[Bachelor thesis]

Tourism has impacts on smaller destinations too A questionnaire study to determine any tourism effects on smaller destinations and its residents.

Authors: Felicia Carlström ​ ​ & Johanna Gustavsson Supervisor: Christer Foghagen ​ Examiner: Hans Wessblad ​ Semester: HT20 ​ Subject: Tourism Science ​ Level: Bachelor ​ Course code: 2TR42E ​

Abstract Tourism is something that today is very common for most parts of the world. Tourism effects is a phenomenon that focuses on the effects of tourism which can affect destinations and residents in different ways. The most common are social, cultural, environmental and economic impacts. The purpose of this bachelor thesis has been to explore if there are any tourism effects and if so, what are they and in what ways can they affect a small rural area as a destination and the effect on the residents. For this purpose we have used an area called Glasriket in Sweden as an example. This study has used both qualitative and ​ quantitative data with a deductive approach. After conducting our research, we then composed a questionnaire. The questionnaire was shared on our personal Facebook pages and also sent out through email to businesses, organizations and municipalities in Glasriket. In total, the empirical data was collected from 74 respondents. The results of the study showed that tourism is often perceived as positive. The positive effects of tourism outweigh the negative. It is clear that tourism has impacts on destinations in rural areas and not only on major cities or coastal areas. One conclusion is that yes, there are effects caused by tourism in Glasriket. There are several environmental, social, cultural and ​ ​ economic impacts in this area. It can also be concluded that tourism affects people and destinations in different ways and the ways the effects are perceived by residents might vary depending on factors such as cultural background, economic status and personal opinions.

Keywords tourism, destination, rural tourism, triple bottom line, sociocultural effects, economic effects, environmental effects, Glasriket, residents’ attitudes, seasonality ​ ​

Acknowledgements We want to express our deepest gratitude to our respondents who have taken the time and effort to answer our questionnaire. We would like to thank our mentor Christer Foghagen for his time and advice during this process. Finally, we would like to say thank you to our examinator Hans Wessblad and our opponents for their comments and suggestions.

2 (81)

Table of contents

1. Introduction 4 1.1. Background 5 1.2. Problem discussion 6 1.3. Research question 7 1.4. Purpose of research 8 1.5. Scope 8 1.6. Definitions 9 1.7. Disposition 10 2. Methodology 11 2.1. Method 11 2.2. Research design and approach 13 2.3. Selections 14 2.4. Ethical aspects 16 2.5. Limitations 18

3. Literature review 20 3.1. Destination 20 3.2. Rural tourism 22 3.3. Triple Bottom Line 24 3.4. Tourism effects 27

4. Study and results 39 4.1. Glasriket background 39 ​ ​ 4.2. The choice of questionnaire 42 4.3. Questions used for the empirical study 43 4.4. The questionnaire results 46 4.5. Summary 54

5. Discussion 56 5.1. Positive or negative? 56 5.2. Tourism effects on destinations and its residents 58 5.3. Attraction value 62 5.4. The future of tourism in Glasriket 64 ​ 5.5. Realizations on our final study 65

6. Conclusions 67

7. References 69

8. Appendix 74

3 (81)

1. Introduction

In this first chapter, we will introduce the topic of this research paper with focus on destinations, rural tourism and potential tourism effects. Further, we will explain several main concepts that are important for this thesis. We will discuss the problem concerning tourism impacts on smaller destinations and then we will explain the purpose of this research paper and define our research question.

Changes in peoples’ socioeconomic status have given rise to more traveling as more people can now afford to travel more often and for longer periods of time. According to Rocca (2005) the tourism industry is constantly changing because society is changing. Destinations have to adapt to meet the needs of the visitors. With this, Rocca (2005) means that if a destination does not adapt physically and socially then less people will visit. If a destination cannot handle the numbers of visitors then it can cause problems for both residents and visitors. Another perspective on the issues that tourism can have on a destination is given by Postma and Schmuecker (2017). They state that increased tourism could lead to conflicts between residents and visitors at the destination due to tourism having indirect and direct effects on the destination and the residents.

Tourism is a major topic and most countries in the world have some type of tourism industry. There are many different types of tourism and the main focus of this research paper will be rural tourism and smaller destinations. What consequences can tourism cause for rural or small destinations? What positive and negative effects can tourism have for small destinations and further development of rural areas? How does tourism impact the residents of small destinations that are located in more rural areas? These questions are important. to research further because research about tourism effects often focus on city destinations and coastal areas, not on rural or small destinations.

4 (81)

1.1. Background

During the last decades, rural areas have been affected more by tourism than before. Rural tourism has existed for hundreds of years and is becoming more popular as of late. Rural tourism is about seeing the value in landscapes, the local culture and traditions and also nature (Robinson and Jamal, 2009). Tourism can mean different things for different people and rural tourism is no exception of this. Rural tourism is therefore hard to explain. According to a website called Tourism Notes (2020), one definition of rural tourism is “the movement of people from their normal place of residence to rural areas for a minimum period of twenty-four hours to the maximum of six months for the sole purpose of leisure and pleasure. Rural tourism refers to all tourism activities in a rural area.”

WTO (The World Tourism Organization, 2020) defines tourism as “...a social, cultural and economic phenomenon which entails the movement of people to countries or places outside their usual environment for personal or business/professional purposes. These people are called visitors (which may be either tourists or excursionists; residents or non-residents) and tourism has to do with their activities, some of which involve tourism expenditure”. Based on these definitions, the only difference between rural tourism and tourism in general is the very fact that rural tourism takes place in rural areas.

According to Dickinson and Robbins (2008) there have been studies that show that about half of all tourists questioned the link between tourism and climate change but that they know little about the impact they make as tourists. They continue to say that visitor traffic can create tensions with the locals and can also threaten the natural attributes that drew people to the area in the first place. Tourism activities in rural areas depend a lot on visitors having their own car or at least having access to one by renting or borrowing from someone they know. The attractions are usually spread out and might even be far from a main road which can make them difficult to get to if the visitors have not been there before. More often than not the public transport is not very good in rural places and in places outside of cities.

5 (81)

One area which has this accessibility problem is Glasriket. Glasriket, or the Kingdom of ​ ​ ​ ​ Crystal as it is called in English, is the name of an area in Småland in the southeast of Sweden where most of the glass factories were built hundreds of years ago. Glasriket ​ covers four different municipalities; Nybro, Emmaboda, Lessebo and Uppvidinge (Glasriket, n.d.) and they all collaborate with each other to make Glasriket the best ​ ​ destination possible. Some of the larger villages or towns in this area such as Nybro and Lessebo have train stations and more frequent public transportation. However, it is nothing compared to major cities and can still make it harder for residents and visitors to get anywhere without a car. To reach some of the smaller destinations in this area like Kosta, Orrefors or Målerås, a car is a must because there are no train stations and the buses leave very rarely.

1.2. Problem discussion

Saarinen (2004) states that tourism is a dynamic process and for the past decades, tourism has benefited from research and studies investigating tourist destination development. The need to study and understand tourism and the way it changes and grows as well as the consequences caused by tourism, has been growing more and more. Furthermore, Saarinen (2006) states that tourism impacts have been gaining more attention in research and development studies for several decades. Saarinen (2006) writes that tourism is based on people, goods and services, financial capital and ideas being moved around in some way. Saarinen (2006) also states that tourism impacts include environmental, social, cultural and economic factors.

According to Saarinen (2004) tourism is developing fast and new destinations are developing along with new facilities and attractions. Stylidis et al. (2014) argues that tourism development has led to several economic, sociocultural and environmental changes for the destination and for local residents. Because of this, it is important to further investigate and study how tourism can impact destinations and the residents’ lives. Further, it is explained by Stylidis et al. (2014) that by understanding the residents’ perspective, it would be possible to minimize the negative impacts of tourism development which in turn would lead to further development for the community. By researching and studying the

6 (81)

impacts caused by tourism on smaller destinations, our hope is to provide more information and knowledge concerning the tourism industry and development of tourism at small destinations. There is currently limited previous research about tourism impacts on smaller destinations and therefore it is important to study this and to understand how these tourism impacts can affect the local residents. There is almost no available information concerning the tourism impacts on an area such as Glasriket and its residents, in Sweden, ​ ​ at least not that we could find. We searched for research that did not necessarily focus on Glasriket or Sweden but we could not seem to find a lot of previous research related to more rural areas and the impacts of tourism. One major problem is accessibility, meaning that it is hard to reach the destination without having a car. Another problem is seasonality, which can cause traffic congestion during the peak season and could make it harder for residents to go about their daily lives. From a different perspective, there are also potential environmental issues as this area is rather rural and hard to reach without a vehicle. Another possible environmental issue is littering, especially during the peak season when both international and national tourists visit Glasriket. Glasriket as a destination has some ​ similarities with other destinations but there has been less focus on this area and other rural areas in research.

1.3. Research question

This research paper will focus on one main question: In what ways can tourism affect ​ small destinations and the residents?

This research question was chosen because of the broad scope of it, as it allows us to investigate if there are any potential tourism impacts on smaller destinations, and if there are impacts, in what ways they could affect small destinations and its residents. We chose to focus on investigating if there are any tourism impacts and if so, identifying how and in what ways they affect smaller destinations and residents. We did this rather than focusing on only identifying the potential impacts of tourism. This gives us more space and insight into the potential issues with tourism in rural areas, using Glasriket as an example. ​ ​

7 (81)

1.4. Purpose of research

The purpose of this research paper is to identify the possible effects of tourism on small destinations and their residents. We want to do this to bring awareness to the consequences of tourism in rural areas. This research paper will therefore include a study with the purpose to investigate if there are any tourism effects on Glasriket as a destination and if ​ ​ the residents have experienced any effects caused by tourism and tourists. We have chosen this topic because it is important to us to bring more awareness to the tourism impacts on smaller destinations and not to only focus on cities. We also think it is important to know how the residents in the Glasriket area perceive tourism impacts. By combining the ​ ​ theoretical part with the empirical study, the aim of this research paper is to answer our research question. Further, we have chosen to write in English as to allow for more people to take part in our research and perhaps learn more about this topic. We also think that this will allow us to challenge ourselves more and we can provide more research within this particular topic.

1.5. Scope

Tourism is a very broad topic and there are several different types of tourism. Because of this, we have decided to limit the scope of our research paper to a smaller geographical area in Småland called Glasriket, which will be used as an example in our study. The ​ ​ population of this area is the intended participants for our study. We have chosen this area because we want to focus on the effects that tourism can have on smaller destinations and its residents. Another reason for choosing this particular area is our own connection to it. We both grew up in small villages in the Glasriket area and we have both worked in Kosta. ​ This limitation was made because of time constraints as well as the possibility of conducting a better study and possibly interviews due to easier access. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have had to make some changes to our original ideas.

8 (81)

1.6. Definitions

Here are some definitions that are important while reading this thesis paper. Several concepts such as ‘destination’ and ‘tourism’ will be recurring throughout.

Tourism “Tourism refers to the activity of visitors” (WTO, 2020) and the definition of what a tourist, or visitor, is has already been explained above. These trips that tourists take, both overnight trips and same-day trips, are tourism trips since tourism is the activity of visitors (UN, 2010).

Rural tourism One definition of what rural tourism is has already been given but since the concept can be hard to explain we will give another definition from Loureiro (2014:6), who writes that rural tourism is “a market niche in the countryside, which involves lodgings with a small number of beds and a set of possible activities such as appreciating landscape, eating and drinking regional food and wine, visiting regional fairs, or learning how to make handicrafts”. This is something that we feel fit into smaller and rural destinations since there are usually a lot of nature and smaller and more unique businesses around.

Tourism effects According to Hadjikakou et al. (2014) tourism impacts can be positive and negative. There are different types of effects caused by tourism. There are three main categories; sociocultural, economic and environmental effects.

Tourist “A visitor (domestic, inbound or outbound) is classified as a tourist (or overnight visitor), if his/her trip includes an overnight stay, or as a same-day visitor (or excursionist) otherwise” (WTO, 2020).

9 (81)

Destination ‘Destination’ is a concept that is used frequently within tourism but different people use it differently. It is possible that the concept creates confusion since it can mean so many different things depending on the context. It can be talked about as a narrative, a marketing object, a place where tourism happens, an attraction, a production system and a lot more (Framke, 2002).

Small destinations There is no definition of what a small destination is, that we think would fit our intended research area. Based on the previous definition of ‘destination’ and our own knowledge and thoughts; we have decided that for this research paper, a small destination is a place where less than 15,000 people live. A small destination can be a major tourist destination but still have less than 15,000 inhabitants. One example is Kosta in Glasriket, where only ​ ​ about 1,000 people lived in 2019 (Wikipedia, 2020 A) and another is Orrefors where about 808 people lived in 2019 (Wikipedia, 2020 B).

1.7. Disposition

The first chapter (1) will provide a background to the topic and explain the main concepts of this study. In addition to this, the purpose of this research paper and the research question will be presented in this chapter. The second chapter (2) will cover methodology. The third chapter (3) will focus on theory and chapter four (4) will focus on the empirical study. Chapter five (5) will be a discussion of the theoretical and empirical chapters. Chapter six (6) will be the conclusions of our study and will answer the research question. The last chapter (7) will be a reference list of sources.

10 (81)

2. Methodology

Chapter 2 is called methodology and here we will introduce our study and the chosen method. We will argue for our chosen method and approach as well as how we are going to use the method and approach to conduct our research study. We will explain the design, the creation of our questionnaire and the selections of respondents for our study. Finally, we will discuss possible limitations and other issues with this research paper and study.

2.1. Method

This research paper focuses on tourism impacts on the Glasriket area in Småland, Sweden, ​ with focus on the residents’ perception of tourism effects. Glasriket is an area that is made ​ up of four municipalities: Nybro, Emmaboda, Lessebo and Uppvidinge. We chose to use Glasriket as an example because it is a smaller area located in rural parts of Småland in Sweden and because we are both from this area. The area has also expanded over the last few decades and is a good example of tourism development. Glasriket is more than just a ​ ​ geographical area but for the purpose of this research paper and the study, Glasriket is ​ ​ mainly used as an example of a geographical area because we are both from the area and felt like we have good access to the residents there. The research study was conducted through a questionnaire. Since we both are from the area, we decided that we would share it on our own personal Facebook pages and asked our friends and family to participate and to share it with their family and friends. We wanted to study if the residents in this area have experienced any effects and if so, which impacts have they experienced and if they are affected by tourism and tourists. We also want to know if there are any tourism effects on Glasriket as a destination. ​ ​

We started our research by first deciding on a topic that we both find interesting and that we know is important to discuss further. There is plenty of research in regards to tourism impacts, so we then decided that we wanted to focus on a smaller area and we decided to focus on the impacts of tourism on small destinations. At the beginning of our research

11 (81)

process, we collected articles and other information, and we found that we could find very limited information about the tourism impacts on smaller destinations. Further, we decided on the area called Glasriket pretty soon as we found very little research about it. We ​ ​ decided on collecting articles that focus on tourism impacts, tourism effects on destinations and on tourism impacts on rural destinations. During the research process, we have revised and made some changes to our primary research question and purpose. We have done this so that it would be easier to specify exactly which problem we intend to investigate.

