could be used. As the questions study actions of a destination rather than opinions, the

CEO’s of destination management companies agreed to have their names published. To avoid any

misunderstandings or faulty analysis, the data analysis and findings were sent to some interviewees to

be checked as per their demand before publishing.

3.3 Data analysis

Instead of going from empirical study to theoretical results or trying to validate a theory (Eriksson and

Kovalainen 2008), this research takes an abductive approach. An abductive approach can offer new

knowledge and insights (Kolko 2010) and help learn about variables and relationships (Dubois and

Gadde 2002). This research does not try to confirm an existing theory or create a new one, therefore, an

abductive approach to the analysis is used. As all the interviews were recorded, they were later on

transcribed for easier analysing process. The data gathered from the interviews was analysed using the

qualitative content analysis to find relationships and themes. A qualitative content analysis is a

descriptive approach to qualitative research (Vaismoradi et at 2013). Unlike a thematic analysis, it

doesn’t specify the themes before the analysing process. A qualitative content analysis allows the

results to be based on the interviewee’s perspectives, experiences and points of view, they are

interpretations, rather than factual. The results are analysed based on the perspectives and are objective.

The benefits of qualitative content analysis are the flexibility, the systematic nature of the analysis and

that it helps reducing the amount of data (Schreier 2012). Additionally, this study doesn’t build on

existing theory. The interview questions, however, are based on some theoretical viewpoints, like the

different aspects of tourism, sustainability indicators and potential leadership issues. These theoretical

aspects provided a sound base for analysing the interviews and constructing the discussion.

A content analysis can be divided into three phases: preparation, organising and reporting (Elo et al

2014). The analysis process used in this study started with transcribing the interviews word to word, in

order to avoid overlooking some details or tones in the answers. After that, the transcriptions were

carefully read through. Schreier (2012, 171) claims “every single part of the material that is in any way

relevant to the research question” should be studied. This is the preparation stage. Once the author was

47

familiar with the interviews, the organisation phase began with the coding process and initial open

coding. Relevant comments and opinions were underlined, and the coding was done with using

different colours to identify the reoccurring themes and to find patterns in the answers better. Once all

interviews were coded, the codes from all interviews were combined. The interviewees pointed out

issues related to similar topics, which helped forming higher categories and eventually themes were

identified. Reporting is done in chapter 4, where the themes identified are presented with quotes from

interviews.

48

4 FINDINGS 4.1 Approach to sustainable tourism management 4.1.1 Sustainability aspects

The study tries to deepen the knowledge of sustainable destination management in Lapland. A total of

nine interviews were conducted and analysed. In this chapter the findings are presented divided into

five categories: approach to sustainability management and strategy, leadership in sustainability

management, measuring and monitoring sustainability, concrete actions and challenges and future.

Table 7. The most highlighted aspect of sustainable tourism

L1 L2 L3 R4 R5 R6 Y7 Y8 Y9

Economic x

Socio-cultural

Ecological x x x x x x

All equally important

x x

Sustainability in tourism in Lapland is considered of importance and as an undertone in most actions

according to the interviews. It is constantly present in decision-making and management. As the

destinations are largely based on the nature-based activities, is sustainability considered somewhat self-

evident: “continuous development is the corner stone” (L2), and “it is the common desire that

sustainable tourism will be a focal point” (L3). Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo agreed that the ecological

aspects is currently more highlighted than the others, in Ylläs they are all equally current.

49

Ecological sustainability is perceived as the most important aspect of sustainability in Lapland right

now according to the interviews (Table 7). Multiple participants say ecological issues have been more

on the forefront lately. Ecological aspect has been in headlines and conversations in Lapland as well as

globally, which has had an effect on these destinations too. In Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo this is partly

explained with the STF-programme “because of a certification, it focuses quite a lot on the ecological

sustainability” (L3). R5 explains why ecological sustainability has gained more attention recently:

“Maybe we have felt that the other aspects have been more in control from the start and

this ecological sustainability is something, that develops rapidly.--. It is something that

has a continuous need for development in order to stay up-to-date, which is why it has

been highlighted in the past few years.” (R5)

Another participant states that there can be more reasons to the relevancy of ecological sustainability:

“When you look at the world, it is more in the forefront now and as a marketing tool it

is probably used the most. And maybe responsibility is associated with it, environment

and ecological sustainability are associated. When talking about sustainability,

economic and sociocultural are a bit vague.” (L2)

The aim of sustainability is to have ecological, economic and socio-cultural aspects balanced. In Ylläs,

Y7 and Y9 couldn’t point out one aspect more highlighted than the others: “so is one of these more in

the forefront than others, it’s hard to say, we have tried to keep them balanced with emphasising

sustainable development” (Y7). However, also participants L1, L2, L3, R4 and R5 acknowledged that

although one aspect is now gaining more attention than others, all three of them are important.

Although ecological aspect is perceived as the most highlighted currently, all three aspects were

discussed in approaching sustainability. Some examples of the sociocultural aspects are brought up,

such as the close proximity of Samí people (L1) which calls for sociocultural sustainability. Also, the

sociocultural acceptance from the locals is seen as crucial, to have functioning schools and plots

reserved for local residents (Y7). Only R6 had an opinion different from the rest and said economic

50

aspect is more relevant currently, as “the other aspects don’t matter, if the economic situation isn’t

good. It is clearly the one that makes other stuff possible.”

4.1.2 Sustainable destination management strategy Sustainable destination management in Lapland has been approached with multiple different strategies

and programmes. Both Ruka-Kuusamo and Levi have participated in Sustainable Travel Finland (STF),

the first in the piloting phase and the latter joined once the program opened up for others. STF requires

the destinations to have a destination-level strategy for sustainability, that are now under construction

in Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo. Both destinations acknowledge the importance of close cooperation with

Visit Finland, the national tourism organisation of Finland. According to the interviews conducted with

professionals from Ylläs, there is determination to join the programme as well. Metsähallitus

responsibility strategies are mentioned both in Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs, as the destinations are partly

located in national parks.

According to the interviewees from Levi, Levi follows multiple programs projects and guidelines in

sustainability, including the STF and Levi 4 development programmes, where sustainability is present

(L2, L3). Despite this, L3 isn’t sure if there is “a bunch of papers named sustainability strategy. Both

L2 and L3 point out that EU is also seen as an actor in sustainable development by stating that “the EU

guides us so that all strategy papers and others, as per my understanding, work with the principle that

money is being distributed.” (L2) and that some actors in Levi operate with the help of EU funding

(L3).

Ruka is currently working on the plan for STF and “a destination wide sustainable tourism plan and

strategy” (R5) is under development. The Finnish forest authority, Metsähallitus, and the Ruka ski

centre both have strategies and “the sustainability strategy maintained by Ruka and the Metsähallitus

strategy touch a very big part of our tourism services.” (R5)

51

All three participants from Ylläs stated that Ylläs has not yet established a sustainability strategy.

However, “there is some willingness to participate in the STF programme” (Y9) and the statement is

confirmed by Y7 who says the program will be in the development. Furthermore, although there is no

sustainability strategy in place yet, respondents confirm that the practices of sustainable management

are being followed: “sustainability is the central theme in everything that’s being done.” (Y7) and

“always under the surface.” (Y8).

Sustainable tourism management strategies can benefit destinations economically and sustainability is

often linked with destination competitiveness (Ritchie and Crouch 2003, Cucculelli and Goffi 2016,

European Commission 2016). Using sustainability as competitive advantage can add to the popularity

of the destination. Two participants point out that sustainability strategies are important for economic

reasons as “many tour operators require that their partners act sustainably” (L1), because “my guess is

-- if we’re not a part of this, the tour operators will take people somewhere else where they already

have certificates.” (Y9)

4.2 Leadership on sustainable tourism management

The interviews reveal sustainable destination management is not a task appointed to one operator only.

All interviewees discussed how everyone has a role to play in sustainability and although DMO has a

visible role, are businesses and entrepreneurs in charge of daily actions. Despite this, destination

leadership needs improving in putting more effort should be put into spreading knowledge about

sustainability work, engaging and absorbing the latest information. DMO and each entrepreneur and

business were the most common answers to be seen responsibles for sustainability management. Two

interviewees in Ylläs and one in Levi called for joint responsibility.

52

Table 8. Actors responsible for sustainable tourism destination management

L1 L2 L3 R4 R5 R6 Y7 Y8 Y9 DMO

x x x x x x x

Each entrepreneur and business

x x x x x x

Municipality

x x x x

Joint responsibility

x x x

The responsibility for sustainability development and management in Lapland received mixed answers

(Table 8). Nevertheless, six out of nine respondents found the DMO to be partly in charge. The role of

the DMO in in these destinations, according to the interviews, is seen as “coordinating, facilitating

cooperation and enabling the conversation” (L2), “coordinating and managing the destination area”

(R4). In Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo the DMO also acts as the leader for the Sustainable Travel Finland

programme.

