Regional and structural patterns of tourism in Finland KAI-VEIKKO VUORISTO Vuoristo, Kai-Veikko (2002). Regional and structural patterns of tourism in Fin- land. Fennia 180: 1–2, pp. 251–259. Helsinki. ISSN 0015-0010. In this article, general and regional patterns of tourism in Finland are com- pared with the preconditions for tourism development. A new model of the ‘regionalism’ of Finland’s tourism is presented. A comparison of regional tour- ism demand (actual tourist flows) with preconditions and supply shows that actual tourism development does not yet correspond sufficiently to the pre- dominant image of Finland as a destination of nature-based recreation activi- ties. The author suggests the promotion of tourism by means of a new image of “modern periphery” and its specific application to different tourist segments and nationalities. Keywords: tourism, regionalism of tourism, tourism flows, preconditions for tourism. Kai-Veikko Vuoristo, Talvisillankatu 1 C 14, FIN-05860 Hyvinkää, Finland. E-mail: [email protected] Destination “modern periphery” cial status among tourists and hikers as a country of reindeer, midnight sun, winter sports centers, Finland has relatively good qualifications for tour- and Santa Claus. Also, the highest elevations are ism development. The strengths of the country are to be found in Lapland. its physical attractiveness, modern infrastructure, On the basis of this tourism topography, cli- political stability, and favorable geographic loca- mate, a well-developed economy, and geograph- tion in regard to wealthy European markets, i.e., ic location, Finland is best suited for active vaca- the continent’s tourist potential. Conditions for the tions and outdoor recreation in which nature- emergence of real mass tourism are not very favo- based activities and experiences dominate. In- rable, however, as the following discussion shows. deed, one could expect that the value of Finnish Finland has been portrayed as “the country of nature as a recreational and entertainment envi- a thousand lakes” for a long time (CD-Fig. 1). In- ronment will grow as urbanization proceeds else- deed, there are approximately 200,000 lakes as where. “Tourist Country Finland” can thus be de- a heritage of geological history (see Tikkanen scribed as a modern periphery: an excellent sym- 2002), but the lakes are not the only attraction of biosis of general peripheral attractiveness (where the Finnish landscape. It would be more appro- natural environment has been spared) and mod- priate to speak of a special tourism topography (a ern services and facilities available for tourists al- combination of hydrography, relief, and vegeta- most everywhere (Vuoristo & Vesterinen 2001). tion), which in many places is quite suitable for Another strength of tourist development con- recreational use. Finland’s rich hydrography con- cerns Finland’s role as one of the world’s leading sists of lakes, lake chains, rivers, and, especially, destinations for congress tourism. In 1999, Fin- the magnificent archipelagos of the coastline. This land hosted 170 international congresses with hydrography thus includes an abundant variety of 50,000 participants, according to the Helsinki– islands and islets. Forests, beautiful eskers, and Finland Congress Bureau (Kongressiuutiset 2000). hill country complete the landscape, which in the The reasons for this development include mem- north and east is sparsely inhabited wilderness. berships in numerous international organizations, In this natural environment, Lapland has a spe- the existence of modern congress centers, high- 252Kai-Veikko Vuoristo FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002) standard accommodations, and suitable attrac- & Vesterinen 2001: 118–121) (Fig. 1). The model tions for short excursions around the congress cit- is dynamic because the suggested regional divi- ies (Vuoristo 1991: 92–94). sion changes over time: for example, some attrac- The principal center of congress tourism and tion complexes may expand to a neighboring other culture-oriented tourism is the southern part complex and new attraction complexes or tourist of Finland, the country’s historical and modern centers may emerge. core region (CD-Fig. 2). The largest cities – the The basic elements of the Finnish tourism sys- most popular tourist centers – are located there. tem are: The capital city Helsinki is the leading destina- tion of both domestic and foreign tourism. South- • Individual attractions ern Finland is also an important gateway region • Proper tourist services and enterprises for tourist flows en route to Russia (Tourism sta- • Tourism centers: (a) popular cities where tistics 1998). It has been said in fun that St. Pe- tourism is only one segment of the local tersburg is Finland’s main tourist destination. economy; (b) rural tourism