Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks
RIIKKA PUHAKKA
Puhakka, Riikka (2008). Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks. Fennia 186: 1, pp. 47–58. Helsinki. ISSN 0015-0010.
While the role of traditional livelihoods has decreased, tourism has become an important tool for regional development in northern peripheral areas, and the economic and political expectations have increased. National parks have be- come attractive tourist destinations also in Finland. This article analyses how the central stakeholders – park authorities, tourists and tourism entrepreneurs – per- ceive the role of tourism in Finnish national parks. Parks are understood as spac- es constructed by historical and social practices; the role of tourism is thus nei- ther historically nor culturally unchanging or indisputable. By analysing plan- ning documents and interviews, the study identifies four discourses that define the interaction between nature conservation and tourism in Finnish parks: 1) national parks as conservation areas, 2) national parks as tourist destinations, 3) national parks as destinations of sustainable nature-based tourism, and 4) na- tional parks as resources for local people. The study indicates that the role of tourism has increased in national parks in Finland. Nowadays the aim is to inte- grate the ecological goals of nature conservation and the economic goals of nature-based tourism by implementing the principles of sustainability. The pos- sible effects of the recent discursive shift on the future development of protected areas are also discussed in the article.
Riikka Puhakka, Department of Geography, University of Joensuu & Thule Insti- tute, PO Box 7300, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland. E-mail: riikka.puhak- ka@oulu.fi.
Introduction aged mainly for ecosystem protection and recrea- tion” (IUCN & UNEP 2003: 12). The Finnish Na- As a result of the growth of nature-based tourism ture Conservation Act (1096/1996) defines that a (see Fennell 1999; Hall & Page 1999), national national park ”should hold general interest as a parks have become important tourist attractions in natural attraction, or with respect to raising gen- Finland. The visitor numbers have increased fast in eral awareness of or interest in nature”. Conserva- parks since the 1990s, and many tourist destina- tion is, however, stated to be a more important tions are situated close to national parks particu- function than outdoor recreation, environmental larly in the northern part of the country. While the education or scientific research (Metsähallitus role of primary production has decreased, nature- 2000: 9–10; see Heinonen 2007). Tourism and based tourism has become an important tool for other economic activities are restricted on these regional development in northern peripheral areas state-owned lands; there are not usually, for exam- (Saarinen 2003, 2005). ple, hotels, skiing slopes or motorized activities Since the first national parks were designated, inside national parks in Finland. The interaction they have been given a double role both as the between conservation and tourism is often seen as destinations of nature conservation and recreation symbiotic, but it can also cause conflicts (Bu- and tourism (e.g. Runte 1997; Mels 1999; Boyd & dowski 1976). Butler 2000; Rytteri & Puhakka 2009). In the Pro- While the economic and political expectations tected Area Management Categories adopted by are increasing, it is interesting to study the role of the World Conservation Union, a national park tourism in national parks. This article, based on (category II) is defined as a “protected area man- the author’s doctoral dissertation of cultural geog- 48 Riikka Puhakka FENNIA 186: 1(2008) raphy (Puhakka 2007), analyses how the central able. Therefore, it is not irrelevant what kind of stakeholders of Finnish parks – park authorities, meanings different stakeholders attribute to na- tourists and tourism entrepreneurs – perceive the tional parks and to their goals; the hegemonic role of tourism as part of the grounds of nature principles and practices may change over time. conservation and the use of national parks. In this The various ideas of the interaction between na- text, the concept of tourism refers to the all use of ture conservation and tourism can be understood parks for recreational purposes. After presenting as discourses. They are ways of referring to or con- the theoretical background, the article introduces structing knowledge about a particular topic; they shortly the common Finnish history of nature con- make it possible to understand a topic in a certain servation and tourism. Furthermore, the chapter way and restrict other possibilities for presenting analyses the recent structural changes in conserva- it. Discourses are constructed in a certain socio- tion and tourism, which have resulted in the in- cultural context, and at the same time they con- creasing role of tourism in parks. On the basis of struct and change the present social reality. De- the historical review and research materials – plan- spite several competing discourses, there exists ning documents and interviews – the study identi- one way of speech and thought that is more domi- fies four discourses that define the interaction be- nant than the others at a certain period of time. tween nature conservation and tourism in national Discourses are not only words and meanings, but parks in Finland. To sum up, the various effects of they affect the physical environment through prac- the recent discursive shift on the future develop- tices (e.g. Hajer 1995; Hall 1997). Knowledge, ment of protected areas are discussed. truth and power are intertwined in discourses (Rabinow 1986). Power relations between dis- courses change over time; in this hegemonic strug- Socially constructed national parks gle, some meanings and images succeed in defin- ing ‘the truth’ about national parks, for example, In this article, the questions of tourism in national better than the others. Discourse institutionaliza- parks are connected to the theoretical discussion tion means that a discourse is translated into insti- of human-nature interaction, which increased in tutional arrangements and concrete policies (Hajer cultural geography in the 1990s (see Castree 1995: 61). The