In Levi, the role of the DMO has seen as a strong actor in sustainability:

There are many actors together in this, the entrepreneurs in the area, municipality and

DMO Visit Levi, but when thinking about responsibilities, especially concerning the

cooperation with Visit Finland, it is natural that the DMO is in charge of that.” (L1)

L3 also acknowledges the important role of Visit Levi but emphasizes that sustainable development

“isn’t the responsibility of only one actor”, because

“developing sustainability is such a multifaceted and multidimensional issue so

everyone should, within their field, try to take this further in their own actions.”

53

A participant from Ruka-Kuusamo shares the same point of view, although the DMO has an important

role in sustainability development, “every entreprise is in charge of their own sustainability

programme.” (R4). Business owners and entrepreneurs are an important actor in sustainable

destination management and development in Lapland. Six respondents gave a part of the responsibility

to businesses to “follow the principles of sustainable development” (L1) and stated that business

owners are eventually in charge (R6, Y8). Whereas most participants in Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo

brought up the importance of the DMO in sustainability management and development, the participants

in Ylläs had a different point of view. Y7, the CEO of Visit Ylläs, point out that “we have been

established to be solely a destination marketing organisation. -Of course, we’re taking steps towards

destination management”, as opposed to Visit Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo Tourist Association that are

destination management organisations. Currently, Ylläs has no actor for sustainability (Y8) or

destination management (Y9). Destination management organisations are often in charge of the overall

development and therefore, a crucial actor in sustainable tourism destination management. Without it,

the destination might lack an actor that drives sustainability. The situation in Ylläs is explained as

“There is no-one to take the lead. On the top of that, there are two destination

organisations, one takes care of the tracks and the other takes care of marketing. But

we’re missing an actor that would do destination development in its’ actual meaning.”

(Y9)

Municipalities are regarded as important partners in sustainable destination management. Tight

collaboration between the DMO, tourism businesses and the municipality take place in all three

destinations. In Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo, the municipality has established their own sustainability

projects and In Levi, they arrange trainings about sustainability (L1). In Ylläs, the municipality will

play a big role in the implementation of the STF-programme and take the lead. The municipality is also

partly in charge of financing other actors and the destination development.

To improve leadership in order to develop sustainability in Lapland, learning, keeping up-to-date and

engaging businesses in sustainability work we’re mentioned multiple times. “obtaining the latest

information and embracing is really important for management” (L2) and “improving know-how,

54

especially in those small businesses” (R5). Respondents from all three destinations agreed that

communicating the importance of sustainable destination management and development, also within

businesses as pointed out by R6, should be focused on: “we need to get businesses to understand why

this is important for the whole area.” (L3). Communicating and engaging needs to happen efficiently

between the DMO and businesses:

“information must be shared about this and to get businesses to understand how they

can contribute. —Communicating and engaging actors in this work.” (R4).

Y7 finds “communicating to be the biggest, the most important thing” for improving leadership and to

create “a genuine dialogue” with all actors. Two respondents from Ylläs stated the lack of

management organisation is something that hinders the improving of sustainability in the destination:

“no one manages them (businesses). To go to destination level management, then we would have

something to give and the development work would be more efficient and systematic.” (Y9).

4.3 Measuring and monitoring sustainable tourism management

Sustainable Travel Finland programme aims at having at least 51% of businesses in a destination

sustainably certified. For the DMO’s in Levi (L1) and Ruka-Kuusamo (R4) it is the main indicator for

monitoring sustainability. Currently, 15 certifications are accepted for the programme and they all

provide help for continuous development for a tourism business. The certifications equip the tourism

business or other actor with sustainability indicators in order to reach the certification. The STF

programme, once a destination is a participant, identifies sustainability indicators for monitoring and

measuring sustainability. These indicators are not published at the time of this study, they should be

published later in 2020. Prior to joining the STF programme, Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo did not have any

specific, destination-wide indicator set to follow. Respondents from Ylläs explained there are no

monitoring tools or ETIS indicators in use. The findings on the use of monitoring tools and indicators

are found in Table 9.

55

The use of sustainability indicators is rare in the case study destinations. Economic indicators are easier

to follow but economic and socio-cultural aspects are seen challenging. There is not enough know-how

or interest in implementing indicators and resources are an issue. Rather than monitoring sustainability,

many prefer focusing in contributing to sustainability with concrete actions.

Table 9. Sustainability monitoring in Lapland

For measuring and monitoring sustainability in a destination, the indicators or other measuring tools

used in Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo rely on the STF programme and certification indicators. There are

“no general indicators” (R4), and “creating a common, comprehensive set of indicators is

challenging.” (L1). STF programme is seen as in charge of monitoring sustainability as “we trust that

the indicators that are in the certification programmes make sure that this destination acts sustainably”

(L1) and the 51% of businesses certified is seen as a measurement (R4.)

L1 L2 L3 R4 R5 R6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Monitoring tool

Indicators from STF certifications, not monitored on destination level

An international environmental management programme

Under development

Indicators from STF certifications

Under development

Under development

None None None

The most important indicators

To have 51% of businesses in the destination certified

Business has to be economically sustainable

Not following

- Economic indicators the most important

Energy use Economic indicators and customer satisfaction

The rise of nature-based activities

More hiring or new services

ETIS Not in use yet

Some certification indicators might be based on ETIS. Not very familiar

Not very familiar but could be used in the future

- ETIS used in some certifications in STF. Future indicators will be based on ETIS

Not familiar Not familiar but could be used in the future

Not in use

Not in use

56

Most interviewees stated there are no monitoring and measuring indicators, tools or programmes in use

or that they are potentially in development for next destination strategies: “in the future we intend to

have indicators in use, and we’ll use the STF indicator list for that” (R5). L3 says “the tools are still

under development” and R5 claims “as we don’t have the strategy for the whole destination yet, we

don’t have common indicators.” Although some participants didn’t use any measuring tools yet, they

are open for the idea: “we are going to start using some kind of indicators, but what is it then, that

supports our business” (R6) and in Ylläs “there are no indicators yet” but if some qualified actor

started cooperating, “potentially at some point we’d be interested” (Y8.) Working together with

DMO’s to measure sustainability with the help of sustainability indicators evokes different opinions.

According to Y8, the local DMO hasn’t got “enough staff and not enough knowledge to analyse these

things”. However, R6 would be willing to do collaboration as “we would learn, if something should be

improved, so in that sense yes.”

One interviewee from Ruka-Kuusamo explains that although the destination level indicator set is still in

development, the Finnish forest authority (Metsähallitus) has published sustainability indicators for

nature destinations named Limits of acceptable change. These indicators are currently in use in the

Oulanka national park in Ruka-Kuusamo (R5).

The most common issues in monitoring and measuring sustainability are the difficulties in measuring

and the lack of knowledge and know-how. In Ylläs, the difficulties lie in “not enough data so it’s

worth following and not strategic point of view on what to measure” (Y7) and in that “there is no-one,

who could measure all these.” (Y9). Some sustainability indicators were perceived as more challenging

to follow than others. Participants Y7, Y8 and Y9 find economic indicators easier to monitor than

others:

“We follow bed nights, daily customer numbers. There are those gender equality and

stuff, we don’t monitor those. But like in this sewage treatment and energy usage, these

are so that if we started to do these, a system would be needed (Y8.)

57

From the ETIS indicator set some indicators, such as the tourist flow, are easier to follow. Y7 claims

specifies the problems in monitoring:

“in a way it has been the most challenging thought, that what is the indicator, and now

I’m talking about ecologic sustainability, on the economic side it is easy to measure

euros. And sociocultural side is another one that is more challenging”.

Some interviewees admit there are other reasons why sustainability indicators have not been used in

sustainable destination management before. R5 explains that “we haven’t seen them as so relevant

before” and L2 questions the need for measuring when discussing the role of one actor in sociocultural

sustainability: “the same information could probably be derived easier, if you get books from the

library”. Although many participants are still not actively using sustainability indicators and not very

familiar with them, the ETIS indicator set sent to the interviewees could potentially prove useful in the

future (R5, Y7). The use of sustainability indicators is still under development alongside new

strategies, however “these are pretty good, thank you for this information” (R5), Y7 agrees: “this is a

very interesting list”.