Åsberg (2001) explains that a method is a series of steps, or choices, that we make to get to where we want to be and how to get there. Further, Åsberg (2001) states that the concept ‘method’ comes from the greek word ‘méthodos’ (‘meta’ meaning after and ‘ho’dos’ meaning road). Based on this, method could be explained as how we do something to gather information and data through for example observations and questionnaires. As mentioned before, we have chosen to compose a questionnaire for our study and to conduct our study by sharing it on Facebook. Åsberg (2001) argues that a method is not qualitative or quantitative, but rather the data that is collected is. The way data is collected can not be either qualitative or quantitative. For the purpose of this research paper, we have decided to go with both qualitative and quantitative data. Åsberg (2001) states that qualitative comes from the latin word ‘qua’litas’ and according to Latdict (n.d. A) it means “character/nature, essential/distinguishing quality/characteristic”. Further, Latdict (n.d. B) explains that quantitative comes from another latin word; ‘qua’nitas’, which means “(specified) amount/quantity/sum, magnitude/multitude, quantity, degree, size”.

For our study, this means that we will collect both quantitative and qualitative data as in the questionnaire we ask a series of questions in regards to age, sex, residence and specific questions about their perceptions of tourism impacts. Quantitative data such as age and sex can be used to anlyse if there are any similiarties or differences in the answers. Quantitative data will also be any answers that the respondents provide in terms of for example degree or size.

12 (81)

2.2. Research design and approach

This research paper has two main parts; a theoretical and an empirical part. The theoretical part is a literature review focusing on the effects or impacts caused by tourism on small destinations and rural destinations. The literature review also focuses on the triple bottom line approach as the main tourism impacts are economic, sociocultural and environmental. According to Snyder (2019), there are several different types of literature reviews. A systematic literature review is a complex type that among other aspects needs to cover all the research on the topic. Snyder (2019) further explains that a semi-systematic literature review is specifically designed for topics that are broad and can be used and studied in different ways and by various disciplines, which we feel will fit our research paper better than a systematic literature review. We think that this type of literature review is the best fit for our research paper. The empirical part will be the study conducted through a questionnaire that we developed. The study will focus on the residents’ perceived tourism impacts on Glasriket area, that they have noticed and been affected by. According to Smith ​ (2017) there are two main approaches to use in research: deductive and inductive. An inductive approach is when the researcher bases their research on something that has previously happened and creates new theories. This type of research approach is based on empirical data. A deductive approach, is the opposite of inductive and focuses on already existing research and theories (Smith, 2017).

We decided to use a deductive approach for our research as there is plenty of research regarding tourism impacts and destinations. It seemed like a better approach for our topic and study, allowing us to use a literature review for our theoretical aspect and as a basis for our research study. Smith (2017) further explains that a deductive approach aims to explain and confirm or contradict previous theories. Deductive approaches are based on theoretical data. Our research paper and study are deductive because of the theory base that we have in our study. We want to determine if there are any links between the theory base we have researched and the area Glasriket. We want to investigate if there are any tourism impacts ​ ​ in Glasriket in relation to the previous research. Based on our study, it will be possible for ​ ​ us to say something about the tourism impacts that exist in Glasriket and to further discuss ​

13 (81)

if it can affect the population and the destination, by finding any similarities between our questionnaire and the previous research.

2.3. Selections

For our questionnaire, we decided to share it on our Facebook pages and asked friends and family to answer it and then share it on their pages as well. We also asked people we know who work in Lessebo municipality to ask their colleagues to answer the questionnaire. This was done by either sharing the link for the questionnaire or by bringing the questionnaire with them on paper to work. Further, we emailed all four municipalities and also several businesses within Glasriket. This way we could reach even more people to participate in ​ ​ our study. When receiving any physical copies, we entered them into the digital questionnaire so we would have all the answers in one place. By distributing our questionnaire this way, the selection of respondents has been random, based on a few selected criterias, and all answers are anonymous. According to Bryman (2011) this process is called målstyrt urval, which we are going to call ‘goal-focused selection’ in ​ ​ English. This process of selection would easiest be described as a strategic selection of participants based on the purpose of the study. The participants are selected based on them having some knowledge about, or being in some way affected by, what the study aim to investigate. Further, Bryman (2011) explains that one kind of ‘goal-focused selection’ is the so-called snowball effect where participants are asked to participate in the study and then share it with other people that are relevant for the study. We have, based on this, chosen some criteria that all of our participants have to match to be included in the final study.

The main criteria that we chose to work with was that the respondents have to either work or live somewhere within the Glasriket area, for the results to be included in the study. We ​ ​ chose to conduct our study this way because it would allow our answers to be more accurate, coming from residents’ own experiences. Another criteria we chose to use was that most of the mandatory questions had to be answered for it to be included in the study. We made some exceptions with the mandatory questions for the paper copies we received as some had missed at least one question due to the way the questionnaire was printed and

14 (81)

because not all mandatory questions were marked as mandatory on paper. Even with only using a small selection of residents in Glasriket, it is possible to use our study to see if ​ ​ tourism impacts are generally seen as positive or negative and potentially which effects are seen as positive and negative. With all the previous research done on tourism impacts and residents’ attitudes towards them, it is possible with our study to gain further knowledge and insight in regards to tourism impacts on small destinations or smaller areas like Glasriket. Some of the questionnaires we received had answers that were not in line with ​ the criteria we chose so those answers were not included in the study.

Questionnaire development We wanted to develop the questionnaire as soon as possible so we could work with collecting data and the literature review parallel to each other. First, we decided to create a pilot questionnaire at the end of November to send out to a few selected people to see if the questions were easy to understand and answer as well as how long it took them to complete it. After this we composed the real questionnaire, giving ourselves approximately one month to collect data. The questionnaire was closed just before Christmas Eve. The questionnaire was designed to only take 5-7 minutes to complete and we decided to keep it short so more people would take the time to answer it. Based on our own experiences, questionnaires that are long and complicated are less likely to be answered. The questions were developed based on the literature review and after discussing it between us. The final questionnaire has 12 mandatory questions and 1 voluntary question. However, with physical copies not all mandatory questions were answered which might cause a credibility issue that we need to consider when analyzing the answers. We chose to include the voluntary question to see if anyone had anything else they would like to add, which would give us further insight into their thoughts.

The 12 mandatory questions are a combination of multiple choice questions, long and short answers along with one question that allows for the respondent to grade how they are affected by tourism in their area. First, to establish a baseline, we asked for the sex and age of the respondent and then which municipality they live in. To allow for more people to answer our questionnaire we decided to include people who work and/or live in the

15 (81)

Glasriket area, so the following question was which municipality they work in. Further, we asked what they think of tourism in Glasriket and what they think of the high numbers of ​ tourists in Glasriket during the peak season. The main topic of this study is the perception ​ ​ of tourism impacts by residents in Glasriket, so naturally the most important question is ​ ​ related to tourism impacts. To make it easier for the respondents to answer, we decided to divide the tourism impacts into negative and positive and provide options for them to choose. We also asked a series of questions in regards to if they have experienced any effects in their daily lives and how often they interact with tourists. As we are currently living during a pandemic (2020-2021), we wanted to include one question regarding COVID-19 so we asked if the residents had experienced any differences between the summer of 2020 and previous summers. Then we asked if there were any changes within tourism that they would like to see in Glasriket and if there was anything else they would ​ ​ like to add.

2.4. Ethical aspects

It is important to consider the research ethics when gathering the empirical material. We chose some criteria that the respondents had to fulfill for their answers to be included in the study, which could lead to slightly different results than if we had had other criteria. Further, we are aware that it is important to be critical towards any sources we have collected and to be critical of our own knowledge which might affect the outcome of our research and study. We have to be aware that it is possible that some of our respondents may not answer our questions truthfully as it might make them look bad even though their answers are anonymous and will only be used for our research paper. We also have to consider that everyone may not answer all of the questions.

We have decided to use the European code of conduct for research integrity and the ​ ​ ethical rules. According to the ALLEA European code of conduct for research integrity ​ (2017), research is the search for knowledge that can be received through experimentation and observations but also by doing a systematic study or thinking. ALLEA (2017) also says that every good research practice has principles of research integrity that they are based on. There are four principles that guide the researchers in their work but also their

16 (81)

engagement: Reliability: makes sure of the quality of the research and that it shows in the ​ ​ methodology, analysis, design and also the use of resources. Honesty: the researcher needs ​ ​ to be honest about everything that they do in a full, transparent and unbiased way when they review, develop, report and communicate their research. Respect: the researcher has ​ ​ to show respect for the environment, society, cultural heritage, research participants and colleagues. Accountability: the researcher is responsible for their research, from the very ​ ​ first idea to actually publishing it, for the management, supervision, mentoring and training (if it is needed) and also for the impacts it can have.

As mentioned before, the questionnaire was kept short so more people could answer it but we would also not know if the respondents answered them truthfully or not. We hope by using a variety of multiple choice questions and open answer questions, that the respondents will answer them as truthfully as possible. We take full responsibility and accountability for the results of this questionnaire and the research paper. As we chose to use the snowball effect to share our questionnaire, we have to keep in mind that it could spread very quickly and reach people who do not match our criteria. According to Bryman (2011) the validity of a study is based on how reliable the collected data is and the possibility to form conclusions based on the data. Furthermore, Bryman (2011) explains reliability as how relevant the chosen data collection method is for the purpose of the study. Based on this, we can conclude that the validity of our study is quite high as our respondents have knowledge about the topic we want to investigate and the reliability of our study might not be the highest because we only received 74 answers to our questionnaire, which is too low of a number of respondents to make any generalizations about our topic. Further, Bryman (2011) also says that results from a study using the snowball effect cannot be generalized because it is not representative of a population. Since we chose participants from a limited population and because we used the snowball effect, we probably will not be able to make a generalization based on our study’s results. However, with our study results and the high level of validity, we can give an indication of what residents in Glasriket think about tourism effects as our respondents have first hand ​ ​ experience of potential tourism effects in the Glasriket area. ​ ​

17 (81)

2.5. Limitations

We realized that there are several limitations to our study that had to be considered beforehand and during the research process such as the validity of our study. One example is that we do not always have access to articles unless we want to pay for them or we would need a specific email address which we do not have nor could we get one. We had to adjust our search perimeters when we realized that the information we wanted on tourism impacts on smaller destinations is limited. Another limitation is that several of our sources are over 10 years old and may not be as relevant or reliable as when they were written. We also had time and money constraints so we had to change our previous ideas of how to conduct our research study. For example, we would have liked to randomly send out the questionnaire through mail to residents in the Glasriket area but this idea would ​ have taken a lot more time and money than we had. This idea also would have had similar limitations as the online questionnaire we decided on, as it is possible that several respondents would not answer the questionnaire at all. As we could not travel to Glasriket ​ to perform interviews or hand out questionnaires due to the COVID-19 pandemic and stricter traveling restrictions, we finally decided to conduct our study through an online questionnaire instead, as it was the better option with the pandemic and time and money constraints. An online questionnaire is also a more environmentally friendly option as it means that less paper being used, no car is needed to get around and it is a more time efficient option. With our criteria, there is a small risk of the credibility of our study being lower than if we had chosen to not include any questionnaires or questions that are missing answers. Due to the low amount of total answers, we decided to include questionnaires that might be missing answers to some questions.

Confirmation bias According to Nickerson (1998) confirmation bias is the concept used to describe when somebody seeks to find evidence to confirm the personal beliefs, expectations or theories. This means that we, unintentionally, seek information that confirms what we are looking for and by doing so, ignore any information that might contradict our own theories and beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). Based on this, it was important for us to thoroughly make sure

18 (81)

that we were not conducting our study to find evidence for our own beliefs but to answer our research question. It was equally important to make sure that we looked at our research question from different perspectives and thus seek information that might contradict our own theories about this topic. Confirmation bias can affect how and from where we collect our information as well as what information we seek and do collect. Whether we succeeded in doing this or not, remains to be seen.

19 (81)

3. Literature review

In the third chapter we will further explain the important aspects of this research paper. First, we will explain ‘destination’ and then discuss rural tourism to provide further background before continuing with the triple bottom line. We will discuss the different tourism impacts (sociocultural, economic and environmental) and connect them to Glasriket as a destination. ​

3.1. Destination

Destination has previously been defined in this research paper, with a definition provided by Framke (2002), and it gives an insight into what a destination could possibly be. Another perspective or definition is given by the UNWTO and the United Nations:

“The main destination of a tourism trip is defined as the place visited that is central to the decision to take the trip. However, if no such place can be identified by the visitor, the main destination is defined as the place where he/she spent most of his/her time during the trip. Again, if no such place can be identified by the visitor, then the main destination is defined as the place that is the farthest from the place of usual residence” (United Nations, 2010:13).

A destination could thus be anything; an entire city, a smaller place in a city like a museum or something like Astrid Lindgrens Värld in Vimmerby, Sweden or Disneyworld in Florida, United States of America. Destinations can also be different for different people. According to Page and Connell (2009) there is a model called TALC created by Rickard Butler. TALC stands for Tourist Area Lifecycle. This model describes how a tourist destination develops over time and helps to understand how recreational places and destinations can develop over time. According to Butler’s TALC model there are five phases and then a destination can go into one of two phases, depending on the development of the destination.

20 (81)

Bohlin and Elbe (2007) describes the first of the five phases as an exploration phase which is when a place or destination is first discovered by somebody. Here, the local inhabitants are a very important part of the destination and an important cooperation partner. It is still possible to make changes and start to build the product and the infrastructure of a destination. The second phase is the involvement phase which has the most focus on the cooperation with the local inhabitants. This is when marketing the place or destination starts and it is marketed to a specific target group. The amount of visitors is increasing. Development is phase three when the place starts to develop from focusing on one target group, to a more broad and varied group of visitors. More focus on marketing and less focus on cooperation with the locals. Bohlin and Elbe (2007) further explains that the fourth phase is consolidation, which is probably the most important phase. The economy of the area is becoming more dependent on tourism and a lot of energy is put into marketing. Nothing new is created but more focus is on the existing market supply. This phase is important for the future of the tourism product.

The final phase of the five is stagnation. This is the phase where the tourism product's success starts to sway and considerations need to be made about how to push the tourism product forward. How can the tourism product be changed and improved or developed further? There are several aspects to why stagnation happens. One aspect is that the place is well-known and popular but does not receive any tourists who have already visited before. This means that all tourists are new and those who have visited before are not interested in visiting again. Or it could be that tourists do not want to visit places with a lot of other tourists and potential overcrowding. Another aspect is that man-made attractions such as casinos are more attractive for tourists (Bohlin and Elbe, 2007).

Bohlin and Elbe (2007) explains that after a destination has gone through the five phases, decisions have to be made. Depending on which changes are made or not, the next phase could be rejuvenation or decline. This means that if changes are made then the destination could go into a rejuvenation phase and start to for example attract tourists again. Meanwhile, if no changes are made then the destination enters a decline phase which

21 (81)

would mean that tourists chose other destinations with similar attractions and then the destination stops attracting tourists.