dominant, institutionalized dis- 2005). National parks are not understood as artic- course defining the interaction between conserva- ulations of untouched wilderness but rather as tion and tourism directs the management and land spaces constructed by historical and social prac- use of national parks. tices (Mels 1999). According to geographer Ken- neth Olwig (1995), parks are as much about the national identity as about physical nature since Common history of nature nature is also a realm of cultural ideas and norms. conservation and tourism Nature conservation is a political and societal ac- tivity; it is a contested idea which accommodates The discussion about the recreational role of pro- new meanings and values. The objects, aims and tected areas started long before the first national means of conservation change with time and parks and strict nature reserves were officially place, and they direct the management and land founded in Finland in 1938. Three phases can be use of national parks. Above all, nature conserva- identified on the basis of the Finnish discussion tion “entails judgments as to what indeed is na- about the interaction between conservation and ture” (Macnaghten & Urry 1998: 23). Nature is tourism from the latter part of the 1800s until the culturally defined as worth protecting, and nation- present (Sorsa 2004; Puhakka 2007). al parks are managed and used according to so- In the first phase, which lasted from the latter cially defined principles. Even in a rather short part of the 1800s until the end of the 1960s, con- period of time, there have been clear changes in servation and tourism were seen to support and the basis of conservation (e.g. Runte 1997; Niemi- benefit each other. Already in the 1800s, some nen & Saaristo 1998). nature-based attractions were preserved for aes- Although national parks have had recreational thetic and touristic reasons in Finland. Nature con- and touristic goals since the early stage of the park servation and domestic tourism were connected movement, the role of tourism in parks is neither with the formation of national identity (see also historically nor culturally unchanging or indisput- Runte 1997; Mels 1999). The first national parks FENNIA 186: 1(2008) Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks 49 were sights for all citizens, and they were mainly human activities (Nieminen & Saaristo 1998). The established in scenic areas which already had principles of participatory planning have increased some tourism infrastructure. Nevertheless, the ar- local residents’ formal possibilities to get involved guments of tourism achieved less attention in Fin- in the decision-making of nature conservation (see land than in some other countries due to the strong Raitio 2008). In addition, the structural changes natural scientific perspective. For example, in the related to the demand for and supply of tourism United States acceptance for the park idea was have influenced the growth of nature-based tour- sought by promoting tourism intensively in nation- ism (see Fennell 1999; Hall & Page 1999). So- al parks; the aim was to benefit from these other- called ‘new tourism’ (Poon 1993) includes more wise worthless lands by means of tourism (Boyd & flexible, individual and consumer-driven demand Butler 2000). Although the touristic role of national of tourism and the stressing of environmental val- parks was acknowledged in Finland, tourism’s neg- ues (see Urry 1990; Saarinen 2005). ative environmental impacts were noticed, and the The growth of nature-based tourism is still ex- restrictions of recreational use became compara- pected to continue in Finland. The working group tively strict in parks (Sorsa 2004; Puhakka 2007; for nature recreation and nature-based tourism – Rytteri & Puhakka 2009; see Metsähallitus 2000). set up by the Ministry of the Environment – has Since the end of the 1960s, the relation between estimated that nature-based tourism will grow nature conservation and tourism weakened for a much faster than tourism on average: with the help couple of decades in Finland. On the one hand, of the promoting steps, the annual growth will be growing tourism was seen to cause harmful im- 8%, and the number of related jobs will double by pacts in protected areas. During the environmen- 2010 (Ympäristöministeriö 2002). One step of this tal awakening, the values of nature and the goals programme is to improve the conditions for sus- of conservation changed, and the knowledge of tainable tourism and recreation in conservation natural processes and their threats increased. Con- areas. Alarge part of nature-based tourism in Fin- sequently, tourism and other human activities were land is focused on 35 national parks, including evaluated from a new perspective in protected ar- 8850 km2 of land at the beginning of 2007, and eas (see Runte 1997). This led to contradictions their surroundings. In the 1990s, the average between conservation and tourism although they number of park visits doubled and in the 2000s, were often seen as ‘allies’ against forestry. In na- the growth has continued (Table 1). In 2007, the ture conservation, the focus was on the protection numbers varied from Kauhaneva-Pohjankangas of threatened and rare species and their habitats, and Perämeri parks’ 6000 visits to Pallas-Yllästun- and the meaning of aesthetic aspects and econom- turi park’s 312,000 visits (Metsähallitus 2008). The ic and social benefits (e.g. tourism and recreation) growth has thus not been equally distributed decreased. On the other hand, the establishment among the areas; it has been more visible in north- of protected areas was seen to restrict the possi- ern Finland – particularly close to the major tourist bilities to develop tourism in those areas due to destinations and routes – than in the other parts of construction and other restrictions. The visitor the country (see Heinonen 2007: 305; Puhakka numbers were still rather low in Finnish national 2007: 136–140). High visitor numbers are also parks – they varied from some hundreds to tens of connected to the abundant supply of services in- thousands – and the economic benefits of tourism side national parks and in their surroundings in parks were not usually considered significant (Puustinen et al. 2007). (Sorsa 2004; Puhakka 2007). Consequently, the