Despite the benefits of using sustainability indicators in sustainable destination management, the

concrete actions are considered more important. Participants from all three destinations shared similar

insights. R6 states that measuring sustainability needs to profit the business, “so we don’t monitor and

measure just for the fun of it.” L1 and Y9 emphasize the importance of actions: “it is more important

than measuring” (Y9) and “instead of staring at the indicators, the concrete actions are the most

important” (L1). For R5 the use of indicators for monitoring has been purely a question of resources:

“developing sustainability on a destination level requires resources and we didn’t have those resources

before.”

Although the economic indicators were found the most important right now, two respondents from

different destinations point out the importance of sociocultural acceptance from the local community

for tourism.

58

“Because if operations are not socially accepted in the community, it is very hard to

develop anything. When operations are accepted in the social community, ecologic and

cultural sustainability can be developed together” (R5).

Y7 explained the sociocultural sustainability monitoring to be “a feeling, if tourism has a social

permission in the area where it operates”. The participant recognises the connection between

economic and sociocultural sustainability when tourism manages to create permanent work positions:

“the sociocultural aspect comes with the social acceptance because tourism industry

jobs have a slight image challenge that everyone’s just a pint puller”.

4.4 Concrete actions

All three destinations, Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs have already taken concrete actions to improve

and develop sustainability in tourism. These actions contribute to the economic, ecological and socio-

cultural aspect of sustainability. Improvements in energy efficiency (L2, L3, R4, R5, R6, Y7) and

waste management (L1, L2, L3, R4, R5, Y7) were the most common actions pointed out by the

interview participants. Nevertheless, many interviewees list actions that have improved the

sociocultural aspect by taking locals and the local culture into consideration (Table 10).

59

Table 10. Examples of actions contributing to sustainable tourism

L1 L2 L3 R4 R5 R6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Improving waste management and recycling

x x x x x x

Energy saving and efficiency

x x x x x x

Developing conditions of locals and supporting local businesses and culture

x x x x x

Establishing sustainability projects

x x x x x

Protecting nature

x x x x

Compensating

x x x

Improved public transport

x x

All participants from Levi highlighted actions concerning the waste management: a waste management

planning project, integral recycling signs to create knowledge, guidelines for recycling, recycling and

waste management workshops for businesses, a Moodle based learning environment (L1, L3). L2 says

that “we have done a lot of work with waste management and sorting.” In Ruka-Kuusamo, R4 and R5

mention that a procurement decision of separate collection of bio waste was done and that “restaurants

and hotels have widely adopted it last November” (R5). Adding to this, also plastic waste collection

(R4) has started in Ruka-Kuusamo. Businesses in Ylläs will also start collecting bio waste according to

Y7.

Energy efficiency and green energy is another theme that the participants emphasized when discussing

concrete actions. Whereas waste management wasn’t mentioned by all interviewees in Ylläs, energy

usage and green energy were brought up in all three destinations. The work done for saving energy has

been “persistent and long-term” (L2). “District heating with wood chips and LED lights” (L3) are

60

examples of efforts made for energy efficiency in Levi. Companies in Ruka-Kuusamo use geothermal

heating and some electricity is generated with hydropower (R6) and green electricity and “compensate

all the fossil fuels used” (R4). The airport in Kuusamo and the Ruka ski centre are carbon neutral (R5)

and both R5 and R6 mention remote-controlled room temperatures so “there will be no wasted

heating” (R5) and this allows actors to follow it in real time (R6). In Ylläs businesses have addresses

energy saving and efficiency with actions including solar panels, compensating the carbon releases

from snowmobile safaris and next winter a big safari company is going to “get all buildings carbon

neutral and electric snowmobiles will be taken to use” (Y7).

Concrete improvements on sociocultural sustainability in Ruka-Kuusamo include engaging activating

locals. Locals have been invited to act as tourism service providers and this had led to collaboration

where locals would borrow their premises for free or for a small compensation and to new services.

(R5). The participant points out tourism can be important for communality and revitalising rural areas:

“We have more and more of tourists, who are very interested in authentic life and the

countryside culture. –-Now in five different villages that have started using old schools

and border patrol premises for example and they have been renovated for

accommodation, reservation restaurants and they are, especially in the winter season,

significant employers in these villages.” (R5).

In Levi, local service providers have been “educated and enlightened” (L1) with different trainings

concerning tourism. L3 state the infrastructure in the villages has been improved to support the local

life and to provide better services, including “kindergartens, schools and apartments”. In Ylläs, the

locals “will be included in the development of the new strategy” (Y7). Using local work force, local

furniture shops and locally produced goods (R6) and promoting local food and culture with the help of

events (L3) are also mentioned.

Sustainability projects are taking place in the three destinations. In Levi, one project was concerning

waste management improvement (L1), another aims at reducing the carbon footprint created by tourism

61

and to ensure sustainable growth, and multiple ones focused on local food (L3). Gateway to Land of

National Park is a project for Kuusamo and neighbouring municipalities that tries to increase

international bed nights in the summer season but also year-round, while improving the Kuusamo

airport connections for international visitors (R5). A project in Ylläs also aims at making tourism more

year-round with the help of mountain biking (Y9) and another one, run by the Finnish forest authority

Metsähallitus, named To be low carbon to reduce the carbon monoxide emissions (Y7).

Actions have been taken in preserving the nature, especially in Ylläs they are seen as important. Ski

centres in Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs are taking care of the slopes more environmentally sustainable

now. “Erosion management” (L2) and “as little using of snow cannons are possible, economic driving

on piste bachsers to save as much petrol as possible and to move around with a small carob footprint”

(Y7). Y8 also stresses the importance of “enjoying the nature with as little emissions as possible” with

activities such as snowshoeing and cross-country skiing. Y9 explains Ylläs has different ‘steps’ in

winter paths and cross-country skiing tracks to avoid “excessive maintenance”.

All chief executive officers from DMO’s listed compensating as an action already taken in Levi, Ruka-

Kuusamo and Ylläs. In Levi, as the DMO staff has to promote the destination abroad, the DMO has

tackled the issue of carbon emissions when flying overseas: “we compensate the flights and at the

moment we direct the compensating money towards rain forests” (L1). R4 from Ruka-Kuusamo tells

that the ski centre in Ruka “compensates all fossil fuels that they use in their own operations.”. Similar

to that, some companies in Ylläs have also contributed to sustainability by compensating emissions

from snowmobile safaris (Y7).

Public transportation has been focused on in Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo. Digitalization and public

transport have been developed in Levi (L3). Ski buses and the gondola are already in use in Ruka-

Kuusamo to relocate within the ski centre and

62

“next summer we are going to test a national park bus. They have been operating for a

few years already but now the timetables and usage have been improved and we’re

trying to tempt also domestic visitors to use public transport when going to nature

destinations rather than their own cars” (R5).

4.5 Current and future challenges

Perceived challenges in developing sustainability concern the limited amount of resources and the

excessive workload, issues mentioned by seven participants. Problems in cooperation and engagement,

accessibility and transport and waste management and infrastructure were brought up in more than half

of the interviews as well (Table 11). Similar challenges were brought up in all destinations, showing

that Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs face similar difficulties.

Table 11. The biggest challenges in developing sustainability in a destination

L1 L2 L3 R4 R5 R6 Y7 Y8 Y9

Resources and workload

x x x x x x x

Cooperation and engagement

x x x x x x

Accessibility and transport

x x x x x

Waste management and infrastructure

x x x x x

The three interviewees from DMO’s in Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs all acknowledged that the cost

of certifications is an issue and can potentially obstruct the sustainability in destinations, as each

business is often responsible for the certification and auditing payment. This can cause difficulties for

smaller businesses in Lapland according to the interviews.

63

“We have some challenges concerning the resources, there are small business owners

here who see the certifications as expensive when it comes to resources. There is the

certification cost and the auditing cost and pledging to that is sometimes a bit

challenging”. (L1)

R4 points out that “some small business has little resources; despite the fact they might be interested in

this.” Y7 is slightly hesitant about certifications: “they are not without problems, especially for small

businesses some of them are quite expensive”. L3 agrees that the challenge is that “processes require

time and resources from a business” and that the challenge in getting businesses to join is “the

resources of small businesses and supporting them in the work”. As well as the limited resources of

smaller businesses, the work of DMO is described as “traditionally the resources are pretty tight and a

horrible workload of everything that should be done” which is seen as a challenge by L2.

In Ylläs, the workload of adapting a proper sustainability programme and indicator set is too much for

one actor and that currently there is not enough staff according to Y8. Y9 discusses the difficulties in

waste management, “it always depends on the money”.