3.2. Rural tourism

Previously, we provided a definition of rural tourism as a concept, given by Loureiro (2014). This definition was “a market niche in the countryside, which involves lodgings with a small number of beds and a set of possible activities such as appreciating landscape, eating and drinking regional food and wine, visiting regional fairs, or learning how to make handicrafts”. We feel that this definition fits our research paper better because the Glasriket area is mostly focused on glass works and has developed around this particular ​ handicraft. This is also something that we feel has drawn a lot of people out to the countryside and rural areas. In 2020, because of COVID-19, ‘staycation’ seemed to have become a more popular thing. Travelling within your own country or around the area you live in to try and stop the virus from spreading has also given people the opportunity to see places that they might not have gone to otherwise.

Both Pesonen and Komppula (2010) and Komppula (2014) write that in some countries, rural tourism is the same thing as farm tourism or nature tourism. Depending on where a person is from, ‘rural tourism’ can mean different things, even for people living in the same country. What rural tourism is for us might not be what rural tourism is for someone else. UNWTO’s (2019:34) definition of rural tourism is: “a type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s experience is related to a wide range of products generally linked to nature-based activities, agriculture, rural lifestyle/culture, angling and sightseeing.” In our experience this definition seems to be what a lot of people associate with rural tourism; the agriculture, the nature and fishing. In a lot of people’s minds, ‘rural’ might be imagined as a barn or a couple of houses somewhere surrounded by meadows or fields where there are no internet or cell-phone reception. In some cases that is what ‘rural’ does look like but rural tourism is a lot more. It is little villages and smaller communities that are just as modern as cities.

22 (81)

Urbanisation is usually associated with cities and cities’ development and how it changes and evolves over time but it is something that happens everywhere (Andersson et al., 2017). The ability to actually become more urbanised wildly differs between municipalities, depending on if their population is growing or decreasing. A growing population can have problems like not enough places to live and segregation while a decreasing population can have less investments and resources to build new houses. Cities are still growing more than rural areas (Syssner et al., 2017) since it is in the cities that most things are; like jobs, shopping and places like museums and theaters. Some people prefer to live as close to their place of work as possible so that they do not have to put a lot of time travelling back and forth every day, while other people do not mind the travel if it means that they can live somewhere that is a little more quiet and has more space. In our experience while working in Kosta during the summers, Lessebo municipality (where Kosta is located) is doing what they can to become more urbanised and modern as well. One example of this is that they have put up charging stations in different communities in the municipality where people with electric cars, or hybrids, can charge their cars while they are shopping. It is important for smaller communities, like the ones in Glasriket, to try ​ ​ to keep up with the demand of things like housing options, grocery stores, charging stations so that they can continue to attract people to the area, both to visit but also to move there.

Andersson et al. (2017) mentions that it is important for municipalities to work together instead of seeing each other as competition, which some might do. One municipality might be better at one thing while another municipality is better at something else. If they work together and maybe make it easier for people to travel in-between the municipalities by public transport, then it could be a more attractive place for people to visit or even move to. The four municipalities in Glasriket are doing their best to do this, to work together to ​ ​ make it as easy as possible for the people who are visiting the area to, for example, receive information. If they actually succeed in doing this is only something that the visitors, and residents, can answer.

23 (81)

3.3. Triple Bottom Line

According to Norman and MacDonald (2004), Kenton (2020) and Wikipedia (2020 C) the phrase ‘triple bottom line’ was coined by the British management consultant John Elkington in 1994. It was his way to examine and measure performance in corporate America. TBL believes that companies should focus just as much on the environmental and social concerns as they do on profits so that there are three bottom lines (profit, people and planet) instead of just one. ‘People’ are the employees, the workers involved in a company, but it is also a way to see how much society benefits from a company, a ‘social bottom line’ if you will. A company that uses TBL should pay fair wages and make sure that the working conditions in their factories are humane. They should also make an effort to give back to the community. The ‘planet’ part might be self explanatory and it is obviously about taking care of the planet in TBL as well. Global warming is a big issue and everyone has to do their part to help. A company or an organisation using TBL should do their best to reduce their ecological footprint as much as possible. For example, be more efficient with natural resources, reduce waste, improve logistics and invest in renewable energy. ‘Profit’ has been the bottom line but for TBL businesses it is just one part of their plan (Kenton, 2020). The issue with using TBL is that depending on which approach we chose to use, the results will be different from the same study but with a different approach.

According to Kenton (2020) “TBL theory also says that if a company focuses on finances only and does not examine how it interacts socially, then that company is not able to see the whole picture, so cannot account for the full cost of doing business.” Companies should be working on the three bottom lines at the same time but it can be challenging, especially to try to measure the environmental and social bottom lines. Profitability is quantitative but what makes up environmental and social responsibility is more of a subjective thing.

24 (81)

Kenton (2020) gives an example of; how do you put monetary value on an oil spill, or preventing one? Ignoring TBL in the name of profits can lead to some really bad things like damage to the ozone layer, the rainforest being destroyed and exploitation of labour. Every company wants to maximise their profits and to do that they probably hire the least expensive labour possible while getting rid of their waste in the cheapest way possible. Doing that will most likely result in the best possible profit for the company but it would probably result in horrible working conditions for the labourers and harming the natural environment and the people that live there. “Profits do matter in the triple bottom line—just not at the expense of social and environmental concerns.” (Kenton, 2020). In tourism, people represent sociocultural factors while profit represents the economic factors and the planet represents the environmental factors.

Norman and MacDonald (2004) argue that some businesses or people only use TBL to make themselves look good to the public and say that TBL promises more than it can deliver. The ‘social bottom line’ is brought up as an example of how it is not clear how companies report, measure or calculate it. Most businesses do keep records of their employees by having information about their gender and/or ethnicity and marketing departments try to track customer satisfaction. As far as we know, there is actually no kind of methodology done for the TBL, especially not for the social/people part. That means that companies can say whatever they want when asked about their ‘social bottom line’ because there is nothing to argue against them and since we do not know what the answer should be. The environmental and social bottom lines can not be measured in currency, something else needs to be used but it seems like it is up to each business to decide how they measure ‘planet’ and ‘people’. It could be looked at by how and who the company might donate money to; an orphanage or maybe a theater? But judging a company by who or what they donate money to is quite impossible (Norman and MacDonald, 2004). Who can say that donating money to an orphanage is better than donating money to a struggling theater? There are a lot of facts and information that needs to be considered before judging anyone; be it a business or a single person.

25 (81)

“While the triple bottom line approach is already embedded in the corporate business environment, it has been adapted and applied to wider tourism policies.” (Wise, 2016:31). When considering future development and planning, especially in areas that are between two cities, scholars continuously think about the role that the tourism and leisure industry has. The aim is not only to transform the economic side of things but also to promote new environmental and social agendas that are relevant to the “three key contexts of sustainability” in TBL. TBL can be used to assess sustainability and having a sustainable development and management is an important thing among social scientists and they use that to evaluate trends in both tourism practices and urban environments (Wise, 2016). Having a lot of tourists visit one place can absolutely have a positive impact on the destination’s economy but it can also put a lot of stress and pressure on both the destination and its environment.

Wise (2016) writes that it is a challenge because people from different countries and cultures may have different views on the environment and have different regulations where they are from. This can lead to misunderstandings and tourists thinking that it is okay to leave their litter in places where it is not. With TBL the focus and drive is more often than not on income and reviving and sustaining the economy but it has also become more and more about the people and planet (social and environmental sustainability) (Wise, 2016). Stoddard et al. (2012) writes that only being motivated by or focused on the economic part can lead to market failure, which means that it is important for both the economy and the society to work together more. The economy and society are getting more and more attention and that requires organisations to become aware of their environmental and social impacts and to figure out more sustainable options and practices.

In the Brundtland Commission report that was written in 1987, sustainable development was described as something that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations” (Stoddard et al., 2012:234) and sustainable tourism seems to be more and more common around the world. Many larger organisations are doing what they can and developing strategies to become more sustainable in every way, not just in the environmental way. For example, ecotourism has become quite big and it is defined as

26 (81)

“responsible travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and improves the welfare of local people” (Stoddard et al., 2012:245). TBL is a thing that is important but should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. As previously mentioned, it is hard to know what it actually is and has many critics because of that (Stoddard et al., 2012). Tourism is an industry that depends on its resources, no other industry’s economic success is so dependent on the success of local communities and the preservation of the environment and culture. Supporting the local communities, preserving the environment and financial growth are all important aspects of tourism and therefore TBL is being used more and more and focuses on the future of tourism and promotes everything local, like businesses and nature. If the economy grows then money can be invested in preserving the environment and also to educate the locals so that the future tourism industry is maintained, competitive and that the resources are not exhausted but sustained (Wise, 2016). Ensuring that the future for our children and grandchildren is secure and that they do not have to worry is something very important for a lot of people and everyone needs to do their part to ensure that it happens. One person can not do everything but everyone can do something.

3.4. Tourism effects

There are many different types of tourism effects and ways that tourism can impact destinations and the local inhabitants’ lives. It is important to understand how and why tourism can have impacts and lasting effects. It is also important to manage the positive and negative impacts caused by tourism (Garrigós-Simón et al., 2015). Socio-cultural ​ ​ impacts and environmental impacts are less discussed than economic impacts are. Because of this, we have decided to focus on not only the economic effects of tourism but also the social, cultural and environmental effects as well as residents’ attitudes towards tourism and tourism effects.

Socio-cultural effects of tourism Socio-cultural impacts caused by tourism include any impacts by tourism that affects the daily life of residents and the local culture. There has been a major focus in research regarding tourism impacts on residents and their perceptions of tourism impacts (see

27 (81)

Andereck et al., 2005 and Jaafar et al., 2017). Andereck et al. (2005) states that tourism can have negative impacts on the quality of life for residents. Crowding, traffic congestion, parking problems, increased cost of living, conflicts with tourists and changes for residents’ daily lives. Postma and Schmuecker (2017) state that tourism can cause conflicts between residents and visitors because of the effects tourism has on a destination and the residents’ daily lives. One example is irritation and annoyance among residents due to the amount of tourists.

Another is that with an increased number of tourists, facilities such as restaurants, museums, shops and hotels may be harder to access or possibly be inaccessible for residents, despite not only being for tourists. This overlap of usage could cause residents annoyance and interrupt their daily activities. Hall and Lew (2009) provides an example of this. They argue that tourists in Hawaii outnumber the local residents by over six to one. With more tourists than local residents, it is something that could lead to conflicts within the communities on Hawaii if the tourists are too loud, impolite, litter or do not understand how things work on the islands. Another example of how conflict can happen between tourists and locals is during the summers when people migrate to the beaches and park their cars wherever they want. This also causes problems for emergency services, stopping them from actually reaching the beach if someone would need their help (Strömberg, 2019).

Another impact caused by tourism is rising prices as stated by Capocchi (2019). This impact is mostly economic but can also have effects on the social and cultural lives of residents. Local inflation can be a major economic issue for a destination and for the residents who are affected the most by the rise in prices of residential housing, food, services and goods. An overflow of tourists will cause problems for public transportation and hospitals which also affects the local residents in the long run (Capocchi, 2019). The issue of rising prices causes problems in residents’ social and cultural lives by making facilities and services less available for them as they no longer have the opportunity or means to take advantage of them. Residents who can no longer take part in local events and social activities might suffer because of tourism. They may not be able to spend time

28 (81)

with their friends or go to local museums. Stylidis et al. (2014) argues that tourism provides the opportunity for cultural exchange but can also cause more crimes. More crime could make residents feel less safe where they work or live which might impact their daily lives. Cultural differences can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts between tourists and residents, as with the Hawaii example given by Hall and Lew (2009).

To us it is clear that socio-cultural effects caused by tourism are less researched and have had less focus in research. Socio-cultural effects vary from person to person and what the individual person thinks of tourism. Someone who works within the tourism industry or places that may receive both locals and other visitors, such as restaurants and shopping centers, might perceive the social effects caused by tourism in a different way than someone who does not. A person with a specific cultural background or extended knowledge about different cultures may see tourists in a different light than others because of their experiences and background. There might also be a difference regarding other factors such as age and gender. Therefore, we have decided that it is important for us to determine which social and cultural tourism impacts the local residents in Glasriket ​ perceive as positive and negative as well as their age and sex. Further, the socio-cultural effects of tourism led us to include where they live and where they work. These two questions were also used to establish a baseline so we could see who works and/or lives in the area we have selected as an example for our study. We then decided to include two other questions regarding what they think of tourism and tourists and how often the resident interacts with tourists, because it is important to know if there is a connection between the interaction with tourists and the residents’ perception of tourism impacts. Perhaps the interaction between tourists and residents affect the residents’ perception of tourism impacts.

Environmental effects of tourism Tourism can have a huge impact on the environment. Impacts on the environment include air pollution, water pollution, littering and potentially destroying ecological life systems. Liu et al. (1987) argues that little research has been made on the residents’ perception of tourism impacts on the environment. According to both Wise (2016) and Stylidis et al.

29 (81)

(2014) it might be necessary for a destination to make it more attractive to tourists so they will visit but it could also lead to pollution and congestion. Almeida-Garcia et al. (2014) argues that tourism could be one way to preserve and protect resources but it could also be the cause of damaging or destroying resources such as fragile nature places. Furthermore, according to Almeida-Garcia et al. (2014), some residents value preservation of natural resources through tourism and some argue that tourism causes pollution. Hall and Lew (2009) argue that the relationship between economic benefits of tourism and the environment is complex and highly impacts each other. Liu et al. (1987) write that negative environmental impacts caused by tourism could for example be crowding and traffic congestion, noise, litter, pollution, changes in the community’s appearance, property destruction and other things that impact the residents’ lifestyles.

Further, Liu et al. (1987) also mention some positive effects on the environment such as more and better development of facilities for both tourists and residents to use, recognition of saving historical buildings and things like pollution control and development of infrastructure to be positive environmental aspects. Development of infrastructure is often seen as something positive from an accessibility perspective and especially in relation to tourism development (Liu et al., 1987). Development of infrastructure affects the environment and can therefore be considered, in some ways, an environmental effect of tourism. Without well-developed infrastructure, it would be harder for destinations to attract tourists and for tourists to get to the destination as well as for tourists to get around at the destination. This is a major problem in developing countries (Sambhanthan and Good, 2013), and in rural areas. Sambhanthan and Good (2013) also argues that another accessibility problem is destinations and tourism attractions that cannot accommodate elderly tourists and tourists with impairments.

Stoddard et al. (2012) point out that our natural resources like forests, minerals, soil and fish have been taken for granted even though those are some of the things that we depend on to exist. “Wealth that destroys the basis of life is no wealth at all.” (Stoddard et al., 2012:243). Mass tourism is a promoter of mass consumption and puts a strain on our resources and heritage sites in cities that take damage from all the pollution (Wise, 2016).