economic and political sig- The interaction between nature conservation nificance of nature-based tourism has increased in and tourism became closer in the 1990s in Fin- Finland. Due to the weakening role of primary land; the touristic role of national parks increased production, such as forestry and agriculture, pe- as a result of the changes in conservation and tour- ripheral areas have been forced to develop a wider ism (Sorsa 2004; Puhakka 2007). The first aim of selection of livelihood and new ways to use na- the new Nature Conservation Act (1096/1996) is ture. Nature-based tourism has become an impor- to maintain biological diversity. Meanwhile, con- tant tool for regional development especially in servation goals have widened beyond specific northern Finland (Saarinen 2003, 2005, 2007). natural areas, and protected areas – previously The growing economic role of tourism is also con- separated from their economic and social environ- nected to the weakening of the welfare state; while ments – have become more closely connected to the role of the state has changed, municipalities 50 Riikka Puhakka FENNIA 186: 1(2008)
Table 1. Total and average numbers of visits in Finnish na- on the entire population in the area; the status of a tional parks in 1992–2007. Sources: Metsähallitus and the national park is often seen to increase the appre- Finnish Forest Research Institute. ciation of the area and promote tourism develop- Year National Total number of Visits/ ment (see Fredman et al. 2007). Thus, there have parks visits national park been local initiatives to designate new parks, and 1992 24* 358 000 15 000 in some cases, the local support and the meaning 1993 26* 388 000 15 000 of the park for tourism development have been 1994 27* 495 000 18 000 central motives for the establishment of a national 1995 27* 668 000 25 000 park. For example, in the beginning of the 2000s, 1996 28* 714 000 26 000 the municipality and other local stakeholders sup- 1997 28* 748 500 27 000 ported strongly the establishment of Leivonmäki National Park in central Finland for economic and 1998 29* 771 000 27 000 employment reasons – in the 1970s, they had op- 1999 29* 797 000 27 000 posed the park proposal with similar arguments. 2000 30* 833 000 28 000 Nevertheless, the newest national parks have been 2001 30* 849 800 28 000 established in areas which were already protected 2002 32** 1010 000 32 000 in some way, e.g. by the Natura 2000 -programme, 2003 35 1223 000 35 000 which may also decrease the critical attitude to- 2004 35 1263 900 36 000 wards parks in the rural areas of Finland (Sorsa 2005 35 1520 000 43 000 2004; Puhakka 2007). 2006 35 1603 500 46 000 2007 35 1696 700 48 000 * excluding Koli, Pallas-Ounastunturi and Pyhätunturi Na- Materials and methods tional Parks whose data are missing ** excluding Koli National Park whose data are missing The historical review of the interaction between conservation and tourism forms a background for the analysis of various stakeholders’ ideas of the and provinces have been given a wider responsi- role of tourism in Finnish national parks. The study bility of regional development. Although recrea- is based on several qualitative materials. Firstly, tion in national parks is free for citizens, it often the policies of park authorities were examined by produces great benefits for local and regional analysing parks’ official planning documents: 32 economy (e.g. Huhtala 2006). management and land use plans, 3 strategies of The growth of nature-based tourism has changed tourism, The Principles of Protected Area Manage- the attitude towards national parks in Finland. In ment in Finland -guidebook, the development the 1970–80s, the large-scale plan of the Parlia- plan to improve the conditions for recreation and mentary National Park Committee, published in tourism in Metsähallitus’ conservation areas (Met- 1976, to establish 42 national parks and 16 strict sähallituksen luonnonsuojelualueiden virkistys- ja nature reserves was strongly opposed on the local luontomatkailukäytön edellytysten parantaminen level. According to the opponents – private land- – kehittämissuunnitelma ympäristöministeriölle), owners, forest industry, local governments and lo- and the report defining the goals of public use in cal people – the opinions of locals had been ig- Metsähallitus’ areas (Alueiden yleisökäytön tavoi- nored, and the protection of forests would produce tetila 2010) (Puhakka 2007: 292–293). Since the large economic losses and social problems (Rytteri analysed plans were written from 1984–2007, it & Puhakka 2009). Meanwhile, the sharp division was possible to compare them over time. The between nature conservation and economy was plans of Koli National Park are drawn up by the strengthened in Finland. Finnish Forest Research Institute and all the other Nowadays local and regional stakeholders usu- plans by Metsähallitus. Koli was administered by ally support the establishment of national parks the Research Institute until the end of 2007. Met- owing to the expected socio-economic benefits, sähallitus is a state-owned enterprise (or ‘semi- which is illustrated, for example, by the discussion private business’) that administers the land and of new parks in the Finnish Parliament (Rytteri & water areas of the state; the management of pro- Puhakka 2009). Parks are considered to have a tected areas is one of its public administration du- positive impact on the tourism industry and even ties (see Heinonen 2007). FENNIA 186: 1(2008) Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks 51