All three interviewees from Levi agreed that engaging businesses into sustainable development and

collaborating is a challenge in sustainable destination management. Being able to “make as many

entrepreneurs as possible understand to engage” (L1) in sustainability and to make “businesses

understand, why this is important for the whole area” (L3) are mentioned. L2 discusses how almost all

their operations require cooperation with different stakeholders, which can be problematic, as well as

“cooperation and coordinating on destination level, how to bring all actors to cooperate and to act

towards the common goals.”. A similar thought is pointed out by Y9: “to get the grass root level

actors to believe and invest in it”. R4 in Ruka discusses how collaboration can be tricky with biggest

tourism service provider businesses and chains as the field is very heterogenic. R5 follows the same

line of though by bringing up the challenges in stakeholder cooperation when developing the

sustainability strategy. Surprisingly, in Ylläs, where the situation for responsibility for sustainable

64

destination management in shared, engagement and cooperation aren’t seen as big of a challenge as in

Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo.

Accessibility and transport were another recurring theme when asking the interviewees about

challenges in sustainable destination management and development. For both domestic and

international visitors, reaching Lapland sustainably is seen as an issue and private driving is mentioned

as three interviewees point out challenges concerning it. Some simple sustainability actions become

difficult because of the fairly remote location: “taking care of them far away in a place like this is not

so easy” (Y9). Y7 states accessibility to the “biggest challenge for tourism in the area and for

Lapland”. Domestic visitors most often drive to Lapland (R5, R6, Y7), and petrol and diesel cars are

“almost the only option” (R5), the infrastructure to support electric cars isn’t developed enough for

long distances and gas-powered cars cannot be fuelled at all. Y7 agrees with the lack of possibilities for

electric and gas-powered cars. R5 adds that the abundance of private cars increases the need for

parking lots: “we don’t want to senselessly keep expanding the parking spaces, as that then decreases

the diversity and vitality of the nature”.

Y7 describes Finland as an island, therefore, air traffic is crucial. In Levi, “a lot of visitors arrive by

planes – all in all this air traffic is a challenge” (L1). Both L1 and Y7 think train connections should

be “offered as a concrete option for travelling to this destination (L1)” also for foreign visitors, but “it

is hard to affect customers to more sustainable choices in consumption and transportation” (Y7).

Another participant identifies consumer behaviour to be a challenge. L3 depicts the situation:

“Challenges also arise through consumers. To get customers act sustainably and

according to sustainable development, but it probably changes over time. But there is a

communication challenge, that it is communicated how to act here and how to travel

here sustainably. To get the customers join the work as well.”

65

Waste management is perceived as a challenge in all three destinations. No bio waste collection or

facility and lack of recycling need to be address according to the interviews. Partly overlapping with

the theme of transport and long distances as well as resources, it was raised by five participants, hence,

it is analysed as a theme of its’ own. Bio waste is not being collected in Ylläs:

“here, bio waste is not collected, it goes to general waste to be burnt. It has been discussed and

developed but for now there is no answer” (Y9).

Y8 sees that “waste is a big issue and the lack of recycling”. Although Ruka appears to be slightly

better at waste management and has started developing the bio waste collection, the news has no

reached R6: “as per my understanding, no other waste is collected than general waste. So, waste

management needs to be developed”. However, bio waste is not the only type of waste that causes

issues:

“In practice, bio waste cannot be recycled here. When it comes to plastic and cardboard

recycling of businesses, especially plastic and plastic packaging recycling is

challenging” (L1).

The carrying capacity of the public infrastructure in the north might limit the actions taken for

improving waste management. L2 questions if it ready and able to handle the negative effects caused

by tourism and names that a challenge.

Finally, the participants were asked if they consider their destination as sustainable (Table 12). Almost

all interviewees agreed that their destinations are quite sustainable. Continuous improvement and

development was emphasized.

Table 12. The current level of sustainability in case study destinations

Levi is sustainable and on its way towards it

Ruka-Kuusamo is sustainable, but the process continues

Ylläs has to improve operations, but ultimately sustainable

66

Levi is seen as a sustainable destination by the participants work in tourism in Levi and they

acknowledge that they are well on their way to making Levi even more sustainable. “In the Finnish

scale it is as sustainable, as this kind of work in tourism field can be” (L2). L1 and L3 think Levi is on

its’ way and “all aspects have been taken into consideration” (L3). However, L3 point out that

although a lot has been done, there is still a lot to do.

The respondents from Ruka-Kuusamo all agree that sustainability requires continuous development and

improving: “this is continuous developing, taking different aspects into consideration and everyday

actions” (R4) and “we are sustainable in this moment, but we can work on it even more” (R5). As

concluded by R6: “The work never ends”.

Whereas Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo are seen as sustainable, Ylläs interprets the situation slightly

differently. Respondents emphasize the amount of work yet to be done: “everyone has to improve”

(Y7), “awareness has improved, but a clear plan is needed” (Y8) and refer calling Ylläs a sustainable

destination yet. However, “at local level were doing well” (Y9), moreover, “the starting point of

tourism in Ylläs is based on sustainable tourism” (Y7).

67

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Discussion of the findings

The purpose of the study was to establish an understanding of the state of sustainable tourism

destination management in Lapland, by interviewing tourism professionals from Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo

and Ylläs. As these three destinations are among the biggest in Lapland, with the help of nine

professionals providing insights was hoped to build overall awareness of the sustainable tourism

management in Lapland. Five main research questions with different viewpoints approaching this issue

were used. First, in order to understand the nature of sustainable destination management in these

destinations, the approach and strategies were studied. The second question discussed the roles and

responsibilities of different actors, including the destination management companies in sustainability.

Then, the actions of measuring and monitoring were addressed, to find out how these destinations

ensure that sustainable destination management and monitoring is transferred from words and plans to

concrete actions. Concrete actions were also studied. Lastly, the biggest challenges and future prospects

were identified by the interviewees.

Systematic sustainable destination management and monitoring is still in its the early phases in

Lapland. When developing tourism and services, sustainability is always present, and many actions

have aimed at improving it. Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs are sustainable destinations by nature.

Nature is an important selling point for these destinations, which has led to the need to conserving and

protecting it and to the realisation of the importance of sustainability. Although sustainability is often

associated with ecological sustainability, the economic aspect can be dominant to some. Wagenseil and

Zemp’s (2016) findings on the three aspects of sustainability are not fully confirmed in this study. His

findings included a notion of how the economic perspective was considered the most important.

Without satisfactory economic sustainability, other aspects won’t get the attention they need. In this

research, the ecological aspect was said to be the most on the forefront currently; right now, it is the

aspect that is receiving most attention. However, of sustainability indicators economic indicators were

seen as most important. Correspondingly, the change in the behaviour of tourism businesses is often

68

motivated by increasing competitive advantage and financial benefits (Bramwell and Lane 2013).

Interviewees in Levi and Ylläs brought up the economic benefits of participating in sustainability

schemes and programmes, and they argue it can be a motivator. However, the most light has now been

shed on the ecological aspect in Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs. Because these destinations are rural

by the nature, conserving and preserving the environment is a base for tourism activities in the area.

Sustainability has already been improved in Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs with a wide range of

actions.

Not one interviewee found the socio-cultural aspect to be in the forefront in sustainable tourism

management, this finding is in line with Jovičić’s (2013) findings. His research found out that focusing

in the economic effects of tourism and the impact of tourism on the natural environments as opposed to

socio-cultural aspects gained more consideration. The ecological aspect of sustainable tourism was

considered to have gained the most attention recently in destination management in Levi and Ruka-

Kuusamo, in Ylläs they were considered as all equally important. Despite this, the social acceptance

was mentioned in the interviews. Tourism needs to get an acceptance from the locals in order to

develop and to be sustainable.

In rural destinations sustainability is often considered as self-evident as the tourism relies on the

environment and nature. Sustainability in Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs has been seen as self-evident

to the point that no sustainability strategies have been considered too important, as it is considered a

base for everything. However, recently all three destinations have started developing new sustainability

strategies, partly for economic and business reasons.

The responsibility of sustainable management is in hands of local DMO’s, the municipalities and every

tourism service provider. Joint responsibility between different tourism-developing stakeholders is also

acknowledged. Engaging and involving the local business owners to invest time and resources is

crucial for these destinations, where smaller businesses are strongly represented. As early as in 1998,

Augustyn discovered the importance of efficient local leadership in sustainable rural tourism. If the

69

locals and business owners were not involved enough in planning phases, the level of sustainability

decreased. Almost all participants from Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo agree that the DMO and every

business and owner is responsible for sustainable destination management. Tourism is one of the main

drivers for economy and income in these three destinations, and as they are small towns, many different

actors and stakeholders are involved in destination management. Therefore, joint responsibility as well

as municipality are acknowledged as partly responsibles.