30 (81)

Rural areas probably take less pollution damage but if it is an attraction that people have to walk to then the actual ground and nature take damage instead. One example of this is the world’s oldest tree organism called ‘Old Tjikko’, estimated to be 9,550 years old. It is a tree in Fulufjället’s national park in Sweden and because of the COVID-19 pandemic a lot of people were hiking in the national park during the summer of 2020. Now the lichen and moss that have been protecting the roots have been worn away and the roots are exposed because of all the visitors that have been there to see the tree. This is not just because of this summer but has been something that has been going on for years since the visitors have just been walking too close to the tree (Lind, 2020).

Environmental protection is not just limited to the actual physical environment, it is also for cultural landscapes and historical sites. Protecting the environment will also protect its landscape and history since once a historic site gets damaged or even removed, the attraction will not be as interesting to visitors anymore (Wise, 2016). People tend to get bored easily so keeping the attraction or destination in good condition is very important but the destinations and attractions also need to be protected to make sure that future generations also will be able to enjoy what they have to offer.

There are environmental effects everywhere and sometimes it is hard to know if it is because of tourism or because of other factors. We wanted to include all sorts of tourism impacts and not only the most common ones so we decided to include environmental impacts such as littering and traffic congestion because these impacts are made by people and are more specific for destinations. Therefore these impacts seemed appropriate to include rather than for example climate change. We wanted to keep the questionnaire short, so instead of separating the effects into three or four different types of impacts (social, cultural, environmental and economic), we chose to have two different questions and sort the impacts as positive or negative. This allows us to study if the residents perceive certain tourism impacts as positive or negative and not if they belong to a certain type of impact.

31 (81)

Economic effects of tourism Travel and tourism are important elements of the world economy. Economic effects in tourism can be both tangible (measured in monetary terms) and intangible (cannot be measured in monetary terms or amount). A tangible effect could be more tourists staying at a hotel which leads to more income for the hotel and more jobs there. An intangible effect could be prices going up because of the increased demand from visitors, which might lead to the government raising taxes a little so that they can use the money to finance the infrastructure needed to deal with the increased number of visitors (Mayer and Vogt, 2016).

Travelling and tourism both generate more job opportunities and tax revenues but also make it possible for other industries to develop and create supporting businesses and provide attractive leisure environments in a lot of locations. Travel and tourism bring a lot of outside tourist money into a destination, which helps to grow the local economy and a strong local economy could benefit education and health programmes (Hall and Lew, 2009). It could lead to even more businesses and job opportunities. Lee and Syah (2018) agree with the fact that a destination that has a lot of tourism has higher profits for the local businesses and stakeholders, less unemployment and that it is more likely to have better infrastructure, like public transport, that helps both local residents and tourists. Not everything is positive though. Hall and Lew (2009) further states that a lot of destinations are dependent on tourism and having tourists visit their location to survive and in some places, like Hawaii, the tourists even outnumber the locals. Being dependent on tourism to survive can cause local cultures to abandon their traditional work and culture in favour of trying to make money from the tourists by making and offering them ‘cultural’ souvenirs.

Other examples of negative tourism effects are inflation, the cost of making the infrastructure better, economic dependence and financial leakage. Financial leakage is something that happens when tourists stay at an hotel in for example Spain that is owned by a company in another country since most of the money the tourists spend at that hotel will not go to the destination they are at in Spain or the local businesses there (Kumar et

32 (81)

al., 2015). Upgrading and fixing the infrastructure costs money and less developed countries will struggle with keeping up with the demands of international tourists since they want the standard of living that they are used to. An increased cost of living for the local residents and the relatively low pay within the tourism sector might actually drive people to leave their community if they can not afford to live there anymore and a decrease in the traditional local population will decrease the amount of workers available (Hall and Lew, 2009).

As with both socio-cultural and environmental effects we wanted to use the different types of impacts, to see if the residents perceive them as positive or negative. Economic impacts have gained more attention in research than environmental and socio-cultural. It was important for us to have the three different types because we wanted to see different angles of potential tourism impacts. We want to give more focus in research to environmental, social and cultural impacts but also not exclude the economic impacts. It seemed like if we did exclude economic impacts then we would not conduct a fair and comprehensive study.

Seasonality Seasonality is a global phenomenon that almost every tourist destination is affected by and there is a lot of literature that discusses this concept and considers it to be some kind of problem that has to be solved (Vergori, 2017). Pegg et al. (2012) writes that the reduction in business revenue is the biggest negative impact for the tourism industry.

There are two different types of seasonality; institutionalized and natural. Institutionalized seasonality is based on our decisions as humans and is more unpredictable than natural seasonality. It is actually a combination of religious, cultural and social factors. An example of a very common institutionalized seasonality are holidays since school holidays clearly influence when families choose to travel. Natural seasonality on the other hand, is the common variations in the climate like daylight, sun, rain, snow and temperature just to mention a few examples. The further away the destination is from the equator the more this seasonal variation increases (Baum, 1999; and Vergori, 2017). Pegg et al. (2012) argues that destinations are often challenged during the ‘off-season’ to keep their businesses going

33 (81)

and to find ways to survive when there are not so many tourists around. People that work during the peak season are forced to find other jobs since they cannot live on only being paid during three to six out of twelve months. Seasonal work is often cited as ‘negative’ and is also regarded as inferior to other jobs since it can be unreliable and more often than not lack the security that one would like in a job and the opportunity for career progression. The managers also struggle since they have to find and recruit new employees every season. It is during peak season that overcrowding can occur (Pegg et al., 2012) and when the peak season is, depends on what the attraction is. If it is skiing then the peak season is winter and if it is the sun and swimming then the peak season is most likely summer.

Pegg et al. (2012) continues to say that the overcrowding that can happen during the peak season can lead to the overuse of the infrastructure and a very heavy demand on services. This leads to more people being hired but they might not have the right skills for the job which could reduce the quality of service and the usual attention to detail. The reduction in service quality and detail does not just affect the tourists, it affects the local residents too and could in some instances make the locals resent the tourists and wish that they would go somewhere else. Even the local culture could change and become something else just to please and try to keep the tourists coming back. Furthermore, they say that there are also environmental effects of seasonality. Many destinations have a lot of pressure on them during certain times of the year that greatly affect the environment of that place. For example, alpine areas are considered threatened wilderness because of all the traffic, damage to the mountainous areas and the intense use of the natural resources by skiers and snowboarders during the winter season (Pegg et al., 2012).

One problem for rural destinations and the countryside in general is that it is usually quite remote and hard to get to, which is obvious since it is rural after all. It is essential for tourism that the visitors can get around but sometimes that is not so easy. Some locations might have infrastructure that does not work well with the large flow of visitors that happens during certain times of the year. According to Dickinson and Robbins (2008) almost all studies that examine the impacts of tourism say that tourism related traffic is a

34 (81)

problem and might even be the single, most negative impact. Some examples of this can be parking stress, congestion and even noise and air quality going down because of all the new cars coming in. Using one’s car even though it is bad for the environment is a dilemma most people have. Most car users and car owners are aware of the impact cars make but they still continue to use them since it is easier and saves more time than taking public transport.

According to Dickinson and Robbins (2008) there have been studies that show that about half of all tourists questioned the link between tourism and climate change but that they know little about the impact they make as tourists. Other studies say that the personal benefits of going on holiday exceed the concern about the environmental impact. They continue to say that visitor traffic can create tensions with the locals and can also threaten the natural attributes that drew people to the area in the first place (Dickinson and Robbins, 2008). Further, it can be discussed that tourism activities in rural areas depend a lot on visitors having their own car or at least having access to one by renting or borrowing from someone they know. The attractions can often be spread out and might even be far from a main road which can make them difficult to get to if the visitors have not been there before. More often than not the public transport is usually not very good in rural places. The trains or buses leave very rarely and make it hard for the residents, and the visitors, to get anywhere without a car.

Accessibility is definitely a problem that large parts of Glasriket also have. The cities ​ ​ Nybro and Lessebo have train stations but if the tourists want to visit the even smaller destinations like Kosta, Orrefors or Målerås they have to take the bus. The buses go so rarely that it is a lot easier for visitors to just take their own cars since that also means that they do not have to stress to get to the bus stop on time. Glasriket itself is an area that ​ ​ covers four municipalities and some attractions are pretty close to each other while others are further away. For the attractions that are further away from each other, for example the glass factories, a car is more important because it is not possible to walk to each attraction.

35 (81)

Pegg et al. (2012) writes that there are positive effects of seasonality as well and that seasonality might actually be beneficial for certain stakeholders. How? The off-season is often the time where a business takes the time to make renovations or changes and the local residents will get time to relax and recover from the overwhelming amount of visitors during the peak season. The off-season “provides a definite light at the end of the tunnel for individuals and communities alike” (Pegg et al., 2012:661). The off-season is when the locals can return to their normal routines again and do their social and cultural activities and use the local facilities and amenities without being inconvenienced by the tourists.

After discussing seasonality, we decided that we wanted to include seasonality in some way in our questionnaire. Seasonality is a major factor within the tourism industry and especially for smaller destinations or for destinations that are linked to a certain season, such as ski resorts. There are potential issues with seasonality that we wanted to investigate and if this might have some impact on the destination and/or the residents. This discussion led to one seasonality specific question: the Glasriket area receives high numbers of ​ ​ tourists every summer and way less during the rest of the year, what do you think about this?

Residents’ attitudes towards tourism impacts Tourism impacts have been studied since the 1960s and residents’ attitudes towards tourism impacts started to gain attention in the 1970s. Since then, there have been different studies with both empirical and theoretical research regarding residents’ attitudes (Almeida-Garcia et al., 2014). Further, it is argued by Almeida-Garcia et al. (2014) that while there has been much research and many studies into the impacts of tourism from the perceptions of residents, most has been focused on destinations in the US and the developed world. They also state that the data they have found is conflicting and is not suitable for all types of destinations. Garau-Vadell et al. (2016) says that residents’ support for tourism depends on their own perception of tourism impacts on their communities. According to Muler Gonzalez et al. (2017) there have been several studies about perceptions of tourism impacts. Some of these studies claim that there is little to no

36 (81)

difference in how women and men perceive tourism impacts while other studies claim that there is some difference in perceptions.

Almeida-Garcia et al. (2014) also say that one aspect of tourism that residents dislike the most is the seasonality. While tourism provides more opportunities for employment, it also means that a lot of the job options are irregular and only during the peak season. This makes it hard for residents to make a decent living during the off-season. Furthermore, as previously stated by Andereck et al. (2005) tourism could have negative effects on the quality of life for residents, like seasonality and job insecurity. Garau-Vadell et al. (2016) argues that economic crises like “the global financial and economic crisis” in 2007, will also have an effect on residents’ attitudes towards tourism because of the job insecurity, high unemployment, the feeling of uncertainty and the loss of income.

Andereck et al. (2005) says that some studies show that there is resident support for positive cultural aspects of tourism such as entertainment and historical and cultural exhibits. Tourism can be used for cultural exchange and events. Furthermore, it is said that residents do not always perceive tourism as having an effect on crime rates and that residents support tourism because it encourages cultural activities in general and more recreational activities. Garau-Vadell et al. (2016) states that residents seem to perceive tourism as something positive if it benefits them. Almeida-Garcia (2014) argues that tourism has impacts on habits, customs, social, beliefs and the values of residents at the tourist destination. It can either create new social and cultural possibilities or create problems for residents, which will impact their perception of tourism impacts.

Residents’ attitudes towards tourism and tourism impacts is a well researched topic and we discussed potential questions in regards to this and more specific tourism impacts at length because we wanted to keep the questions as simple as possible and the questionnaire short. Furthermore, when deciding on which questions to include, we wanted to have questions that are specific to the different types of tourism impacts as well as how residents in previous studies have perceived them. One question about what the residents think about tourism was therefore included as well as a question regarding if they have experienced

37 (81)

any impacts caused by tourism on their daily lives. Further, we decided to include three more open questions to gain more insight into the residents’ thoughts or perceptions of tourism in the Glasriket area. ​ ​

One question we asked was regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and if the residents had noticed any differences this summer in comparison to the previous summer. Another question we decided on was if the residents would like to see any changes in relation to tourism in the Glasriket area and the final question was composed based on wanting to ​ know if they had anything else to add that we had not already asked about.

38 (81)

4. Study and results

In this chapter we will give some background into what Glasriket looks like and how it has ​ ​ expanded. We will then explain how we have conducted our study and collected our empirical material. We will also include the questions and the results of our study.

4.1. Glasriket background ​ ​ Glasriket is the name of an area in the southeast of Sweden where almost all of the glass ​ factories were built hundreds of years ago but there are so much more than just glass there now. The four municipalities; Nybro, Emmaboda, Lessebo and Uppvidinge, work together to make Glasriket into a destination that can appeal to everyone, both young and old. There ​ ​ is a website called Glasriket.se where all the active glass factories and most of the businesses and other attractions in Glasriket are gathered. That way it is easy for people ​ ​ who want to visit to be able to go to that website and figure out what they want to do and where they want to go. They might not want to visit a glass factory or buy glass but instead do other kinds of shopping or maybe go hiking, biking, canoeing, visit elk parks, food or some other kind of adventure or attraction in or around the Glasriket area. ​ ​

The tradition to make mouth-blown glass is hundreds of years old and the factories are close to each other but have their own unique identities. The end of the 1800s was the glass factories’ time, with 77 factories being established in Sweden and more than half of them were in Småland. The reason for this is because the large forests contributed with a lot of wood to the ovens that were used in the factories, the sand from the lakes were turned into glass and the water from the streams and creeks were needed to power the factories and so called grindery. There was also a lot of manpower; both skilled workers without jobs after the ironworks shut down and farmers who did not have work all year round (Glasriket, 2020 B).

39 (81)

In 1913, the Glasriket area had a total of 34 glass factories but the concept Glasriket did ​ ​ ​ ​ not yet exist. A total of 33 glass factories existed in Glasriket in 1963 and they became ​ ​ more modern and industrialized. In 1963 the area with all the glass factories started to become a tourist attraction and the concept Glasriket started to be used by local people. It ​ is said that the concept Glasriket was formed sometime during the 1960s by the tourist ​ ​ management chief for Kronobergs county and have since then developed into what it is today by the four municipalities (Lamke et al., 2013).

In 1916 the artist Simon Gate made his entrance in Orrefors and became some kind of pioneer in glass design. Many believe that it is the collaboration between the designers and the skilled glass blowers and craftsmen that is behind the factories’ success. Seeing these skilled workers do what they do is a spectacle and fascinating and most places invite the visitors to come into the factories so that they can watch how they actually make the vases and other types of glass since it might be hard to believe it otherwise. Today both the ‘bruks glas’, which is the glass that is used to eat or drink from, and the art glass that is ​ made in Glasriket holds world class. Every factory and place is different and have their ​ ​ own little quirks and the kind of glass they specialize in; colourful art glass, bowls, vases or even glass that have been recycled and made from old glass, so there is something for everyone (Glasriket, 2020 B).

Lamke et al. (2013) state that Glasriket in 2013 is now a tourist destination. During the ​ ​ years tourism has become more and more important as the glass production industry decreased. The map below explains the size of Glasriket as well as where in the Glasriket ​ ​ area all the current active glass factories are located. We chose to include this picture because it makes it easier to understand the size of the area we have chosen for our research.