Secondly, the research material includes face to more than one discourse in their speech. All the face interviews of tourists and tourism entrepre- four discourses arise in the present park discussion neurs in Koli National Park in eastern Finland. Koli in Finland, but their mutual relations have changed is known as a national landscape, and with historically. None of these socially constructed 110,000 annual visits, it is one of the most popular ways of thinking is indisputably and objectively parks of the country. Atotal of 33 tourists, from the one that should direct the management and short-time visitors to hikers, were interviewed in land use of national parks. The aim of this article is the Heritage Centre Ukko and in the campfire site not to value the discourses or to provide manage- of Ikolanaho in July 2004. In addition, the material ment implications but to identify the various mean- includes 7 interviews of entrepreneurs who oper- ings of parks and to make it possible to understand ate inside the park conducted in 2001 and 2005. the disagreements over the use of parks. Two enterprises are located in Koli National Park – a hotel and a recreation service enterprise – and some others have a permission of the park author- Discourses defining the interaction ities to provide recreation services in the park. between conservation and tourism These thematic interviews lasted from 15 to 60 minutes, and they dealt with, for example, tour- National parks as conservation areas ism’s interaction with conservation, tourism activi- ties, facilities and services suitable in national According to the first discourse, the main purpose parks, tourism’s positive and negative impacts, of national parks is to protect nature, not to satisfy and stakeholders’ responsibility to prevent harmful humans’ recreational or other needs. Nature con- impacts (Puhakka 2007: 302–305). servation is primarily justified with natural scien- To facilitate comparison, all the documents and tific criteria and ecological variables, and parks interviews were analysed from three common per- are understood as areas outside economic activi- spectives (which included more detailed ques- ties. The discourse represents nature as ‘the Oth- tions): 1) the idea of (protected) nature and nature er’; it is based on the modern western and mainly conservation, 2) the idea of the management and Anglo-American idea which separates nature from land use of national parks, and 3) the idea of the society (see Glacken 1967; Nash 1982). Nature is role of tourism and recreation in national parks seen as an abstract space, and it is removed from (Puhakka 2007: 62–63). The materials were exam- its societal context (see Mels 1999). ined with the methods of discourse analysis; the Because large-scale tourism or other activities analysis did not primarily focus on single words, utilizing nature may be harmful for conservation sentences and their structures but rather on the goals, they are not considered suitable inside pro- whole text and its meanings, discourses and their tected areas. Accordingly, the interaction between mutual relations. The main attention was paid to nature conservation and tourism is mainly per- the content of the materials (what are the mean- ceived as a conflict in this discourse (see Budowski ings?), but the form of the materials (how are the 1976). Due to negative ecological and socio-cul- meanings produced?) was also analysed to some tural impacts, tourism and preservation cannot be extent (see Silverman 2001: 97–98). combined in the same area without problems. The On the basis of the empirical materials and the main focus is thus on tourism’s effects on nature historical review, the study identified four dis- and culture. People can, however, hike in national courses that define the interaction between nature parks within the limits of set rules and regulations; conservation and tourism in Finnish parks: nation- in this discourse a small-scale and restricted rec- al parks as conservation areas, national parks as reational use is allowed in parks. tourist destinations, national parks as destinations The aspects of nature conservation have been of sustainable nature-based tourism, and national brought up in Finland since the beginning of the parks as resources for local people. Moreover, the park discussion at the end of the 19th century. Al- study analysed what kind of concepts of nature though patriotism and aesthetic aspects were im- these discourses are based on. The discourses may portant motives for the early conservation, natural conflict with each other, but they may also be scientific arguments were also used in the discus- common to different stakeholders. The discourses sion. Mostly natural scientists and foresters started are sort of generalizations and not completely uni- to plan protected areas, and nature conservation form with stakeholders’ speech; people might use was an interest of a small group of experts for a 52 Riikka Puhakka FENNIA 186: 1(2008) long time (Rytteri & Puhakka 2009). In fact, only Due to the aesthetic perspective, conservation few citizens had the possibility to travel to parks. goals are closely connected to the interests of tour- Conservation was based on the idea of pristine na- ism in this discourse. The interaction between na- ture that is maintained outside human influence ture conservation and tourism is seen as a symbio- (e.g. large-scale tourism) by establishing separate sis (see Budowski 1976). The main focus is on the conservation areas (Nieminen & Saaristo 1998). positive impacts of tourism, which are not only The discourse was at its strongest in the second economic, but aesthetic, recreational or educa- phase of the interaction between conservation and tional as well. According to the discourse, national tourism, in the 1970–80s. Due to the extensive parks need to have different kinds of facilities and change of the Finnish society after the war-time, services to create possibilities for citizens to go industrialization and other economic activities hiking and get to know natural areas as easily as started to threaten nature more intensively. New possible. Some restrictions are, however, placed perspectives offered by modern science were con- on tourism and recreation in parks. They are not nected to the conservation ideology, and the mo- primarily based on ecological criteria but on main- tives for protecting natural areas became less an- taining tourists’ experiences and ideas of nature. thropocentric (Puhakka 2007). For example, motor vehicles are not necessarily Nowadays the institutional nature conservation consistent with the ideal image of untouched wil- is primarily based on scientific expertise and bio- derness. logical ideas of nature (Nieminen & Saaristo 1998; The double role of national parks is based on Berglund 2001; see Saarinen 2005: 39–40). The the idea that the goals of conservation and recrea- analysis of the planning documents indicates that tion can be integrated; nature is preserved outside the management and land use of Finnish national other human activities