Destination management organisations are seen as enablers or sustainable destination management and

one of the actors responsible for it. Their perceived role is to communicate and spread information

about sustainable management to all stakeholders. Stakeholders need to be engaged to sustainable

management, and this study shows DMO is expected to facilitate it. Findings on the role of the DMO in

sustainable destination management and development share many similarities with Wagenseil and

Zemp’s (2016) research. Raising awareness, acting as a communicator and even offering trainings are

mentioned in both studies. Collaboration is vital as the tourism field is heterogenous and fragmented

and smaller businesses can need support with tangible and intangible resources. In Ylläs, however, the

concerns about the lack of a destination management organisation are present. As a competent DMO is

seen as a success factor for a destination and as an actor playing a big role in sustainable management

of a destination, Ylläs can face a deceleration in sustainability with no destination management

organisation. Cornelisse (2020) point out Ylläs has not been developing as intensively as some other

destinations in Lapland. The preservation of nature, which was mentioned by all interviewees from

Ylläs, is also present in her study. The research also points out that Ylläs has been struggling with

opposed views on the tourism development for years, yet sustainability is seen as a median for

maintaining long-term tourism business.

Although the knowledge of sustainability is there, the destinations still lack clear guidelines, systematic

leadership and measurements for managing and monitoring sustainability. However, a rise in interest

towards sustainability indicators and measuring tools is detected. Sustainability monitoring and

assessment is currently being incorporated into new destination and development strategies. Attention

will be given to sustainability indicators to provide concrete evidence of sustainability and its’

70

development. Sustainable Travel Finland programme by Visit Finland is believed to facilitate the

implementing and measuring process. The interview results show sustainable destination management

in Lapland is heavily reliant on sustainability certifications, especially with the implantation of the

Sustainable Travel Finland programme, that requires at least 51% of the businesses in the destination to

be certified. This finding is in line with tourism research, where the proliferation of sustainability

programmes and certifications hasn’t been unnoticed. As Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo have already taken

part and Ylläs is looking into joining, the DMO’s both in Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo emphasize the

guidelines the programme provides for sustainability. The situation in Ylläs regarding destination

management is slightly different. Whereas the DMO’s in Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo consider themselves

as destination management organisations, in Ylläs, despite the name, Visit Ylläs is a destination

marketing destination. It can be argued that a potential reason for the lack of sustainability strategy in

Ylläs is partly because there is no organisation focusing in it. On a positive note, participants in Ylläs

are willing to start cooperating and working on more effective sustainability management if proper

resources and cooperation partners are found.

In tourism research and literature, it is acknowledged that sustainability needs measurements to be as

efficient as it can be (Jovičić 2013). The interviews, on the contrary, revealed that measurements like

indicators aren’t yet seen as something crucial. The emphasize is on concrete actions. Currently,

different tourism field actors monitor some indicators important to their own operations and in most

cases, they belong in the sector of economic indicators. Economic focus among stakeholders in

sustainability planning in destinations was also noted by Hatipoglu et al (2014). However, the ETIS

indicators raised interest among the participants with no previous knowledge on them. None of the

three case study destinations had composed their own indicator sets prior joining the Sustainable Travel

Finland programme but new destination management strategies will include guidelines for monitoring

sustainability.

Many concrete actions involve improving the state of the environment and decreasing the impact of

tourism in the destination environment. In Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo, effort is made to improve waste

management and to increase energy efficiency. The town and the everyday life of locals has been taken

71

into consideration more. In Ylläs, the spotlight has been on protecting nature and promoting year-round

tourism. Sustainability projects have been established in all three case study destinations.

Despite the growing interest towards sustainable destination management, limited financial resources,

enormous workload, cooperation and accessibility can slow down the sustainable management

development. Similar challenges arch over Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs. Similar to these findings,

Hotipoglu et al’s (2014) research suggest biggest challenges is stakeholder involvement in sustainable

destination development projects. Resource and workload concerns were raised by DMO’s in Levi,

Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs. The national sustainability programme Sustainable Travel Finland is the

main sustainability programme in Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo and possibly soon in Ylläs and it

encourages businesses to invest in certifications, which can be a financial strain for smaller businesses.

Both businesses and DMO’s work with relatively small teams, and the workload can be overbearing.

The location of the destinations and waste management pose challenges to the sustainable management,

however, they have already been addressed with improving the infrastructure for public transportation,

working on solutions to decrease the need of private cars and innovations in waste management.

5.2 Theoretical contributions

This study revealed the need and the importance of national sustainability programmes. They provide

guidelines and support for managing, monitoring and measuring sustainability for destinations.

According to the interviews, engaging all businesses can prove challenging. With a programme from a

well-known agency, in this case Visit Finland, can be perceived as more effective than a policy

developed by local authorities. Measuring sustainability and using assessment tools such as

sustainability indicators have not gained much popularity in Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs as they

we’re seen as sustainability was seen difficult to measure. There was a lack of knowledge on what to

measure, how, and by who. National sustainability programmes like the Sustainable Travel Finland

helps defining specific sustainability indicators for the destinations and guides destinations though the

process. Therefore, they can facilitate and act as a motivator in sustainable destination management.

Nation-wide programme can also help diminishing the gap between the levels of sustainability in

72

different destinations. Levi and Ylläs are located less than an hour from each other, Ruka-Kuusamo

around 350 kilometres southeast. Despite the neighbouring locations, Levi and Ruka are have been

developing at a similar pace in sustainability and they are seemingly on the same step in the progress.

Socio-cultural aspect of sustainability was not directly mentioned as much as economic and ecological

aspect in the interviews conducted. However, it has been in consideration when developing tourism in

the case study destinations. The socio-cultural acceptance and support from locals seem to have been

the base for tourism and not necessarily considered as an aspect, but as something self-evident. Once

the tourism industry has taken off, economic indicators, i.e. financial stability enables the attention to

be put on ecological sustainability.

Cooperation and engagement were some of the major difficulties in developing sustainable

management in Levi and Ruka-Kuusamo. In Ylläs, where the responsibility of sustainable management

has been divided to multiple actors, as opposed to having a destination management organisation, they

weren’t mentioned to be issues as many times. Although DMO’s are often seen as the enablers of

cooperation and engagement, does the lack of them not necessarily complicate the engagement, as long

as all actors are aware of their role.

5.3 Managerial implications

The ecological aspect was considered the most highlighted and currently the most exposed of the

aspects of sustainability, yet many participants prioritised economic indicators. This juxtaposition

between the perceived importance of the ecological aspect of sustainability and the economic indicators

might cause issues in the priority and should be considered and addressed on managerial level.

Sustainability needs actions and the use of tools such as sustainability indicators like ETIS should not

be overlooked, as they provide crucial information and reveals what should be improved as well as acts

as a tool for increasing destination competitiveness, benchmarking and comparing destinations. Many

73

understandably emphasize the importance of concrete actions over measuring and monitoring,

however, the destinations need to able to evidence how their actions have improved and contributed

toward sustainable destination management.

Managers in tourism industry should create a sustainable management strategy, to facilitate the process

of implementing sustainability. The lack of updated strategy can potentially hinder sustainability

development, measuring and monitoring. As long as a destination doesn’t have a clear action plan or

strategy, systematic improvement won’t be prone to happen. Tourism field consists of an extremely

wide variety of actors; therefore, all voices need to be heard in pursuance of initiating an all-

encompassing sustainable destination management strategy. Businesses, DMO’s and other actors have

their own procedures and guidelines to follow, however, the destinations could profit from combining

them and engaging all actors under the same agenda. The Sustainable Travel Finland tries to close this

gap by tying all businesses under the same programme.

Although multiple participants agreed that the local DMO is in charge of communicating the

sustainable destination management and other sustainability action, more effort should be put in

delivering the message to all actors. Tourism industry managers should focus on delivering the

message to all businesses and operators along the benefits in offers. Different tourism actors should

also consider establishing a destination management organisation to Ylläs. The current setup with many

actors seems slightly confusing and inefficient to some interviewees and having one actor in charge of

destination development could profit the whole destination.

Tourism research and literature has expressed some concern towards sustainability certifications. The

third-party auditing guarantees unbiased assessments, but the necessity of some certifications has been

questioned. Studies have shown that although certifications deliver a promise to customers, which can

bring financial benefits, there is a lack of knowledge among customers (Penz et al 2017, Balas and

Strasdas 2018). Tourism experts and professionals might interpret certifications as beneficial, yet for

the customers, who are faced with countless labels and certifications, they might not provide any added

74

value. Therefore, not belittling the importance of guidelines and frameworks certification programmes

offer, it should be also acknowledged that they shouldn’t be the only concrete effort towards

sustainability.