agglomerations, especially in eastern and northern Finland • Tourism regions or attraction complexes Regional structure of tourism (specialized regions or zones that consist of tourism centers and routes, separate attrac- Finland is divided into five macro regions accord- tions, and enterprises) ing to the general preconditions for tourism de- • Potential attraction complexes velopment (Artman et al. 1978) (Fig. 1.): • Travel routes, especially scenic roads with tourist services 1) Southern and southwestern Cultural Finland • Highway-oriented service establishments 2) Central Lake Region (especially firms established particularly for 3) Ostrobothnia tourists) 4) Eastern Hill Region • Wilderness areas (extensive uninhabited 5) Lapland areas in Lapland, including the country’s most attractive national parks and other le- This division gives only a general idea of those gal entities) possibilities and limitations that prevail in differ- ent parts of the country. It does not reveal much In addition, the emergence of special regional about the actual distribution of attractions and tourism clusters is also possible in the future. This tourism facilities or the orientation of tourist flows means specialization in the manufacturing of tour- (destination choices of tourists). In fact, major ism and recreation products around the growth parts of the macro regions are outside the proper poles of some important macro regions. tourism industry. Therefore, a more exact picture The geographical distribution of attraction com- of the ‘regionalism’ of tourism demand and sup- plexes shows an orientation towards south, east, ply is needed in order to understand the geogra- and north, while there are only scattered tourist phy of Finland’s tourism. “The inner regionalism centers in Ostrobothnia in the west (Fig. 1). The of Finland as a tourist country” (Vuoristo & Veste- principal center, however, is southern Finland, rinen 2001: 113–121) is revealed by examining: where most domestic and foreign tourists visit. (1) different regional or national models and con- Indeed, the Lake Region, the actual “country of a cepts of tourism and recreational travel (Eriksen thousand lakes,” has so far received only a very 1974: 327–348; Campbell 1967: 85–90; Gunn small share of the international tourist flow, as the 1972, cit. Travis 1989: 489–491; Rognant 1990, enclosed diagrams and maps indicate. In north- cit. Pearce 1997: 94–95); (2) a classification of ern Finland things are ‘better’ in this respect. recreation areas by Clawson and Knetsch (1966: The main tourist centers, the old cities in the 36–39); and (3) the criteria for the selection of southern part of the country, are typically locat- tourism destination development areas by Balm- ed in an attractive environment and have versa- er and Crapo Corporation (Tourism develop- tile service facilities and good traffic connections. ment… 1980, cit. Travis 1989: 491). Tourism resorts complement this pattern in Cen- The outcome of this analysis is a model of the tral Finland, where many of the resorts are rela- regional structure of tourism in Finland (Vuoristo tively new winter sports centers. In northern Fin- FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002)Regional and structural patterns of tourism in Finland 253 Fig. 1. Tourism regions in Finland: I = Helsinki Region; II = Hanko Peninsula and Lohja Ridge; III = Turku Archipelago Coast; IV = Åland Islands; V = Kotka–Hamina; VI = Hämeenlinna–Tammela; VII = Lahti and Southern Lake Päijänne Re- gion; VIII = Tampere Region; IX = Central Finland; X = Lake Näsijärvi and Suomenselkä Wilderness; XI = Lappeenranta– Imatra; XII = Savonlinna–Punkaharju; XIII = Verla–Vihersalmi; XIV = Inner Lake Saimaa Region; XV = Upper Savo; XVI = Northern Karelia; XVII = Kainuu; XVIII = Koillismaa–Salla; XIX = Kemi–Tornio–Aavasaksa; XX = Rovaniemi and Luosto– Pyhätunturi; XXI = Saariselkä–Vuotso; XXII = Western Lapland (Vuoristo & Vesterinen 2001). 254Kai-Veikko Vuoristo FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002) land attraction complexes have grown in the un- ki is a very popular zone of weekend tourism, inhabited wilderness around emerging ‘tourism which is directed to numerous outdoor recreation towns’ (Fig. 2). This development has often been centers and attractive towns (especially medieval ‘wild’ and catalytic at first – planning, control, Porvoo). and integrated development have followed later. Within a 30-minute drive, the Nuuksio National Illustrative examples are Lapland’s Saariselkä and Park offers an introduction to the Finnish lake land Ruka where different stages of typical resort de- and wilderness (CD-Fig. 4). Adapting the original velopment (exploration, involvement, develop- concept of Clawson and Knetsch (1971: 36–38), ment, consolidation) are visible (for details, see this