in parks. Since the first parks was mainly based on this discourse in the parks were designated, their double role has, how- 1980–90s. Outdoor recreation was defined as a ever, caused disagreements (e.g. Runte 1997). In legitimate goal of parks, but the attitude towards Finland, the discourse emphasizing tourism in na- tourism as an economic and business activity was tional parks has never dominated since develop- more critical. Tourism was seen as independent of ment has been rather tightly restricted in parks (see conservation goals – one of the ways to utilize na- Metsähallitus 2000). The discourse was at its ture. The discourse has often conflicted with the strongest in the first phase of the interaction be- interests of the tourism sector or local people, tween conservation and tourism when some natu- which is illustrated by the strong opposition to- ral sights were preserved for scenic and touristic wards protected areas in the Finnish countryside reasons – with the aim to strengthen the national in the 1970–80s (Rytteri & Puhakka 2009). identity. Later the arguments became more scien- tific, but aesthetic and recreational aspects have National parks as tourist destinations remained motives for establishing national parks (Sorsa 2004; Puhakka 2007). The second discourse is more anthropocentric, and it conflicts partly with the first one. It is based National parks as destinations of sustainable on the idea that national parks provide citizens nature-based tourism with places to see and experience nature, and parks are thus established to satisfy humans’ needs. The third discourse has become hegemonic in the This does not, however, mean that nature conser- Finnish discussion, and it has started to direct the vation is not taken into account. In this discourse, management and land use planning of national the primary arguments of protection are not eco- parks in this decade. It combines elements from logical but aesthetic; beautiful landscapes and the previous discourses; the conservation goals of other marvels of nature are preserved as natural parks are primarily defined with natural scientific sights and recreation areas. Nature conservation is criteria, but parks also strive for developing sus- mostly understood as maintaining the visual char- tainable tourism. Accordingly, the aim is to inte- acteristics of nature, and economic use does not grate the ecological goals of nature conservation necessarily conflict with this goal. The discourse and the economic goals of nature-based tourism in considers humans as visitors who do not remain in national parks. The protection and use of nature nature, and it places thus nature outside society are not considered to totally exclude each other. and culture (see Saarinen 2005: 40–41). Nevertheless, this new kind of discourse does not FENNIA 186: 1(2008) Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks 53 mean that the two previous discourses will disap- and clients. Meanwhile, park authorities have pear from the park discussion. started to set goals for tourism development in na- This discourse pays attention to the environ- tional parks; the aim of Metsähallitus is to increase mental impacts of tourism and aims to solve the the total number of park visits 5 percent annually problems by implementing the principles of sus- by 2010 (see Table 1). At present the park plans are tainability. The concept of sustainable nature- largely a compromise of ecological, socio-cultural based tourism refers to the term currently used by and economic goals, and the implementation of Metsähallitus who has drafted Principles of Sus- participatory planning has expanded the idea of tainable Nature Tourism in Protected areas (Hei- expertise beyond scientific knowledge. Neverthe- nonen 2007: 306) and developed indicators to less, nature conservation is still defined as the most measure sustainability by using the Limits of Ac- important goal of national parks. cebtable Change (LAC) -method (Kajala et al. 2004). With the help of the new concepts referring National parks as resources for local people to nature and sustainability, tourism as an eco- nomic activity has become more accepted in Finn- These three strong discourses are challenged by ish national parks. Nowadays park authorities the fourth one which emphasizes the socio-cultur- write partnership agreements with tourism entre- al and economic perspectives. It does not prima- preneurs, and their role is more focused on provid- rily define the interaction between nature conser- ing opportunities for companies in parks. Accord- vation and tourism, but it gives alternative mean- ingly, the policy of denials and restrictions has ings for national parks and other natural areas. been replaced by co-operation and the manage- According to this discourse, parks are concrete ment of tourism within the limits of acceptable cri- and historical places which have a lot of cultural teria. value and meanings (see Mels 1999). The dis- According to the discourse, national parks have course stresses – instead of protection or tourism a role as fulfilling the ecological, socio-cultural – the local usage of parks as economic resources, and economic goals of sustainability, and nature- and it does not aim at separating nature and soci- based tourism is thus justified with regional devel- ety (see Saarinen 2005: 38–39). Nature is mainly opment. The aim to increase socio-economic ben- observed from the local perspective, and the efits connects parks more closely to the surround- meanings given for it diverge from the previous ing society and decreases the juxtaposition of na- discourses. ture and culture. The interaction between conser- In this discourse, the goals and means of protec- vation and tourism is understood as symbiotic; tion are defined in a different way than in the insti- they are seen to benefit each other (see Budowski tutional nature conservation. The establishment of 1976). By stressing economic and socio-cultural separate and tightly restricted conservation areas dimensions, the discourse also aims at gaining is not supported, but all human activities should wider support for nature conservation. be in harmony with nature. Therefore, the way of As a result of the growth of nature-based tour- thinking is rather conservationist than preserva- ism and the transformation