40 (81)

Figure 2: A map over Glasriket, Småland, with all the active glass factories highlighted. Taken ​ ​ ​ from: https://swedenartglass.com/om-glasriket/ on 2020-11-22. ​ ​

Kosta glass factory is a popular attraction in Kosta, which is an important part of the Glasriket area. Kosta glass factory is the oldest still in production glass factory that we have in Sweden. The exploration phase for Kosta as a destination started in 1742 when two men from Karl XII:s guard founded Kosta glass factory. They founded the glass factory, naming the place and the glass factory after themselves (Glasriket, 2020 A). The second phase, involvement, began in 1750 when housing was built for the local glass blowers so they would have somewhere to live. For 150 years, the main production was glass of different types, for example for the royal family and chandeliers for churches. During the industrialization period, the demand for glass increased because more people now had

41 (81)

better incomes. After criticism, the idea of hiring specific artists to design the glas as part of the production process was born (Glasriket, 2020 A).

Another example for this phase was when during the middle of 1900s Bruno Mathsson, a Swedish furniture designer and architect was hired to design an exhibition hall and more housing for glass blowers. The supply for glass that was made in Kosta increased during the 1900s. The consolidation phase was at the beginning of the 21st century. The development of Kosta began to decrease. The Bruno Mathsson houses were renovated in 2007 and four out of five apartments were rented out with the fifth apartment being used for guided tours, to attract tourists. The stagnation phase for Kosta and Kosta glass factory started in 2005 when the glass factory was bought by New Wave Group (Wikipedia, 2019). During this period, several glass factories in Småland had to shut down and it was during this time when some important developments were made for the future of Kosta glass factory. In 2007, Kosta Outlet with several shops opened. In 2009, the Kosta Boda Art Hotel (also owned by NWG) was established (Kosta Boda Art Hotel, 2020) and tourists started to visit Kosta as a destination.

Today Kosta is a destination and tourists from all over the world visit it to take part in the amazing glass works production and many shopping opportunities. Based on the development during the last decade and our own experiences, it is easy to say that Kosta as a destination is still developing and together with the other glass factories and businesses, Glasriket as a destination continues to develop. The development of Kosta, and Glasriket, ​ is slowly going forward but will with time and new developments continue to grow. Today Kosta is a destination in itself and attracts tourists from all over the world every year. It is something unique to this area, with the communities and the collaboration between glass factories that have their own specialities.

4.2. The choice of questionnaire We decided on conducting a study through a questionnaire as it seemed the easiest and safest option during the COVID-19 pandemic. As mentioned before, digital video and/or email interviews were not chosen because we did not feel comfortable with those options

42 (81)

and because we chose to focus on the residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts rather than the perceptions of businesses, it just seemed like a better fit for the intended participants. We felt that a questionnaire would be easier for the residents to answer, both because of the COVID-19 pandemic and because it would take less time for them to answer our questions. A questionnaire would mean that everyone was treated the same, everyone got the same questions and options. Same possibilities for everyone. Misunderstandings through a questionnaire seemed unlikely and the likelihood of respondents not answering truthfully seemed very low as it would allow all respondents to be anonymous, even from us. Email and/or video interviews would have made it possible for respondents to be anonymous from the readers but not from us.

For the convenience of the respondents, we felt that the need to be anonymous would benefit them as the Glasriket area is a smaller area and in small villages and/or towns, ​ depending on the definition of it, most people would know each other and if not then somebody always know someone’s family in one way or another. As we wanted to investigate and see if there are any tourism impacts, through the perception of the residents, we wanted everyone to answer the same questions. Unstructured interviews through email or a digital video tool, was not the best option for our study.

4.3. Questions used for the empirical study

We started by asking for information about age and sex, which could be used to further analyse if age and sex have anything to do with their perception of tourism impacts, as the possibility have been argued by Bagri and Kala (2016). The questionnaire itself was in Swedish as we conducted this study in Sweden. The questions, and answers, have then been translated by us to be included in this research paper. For our study we intend to find out if the local inhabitants of small communities or villages in the Glasriket area have ​ experienced any effects or impacts caused by tourism. First, we started by providing some background information about the study. We decided to keep it short and just introduce the area we are conducting our study within and which group of people we are mainly interested in receiving answers from. We also stated that all answers would be anonymous and that it is for our research paper. We also included a short description of our research

43 (81)

question and explained what a tourist could be. Our final questionnaire has 13 questions, of which 12 are mandatory to answer. In our questionnaire we first asked for the sex of the respondent and then the age, so we could later on see if there are any major differences in the ways people answer the questions, and most importantly if maybe there are some connections between how they perceive tourism impacts based on age and sex. For the sex of the respondent option, we provided three options: male and female, followed by an open box where anyone who does not identify with being either a male or female could write themselves. We chose this option instead of just stating ‘other’, as we wish to respect anyone who identifies as something other than male or female. For the age question we decided to provide options of age ranges starting with under 18 and ending with 71+.

After these two initial questions, we decided to ask which municipality the respondents live and work in. These two questions were used to create a baseline so we could know if they lived and/or worked within the Glasriket area. For the first one of the municipality ​ questions we provided five options. One option each for the four municipalities that Glasriket is made up of and the one free option so that anyone who does not live in those ​ municipalities could state which municipality or place they live in. The work question was a short answer question where the respondents could simply write which municipality or place they live in. These two questions were not only used to create a baseline but also to make sure that once we compose the results. This means that any answers given by somebody who does not live or work in the Glasriket area will not be included in the ​ ​ overall results of the study. Next, we asked what the respondent thinks about tourism in the area where they live and/or work and then we asked what they think about Glasriket ​ receiving large amounts of visitors in the high season (the summer) compared to other seasons. For these two questions, the respondents had a longer space for writing their answer.

We decided to ask separate questions about which negative and positive effects they think there are in the area where they work and/or live. In the pilot questionnaire, those two questions were combined into one. After talking to the respondents to the pilot questionnaire, we decided to separate them so it would be easier for the respondents to

44 (81)

recognize which impacts would be considered negative and positive. This also made it easier for us to know which impacts they have perceptions of as negative and/or positive. For these two questions we provided alternatives, and all the respondents had to do was check the boxes they agreed with. We chose this type of question because it would make it faster to answer the questionnaire as well as the respondent would not have to come up with the effects themselves, which might be hard to do. Next question was a scale question, asking if the respondent has experienced any effects on their daily life caused by tourism or tourists. Here they could answer 1-5, with 1 being not at all, and 5 being tourists/tourism affects my daily life a lot. We also chose to include a question about how often the respondent interacts with tourists in general. Here we provided some options and asked the respondents to choose the option that fit them best.

We then asked if they noticed any differences this summer (2020) compared to previous summers because of COVID-19 and for them to explain in what ways. This was an open question for them to write their answers. Further, we decided to ask about what changes within tourism they would like to see in the Glasriket area and the last question was if ​ there is anything else they would like to add about tourism and tourists in the Glasriket ​ area. Only the last question was not mandatory.

There were other questions that we considered, as mentioned before, to include in the questionnaire but the aim was to focus on the residents’ perception of tourism and we wanted to do this by asking short questions in a questionnaire that would not take more than 5-7 minutes to complete. As we would like to receive as many answers as possible, we decided to create the questionnaire as soon as possible and to share it directly with our intended respondents. After discussing with our supervisor, we decided to keep the questionnaire open for about a month. The pilot questionnaire was conducted during one afternoon in late November and then a few days later on November 27th, the actual questionnaire was launched through our Facebook pages. The questionnaire was closed on the 22nd of December, right before Christmas. This gives us the opportunity to collect any physical copies of the questionnaire that has been answered and add them into the digital questionnaire document before taking a short break for Christmas holidays.

45 (81)

4.4. The questionnaire results Here we will include the results of the questionnaire. After a lengthy discussion about what to do with answers that do not fit our criteria, we decided to erase those answers from the questionnaire system to allow us to see the correct numbers of respondents for each question much easier. When composing our final results and discussing this topic further we will consider this as something that will affect our results and the study. In total we received 79 respondents but due to not following the criteria, we had to erase 5 responses and make the total number 74.

Question 1: Sex of the respondents The first question we asked was about the sex of the respondent. Out of 74 respondents, 44 are women and only 28 are men. Two respondents answered the ‘other’ option and wrote non binary. The uneven distribution of sexes among the respondents could lead to a different result compared to a study with a more even distribution. As mentioned before, research has shown that men and women might perceive things differently or they might perceive them in the same way. This means that we have to consider this while analyzing the final results.

Question 2: Age of the respondents The next question was regarding the age of the respondents. Here we chose to make groups of ages so the respondent could easily answer the question. As we do not know who would answer the questions, we decided to include a group for any respondents under the age of 18. Further, we included the following age ranges; 18-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, 61-70 and finally 71+. In total we received 74 respondents with only one person being under the age of 18. We think that people under the age of 18 may not want to answer a questionnaire and they may not have any perceptions about tourism impacts as they probably have not experienced or noticed them in the same way as adults do. The age group picked the most by our respondents is 51-60. 25 respondents chose this age group, which is a little bit higher than the next largest age group, 41-50, which 17 of the respondents answered. In total 42 of 74 respondents are middle aged (41-60). This was something that we expected

46 (81)

as we know that many of the people living and/or working in this area have grown up in the area or worked in Glasriket area for a longer period of time. Only 13 of the respondents are between 18 to 30 years old and only 9 are between the ages of 31 to 40. 7 respondents are between the ages of 61-70 which is higher than expected. In the age group 71+, we received 2 respondents.

Question 3: Which of the following municipalities do you live in? For the third question we decided to establish a baseline of where people live so we would know if they live within the Glasriket area or not, as we wanted to make sure that the ​ respondents either live or work in this area. In the Glasriket area there are four ​ ​ municipalities; Nybro, Emmaboda, Lessebo and Uppvidinge. 50 respondents answered that they live in Lessebo municipality, which is a clear majority of all respondents, making it the municipality with the most respondents in our study. Next, 9 respondents answered Nybro municipality making it the second largest municipality for our study. There is a clear difference between the municipalities, as the majority of respondents live in Lessebo municipality making it an uneven distribution among our respondents. We had hoped for a more representative distribution but that does not seem to be the case. However, it is not that unexpected as one major tourist destination, Kosta, is located in Lessebo municipality and many of the workers in Kosta used to work at the now closed glass factories in for example Orrefors and Hovmantorp. The low number of respondents living in Nybro municipality was however rather unexpected as we were expecting to reach more people there as well. We know that it was a major possibility that we would reach more people in Lessebo municipality but we did not expect the difference to be so large.

Only 3 respondents live in Emmaboda municipality and 5 respondents in Uppvidinge municipality. Our own personal connections are to Lessebo and Nybro municipalities which could explain why we did not reach as many people in Emmaboda and Uppvidinge municipalities. Finally, out of the 79 respondents we also had a few other respondents who live outside of the Glasriket area who answered the ‘other’ option. 3 respondents wrote ​ Kalmar and 2 respondents wrote Tingsryd and Karlskrona respectively. 1 respondent wrote “Virestad”, which is part of Älmhult municipality. 1 person stated that they live in Gävle

47 (81)

municipality which can be interpreted in different ways but after checking where this respondent works, we found out that they work in Lessebo municipality. Finally, we received 5 respondents who answered Växjö. After checking to make sure we only include respondents that fit our criteria, we erased the 5 respondents that do not live or work in the Glasriket area. Because of this, those that answered Tingsryd, Karlskrona and Virestad will not be included in the final results of our study. Two of the respondents who answered Växjö were also erased because they live and work outside Glasriket. ​ ​

Question 4: Which of the following municipalities do you work in? 48 respondents work in Lessebo municipality, which is also a clear majority. This is not very unexpected for us. Only 3 respondents work in Nybro municipality, which is a much lower number than we were expecting. This is one reason as to why we wanted to focus on residents that live and/or work in the Glasriket area as we know, based on our own ​ experiences, that there may be some overlapping between living and working. Further, only 1 respondent works in Emmaboda municipality and 3 respondents work in Uppvidinge. In Växjö municipality, we have 9 respondents, which we kind of expected as we personally know several people who work in Växjö municipality but live in for example Lessebo municipality. This means that it is not unreasonable that some of our respondents live in one municipality and work in another.

As this was an open answer question, there were some answers that are quite hard to interpret. 1 respondent wrote “V” which we can not interpret in any way. It might mean Växjö but could also mean something totally different. So in cases like this, we checked where the respondent lives and if the respondent does not live within the Glasriket area ​ ​ then the respondent’s answers will not be included in the final results. After checking, the respondent who answered “V” on this question lives in Uppvidinge so their responses will be included in the final results. Further, 2 respondents answered that they do not work and 2 people answered being retired. Several respondents work outside the Glasriket area. ​ These answers include Tingsryd municipality (1), Kalmar municipality (2), plus 1 being a student in Kalmar municipality, Älmhult municipality (1), and 1 answered distance studying without specifying which municipality or school. We checked where this person

48 (81)

lived and found that they live in the Glasriket area. We mentioned in the previous question ​ that there are some respondents that do not live in Glasriket. After checking if they work in ​ ​ the area or not, we found that there are 5 respondents in total that do not work or live in

Glasriket, making the final number of respondents that fit our criteria 74. ​

Question 5: What do you think about tourism in the area where you work or live? For question number 5, we received 73 answers. This was a mandatory question but we believe that somebody who wrote their answers on paper did not answer this question by leaving it blank. We interpret this as answering do not know. Overall, most respondents answered that tourism in the area where they work or live is positive or a good thing. Several respondents stated that tourism is positive because of the job opportunities. Some answered that tourism development has created a more living community and that there are plenty of activities to choose from. Two (2) respondents answered “do not know” and “no idea” respectively. About 4 respondents answered that tourism in the area where they work or live is negative and one answered that there is no tourism in their opinion, beautiful nature but no nice camping area or attractions. 1 answered neutral, as tourism for them is not positive or negative. Several respondents explained their thoughts on tourism and for the most part they are positively minded towards tourism where they work and/or live.

Question 6: The Glasriket area receives high numbers of tourists every summer and way less during the rest of the year, what do you think about this? For this question, we received in total 71 answers + 3 respondents who left the space blank. 32 respondents answered that it is positive, good or okay that the Glasriket area receives a ​ high number of tourists during the peak season. 4 respondents only wrote “-”, which we, along with the blank answers, interpreted as them not having an opinion on the matter. Several other respondents also wrote that it is positive or good that Glasriket has tourism ​ ​ during the summer and some respondents says that it is reasonable that the Glasriket area ​ ​ receive more tourists during the peak season (summer) as this is when people have time and opportunity to travel around or go on vacation as well as the weather being better during the summer. Some think that while it is positive that we have tourists during the peak season, they would also like to extend the season and/or expand the seasons so that

49 (81)

more visitors would visit during the off-seasons. Based on these responses, there needs to be more done to attract tourists during the rest of the year as well and more marketing overall.

