Sports Tourism Goes Sustainable: the Lillehammer Experience
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Bowling Green State University: ScholarWorks@BGSU Visions in Leisure and Business Volume 15 Number 1 Article 5 1996 Sports Tourism Goes Sustainable: The Lillehammer Experience David Chernushenko Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/visions Recommended Citation Chernushenko, David (1996) "Sports Tourism Goes Sustainable: The Lillehammer Experience," Visions in Leisure and Business: Vol. 15 : No. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/visions/vol15/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ScholarWorks@BGSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Visions in Leisure and Business by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@BGSU. SPORTS TOURISM GOES SUSTAINABLE THE LILLEHAMMER EXPERIENCE BY DR. DAVID CHERNUSHENKO, SENIOR ASSOCIATE THE DELPHI GROUP 700- 45 RIDEAU STREET OTTA WA, ONT ARIO, CANADA K1NSW8 ABSTRACT BACKGROUND The 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, The Commonwealth Games in Victoria, Norway were the first ever "green games." British Columbia are estimated to have The local organizers demonstrated a new pumped close to $500 million into the local model not only for sports events but for the and regional economy. Forty million dollars tourism that usually accompanies these were spent on hospitality, hotels and events. A goodmarriage of sport promotion shopping alone, with 420,000 bednights and environmentalism can guarantee several recorded in the Victoria area. Clearly the things for tourism: a better event, satisfied economic spinoff of hosting a major sports visitors and a positive reputation as a clean event can besubstantial. and attractive destination. The benefits of more"sustainable" sports tourism go beyond This past winter, the town of Lillehammer major events, however. Ongoing sports and Norway was at the centre of a similar boom recreation-related attractions can equally in sports tourism when it played host to the implement greener practices, with similar biggest event there is: the Olympic Games. economic and environmental results. Any Bui whereas Victoria, a city of 300,000, had sports facility, wilderness attraction or hotel to accommodate some 50,000 daily visitors, would do well to study the lessons of Lillehammer, a town of only 24,000, had to Lillehammer. By protecting the natural fea contend with an average daily influx of tures which attract tourists, by preserving 100,000 people. Naturally, local residents healthy local environmental conditions, by anticipated traffic gridlock, mountains of keeping local residents in favour of waste and irreversible environmental dam on-going sports/recreation activities and by age to the vicinity. Yet, somehow none of saving money through efficiency conserva this materialized. Lillehammer managed not tion, you can guarantee a sustainable future only to cope with this monumental sports forsport-based tourismin your region. event without noticeably harming the environment, it did so in a manner which won praise from commentators world-wide. 65 How did Lillehammer achieve such seem Once the goal had been defined new ingly contradictory goals: running a mega working methods and techniques had to be sports event and pleasing hordes of partici developed and new alliances forged. pants and tourists while achieving its ambitious environmental goals? How did the Norwegians succeed in showing the CONFLICTINGINTERESTS world that there is a better way of sports tourism? Thatthere is a greenerway to hold Lillehammer had first launched a bid for the our games? winter Olympics in 1982, on the initiative of a group of local businessmen, bankers, politicians and sports personalities. Their THE SUCCESS STORY: aim was to revitalize the region, which -- LILLEHAMMER'SROAD TO A suffered from declining investment and GREEN PROFILE rising unemployment. A week after Lillehammer was chosen to A bid for the 1994 Winter Games host the XVII Winter Games, the chief emphasized the potential for a "compact environmental officers of Lillehammer and Games", in which all events could be staged Oppland County initiated a meeting at the within a few miles of each other. On Ministryof Environment (MoE) in Oslo, out September 15, 1988, Lillehammer was de of which came a commitment to give the clared host of the 1994 Winter Games. Games a "green profile". An annual budget was approved for these efforts, including While many Norwegians involved in sport funding for a nongovernmental pressure and tourism were jubilant, environmentalists group, known as Project Environment were dismayed. At the outset, environ FriendlyOlympics (PEFO). mental concerns were forgotten as other interests competed for a piece of the