of conservation think- tionist (Nash 1982: 129–130). The protection and ing, this discourse has had a central role in the use of nature are not understood as conflicting; lo- Finnish park discussion since the 1990s. The dis- cal use is not considered to ruin nature. Instead of course has institutionalized (see Hajer 1995) and scientific expertise, the discourse emphasizes started to direct the management and land use knowledge based on local residents’ everyday ex- planning of national parks in this decade. The periences of living with nature. Arguments for na- analysis of the planning documents indicates that ture protection are primarily cultural, which means this discursive shift has implied three kinds of maintaining people’s way of life in a certain area changes for management and policy in parks: the and protecting it from external disturbances. role of tourism has increased, tourism is increas- Accordingly, the discourse aims to increase lo- ingly justified with regional development, and this cal residents’ rights and possibilities to use their goal of socio-economic development is finally le- surrounding natural areas in subsistence activities gitimated with the dimensions of sustainability. In and in outdoor recreation. Tourism and especially the newest documents, parks are defined not only conservation do not necessarily benefit local peo- as conservation areas but also as tourist destina- ple most because they may decrease possibilities tions, and visitors and hikers have become tourists to utilize natural resources by other stakeholders. 54 Riikka Puhakka FENNIA 186: 1(2008)
On the other hand, the economic importance of local level in Finland. Nowadays the discourse is tourism for locals has increased as a result of the represented, for example, by the statements of growth of nature-based tourism (e.g. Huhtala park plans in which local stakeholders demand 2006). more comprehensive local rights to use nature. The rights of local people have been taken into Generally, the conservation ideology based on the account in the establishment of national parks; lo- western idea of the juxtaposition of nature and cal residents in northern Finland and in the archi- culture has often been in conflict with local per- pelago have been granted some special rights re- spectives (e.g. Ghimire & Pimbert 1997). lating to the practicing of traditional livelihoods (e.g. fishing, hunting and reindeer herding) within protected areas (see Metsähallitus 2000). This dis- Conclusion course, however, has never been the dominant one that directs the implementation of nature con- This study indicates that the role of tourism has in- servation in Finland. Broad local rights to use na- creased in Finnish national parks as aresult of the ture are not accepted either in the IUCN Protected growth of nature-based tourism and the transforma- Area Management Category II of national parks tion of conservation thinking. The discourse nation- (IUCN & UNEP 2003: 12) – which all Finnish na- al parks as destinations of sustainable nature-based tional parks qualify for at present. The discourse tourism has started to direct the park management was at its strongest in the second phase of the in- in the 2000s: it aims to integrate the ecological teraction between conservation and tourism when goals of nature conservation and the economic the societal significance of conservation increased, goals of nature-based tourism by implementing the and protected areas were strongly opposed on the principles of sustainability (see Table 2). Nowadays
Table 2. Four discourses that define the interaction between nature conservation and tourism in national parks in Finland. National parks as National parks as tourist National parks as desti- National parks as conservation areas destinations nations of sustainable resources for local people nature-based tourism Frame Parks are established Parks provide citizens with Parks fulfill the goals of Parks should be used in to preserve nature places to see and experience nature conservation local traditional liveli- nature and tourism hoods and in recreation Most impor- Ecological Socio-cultural, economic Ecological, socio-cul- Socio-cultural, economic tant values tural, economic Perspective Translocal Translocal (local) Translocal, local Local Motives for Ecological Aesthetic Ecological Cultural conservation Idea of con- Conflict Symbiosis Symbiosis Irrelevant question servation vs. tourism Idea of na- Outside society (hu- Outside society (humans are Outside society (hu- Not separate from society ture mans are only visi- only visitors) mans are only visitors) Resource which also has tors) Aesthetic experience, source Object of protection, cultural meanings Ecological reserve of livelihood experience, source of sustainable livelihood Example In case the econom- There are two philosophies; The development of If it has been noticed that from the re- ic utilization of pro- national parks are for people nature-based tourism species are becoming ex- search mate- tected areas is per- or for research, and the area [in the national park] tinct, I guess it [hunting in rials mitted in some are- for research should be pro- promotes the goal of national parks] has to be as, it may not en- tected of course, but part of social and economic restricted, but if there is danger the achieve- the park should be for people. sustainability by creat- enough bears, just go on... ment of abovemen- And to make it easily accessi- ing possibilities for lo- Because they have been tioned [conserva- ble for them, infrastructure cal people to engage in hunted in these areas pre- tion] aims (Met- must be built in the park (In- tourism business (Met- viously, so why not now sähallitus 1993: 9).* terviewed tourism entrepre- sähallitus 2006: 22).* (Interviewed tourist).* neur).