Question 7: What NEGATIVE tourism impacts do you think there are where you work or ​ live? We received 70 answers for this question plus 4 who left the space blank. For this question the respondents could pick as many options as they wanted since we did not want to limit them to only pick one option. The option that was picked by most people was “littering, air- and water pollution”, which 33 of the 70 respondents picked. It seems like most of our respondents think that littering and pollution are some of the biggest problems. The second was “higher prices on accommodation, food and other products” which were picked by 11 people. Ten (10) respondents chose “overcrowding (a lot of people in one place)”. This particular option is significant because the communities where our respondents live are pretty small and so many people being in the same area can cause significant problems for locals and tourists. Furthermore, 9 people picked “traffic congestion” and 8 respondents chose the option “long queues in malls, grocery stores, museums etc.”. 6 respondents chose “high pressure on hospitals and health centers”. 8 respondents wrote “nothing” or “nothing they have noticed” on the open ‘other’ option. Another respondent even wrote that they “do not think there is a high tourism pressure”. 1 respondent wrote “traffic”, which we interpret to mean all kinds of traffic and not only traffic congestion. 1 wrote “a lot of people”.

Question 8: What POSITIVE tourism impacts do you think there are where you work or live? Question number 8 had several options as well, and just as with the previous question, the respondents could choose as many as necessary. For this question we received 74 answers, which is 4 more answers than the negative tourism impacts question. When checking the answers we noticed that several of the respondents have picked all of the options, indicating that they think tourism impacts are mostly positive rather than negative. Here it would be interesting to discuss further how the respondents answered the negative impacts

50 (81)

questions in relation to choosing all the options for the positive impacts question. The option which most respondents chose was “tourism helps keeping the community/destination alive which benefits the locals” which in total 60 respondents chose. The second most picked option, which 57 of the respondents chose, was “financial benefits for the destination (money being spent and going to the local businesses)”. 53 respondents picked the “more work and entrepreneurship opportunities” option which is not so surprising as this is a common positive impact caused by tourism. 51 respondents chose “seasonal work (positive for example for students and others who may need work for a shorter period of time)” which is rather surprising since seasonal work is seen as negative a lot of the time. At least for people who are looking for a steady job. 41 of the respondents chose the option of “more attractions, restaurants and hotels etc. at the destination”. 31 respondents picked “possibility to integrate with people from other cultures”. Based on this, almost all of the respondents seem to perceive tourism as having some positive impacts and that it develops the destination for the local population as well. 16 respondents chose “better infrastructure (airports, public transportation, roads etc.)” which means that they think that tourism development has improved the infrastructure, or at least helped, where they work or live in the Glasriket area. Only 1 respondent chose the open option and ​ wrote “there are none”.

Question 9: Have you experienced any effects on your daily life, caused by tourism and tourists, in any way? This question was answered by all 74 respondents. For this question there were 5 options ranging from 1 to 5. 1 meaning “not at all” and 5 meaning “tourists/tourism affects my daily life a lot”. 24 respondents chose 1 as in not at all being affected by tourism and tourists daily. 23 respondents chose the middle option, number 3, which means that they are not affected daily by tourism but sometimes are affected by tourism. They are somewhere in the middle but not affected daily or not affected at all. 15 respondents picked 2, which we interpret as them being slightly affected by tourism but perhaps not daily or a lot. 8 respondents chose 5, being affected in their daily lives by tourism and tourists. 4 respondents chose 4, which we interpret as being affected by tourism and tourists a lot but not daily.

51 (81)

Question 10: How often do you interact with tourists in general? Choose the option that fits you best. For this question we offered several options, asking the respondents to choose the one that fits them the best. All 74 respondents answered this question. Only 5 of the respondents chose “never” and 24, which is the majority, chose “only during the summer”. 7 respondents interact with tourists sometime during the day. 8 of the respondents interact with tourists several times during the day, while 12 respondents answered the “do not know or possibly without knowing it” option. 18 answered “rarely, once or twice a month”. Based on the results of this particular question, it seems like most tourists visit the Glasriket area during the summer which is also shown by the fact that the area receives ​ high numbers of tourists during the peak season which is summer. This makes sense because families will have more time to go on vacation during the summer holidays when the children are not in school and the parents have more time off work.

Question 11: Did you notice any differences this summer, considering tourism, compared to previous summers in relation to COVID-19? Explain in what ways. This question regarding COVID-19 was included because of the current situation (2020-2021) and it would be interesting to know if this has changed anything in the Glasriket area. 71 of the respondents answered this question. This was an open long ​ answer question so the respondents were free to write down their thoughts. Many of the respondents answered that while there were tourists and tourism like usual, they experienced that there were more domestic tourists than international tourists. Some of the respondents answered that it was calmer this summer and that there were less people in general. Two respondents answered that there were less people staying at the campsites. Several respondents answered that there were more people out in the area experiencing nature and taking part of activities like kayaking, fishing and hiking.

One respondent answered that there were a lot of motorhomes and caravans. Several respondents answered that they did not notice any differences. Some respondents said that there were more people than normal. It seems like most of the respondents noticed that

52 (81)

there were more domestic tourists than international tourists which makes sense because of travel restrictions in other countries. People looked more for outdoor activities because the risk of exposure to COVID-19 is bigger inside, where you are closer to other people, than outside. It is possible that the respondents who answered “more people than normal”, did experience more people than normal because of changes in traveling patterns due to COVID-19.

Question 12: What kind of changes, within tourism, would you like to see in the Glasriket area? Explain. This question was included because it would be interesting to know if they have any specific ideas about changes within tourism in the Glasriket area that they would like to ​ ​ share. This type of question, for us, gives the respondents the opportunity to develop their previous thoughts about tourism and give us more insight into their thoughts about tourism and the effects. This was also an open long answer question. Only 69 respondents wrote something and 5 respondents left the answer blank. Three respondents wrote “-” and one wrote “*”, indicating that they did not want to answer or did not have anything to add. 16 respondents wrote “do not know” or something similar to that. Several respondents wrote “nothing”. However, several respondents wrote longer answers which provided us with some helpful thoughts regarding their perception of current tourism development in the Glasriket area. ​

1 respondent would like more marketing and another wrote that they would like the residents to receive more information about what there is to do etc. 1 wrote that they would like Glasriket to be more visible in the media and 1 wrote that they would like more signs ​ and to use the history of places. Several respondents wrote that they would like more activities, more events, more shops and restaurants or more culture and music activities. While most of the respondents were very short in their answers, it still shows that the residents would like to have more to do and that it should not just be focused on tourists or the peak season. 1 respondent wrote that they would like more focus on the peak season while another wrote more focus on the other seasons. There were a few respondents who would like more focus on the glass works and the handicrafts. Several respondents would

53 (81)

like more collaboration between the municipalities and the businesses around Glasriket as ​ ​ well as tourism operators. 1 respondent suggested bus tours around the Glasriket area and ​ ​ 1 wants the area to be more accessible for people without a car. 2 respondents wrote that they would like to not have to pay to visit the glass factories. Based on our own experiences, we know that paying to visit the glass factories was not popular at all among tourists and we know that this is something that the management of Kosta Boda glass factory in Kosta was trying one summer. The next summer, it was again free to go inside.

Question 13: Is there anything else you would like to add, about tourism and tourists in the Glasriket area? The last question was an open answer question and was not mandatory to answer. Only 32 respondents answered this question and 42 left the answer blank. Another 22 respondents answered “no”. One respondent wanted camping sites to be more noticeable in marketing and another one wants more focus on cooperation between the different glass artists and glass factories. Another respondent suggested developing the brand Glasriket, so that the ​ ​ brand could expand more and focus on for example nature in Glasriket. One respondent ​ ​ wants Glasriket to focus more on a younger target group. That so few people responded to ​ our last question could mean two things; either they just did not have anything to add or they did not want to answer the question.

4.5. Summary In total, we received 74 answers and most questions were answered by all respondents. The questions used in the questionnaire serve a purpose for us, the authors, to understand the residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts and to be able to answer our research question: In what ways can tourism affect small destinations and the residents?

By asking our questions, we hoped to find out if there are any tourism effects and if so, which ones have the respondents noticed? The results of this study can then hopefully provide an indication of the residents’ perception of tourism effects and provide some helpful information for further research. Based on the results of our questionnaire study, it seems like most think that tourism is positive but also has some negative effects especially

54 (81)

during the peak season. It is also important to note that most of the respondents who answered higher on the affected by tourism question, seem to work in Kosta or other places where tourism is common. Furthermore, it can be added that we have taken into consideration that not all of the respondents answered all of the questions but it did not seem to have any major impact on the final results. We know that we have a majority of women who answered our questionnaire and the ages for all of our respondents range from under 18 to 71+. We also know that the majority of our respondents work in Lessebo municipality and that we have a majority of respondents living in Lessebo municipality as well, which have caused an uneven distribution of geographical location of our respondents.

We had a majority of positive answers for both the question regarding tourism in Glasriket ​ and the question about the high numbers of tourists during the peak season. One thing that stood out here is that several of our respondents would like more things to do during the rest of the year, essentially meaning that they want to extend or expand the other seasons. The negative effect option that was picked by a majority of respondents was “littering, air- and water pollution”. The majority of the respondents picked “tourism helps keeping the community/destination alive which benefits the locals” as a positive effect followed closely by “financial benefits for the destination (money being spent and going to the local businesses)” and then the “more work and entrepreneurship opportunities” option. Compared to the negative effects, several positive effects were picked by a clear majority of our respondents. It seems like most of the respondents are not really bothered by tourism and tourists during their daily lives. Most respondents seem to only interact with tourists during the peak season (summer).

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear that there were still tourists in Glasriket during ​ ​ the peak season in 2020. However, it was also noticed by several of our respondents that there were way more domestic tourists than international tourists. Finally, several of our respondents would like to receive more information about activities and events in Glasriket ​ as well as see more marketing about the area.

55 (81)

5. Discussion

In the 5th chapter we will discuss the findings of our study and see if there are any similarities and/or differences from previous studies and research. Furthermore, we will discuss the future of tourism in the Glasriket area and some tourism development ideas. ​ We will then discuss further research and some realizations on our own study.

5.1. Positive or negative?

We have been able to see some similarities and variations between our own study and the previous research regarding tourism effects which means that the connection between the previous research and our empirical data is quite strong. There are some minor variations between what our respondents have said and what previous research says in general. However, as research regarding tourism impacts on Glasriket is limited, these variations ​ ​ are not really differences but more that they slightly differ from what previous studies have concluded. After composing the initial results of our questionnaire, it seems clear to us that overall the perception of tourism impacts in the Glasriket area is positive and has very few ​ ​ negative effects on the residents. As always, people think differently and depending on the area and the background of the residents, results will vary in studies similar to ours and those that we have previously researched. Those that work in for example glass factories in Glasriket will most likely be more affected by tourism, tourists and future tourism ​ development. Many of the visitors are international tourists interested in finding out more about glass production and the history of glass since this is something that is very unique and does not exist in many other places.

After closing the questionnaire, it is clear to us that based on our study, tourism and tourism effects in Glasriket are mostly regarded as something positive rather than negative, ​ ​ even though we cannot generalize because of the snowball-effect. The negative effects of tourism according to our respondents are minor and mostly during the peak season. The majority of our participants stated that littering is the worst negative effect caused by

56 (81)

tourism. This is also something that is not only related to tourism but can also be because of the residents in the area. Littering is something that is a major problem in Glasriket ​ especially during the peak season with high numbers of visitors. However, it is hard for us and for our respondents to know if the majority of littering is caused by tourists or not. Further, it can be discussed that all tourism effects can be negative and positive. Tourism effects are something that can be hard to distinguish because the line dividing them can sometimes be invisible and because the effects can overlap. Something that is positive for some people might be negative for others. Things like high numbers of tourists in one place can be positive for businesses but negative for residents. It can also be positive and negative for tourists or positive and negative for a destination. One destination might thrive with high numbers of tourists while another might not be able to handle the pressure.

Glasriket is now more urbanized than it used to be but it is still far from being a major ​ tourist destination compared to Malmö, Göteborg and Stockholm, which are all major cities in Sweden. The impacts that tourism can have on Glasriket as a destination is ​ ​ therefore different but is quite similar in some ways at the same time. Some of the effects are also specific to rural areas, such as accessibility problems which makes it harder for tourists to reach the area without a car. Because of this, it is possible that Glasriket has ​ ​ more cars and parking problems than other destinations.

Gender, age and background As mentioned before in our literature review, there are some studies that say that there is no difference between how men and women perceive things while other studies say that there is some difference in perception. In our study, the majority of our respondents are women which could affect the results because it is possible that women might perceive things differently than men. Based on our study, we can not say for sure if women and men perceive things differently as we have a majority of women and also a majority of positive responses. One thing that we can say is that since most of our respondents are women, it is likely that women are more interested in answering questions and perhaps maybe even that they have noticed tourism more than men do. In relation to this, it can also be said that the residents that are more attracted to tourism and like to travel themselves, may easier

57 (81)

understand the cultural differences that exist between tourists and residents. However, conflicts between tourists and residents due to differences in culture is something that may cause problems at a destination such as Glasriket. It can also be said, as mentioned before, ​ that people who are more dependent on tourism may be more positive towards tourism or at least be more acceptable of tourism and tourists.

The major positive effects are financial benefits for the local businesses and tourism keeps destinations alive by changing and developing the area. It seems like the residents’ support for tourism mostly depends on their own perceptions of tourism and tourists, which may cause some issues. People perceive things differently and there are factors that impact our perceptions. Cultural background, social background, economic status etc. are some factors that affect how we perceive things. If the economic status of a person depends on tourism then it is more likely that the person will perceive tourism and tourists as something positive or be more accepting of it. In our study, we noticed that respondents who seem to be affected more by tourism are those that work within the tourism industry or interact with tourists more often than others, which of course affects their perception of tourism.

5.2. Tourism effects on destinations and its residents

If destinations and businesses are dependent on tourism to survive then tourism is more likely to be perceived as something positive by the residents. Although, depending on how the tourists act, the locals can grow to dislike them and not want anything to do with them. Destinations that want to use the economic benefits that tourism brings often have to pay a price for it in regards to other tourism effects. The environmental, social and cultural impacts caused by tourism can be connected to how destinations use tourism to develop the area further by only considering the economic impacts. A destination can become less sustainable if it does not consider other factors as well, which is what the triple bottom line is used for. By using the TBL approach, a destination considers the social, environmental and economic impacts of what they do. The sociocultural, economic and environmental impacts of tourism are very much connected to each other, which is something that always has to be kept in mind because otherwise the destination can suffer more in one area. If a destination considers certain things more than others then eventually those will also suffer

58 (81)

in the long run. It is possible that businesses will try to use TBL but not succeed. TBL is rather complex and it is not enough to just say that they want to focus more on other aspects, they actually need to do something too. An example of how to use the TBL approach is to support local communities and help preserve the environment by recycling.