5.4 Critical evaluation of the research

Trustworthiness of a qualitative study include credibility, transferability, confirmability and

dependability. These viewpoints allow the researcher to critically examine the strengths and

weaknesses of the study (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008.) Credibility is about how the claims and

findings in the study are supported by the data. In order to better analyse and understand the results,

previous articles and studies on similar topics were studied to better understand the process. From the

three case studies Ylläs was very familiar to the author, Levi somewhat familiar and Ruka-Kuusamo

not familiar. This fact might have had an affect when analysing the interview data, as deeper

underlying meanings were potentially easier to interpret, when the context was familiar. To increase

credibility, interviewees from different backgrounds and positions were chosen. If all the interviewees

came from similar backgrounds, the research might not have been able to make such broad findings

(Graneheim and Lundman 2004). In this research, qualitative content analysis was the only analysis

method implemented, no triangulation was used. If the study has no time constraints, triangulation

would have added to the credibility of the research. However, all findings are supported by quotes from

the interviews to improve transparency in the research.

Being able to find similarities and connections between this research and what has been previously

found in similar topics contributes to transferability. The similarities and connections are shared in the

chapter 5.1 alongside the theoretical implications. A transferable research can easily apply the findings

to other situations (Merriam S.B 2009). However, in a qualitative study like this that focused on only a

small group of individuals and on specific environments, cannot demonstrate “that the findings and

conclusions are applicable to other situations and populations” (Shenton 2004, 69).

75

Dependability can be increased by making sure the research process is detailed so that it could be

repeated if necessary and similar findings would be obtained (Shenton 2004). The study needs to be

systematic, repeatable and properly documented (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008). This study follows

the guidelines provided for master’s theses and tries to demonstrate and explain the process in detail.

Therefore, the research approach and methodology are defined in a chapter specifically dedicated to

them.

Confirmability concerns about how well the study interprets the ideas, opinions and experiences of the

interviewee and avoids promoting the characteristics and preferences of the author (Shenton 2004). It is

connecting the data and the research findings (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008) to prove them neutral.

Again, triangulation is encouraged to increase conformability (Shenton 2004), however, the time

restrains were too tight in this case. The author admits having more knowledge about Ylläs than Levi

and Ruka-Kuusamo, which might have affected the interpretation of the results.

5.5 Suggestions for future research

The study didn’t succeed in identifying how measuring and monitoring sustainability has improved

sustainable destination management in Lapland. Levi, Ruka-Kuusamo and Ylläs are in the beginning

phase of implementing sustainability monitoring tools like sustainability indicators, therefore, no new

insights on the effectiveness of sustainability indicators was identified. This, however, could be a

potential point of interest in future tourism studies, as the sustainability management strategies

assessment procedures evolve and become more detailed. Future research concerning sustainable

management in Lapland could focus on the prioritisation of the ecological aspect of sustainability and

the importance of economic indicators.

Tourism field is often touched by global phenomena like changes in economics or other global events.

The outbreak of COVID-19 forced tourism businesses in Lapland to shut down in the end of the

interview process, and only one, the last interviewee, even mentioned the virus. Rapid and unforeseen

76

changes can affect people’s opinions and therefore, if the study was repeated, different issues might be

underlined. An optional approach to sustainable destination management in Lapland could be

comparing the actions and strategies of these, or other, destinations. Sustainable destination

management could also be studied from the viewpoint of tourism businesses. It would reveal the

strengths and shortcomings in the work of the DMO’s, municipalities and other authorities and provide

insights on the grassroot-level sustainability actions.

77

References

Agyiewaah, E., McKercher, B., & Suntikul, W. (2017). Identifying core indicators of sustainable

tourism: A path forward? Tourism Management Perspectives, 24, 26-33.

Augustyn, M. (1998). National Strategies for Rural Tourism Development and Sustainability: The

Polish Experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6(3), 191-209.

Balas, M., & Strasdas, W. (2018). Certification as a tool to identify sustainable tourism products – A

comparative assessment of the quality of sustainable tourism certification schemes for

businesses in Germany. Marketing Sustainable Tourism Products (pp. 156-160). BEST EN

Think Tank XVII,.

Bisset, R., & Tomlinson, P. (2000). Monitoring and auditing of impacts In Environmental Impact

Assessment: Theory and Practice, P. Wathern (ed.). London: Routledge.

Blain, C., Levy, S., & Ritchie, B. J. (2005). Destination Branding: Insights and Practices from

Destination Management Organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 328-338.

Blancas, F., Lozano-Oyola, M., González, M., Guerrero, F., & Caballero, R. (2011). How to use

sustainability indicators for tourism planning: The case of rural tourism in Andalusia (Spain).

Science of the Total Environment, 412-413, 28-45.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2013). Getting from here to there: systems change, behavioural change and

sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1), 1-4.

Brokaj, R. (2014). Local Government's Role in the Sustainable Tourism Development of a Destination.

European Scientific Journal, 10(31), 103-117.

Business Finland. (2019). Matkailun taloudelliset vaikutukset. Retrieved Nov 2019, from

https://www.businessfinland.fi/suomalaisille-asiakkaille/palvelut/matkailun-

edistaminen/tutkimukset-ja-tilastot/tutkimukset-ja-tilastot-lyhyesti/

Business Finland. (2019). Vastuullisen Matkailun Puolesta. Retrieved Nov 2019, from Sustainable

Travel Finland: https://www.businessfinland.fi/suomalaisille-asiakkaille/palvelut/matkailun-

edistaminen/vastuullisuus/sustainable-travel-finland/

Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable Tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 7-25.

Canna, R., Theuma, N. (2013). Strategies and Tools for Sustainable Tourism Destination Management:

Applying the European Tourism Indicator System in Malta. Proceedings of the international

conference of tourism (ICOG 2013) (pp. 119-133). Malta: University of Malta.

78

Cismaru, L. (2015). European tools for managing and monitoring the sustainable development of

tourist destinations. Review of General Management, 21(1), 101-113.

Cornelisse, M. (2020). Sustainability in Ylläs: one focus, various interpretations. Journal of Tourism

Futures, 6(1), 40-56.

Cucculelli, M., & Goffi, G. (2015). Does sustainability enhance tourism destination competitiveness?

Evidence from Italian Destinations of Excellence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-13.

Curtin, S., & Busby, G. (1999). Sustainable Destination Development: the Tour Operator Perspective.

International Journal of Tourism Research, 1, 135-147.

Ding, P., & Pigram, J. (1995). Environmental audits: An emerging concept in sustainable tourism

development. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 6(2), 2-10.

Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research.

Journal of Business Research, 553-560.

Edwards, D., & Griffin, T. (2013). Understanding tourists’ spatial behaviour: GPS tracking as an aid to

sustainable destination management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(4), 580-595.

Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative Content

Analysis: A Focus on Trustworthiness. SAGE journals, 1-10.

Eriksson, A., & Kovalainen, P. (2008). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Eskola, A. (1975). Sosiologian tutkimusmenetelmät II. Helsinki: WSOY.

European Commission. (2016). The European Tourism Indicator System ETIS toolkit for sustainable

destination management. European Commission.

Farrell, B. (1992). Tourism as an Element in Sustainable Development: Hana, Maui. In V. Smith, & W.

Eadington, Tourism Alternatives (pp. 115-132). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Flagestad, A., & Hope, C. A. (2001). Strategic success in winter sports destinations: a sustainable value

creation perspective. Tourism Management, 22, 445-461.

Fodness, D. (2016). The problematic nature of sustainable tourism: some implications for planners and

managers. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(16), 1671-1683.

Franzoni, S. (2015). Measuring the sustainability performance of the tourism sector. Tourism

Management Perspectives, 16, 22-27.

79

García-Rosell, J.-C. M. (2013). An integrative framework for sustainability evaluation in tourism:

applying the framework to tourism product development in Finnish Lapland. The Journal of

Sustainable Tourism.

García-Rosell, J.-C., & Mäkinen, J. (2013). An integrative framework for sustainability evaluation in

tourism: applyinh the framework to tourism product development in Finnish Lapland. Journal

of Sustainable Tourism, 21(3), 396-417.

Garrod, B. (2015). Foodservice in tourism and sustainability. In M. C. Hall, S. Gössling, & D. Scott, A

Routledge Handbook of Tourism and Sustainability (pp. 333-341). New York: Routledge.

Ghanem, M., & Elgammal, I. (2016). Communicating sustainability through a destination's website: a

checklist to inform, motivate, and engage stakeholders. Journal of Travel and Tourism

Marketing, 34(6), 1-13.

Graneheim, U., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts,

procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 105-122.

Gössling, P. S., Hall, C. M., Dubois, G., Ceron, J., & Lehmann, L. (2012). Tourism and water use:

supply, demand, and security. An international review. Tourism Management, 33(1).

Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change,

12(4), 283-302.

Gössling, S., Ring, A., Dwyer, L., Andersson, A.-C., & Hall, M. (2015). Optimizing or maximizing

growth? A challenge for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-22.

Harré, R. (1979). Social Being. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hashemi, N., & Ghaffary, G. (2017). A Proposed Sustainable Rural Development Indix (SRDI):

Lessons from Hajij village, Iran. Tourism Management, 59, 130-138.

Hatipoglu, B., Alvarez, M. D., & Ertuna, B. (2014). Barriers to stakeholder involvement in the

planning of sustainable tourism: the case of the Thrace region in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 1-12.

Heikkilä, T. (2014). Tilastollinen tutkimus. Helsinki: Edita Publishing Oy.

Hunter, C. (1995). On the need to re‐conceptualise sustainable tourism development. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 3:3, 155-165.

Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable Tourism as as Adaptive Paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4),

850-867.

80

Hunter, C. (2002). Sustainable Tourism and the Touristic Ecological Footprint. Environment,

Development and Sustainability 4, 7-20.

Hunter, C., & Shaw, J. (2007). The ecological footprint as a key indicator of sustainable tourism.

Tourism Management, 28(1), 46-57.

Huybers, T., & Bennett, J. (2003). Environmental Management and the Competitiveness of Nature-

Based Tourism Destination. Environmental and Resource Economics, 24, 213-233.

Ilmatieteenlaitos. (2018, May 7). Finland tops WHO air quality statistics. Retrieved Nov 2019, from

Press release archive: 2018: https://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/press-release/524196421

Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism Planning: an Integrated and Sustainable Approach. New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

Iunius, R. F., Cismaru, L., & Foris, D. (2015). Raising Competitiveness for Tourism Destinations

through Information Technologies within the Newest Tourism Action Framework Proposed by

the European Commission. Sustainability, 7, 12891-12909.

Jokinen, M., & Sippola, S. (2007). Social sustainability at tourist destinations - local opinions on their

development and future in northern Finland. Environment, local society and sustainable

tourism, 89-99.

Jovičić, D. (2013). Key issues in implementation of sustainable tourism. Current Issues in Tourism,

297-302.

Kastenholz, E. (2004). 'Management of Demand' as a Tool in Sustainable Tourist Destination

Development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(5), 388-408.

Kauppila, P., Saarinen, J., & Leinonen, R. (2009). Sustainable Tourism Planning and Regional

Development in Peripheries: A Nordic View. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism,

424-435.

Kavander, A. (2019, 10 25). Levi haluaa kannustaa turisteja kierrättämään – jätteiden kuljettaminen

mökistä ekopisteelle vaatii matkailijalta viitseliäisyyttä ja lajittelutaitoja. Lapin Kansa.

Kitchin, R., & Tate, N. J. (2000). Conducting Research Into Human Geography: Theory, Methodology,

and Practice. New York: Pearson Education Limited.

Kittilä. (2019). Tietoa Kittilästä. Retrieved Nov 2019, from http://www.kittila.fi/tietoa-kittilasta

Ko, T. (2005). Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: a conceptual approach.

Tourism Management, 26(3), 431-445.

81

Kolari. (2019). Perustietoa Kolarista. Retrieved Nov 2019, from

https://www.kolari.fi/fi/kuntainfo/perustiedot-kolarista

Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: The Drivers of Design Synthesis. Design

Issues, 26, 15-28.

Kristjánsdottir, K., Ólafsdottir, R., & Ragnasdottír, K. (2017). Reviewing intergrated sustainability

indicators for tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-17.

Laesser, C., & Beritelli, P. (2013). St. Gallen Consensus on Destination Management. Journal of

Destination Marketing & Management, 2, 46-49.

Laine, M., Bamberg, J., & Jokinen, P. (2007). Tapaustutkimuksen taito. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Lane, B. (1994). Sustainable rural tourism strategies: A tool for development and conservation. Journal

of Sustainable Tourism, 2(1-2), 102-111.

Lemmetyinen, A. (2010). The Role of the DMO in Creating Value in EU-funded Tourism Projects.

Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(2), 129-152.

Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable Tourism Development: A Critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6),

459-475.

Long, H. (2012). Tourism Impacts and Support for Tourism Development in Ha Long Bay, Vietnam:

An Examination of Resident's Perceptions. Asian Social Science, 8(8).

Longhurst, R. (2009). Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured. In International Encyclopedia of Human

Geography (pp. 580-584). Elsevier Ltd.

Lumsdon, L. (2000). Tourism Marketing. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Mbaiwa, J. (2005). The Socio-cultural Impacts of Tourism Development in the Okavango Delta,

Botswana. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 2(3), 163-185.

McKercher, B. (1993). Some Fundamental Truths About Tourism: Understanding Tourism's Social and

Environmental Impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 6-16.

McLoughlin, E., & Hanrahan, J. (2015). Collaborative sustainable tourism development in Ireland:

Local Authorities' use of sustainable tourism indicators. 11th Annual Tourism and Hospitality

Research in Ireland Conference (THRIC). IT Sligo.

McLoughlin, E., Hanharan, J., & Duddy, A. (2020). Application of the European Tourism Indicator

System (ETIS) for Sustainable Destination Management. Lessons from County Clare, Ireland.

International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research, 1-41.

82

McLoughlin, E., Hanrahan, J., Duddy, A., & Duffy, S. (2018). European tourism indicator system for

sustainable destination management in county Donegal, Ireland. European Journal of Tourism

Research, 20.

Meriläinen, K., & Lemmetyinen, A. (2011). Destination network management: a conceptual analysis.

Tourism Review, 66(3), 25-31.

Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation. Revised and

expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Fransisco:

John Wiley & Sons.

Metsähallitus. (2019). Taking wider responsibility. Retrieved Nov 2019, from

http://www.metsa.fi/web/en/corporate-responsibility

Mihalič, T. (2014). Sustainable-responsible tourism discourse Towards 'responsustable' tourism.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-10.

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. (2019). Achieving more together – sustainable growth

and renewal in Finnish tourism, Finland’s tourism strategy 2019 –2028 and action plan 2019–

2023. Retrieved Nov 2019, from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-327-472-3

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Employment of Finland. (2019). Kevään 2019 toimialojen näkymät :

Matkailuala. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Employment of Finland.

Miočić, B., Razović, M., & Klarin, T. (2016). Management of Sustainable Tourism Destination

Through Stakeholder Cooperation. Management, 21, 99-120.

Modica, P. (2015). Sustainable Tourism Management and Monitoring: Destination, Business and

Stakeholder Perspectives. Milan: FrancoAngeli.

Modica, P., Capocchi, A., Foroni, I., & Zenga, M. (2018). As Assessment of the Implementation of the

European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Destinations in Italy. Sustainability,

10(3160), 1-21.

Moisey, R., & McCool, S. (2001). Sustainable tourism in the 21st century: lessons from the past:

challenges to address. Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability: LInking Culture and the

Environment, 343-352.

Morgan, R. K. (2012). Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and

Project Appraisal, 30(1), 5-14.

Nijkamp, P., & Veeker, R. (2000). Sustainability assessment of development scenarios: Methodology

and application to Thailand. Ecological Economics, 33, 7-27.

83

Noy, C. (2008). Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in Qualitative

Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327-344.

Pechlaner, H., Volgger, M., & Herntrei, M. (2012). Destination management organizations as interface

between destination governance and corporate governance. Anatolia: An International Journal

of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 23(2), 151-168.

Peeters, P., & Bongaerts, R. (2015). The role of aviation in sustainable development of tourism. In M.

C. Hall, S. Gössling, & D. Scott, The Routledge Handbook to Tourism and Sustainability (pp.

420-429). New York: Routledge.

Penz, E., Hofmann, E., & Hartl, B. (2017). Fostering Sustainable Travel Behaviour: Role of

Sustainability Labels and Goal-Directed Behaviour Regarding Touristic Services.

Sustainability, 9(6), 1-17.

Piippo, S., Juntunen, A., Kurppa, S., & Pongrácz, E. (2014). The use of bio-waste to revegetate eroded

land areas in Ylläs, Northern Finland: Toward a zero waste perspective of tourism in the

Finnish Lapland. Resources, Convervation and Recycling, 93, 9-22.

Pohekar, S., & Ramachandran, M. (2003). Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable

energy planning: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 8, 365–381.

Prezenza, A., Sheehan, L., & Richie, J. B. (2005). Towards a model of the roles and activities of

destination management organizations.

Prime Minister's Office, Finland. (2016). Government policy regarding the priorities in the updated

Arctic strategy.