* *Translated from Finnish to English by the author. FENNIA 186: 1(2008) Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks 55 tourism is justified not only with recreational and ciency; park authorities will increasingly have to educational arguments –like previously in Finland approach parks as a business if they are to receive – but the aim of regional development is increas- public funding (Eagles & McCool 2002: 46–47). ingly brought up in park plans. The idea of parks’ Tourism development is also generating financing economic role and close relation to the surround- for the management of protected areas and help- ing society has arisen; national parks are integrated ing communities cope with economic restructur- more deeply into the regional (tourism) economy ing (McCool & Patterson 2000; Bushell & McCool (see Saarinen 2007). Nevertheless, alongside the 2007). This discursive shift reflects the rise of neo- current policies, there are both more favourable liberalist politics; nature conservation has become and critical perceptions of tourism development in more instrumental and market-oriented (see Finnish parks. All four discourses are represented in McAfee 1999; McCarthy & Prudham 2004). interviewed tourists’ speech where as tourism en- The recent changes may influence in various trepreneurs mainly use the second and third dis- ways the future development of protected areas, courses which emphasize the aspects of tourism. which provides topical subjects for further re- By setting the goal of regional development, the search. The increasing role of tourism in national interests of local people are taken into account parks may improve conditions for nature conser- more widely than previously in Finnish national vation; socio-economic benefits will probably in- parks. The various discourses defining the interac- crease the positive attitude towards the establish- tion between conservation and tourism have thus ment of protected areas on the local and regional shifted closer to each other. The importance of tra- level. The growth of nature-based tourism will cre- ditional livelihoods is still estimated to decrease in ate new economic and employment opportunities peripheral areas (see Saarinen 2005), and there- for local people (e.g. Huhtala 2006) although tour- fore, the interests of the fourth discourse will prob- ism’s impacts on local living conditions and iden- ably meet the goals related to tourism develop- tity are not only positive. By respecting local resi- ment more often in the future. National parks are dents and incorporating their needs, their commit- increasingly functioning as intermediaries between ment to the implementation of conservation may local and national or international interests in both be improved (see Fennell & Weaver 2005; Bushell nature conservation and regional development is- & McCool 2007). sues (Saarinen 2007). By defining the goals of visi- More instrumental and market-oriented motives tor numbers and the economic impacts of nature- for nature protection will mean new challenges for based tourism, Metsähallitus aims to fulfil the ob- the management and land use planning of national jectives set by the Finnish Parliament and the Min- parks. While local and regional stakeholders start istry of the Environment (e.g. Ympäristöministeriö to support the establishment of protected areas for 2002). The conservation goals are consistent with touristic reasons, the economic and political ex- the EU regulations and other international agree- pectations of tourism will increase in parks. So far ments. construction and other restrictions have been rath- The aim to integrate various goals reflects the er tight in Finnish parks, but management princi- international development although in many other ples and practices can change over time. The in- countries tourism has already had a more impor- creasing role of tourism is justified by defining tant role in national parks than in Finland (see Ea- national parks as tourist destinations. This raises gles 2002). Finnish parks are undergoing similar critical questions about the maximum limits of change than in other European countries where tourism development in parks even though the co-ordinating conservation and the utilization of visitor numbers are still rather low in Finland com- nature is increasingly seen as advantageous for pared to some other countries (see Eagles 2002). both conservation and regional development New challenges are caused, for example, by new (Hammer et al. 2007; see Fennell & Weaver 2005; recreational activities and the increasing use of Shultis & Way 2006; Fredman et al. 2007). Na- snowmobiles and other motor vehicles especially tional parks have become more dynamic and in- in northern Finland. Tourism may conflict with the novative; they are rather understood as social and ecological goals and increase disagreements over cultural institutions than as static ‘museums’ or the use of parks. Moreover, the interests of the biological reserves (Kaltenborn et al. 2002). Mean- tourism sector might be contradictory to the re- while, parks have growing pressures to produce gional development objectives adopted in specific tourism income and to show their economic effi- places (Saarinen 2005). 56 Riikka Puhakka FENNIA 186: 1(2008)
Support and political pressure for the creation of economic criteria cannot be valued commensura- protected areas may grow while more and more bly. While interests have diversified, the integra- people visit national parks and start to appreciate tion of multiple goals has become a more impor- them (Eagles & McCool 2002: 23–24). Meanwhile, tant part of the planning and decision-making tourists’ expectations and demands might grow, processes of nature conservation (McCool & Pat- which will increase pressures to allow new recrea- terson 2000). Although the discourses defining the tional activities and to develop different kinds of interaction between conservation and tourism services and facilities in parks. The ecological have shifted closer to each other, the goals of na- goals of conservation and aesthetic aspects valued tional parks will still raise lively discussion in the by tourists are partly contradictory. The interviews future, and the role of tourism will be defined in indicate that some tourists understand nature con- discursive struggles. servation rather as maintaining visual characteris- tics of nature (e.g. beautiful landscapes) than as protecting biodiversity or endangered species. For example, when former economic forests are re- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS stored in national parks by using excavators and chain saws, these areas do not (immediately) con- I acknowledge the Finnish Cultural Foundation and firm tourists’ idea of untouched wilderness. the Academy of Finland (project 201536, Provinces, On