action; The term "environmental showcase" was the modest "compact Games" concept was later coined by the MoE to describe the abandoned as construction plans and cost overall goal forstandards of development in estimates became ever more grandiose. the Lillehammer/Oppland region. This goal was endorsedby Norway'sparliament which approvedthe followingmandate: PLANNING BY NEGOTIATION "Any development must conform to the The hills and forests to the east of natural and cultural landscape and other Lillehammer are a recreational area for the regional features. In the long run this will local population. Plans to build new arenas be crucial in preserving and enhancing in this wilderness area provoked the first qualities that are already assets to tourism. conflict between environmentalists and For local peopleit will be most important to developers. Several environmental authori construct the arenas and other buildings ties opposed building new arenas for needed for the event in an environmentally crosscountry skiing and biathlon in the friendlyway." forest. (Previous plans had sited the arenas near an army camp to the northwest of the town.) The County Governor, whose 66 environmental office is empowered to block importance are protected by law, foremost development in natural habitats of national among them the delta of the river Lagen. importance, played a particularly important Since the arrival of the railway in 1894, role in the negotiations. By serving notice tourism has flourished in Lillehammer. that the development would be stopped, the Many homes and hotels were built in order Governor initiated a process of negotiation to exploit the healthy climate and landscape. with the municipal authorities that resulted Even after the Games, the foundation of in the construction of the skiing venues in tourism in the Lillehammer region will the forest, but with strictregulations curbing remain unchanged: beautiful scenery, virgin further development and access by road. forests, clean air and water. Lillehammer is basically a pretty, small town, and its This process of "planning by negotiation" residents wantedto keep it that way. turned out to be far more practical and efficient than working up a final plan that would inevitably attract opposition from PLANNINGAND DESIGN competing interests. Instead, local and regional authorities collaborated from the The process of analyzing Lillehammer's beginning, dealing with specific objections natural and cultural landscape began as they arose. A "planning forum" was immediately after it was awarded the created to encourage informaldiscussion. Games. The object was to set down on paper those qualities appreciated by everyone in Lillehammer but not reflected in municipal NATURAL LILLEHAMMER planning documents. In preparing for the 1994 Winter Games, All buildings made for the Games had to town planners sought to make the most of conformto four main principles: Lillehammer's natural landscape while respecting its historical and economic • Norwegiancharacter, comprising context. Development in connection with simplicity, suitability tothe landscape, the the Games was kept to a minimum in areas use of naturalmaterials such as woodand designated "especially valuable" for his stone and traditionalcolours torical, scientific or recreational reasons. Any changes to such sites had to be shown • Environmentally friendlydesign and to improve the original amenity values. construction,often involving new solutions Some farmlands were also designated to standardarchitectural problems "valuable"; these, and most areas of woodland, were protected. Major develop • Unity and coherence ment work was therefore restricted to areas already subject to relatively intensive • Work by leading Norwegiandesigners residentialor industrialuse. Guidelines werestrictly spelled out: The Lillehammer area has always attracted large numbers of hikers, fishermen and • Designs adapted to existing landscapeand hunters. Several natural areas of national architecture 67 • Permanent buildings conforming to local boards were revised in order to remove or architectural traditions while temporary camouflage eyesores. Local businesses and structuresreflect the unique visual profile of land-owners were encouraged to clean up the Games their properties. • Permanent buildings expressing their characterin naturalmaterials and colours ENVIRONMENTAL "MOM" • Some temporary structures forfestive use To ensure that all Games buildings would be in strong, clear, light colours safe, built of sound materials, well heated and ventilated and reasonably quiet, • Ceremonial elements expanding on Nordic organizers developed a system of themes--northem lights ice snow, crystal specifications known as "MOM" --manage ment, operation, maintenance--intended