Pulido Fernandez, J. I., & Rivero, M. S. (2009). Measuring tourism sustainability: proposal for a

composite index. Tourism Economics, 15(2), 277–296.

Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10,

281-305.

Ritchie, B. J., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism

Perspective. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Ritchie, J. B., & Crouch, G. (2010). A mode of destination competitiveness/sustainability: Brazilian

perspectives. Brazilian Public Administration Review (RAP), 1049-1066.

Rodriguez Diaz, J., Knox, J., & Weatherhead, E. (2007). Competing demands for irrigation water: Golf

and agriculture in Spain. Irrigation and Drainage, 56, 541-549.

Ruka. (2019). Ruka-Kuusamo. Retrieved Nov 2019, from Ruka: https://www.ruka.fi/en/sustainability

84

Rusko, R., Kylänen, M., & Saari, R. (2008). Supply chain in tourism destinations: the case of Levi

Resort in Finnish Lapland. Intenational Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 71-87.

Rutty, M., Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, M. C. (2015). The global effects and impacts of tourism: an

overview. In M. C. Hall, S. Gössling, & D. Scott, A Routledge Handbook of Tourism and

Sustainability (pp. 36-63). New York: Routledge.

Saraniemi, S., & Kylänen, M. (2011). Problematizing the Concept of Tourism Destination: An

Analysis of Different Theoretical Approaches. Journal of Travel Research, 50(2), 133-143.

Schianetz, K., Kavanagh, L., & Lockington, D. (2007). Concepts and Tools for Comprehensive

Sustainability Assessments for Tourism Destination: A Comparative Review. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 15(4), 369-389.

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical Divide. Journal

of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 1-19.

Sheehan, L., Vargas-Sánches, A., Presenza, A., & Abbate, T. (2016). The Use of Intelligence in

Tourism Destination Management: An Emerging Role of the DMO's. International Journal of

Tourism Research.

Shenton, A. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education

for Information, 22, 63-75.

Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln, The SAGE handbook of

qualitative research (pp. 443-466). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Tanguay, G., Rajaonson, J., & Therrien, M.-C. (2013). Sustainable Tourism Indicators: selection

criteria for policy implementation and scientific recognition. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,

862-879.

Tervo-Kankare, K., Hall, C., & Saarinen, J. (2013). Christmas Tourists’ Perceptions to Climate Change

in Rovaniemi, Finland. An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment,

292-317.

Timur, S., & Getz, D. (2008). Sustainable Tourism Development: How Do Destination Stakeholders

Perceive Sustainable Urban Tourism? Sustainable Development 17, 220-232.

Torres-Delgado, A., & Saarinen, J. (2014). Using indicators to assess sustainable tourism development:

a review. Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and

Environment, 16(1), 31-47.

85

Tudorache, D., Simon, T., Frent, C., & Musteata-Pavel, M. (2017). Difficulties and Challenges in

Applying the Europea Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) for Sustainable Tourist Destinations:

The Case of Brasov County in the Romanian Carpathians. Sustainability, 9(1879), 1-19.

Tuomi, J., & Sarajärvi, A. (2017). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällön analyysi. Tammi.

Tuulentie, S. (2007). Local participation as a prerequisite for socially sustainable tourism: Case studies

from the Ylläs and Levi ski resorts in northern Finland. Environment, local society and

sustainable tourism, 73-88.

Tuulentie, S., & Mettiäinen, I. (2007). Local participation in the evolution of ski resorts: the case of

Ylläs and Levi in Finnish Lapland. Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, 81, pp. 207-222.

Twining-Ward, L., & Butler, R. (2002). Implementing STD on a small island: Development and use of

sustainable tourism development indicators in Samoa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 10(5),

363–387.

Tyrväinen, L., Uusitalo, M., Silvennoinen, H., & Hasu, E. (2014). Towards sustainable growth in

nature-based tourism destinations: Clients’ views of land use options in Finnish Lapland.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 1-15.

Tyrväinen, L., Uusitalo, M., Silvennoinen, H., & Hasu, E. (2014). Towards sustainable growth in

nature-based tourism destinations: Clients’ views of land use options in Finnish Lapland.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 1-15.

Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö. (2019). Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriön julkaisut. Retrieved January 2020,

from Yhdessä enemmän – kestävää kasvua ja uudistumista Suomen matkailuun : Suomen

matkailustrategia 2019–2028 ja toimenpiteet 2019–2023:

http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161906

United Nations. (2007). Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies (3rd

ed.). New York.

United Nations Environment Program & World Tourism Organization. (2005). ETIS Toolkit.

UNWTO-UNEP-WMO. (2008). Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges.

Madrid: United Nations World Tourism Organization.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis:

Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15,

398-344.

86

Van der Belt, M. (2004). Mediated modeling: A System Dynamics Approach to Environmental

Consensus Building. Washington DC: Island.

Visit Levi. (2019). Levi. Retrieved Nov 2019, from Usein kysyttyä: https://www.levi.fi/fi/yleista-

levista/faq.html

Volgger, M., & Pechlaner, H. (2014). Requirements for destination management organizations in

destination governance: Understanding DMO success. Tourism Management, 41, 64-75.

Wagenseil, U., & Zemp, M. (2016). Sustainable Tourism in Mountain Destination: The Perceived and

Actual Role of a Destination Management Organization. In B. Koulov, & G. Zhelezov,

Sustainable Mountain Regions: Challenges and Perspectives in Southeastern Europe (pp. 137-

148). Springer.

Walker, P., Greiner, R., McDonald, D., & Lyne, V. (1999). The Tourism Futures Simulator: A systems

thinking approach. Environmental Modelling and Software, 14(1), 59-67.

Wang, Y., & Pizam, A. (2011). Destination Marketing and Management: Theories and Applications.

Oxfordshire: CAB International.

Wanner, A., Seier, G., & Pröbstl-Haider, U. (2020). Policies related to sustainable tourism – An

assessment and comparison of European policies, frameworks and plans. Journal of Outdoor

Recreation and Tourism, 29, 100275.

Welford, R., & Ytterhus, B. (2004). Sustainable development and tourism destination management: A

case study of the Lillehammer region, Norway. International Journal of Sustainable

Development & World Ecology, 11:4, 410-422.

Wolf, C. (1977). Social impact assessment: the state of the art updated. SIA Newsletter, 29, 3-23.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

World Tourism Organization. (1995). What tourism managers need to know: A practical guide to the

development and use of indicators of sustainable tourism. Madrid: World Tourism

Organization.

World Tourism Organization. (2004). Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations

A Guidebook. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

World Tourism Organization. (2019). International Tourism Highlights, 2019 Edition. Madrid:

UNWTO.

87

World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP). (2012). The United Nations World Water

Development Report 4: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk. Paris: UNESCO.

Ylläs. (2019). Ylläs. Retrieved Nov 2019, from Tietoa Ylläksestä: https://www.yllas.fi/tietoa-

yllaksesta.html

Zabetta, M. C., Sacerdotti, S. L., & Mauro, S. (2014). Community-based monitoring in tourism sector:

An application of the European Tourism Indicator System in the "A.T.L Del Cuneese". In S.

Keskinarkaus, A. Matilainen, S. Barbone, & A.-M. Mäkela, Leadership and Governance for

Sustainable Tourism: Proceedings of summer scohol 2014 (pp. 29-36). Mikkeli: University of

Helsinki, Ruralia Institute.

Zografos, C., & Oglethorpe, D. (2004). Multi-criteria analysis in ecotourism: Using goal programming

to explore sustainable solutions. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(1), 20-43.

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS APPENDIX 1 (1/1)

1. How long have you been working in this destination and have you had any other positions here?

2. Does the destination have a sustainable management plan/strategy and if yes, what was the decision-

making process to choose it?

3. Who do you see is in charge of the sustainability management and development in your destination?

4. Does this destination follow or use any national or international sustainability indicators programmes

or toolkits?

-What are the roles?

-Why was this programme chosen and by who?

5. In your opinion, is one of the three pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental, socio-cultural)

currently more highlighted than others? If yes, why?

6. How are the implementation of sustainability plans and sustainable development measured?

-By who and how often?

-Which sustainability indicators are the most important?

-Do you the ETIS indicators?

If not, why not? Could the information be followed and collected?

If yes, how does the monitoring show in sustainability development, i.e. the final

product?

7. Concrete examples of improving the sustainability?

8. What has to be improved in management to make the destination more sustainable?

9. What are the biggest challenges in sustainable destination management?

10. Do you see your destination as sustainable?

Documents

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DESTINATION MANAGEMENT Multiple … · Sustainable tourism destination management, multiple case study from Lapland Main subject Tourism marketing and management