the other hand, tourists’ expectations and communities, biopolitics) for funding this PhD study. wishes may restrict tourism development in pro- tected areas. Anational park with abundant facili- ties and services is not necessarily consistent with tourists’ ideas of protected, pristine nature and REFERENCES with their motives for travelling to parks. Metsähal- Berglund E (2001). Facts, beliefs and biases: perspec- litus aims to direct the growth of nature-based tives on forest conservation in Finland. Environ- tourism at the most visited areas, such as national mental Planning and Management 44: 6, parks (Heinonen 2007: 110), and inside parks visi- 833–849. tors are channeled to recreational zones. Ecologi- Boyd SW & RW Butler (2000). Tourism and national cal sustainability may be improved, but tourists’ parks: the origin of the concept. In Butler RW & ideas of tranquil and isolated parks might be SW Boyd (eds). Tourism and national parks. Issues threatened. According to the interviews, the high and implications, 13–27. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. visitor numbers during seasons have already start- Budowski G (1976). Tourism and environmental con- ed to disturb tourists’ nature experiences in Finnish servation: conflict, coexistence, or symbiosis? En- national parks. vironmental Conservation 3: 1, 27–31. Probably the role of tourism will not decrease in Bushell R & SF McCool (2007). Tourism as a tool for the near future, but socio-economic goals and conservation and support of protected areas: set- touristic arguments will still gain strength in na- ting the agenda. In Bushell R & PEagles (eds). Tourism and protected areas: benefits beyond tional parks in Finland (see Heinonen 2007: boundaries, 12–26. CAB International, Walling- 241–244). Following foreign examples, Finnish ford. parks may start to operate more like corporations Castree N (2005). Nature. 281 p. Routledge, Lon- within government and respond to visitors’ needs don. and wants (see Eagles 2002). In the future, prob- Eagles PFJ (2002). Trends in park tourism: economics, lems might be caused by the insufficient funding finance and management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10: 2, 132–153. of service provision and tourism management in Eagles PFJ & SF McCool (2002). Tourism in national parks, and entrance or use fees may become under parks and protected areas. Planning and manage- discussion also in Finland. Nonetheless, every- ment. 320 p. CABI Publishing, Wallingford. man’s right has an important role in Finland Fennell D (1999). Ecotourism: an introduction. 315 p. (Kaltenborn et al. 2001), and the idea of paying for Routledge, London. outdoor recreation would probably be found Fennell D & D Weaver (2005). The ecotourium con- strange by citizens. cept and tourism-conservation symbiosis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13: 4, 373–390. The aim to combine various goals is challenging Fredman P, LHörnsten Friberg & LEmmelin (2007). for the management and land use planning of na- Increased visitation from national park designa- tional parks since ecological, socio-cultural and tion. Current Issues in Tourism 10: 1, 87–95. FENNIA 186: 1(2008) Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks 57
Ghimire KB & MP Pimbert (eds) (1997). Social change McAfee K(1999). Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and conservation. Environmental politics and im- and green developmentalism. Environment and pacts of national parks and protected areas. 342 Planning D: Society and Space 17: 2, 133–154. p. Earthscan Publications, London. McCarthy J & S Prudham (2004). Neoliberal nature Glacken CJ (1967). Traces on the Rhodian shore. Na- and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum 35: 3, ture and culture in western thought from ancient 275–283. times to the end of the Eighteenth Century. 763 p. McCool SF & ME Patterson (2000). Trends in recrea- University of California Press, Berkeley. tion, tourism and protected area planning. In Hajer MA (1995). The politics of environmental dis- Gartner WC & DW Lime (eds). Trends in outdoor course. Ecological modernization and the policy recreation, leisure and tourism, 111–119. CAB In- process. 332 p. Clarendon Press, Oxford. ternational, Wallingford. Hall CM & SJ Page (1999). The geography of tourism Mels T (1999). Wild landscapes. The cultural nature and recreation. Environment, place and space. of Swedish national parks. 257 p. Lund University 309 p. Routledge, London. Press, Lund. Hall S (1997). The work of representation. In Hall S Metsähallitus (1993). Luonnonsuojelualueiden hoi- (ed). Representation. Cultural representations and don periaatteet. Valtion omistamien luonnonsuo- signifying practices, 13–64. Sage, London. jelualueiden tavoitteet, tehtävät ja hoidon yleis- Hammer T, I Mose, D Siegrist & N Weixlbaumer linjat. Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja (2007). Protected areas and regional development B 1. 55 p. in Europe: towards a new model for the 21st Cen- Metsähallitus (2000). The principles of protected area tury. In Mose I (ed). Protected areas and regional management in Finland. Guidelines on the aims, development in Europe. Towards a new model for function and management of state-owned protect- the 21st Century, 233–246. Ashgate, Aldershot. ed areas. Nature Protection Publications of the Heinonen M (ed) (2007). State of the parks in Fin- Finnish Forest and Park Service B 54. 49 p. metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2007/mwp052. peripheral areas. Development or disaster, 36–49. htm>. 10.10.2008. Channel View Publications, Clevedon. Rabinow P(ed) (1986). The Foucault reader. An intro- Saarinen J (2007). Protected areas and regional devel- duction to Foucault’s thought, with major new opment issues in northern peripheries: nature pro- unpublished material. 390 p. Penguin Books, tection, traditional economies and tourism in the Harmondsworth. Urho Kekkonen National Park, Finland. In Mose I Raitio K (2008). “You can’t please everyone” – con- (ed). Protected areas and regional development in flict management practices, frames and institu- Europe. Towards a new model for the 21st Centu- tions in Finnish state forests. University of Joensuu, ry, 199–211. Ashgate, Aldershot. Publications in Social Sciences 86. 271 p.