Another thing that is clear after conducting our study, is that crowds can be a major problem in Glasriket during the peak season which can cause problems for the residents ​ ​ and conflicts between residents and tourists. Many facilities like hotels, restaurants and shops are not only for tourists but also for the residents to use. Large crowds can make it harder for residents to go about their daily activities and to take part in leisure activities at the destination. It is possible that crowds during peak season can cause residents to change their routines and maybe even make them want to leave their homes because of the high number of tourists. In connection with this, tourism also causes prices to rise which can make it harder for residents to maintain their living standard. This is also something that was shown in our study, as some of our respondents stated that rising prices is a negative effect caused by tourism. Crowds can also affect the destination as it can be harder to manage large crowds. Places like restaurants are usually not bothered if their guests are locals or tourists since they just want to make a profit, which means that being affordable for everyone might not be a priority. If prices rise everywhere, not only in hotels or restaurants but in the local stores as well, it might cause the residents to move if they cannot afford to live comfortably anymore.

Seasonality One major problem for destinations like Glasriket is seasonality as the area receives more ​ ​ visitors during the summer than during the rest of the year. Crowding, traffic congestion, longer lines in malls and grocery stores are some examples of negative factors of tourism and seasonality. More concrete negative factors caused by seasonality are job insecurity and seasonal work as seasonality can make it harder for residents to have a stable income during the year causing feelings of uncertainty. This is also something that can affect the mental health of residents. A destination that is highly dependent on tourism might only hire people during the peak season which means that residents might have to have more

59 (81)

than one job. In our study, we suggested that seasonal work could be a positive effect for those that need temporary work such as students which several of the respondents agreed with. This can indicate that seasonal work does not have to be positive or negative if it is managed correctly. Outdoor activities are popular in Sweden but during the COVID-19 pandemic the amount of tourists taking part in outdoor activities such as hiking, biking and canoeing have risen even more, which in turn have a higher effect on the environment. The pandemic has caused more people to be outdoors as the risk of infection is higher indoors and this causes higher pressure on the environment, such as national parks, hiking trails and lakes. It also causes more people to use their cars as public transportation is only recommended for those who really need it, which in turn can cause more air pollution than if the pandemic had not occured.

The off-season is often when the locals can go back to their normal routines and use the facilities and amenities without a large amount of tourists compared to the peak season. Few of our respondents said that they would like to extend or expand the seasons. We did not have a specific question regarding expanding the seasons but some commented that they would like more to do during the off season and that it would be better if the peak season was longer or if there could be more focus on the other seasons. This is an interesting aspect as previous research showed that locals in general would like to use the off-season to have their normal routines, do their social and cultural activities and not be bothered by tourists. In relation to this, it can also be mentioned that residents, both in previous research and our own study, seem to perceive tourism as positive if it benefits them. Perhaps it can be assumed that those who want to extend or expand the seasons are people that benefit from tourism.

Accessibility and infrastructure Accessibility problems are something that most destinations have of some sort. It can be accessibility in relation to how to get to the destination or it can be accessibility for people with impairments and disabilities. Glasriket is not very accessible if you do not have a car ​ ​ which in turn means that there are more cars in the area. Buses and trains are not always accessible in rural areas which is something that needs to be considered when planning a

60 (81)

visit. Another example is that people with disabilities may not be able to visit certain places if there are no elevators, ramps and other functions for those who need it. Kosta, for example, lacks elevators for the shopping center and the other shops have narrow aisles which can cause issues for people with for example wheelchairs and large prams. The shopping center, based on our own experiences, is not very functional for people with disabilities because even though there are escalators, they are pretty steep.

Another thing we were curious to find out was the residents’ perception of infrastructure development in relation to tourism development. This was something that we chose as an option of positive tourism effect. Several of our respondents seemed to perceive this as something positive. Development of infrastructure such as highways, public transport, electricity etc. is important for a society to function. The development of tourism facilities puts higher pressure on infrastructure and especially during the peak season when there are a lot of visitors. This means that infrastructure has to be developed further so that it can maintain its standard and keep up with the demand. Because of higher numbers of tourists visiting a destination, there will also be higher pressure on for example electricity and the internet. Hospitals might receive more patients during the peak season when there are more people in need of hospital care. High pressure on hospitals and airports can be considered a negative effect of tourism while the development or improvements of hospitals, roads, airports etc. are more considered to be positive. Other effects like road damage can be negative but when the damage is fixed then the condition of the roads are better than it was before. It is a thin line between what environmental and social effects are actually considered positive and negative.

Another thing that is worth mentioning is that there have been newspaper articles about people parking their cars so that emergency services personnel cannot get through when they need to, endangering their own and other people’s lives. Problems like this have caused conflicts between residents and those that park their cars in the wrong spot. Infrastructure development costs money and is something that needs to be developed with or without tourism. However, tourism puts more pressure on the infrastructure which can lead to highways and roads needing repairs more often than normal. This has an effect on

61 (81)

the environment and can also cause social problems for the residents. Public transportation in rural areas is almost nonexistent and it is more important to have a car in these areas than it is in major cities. In our study there were some respondents who perceive tourism as something that has helped develop infrastructure such as airports and public transportation. Traffic congestion is a common negative effect of tourism and this is also the case for Glasriket because of the accessibility issues. Traffic congestion and lack of parking can ​ cause issues for the residents as this can affect their daily lives and routines.

5.3. Attraction value

A destination can make itself more attractive by changing the environment by for example planting flowers and trees. A more aesthetically pleasing environment could make tourists more interested in visiting a place. In relation to this it is also important for destinations and attractions to maintain a certain standard or quality to attract visitors. Otherwise, tourists can easily get bored with a destination pretty fast. The same goes for city planning and for attractions in general, as this is something that causes attraction value for the destination or the attraction to rise. An attraction that is not well maintained will most likely attract less tourists compared to if the standard was higher. Another perspective of this is for example littering on a beach. If a beach is full of waste and other things that are not supposed to be there then it is more likely that tourists will be very unhappy with it and maybe choose another beach instead. This will affect their vacation satisfaction and could make them not want to come back, choosing another destination next time. Waste will also affect the daily lives of the residents as this is something that can cause irritation and frustration. It could also mean that because of waste, residents cannot use the beach either.

The same thing goes for example parks, lakes and other recreational areas. Something that is worth mentioning is that in rural areas, there might not be possible to keep streets and areas clean to the same extent as in cities. Rural destinations probably do not have the same amount of resources as major destinations have. One of our respondents suggested that bus tours could be a good idea to allow for more tourists to travel around in Glasriket. ​ ​ This is a good idea and something that would make it less necessary for tourists to have their own car while visiting different places in the area. They could for example plan to

62 (81)

stay at one of the accommodation options and then take the bus tour to visit several glass factories, moose parks and other attractions. This would also mean that more parking spots would be available for other visitors and less pollution. Another perspective is culture, it is possible that tourists may not know about the regulations and laws in the countries they are visiting. Laws about littering and waste disposal vary depending on the country and this is something that can cause misunderstandings and conflicts between tourists and locals.

Crime rates and hostile environments Something else to also consider in relation to tourism is crime rates and hostile environments. Safety is something that is very important to most people. A destination that has a higher crime rate or a hostile environment might lose to a destination with a lower crime rate or less hostile environment. Only 4 of our 74 respondents felt that more crime and hostile environment is a negative effect caused by tourism in the Glasriket area. This ​ would indicate that most people probably do not perceive tourism as something that causes more crime or a hostile environment for them. For us, it is more likely that tourism can cause more crime and a hostile environment in bigger cities rather than in small rural areas like Glasriket. In rural areas there are less people, and tourists, in general compared to ​ ​ urban areas. Although Glasriket has been urbanized during the last few decades, it is clear ​ ​ to us that crime is not a major issue for the residents there. As with littering, it is also harder to know if higher crime rates or a more hostile environment have anything to do with tourism and tourists or if it is just an effect of people in general. If the crime rates increase or the environment becomes more hostile then residents might decide to move away from the area if they feel unsafe.

To conclude this discussion, we would like to specify that our study used a very small portion of Glasrikets population and is absolutely not something that is correct for ​ everyone in Glasriket, which was also shown in the study as we had residents who were ​ positive and negative to tourism effects. We cannot generalize for the whole population of Glasriket or any similar destinations but most of our respondents could find at least one positive effect and one negative effect. This indicates to us that tourism effects are not just

63 (81)

positive or negative, it also means that they can overlap and sometimes overshadow other factors. It also means that tourism effects do exist in smaller and more rural areas.

5.4. The future of tourism in Glasriket ​ The future of tourism in Glasriket is positive, at least from the residents’ perspective based ​ ​ on this short study. The COVID-19 pandemic had very little effect on Glasriket as a ​ ​ destination, from the perspective of our respondents. There may have been less international tourists visiting but more domestic tourists decided to visit this area instead. For some people, based on answers in our study, it was the first time visiting. Our own experiences working in the tourist information office in Kosta, make us agree with this. We felt like there were more domestic tourists and while we did have some international tourists, it was mostly Danes and Germans who, likely, have second homes in Sweden and/or were traveling by motorhome or caravan.

In the near future, we believe that COVID-19 will have a slight effect on the development of Glasriket in regards to more activities and guided tours but eventually, with a vaccine, these things will start to develop more. Ideas and projects by the municipalities that were put on hold because of the pandemic, will start back up again as soon as it is safe to do so. Further, it can be argued that because of the pandemic in 2020-2021 with different travel restrictions and lockdowns, people have decided to travel more within their own country rather than abroad. This is something that possibly would not have happened if COVID-19 had not spread worldwide and became a pandemic. The tourism industry is one of the most affected by the pandemic and while it will take some time to recover from it, it will start back up again. For us, we hope that the infrastructure of the area will improve further along with public transportation, which would help with the accessibility issues that Glasriket ​ has.

One idea for further tourism development is bus tours, which was also mentioned by one of our respondents. Another suggestion is to invest more in cooperation between the municipalities and businesses to create more packaged deals. It would also be a good idea to invest more in marketing the different packages that are offered throughout the area and

64 (81)

to provide more information to locals as well as those that work in the area. To further develop the off-season, it could be a good idea to do an oversight of possible activities such as biking and hiking which could also be done during other seasons. Furthermore, skiing could be a potential winter attraction that needs more attention to attract visitors. Developing Glasriket as a destination is not only for tourists but also for the residents and ​ ​ further development of the area would attract more tourists and more people to relocate to this area.

5.5. Realizations on our final study

During this process we have come to some realizations regarding the results of our study and the process we have gone through which we would like to discuss further. There are some considerations that we have made during the process and how these considerations can have an effect on the final results of our study. We could have created and shared the questionnaire much sooner to have more information and more respondents, but we also felt that it was important to have a solid ground of research before we started to compose our questionnaire questions. This allowed us to have a strong theoretical base to stand on before analyzing the empirical data we collected. In the end, the amount of respondents does not really affect the outcome as it is only an indication of what perceptions some of the residents in Glasriket have of tourism effects. There was also an uneven distribution of ​ ​ gender among the respondents which would have had a major impact on our study if gender were important to the results of the study and our research. As the focus of our study was to see if the residents have any perceptions of tourism effects where they live and/or work, it was not that important which sex they have or which gender they identify themselves as.

One thing that might have had more of an impact on our study is the distribution of where people work and/or live as we have a majority of people living in Lessebo municipality and a majority of people working in the same municipality. The reliability and the relevance of our study would be higher if we had had more people living or working in the other municipalities in Glasriket (Nybro, Emmaboda and Uppvidinge). This would have ​ ​ allowed us to see more differences and similarities between the different areas of Glasriket

65 (81)

as well as the perceptions of residents living in the area as a whole. We would then also have gained more perceptions of tourism impacts in the whole Glasriket area and on ​ ​ Glasriket as a destination. ​

Future research The research on tourism effects on smaller destinations and its residents is pretty limited, however the research on tourism effects is seemingly never-ending and it is very important to be able to conduct further research on any topic related to the tourism industry and its effects on people, planet and profit. In the future it would be interesting to know what the results would look like if the whole population of Glasriket, or a similar area destination, ​ ​ were to take part in a similar study or a study of some sort. One suggestion for future research in relation to tourism development and the tourism effects on a small destination and its residents, is to conduct a major study so that it will be possible to find ways to improve the ways that tourism has impacts on people, the environment and the economies around the world. It is a very important topic to continue to research as future tourism developments are closely connected to the effects of tourism. As the tourism industry continues to expand and improve, it is important that all aspects of tourism also improves. Times are changing and with climate change, natural disasters and pandemics, economic crises and more, it is important to continue the never-ending process of exploring and investigating so that future generations can learn from previous experiences and research that has been done.

66 (81)

6. Conclusions

In the final chapter, we will answer our research question as well as discuss some considerations related to our study.

The purpose of this bachelor thesis was to investigate if there are any tourism effects on Glasriket and if so, in what ways can they affect Glasriket as a destination and its ​ ​ ​ residents. When we started this process, the COVID-19 pandemic had been going on for almost a full year and several of our choices have been affected by the current situation, which unfortunately resulted in a different study than we had planned. In the end, we can clearly see that there are some major effects on Glasriket as a destination and especially on ​ ​ the residents. There are environmental, economic, social and cultural impacts on Glasriket ​ as a destination which has been caused by tourism and the high numbers of tourists. The majority of the impacts are mostly perceived by the residents during the peak season as this is when most tourists visit the area. Tourism has a large effect on the area as a whole destination almost daily and will likely have some long lasting effects caused by tourism in the future.

Our research question has been answered through our research and through our questionnaire study. The study in this research paper has not resulted in a generalization because we used the snowball-effect to spread our questionnaire. However, as mentioned earlier, the results can give an indication of what the generalization could be as well as the study has clearly shown that there are people that have noticed tourism effects in the Glasriket area. Another thing is that those that have more interactions with tourists or ​ visitors of some kind, are more affected by tourism, leading to the conclusion that if we interact more often with tourists then tourism may impact the daily lives of residents more. For those living in smaller towns and villages, the effect is more noticeable for the residents. From this we can draw the conclusion that it is likely that residents in rural areas are more likely to notice the differences between not having tourism and having tourism

67 (81)

where they live. In the end, there was more focus on the residents’ perceptions of tourism effects than on how tourism effects can impact Glasriket as a destination. We feel like this ​ ​ worked out pretty well in the end anyway, because the residents’ perceptions also gave some insight into how a destination can be affected by tourism impacts. We hope that this bachelor thesis will provide some insight into the possible impacts that tourism can have on smaller destinations and especially on destinations that are located in more rural areas such as Glasriket. ​ ​

To conclude, we would like to add that it has been an interesting process and we have learned things on the way. This bachelor thesis can potentially provide a clearer picture of which possible negative and positive impacts there are on Glasriket as a destination and the ​ ​ people who live and/or work there.

68 (81)

7. References

ALLEA. (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity [internet] (rev. edition). ​ ​ Retrieved November 26th from https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Resea rch-Integrity-2017.pdf

Almeida-Garcia, F., Balbuena-Vázquez,A., & Cortez-Macias, R. (2014). Residents’ Attitudes Towards the Impacts of Tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13. 33-40. ​ ​

Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’ Perceptions of Community Tourism Impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4). 1056-1076. ​ ​

Andersson, M., Larsson, J. P., & Wernberg, J. (2017). Närhet och Nätverk. Urbaniseringens Roll Utanför Storstäderna. Fastighetsägarna.

Bagri, S. C., & Kala, D. (2016). Residents’ Attitudes Toward Tourism Development and Impacts in Koti-Kanasar, Indroli, Pattyur Tourism Circuit of Uttarakhand State, India. PASOS Revista de ​ turismo y patrimonio cultural, 14(1). 23-39. ​

Baum, T. (1999). Seasonality in Tourism: Understanding the Challenges. Introduction. Tourism ​ Economics, 5(1). 5–8. ​

Bohlin, M., & Elbe, J. (red). (2007). Utveckla turistdestinationer - Ett svenskt perspektiv. ​ Författarna och Liber AB.

Bryman, A. (2011). Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder (2nd edition). Malmö: Liber AB. ​ ​

Capocchi, A., Vallone, C., Pierotti, M., & Amaduzzi, A. (2019). Overtourism: A Literature Review to Assess Implications and Future Perspectives. Sustainability 11(12):3303. ​ ​

Dickinson, J. E., & Robbins, D. (2008). Representations of Tourism Transport Problems in a Rural Destination. Tourism Management, 92(6). 1110-1121. ​ ​ ​ ​

EcoMatcher. (2020). Retrieved November 17th 2020 from https://www.ecomatcher.com/how-to-make-sustainability-an-everyday-part-of-your-business/

Framke, W. (2002). The Destination as a Concept: A Discussion of the Business-Related Perspective Versus the Sociocultural Approach in Tourism Theory. Scandinavian Journal of ​ Hospitality and Tourism, 2(2). 92–108. ​

Garau-Vadell, J. B., Gutierrez-Taño, D., & Diaz-Armas, R. (2016). Economic Crisis and Residents’ Perception of the Impacts of Tourism in Mass Tourism Destinations. Journal of Destination ​ Marketing & Management, 7. 68–75. ​ 69 (81)

Garrigós-Simón, F. J., Galdón-Salvador, J. L., & Gil-Pechuán, I. (2015). The Economic Sustainability of Tourism Growth Through Leakage Calculation. Tourism Economics 21(4). ​ ​ 721-739.

Glasriket. (n.d.). Retrieved November 12th 2020 from https://www.glasriket.se/sv ​

Glasriket. (2020 A). Historien om Kosta Boda. Retrieved December 8th 2020 from ​ ​ https://www.glasriket.se/sv/historia-kosta-boda

Glasriket. (2020 B). Historien om Glasriket. Retrieved November 12th 2020 from ​ ​ https://www.glasriket.se/sv/historien-om-Glasriket

Hadjikakou, M., Chenoweth, J., Miller, G., Druckman, A., & Li, G. (2014). Rethinking the Economic Contribution of Tourism: Case Study from a Mediterranean Island. Journal of travel ​​ research 53(5), 610-624. ​ ​

Hall, M. C., & Lew, A. A. (2009). Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts. An Integrated ​ Approach. Taylor & Francis Group. ​

Jaafar, M., Rasoolimanesh Mostafa, S., & Ismail, S. (2017). Perceived Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism and Community Participation: A Case Study of Langkawi Island. Tourism and Hospitality ​ Research, 17(2). 123-134. ​

Kenton, W. (November 16th 2020). What Is the Triple Bottom Line (TBL)? ​ https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triple-bottom-line.asp

Komppula, R. (2014). The Role of Individual Entrepreneurs in the Development of Competitiveness for a Rural Tourism Destination – A case study. Tourism Management, 40. ​ ​ 361–371.

Kosta Boda Art Hotel. (2020). Om Oss. Retrieved December 8th 2020 from ​ ​ https://www.kostabodaarthotel.se/om-oss/

Kumar, J., Hussain, K., & Kannan, S. (2015). Asia Pacific Tourism Association. 21st Asia Pacific ​ Tourism Association Conference organized by APTA and Taylor’s University Conference Proceedings. Development of Regional Tourism by Collaboration Between Public Sector and ​ Academics in Asia Pacific Region.

Lamke, L., Johannisson, S., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Glasriket är HÄR! Om Kulturmiljöernas Betydelse ​ för att Uppleva och Uppliva Glasriket - En Vård- och Åtgärdsstrategi. Kalmar Läns Museum & ​ Kulturparken Småland. https://www.kalmarlansmuseum.se/site/assets/files/10101/glasriket_strategi_2013_rev_feb_2014.p df

70 (81)

Latdict. (n.d. A). Qualitas. Retrieved November 18th 2020 from ​ ​ http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/32524/qualitas-qualitatis

Latdict. (n.d. B). Quantitas. Retrieved November 18th 2020 from ​ ​ http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/quantitas

Lee, J. W., & Syah, A. M. (2018). Economic and Environmental Impacts of Mass Tourism on Regional Tourism Destinations in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and ​ business, 5(3). 31-41. ​

Lind, S. (October 20th 2020). Världens Äldsta Träd Måste Räddas – Rötter Nöts Ned När Besökare ​ Vill Stå Nära. ​ https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/dalarna/rotter-nots-ned-nar-besokare-vill-sta-nara-varldens-aldsta -trad-maste-raddas-fulufjallet-old-tjikko

Liu, J. C., Sheldon, P. J., & Var, T. (1987). Resident Perception of the Environmental Impacts of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 14. 17-37. ​ ​

Loureiro, S. M. C. (2014). The Role of the Rural Tourism Experience Economy in Place Attachment and Behavioral Intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40. 1–9. ​ ​ ​ ​

Mayer, M., & Vogt, L. (2016). Economic Effects of Tourism and its Influencing Factors: An Overview Focusing on the Spending Determinants of Visitors. Zeitschrift für ​ Tourismuswissenschaft, 8(2). 169-198. ​

Muler Gonzalez, V., Coromina, L., & Gali, N. (2017). Overtourism: Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism Impact as an Indicator of Resident Social Carrying Capacity - Case Study of a Spanish Heritage Town. Tourism Review, 73(3). 277-296. ​ ​

Nickerson, S. R. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of ​ General Psychology, 2(2). 175-220. ​

Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the Bottom of “Triple Bottom Line”. Business ​ Ethics Quarterly, 14(2). 243-262. ​

Page, S. J., & Connell, J. (2009). Tourism - A Modern Synthesis [3rd edition]. Hampshire: Cengage ​ ​ Learning EMEA.

Pegg, S., Patterson, I., & Gariddo, P. V. (2012). The Impact of Seasonality on Tourism and Hospitality Operations in the Alpine Region of New South Wales, Australia. International Journal ​ of Hospitality Management, 31. 659-666. ​

Pesonen, J., & Komppula, R. (2010). Rural Wellbeing Tourism: Motivations and Expectations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 17. 150–157. ​

71 (81)

Postma, A., & Schmuecker, D. (2017). Understanding and Overcoming Negative Impacts of Tourism in City Destinations: Conceptual Model and Strategic Framework. Journals of tourism ​ futures 3(2). 144-156. ​

Rocca, R. L. (2005). Mass Tourism and Urban System: Some Suggestions to Manage the Impacts on the City. Review of Tourism Research 3(1). 8-17. ​ ​

Robinson, M., & Jamal, T. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies. SAGE Publications ​ ​ Ltd.

Saarinen, J. (2004). ‘Destinations in Change’: The Transformation Process of Tourist Destinations. Tourist Studies 4(2). 161-179. ​

Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of Sustainability in Tourism Studies. Annals of Tourism Research ​ 33(4). 1121-1140. ​

Sambhanthan, A., & Good, A. (2013). ‘A Second Life Based Virtual Community Model for Enhancing Tourism Destination Accessibility in Developing Countries’. Int. J. Collaborative ​ Enterprise 3(4). 269–286. ​

Smith, S. L. J. (2017). Practical Tourism Research (2nd edition). CABI. ​ ​

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104. 333-339. ​

Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J., & Szivas, E. M. (2014). Residents’ Support for Tourism Development: The Role of Residents’ Place Image and Perceived Tourism Impacts. Tourism ​ Management 45. 260-274. ​

Stoddard, J. E., Pollard, C. E., & Evans, M. R. (2012). The Triple Bottom Line: A Framework for Sustainable Tourism Development. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, ​ 13(3). 233-258. ​

Strömberg, L-O. (August 1st 2019). ”Kommer inte fram vid drunkningar – katastrof”. Kvällsposten. https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/kommer-inte-fram-vid-drunkningar-katastrof-/

Syssner, J., Häggroth, S., & Ramberg, U. (2017). Att Äga Framtiden. Perspektiv på Kommunal Utveckling. LiU-tryck.

Tourism Notes. (2020). Rural Tourism. Retrieved November 12th 2020 from ​ ​ https://tourismnotes.com/rural-tourism/

United Nations. (2010). International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008. New York.

72 (81)

United Nations. (2020). Essential UN. Retrieved November 11th 2020 from ​ ​ https://www.un.org/en/essential-un/

Vergori, A. S. (2017). Patterns of Seasonality and Tourism Demand Forecasting. Tourism ​ Economics, 23(5). 1011–1027. ​

Wikipedia. (2020 A). Kosta. Retrieved November 12th 2020 from ​ ​ https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosta

Wikipedia. (2020 B). Orrefors. Retrieved November 12th 2020 from ​ ​ https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrefors

Wikipedia. (2019). Orrefors Kosta Boda. Retrieved December 8th 2020 from ​ ​ https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrefors_Kosta_Boda

Wikipedia. (2020 C). Triple Bottom Line. Retrieved November 18th 2020 from ​ ​ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line

Wise, N. (2016). Outlining Triple Bottom Line Contexts in Urban Tourism Regeneration. Cities, ​ 53. 30-34. ​

World Tourism Organization. (2019). UNWTO Tourism Definitions. UNWTO. Madrid. ​ ​

World Tourism Organization. (2020). Glossary of Tourism Terms. Retrieved November 9th 2020 ​ ​ from https://www.unwto.org/glossary-tourism-terms ​

Åsberg, R. (2001). Det Finns Inga Kvalitativa Metoder – och Inga Kvantitativa Heller För Den Delen. Det Kvalitativa-Kvantitativa Argumentets Missvisande Retorik. Pedagogisk Forskning i ​ Sverige (6)4. 270 – 292. ​

73 (81)

8. Appendix

Appendix 1. The questionnaire (in Swedish) Some parts of a few words are missing (on the right side) but we think that it is possible to read and understand anyway.

74 (81)

75 (81)

76 (81)

77 (81)

Appendix 2. Felicia Carlström

We have used google meet whenever we could not work together in person, meaning that most of our research paper was written together. I like to write what I am thinking so mostly we did that and I would ask for thoughts/ideas/inputs from Johanna or she would add whenever she thought of something.

Planning/timetable I wrote the timetable and did most of the “planning” for the research paper. I like planning and structure so it was helpful for me to be doing this. The pandemic made it harder to work together in person but we made sure to stay home if we had any symptoms. We also ended up using google meet so that we would be more productive but not have to meet in person because of the restrictions.

78 (81)

Formalia, front page and abstract We have both checked the layout, done grammar checks etc. I did the front page. I wrote the abstract while talking to Johanna on google meet, just writing what I could think of including and then we discussed it to see if it was something we could use.

Introduction We started with discussing which topic we wanted to focus on and to try and figure out a potential research question. We also did the research early on. The introduction part of our research paper was mostly written while sitting together and discussing. Some parts were written by me and some parts by Johanna. I wrote the disposition and started the problem discussion. We then developed the problem discussion further by discussing it. I did most of the scope and purpose sections while Johanna worked on the definitions. After working separately, we talked about what we wrote and added if there was something the other had not included. I rewrote the purpose section later on as I was not happy with the first draft.

Methodology The first draft of methodology was written by both of us together. We wanted to start the chapter together which really helped with the process. I wrote most of the chapter with help from Johanna. I needed to write down my thoughts so I did that and we developed it from there. I added lots of things to the methodology chapter along the way, erased some things and rewrote some parts so I could work on the structure of the chapter and try to make sure the flow and red thread was good. Johanna worked on the ethical aspects section while I worked on limitations and confirmation bias. We helped each other throughout the whole process by discussing and using google meet to make sure we had productive hours every day. If we got stuck while working alone, we could leave it alone (and work on something else) and the other person could take a look or we would take a look together to keep moving.

Literature review We divided the literature review between us as it seemed the most time efficient. However, throughout the process we have helped each other with most parts in this chapter as well. I

79 (81)

got environmental and socio-cultural impacts as well as the destination chapters. Johanna got the economic impacts and seasonality. I got stuck on environmental impacts and then realized that we should also add residents’ attitudes towards tourism impacts. Johanna helped with environmental impacts when I got stuck so I could focus on the new idea and the destination chapter. I wrote the sections on why we chose the questions that we did.

Study and results I wrote the choice of questionnaire and added some things to the Glasriket background section. Together with Johanna, I wrote the questions used for the empirical study section. We did both the pilot questionnaire and the final questionnaire together. I added and rewrote some things here to make sure I was happy with it, asking Johanna to add things or to say something if she disagreed.

Discussion I wrote most of what is discussed in this chapter with some help from Johanna using google meet. We went through the literature review chapter together and took notes of things that I wanted to include. I also had some ideas of what I wanted to include in this chapter that I had thought of when we wrote the literature review and empirical study chapters.

Conclusions and references list I came up with most of the conclusions, with a little help from Johanna. Johanna did most of the references list as she has a better grasp of the APA system than me.

Appendix 3. Johanna Gustavsson

We wrote almost everything together during the entire process. We started with meeting at the university and then we used google meet when the restrictions became a little harder. Even though we worked on different parts of the essay, we still talked to each other and helped by reading what the other had written.

80 (81)

Introduction: We wrote most of this together but I did the definitions while Felicia wrote ​ “disposition” and “scope”.

Method: We worked together a lot on this chapter. To be more specific, I wrote “ethical ​ aspects” while Felicia did “limitations”. Everything else we wrote and discussed together and changed it when we felt like it was needed.

Literature review: We divided the literature review between us as it would take too long ​ for us to write everything together. I wrote “rural tourism” and “triple bottom line”. We both worked on tourists effects, I wrote “economic impacts” and “seasonality”. I also wrote some on the environmental effects chapter when Felicia got stuck. We have both read through everything and done some changes here and there or added some things.

Study and results: I wrote the first half of “Glasriket background” and Felicia took over ​ ​ ​ when it became more specific about Kosta and how you can relate it to TALC. We did the questions to the study/questionnaire together and then wrote down and interpreted the answers we got together as well.

Discussion and conclusions: We both did the discussion and conclusions together but it ​ was Felicia who wrote down our thoughts while I added some things after we had written the discussion chapter the first time.

Formalia och references list: I took care of the reference list and made sure everything was ​ correct (following the APA reference system) and looked good while Felicia made sure that the table of contents was correct and looked okay. We have both read through the paper several times to find grammatical errors and make small changes as well as erase things that we were not happy with. All in all I think we worked well together.

81 (81)