research note sustainable tourism planning and · pdf fileresearch note sustainable tourism...

Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism,Vol. 9, No. 4, 424–435, 2009

1502-2250 Print/1502-2269 Online/09/040424–12 © 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/15022250903175274

RESEARCH NOTE

Sustainable Tourism Planning and Regional Development in Peripheries: A Nordic View

PEKKA KAUPPILA, JARKKO SAARINEN & RIIKKA LEINONEN

University of Oulu, Finland

Taylor and FrancisSJHT_A_417700.sgm10.1080/15022250903175274Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism1502-2250 (print)/1502-2269 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & [email protected]

A

BSTRACT

In a declining periphery, tourism is often considered as a vehicle for regionaldevelopment due to the positive economic impacts of the industry. However, tourism is notautomatically the best saviour for all peripheral areas, because it can also cause some nega-tive impacts. Therefore, sustainable planning is needed to balance the benefits and costs oftourism. The aim of this review is to discuss how to develop the tourism industry in order tocreate positive regional development in the peripheral areas in the Nordic context. The paperpresents two approaches to the tourism planning and regional development nexus: thetourism-centred and regional development-centred. However, the structure of the regionaleconomy and the tourism resources of the area set limitations for the application of these basicapproaches in practice. In this respect, the proposed spatio-functional model would be anoption to increase the positive regional development at the local level in a sustainable way.The model emphasizes a functional collaboration between industries in the core-peripheryframework.

K

EY

W

ORDS

: Sustainable planning, Regional development, Periphery, Nordic countries

Introduction

For decades tourism has been used as a tool for regional development in peripheralareas (see Hall & Jenkins, 1998; Moscardo, 2005). Due to the economic and employ-ment significance of the industry, it has also become a crucial policy issue in manycountries in Europe and therefore, tourism has taken an important position in theEuropean Union’s regional development work (Hall, 2005, p. 166; Williams & Shaw,1998a, p. 6). At the regional and national levels, the aim of tourism development is tobalance regional disparities, whereas at the local level the main objective is to control

Correspondence Address: Pekka Kauppila, Department of Geography, University of Oulu, PO Box 3000,FIN-90014, Finland. Tel.: +358 8 553 16 98. E-mail: [email protected]

Tourism and Regional Development in Nordic Peripheries

425

the structural changes of declining rural areas and industrial towns, as well as to diver-sify the economic base of those areas (Williams & Shaw, 1998b). Particularly inperipheral rural areas, characterized by unemployment, out-migration and an ageingpopulation, among many other challenges, tourism is usually considered the onlyindustry having realistic growth prospects in the future.

From the perspective of regional development, the positive economic impacts oftourism are often highlighted. On the other hand, studies have shown that tourism isnot automatically the saviour for all peripheral areas and it can also cause some nega-tive impacts (see Hall, 2005). Owing to this, the key word and need for maximizationof the benefits of tourism and for minimization of the costs of developing industry isplanning. According to Chadwick (1994), planning refers to a process of future-oriented thinking and the following goals and actions based on this value-driventhinking. Recently, discussions on tourism planning have underlined the need forsustainability which, along with the ecological issues, pays attention to economic andsocio-cultural factors (see Hall, 2000).

This review scrutinizes the principles and limitations in utilizing tourism for posi-tive regional development within the context of sustainable tourism planning. In thislight, this conceptual paper critically assesses the role of the tourism industry tocontribute to the regional economy in peripheral areas and communities. The studyends with a discussion on a spatio-functional model applied at the local level in theNordic context. The model refers to a functional collaboration between industries inthe core-periphery framework.

Principles in Sustainable Tourism Planning

In the public sector, the need for tourism planning was introduced no later than in the1950s and 1960s, and from the very beginning, economic arguments have dominatedthe planning discussions (Burns, 1999; Hall, 2000). Indeed, governments and regionaldevelopment bodies have always been interested in tourism development linked withthe positive economic impacts of the industry: employment, source of income and thediversification of economy. However, in addition to economic perspectives, there areseveral different traditions in tourism planning. Getz (1987) divides them into boost-erism, development, physical and community-based approaches to which Hall (2000)has added a new dimension termed sustainable tourism planning. Recently, sustain-ability has been manifested to a large extent both in the international (e.g. Hall, 2000;Sofield, 2003; Swarbrooke, 2000) and Nordic (e.g. Hall, Müller, & Saarinen, 2009;Müller, 2002; Saarinen, 2003, 2007a, 2007b) regional development and tourismplanning studies and debates.

The focal factors in sustainable tourism planning are a long-term viewpoint andcomprehensiveness. The latter refers to three basic elements of sustainability –ecological, economic and socio-cultural – and how to take them into account inplanning. Ecological sustainability stresses development that is compatible with themaintenance of essential ecological processes, biological diversity and biologicalresources. Economic sustainability means economically effective development inwhich resources are used in such a way that they are preserved for the forthcominggenerations, too (McIntyre, 1993, p. 10, 40). Tourism revenues should also stay

426

P. Kauppila

et al.

within the destination and regional economy as much as possible in order that thelocal population gains benefits from tourism. In addition, the tourism industry shouldemploy the locals as a primary target group instead of people living outside the region(Inskeep, 2001, p. 31). Socio-cultural sustainability refers to local peoples’ needs tohave control over their own life, culture and use of their environment (Dowling &Fennell, 2003, pp. 13–14; McIntyre, 1993, p. 10).

Sustainable tourism planning aims to support the community and economic goals inregional development with elements safeguarding the environment. On the principlelevel, sustainable tourism planning integrates the traditions and planning goalspresented by Getz (1987). The basic goal and value of sustainable tourism planning isthe reconciliation between economic development and the socio-cultural and ecologi-cal environment with an aim to integrate tourism planning into other broader spatialplanning perspectives. Thus all the components and major stakeholders in tourismplanning – the industry, environment or local people – are considered and collaborationbetween different stakeholders and industries is emphasized.

Recently, the role of local communities has been underlined in tourism develop-ment literature (see Marien & Pizam, 1997; Sofield, 2003; Timothy, 2002; Tosun,2006), but already in the mid-1980s the local level and its actors have been takeninto account in planning studies. Murphy’s (1985) and Krippendorf’s (1987) seminaltextbooks are good examples of the early discussions emphasizing the need toinvolve local communities in tourism planning, development and decision-makingprocesses. In general, this kind of community-based tourism aims to ensure that themembers of the local communities have a high degree of control, or even ownership,over the tourism activities, its limits and resources used (Saarinen, 2006; Scheyvens,2002; Simmons, 1994). Local people should receive a significant share of theeconomic benefits of tourism in the form of direct revenues and employment,upgraded infrastructures, environment and housing standards etc.

Sustainable Tourism Planning and Regional Development

Discourses of Tourism Development

Burns (1999) has presented two approaches for tourism planning by locating them atthe opposite ends of a continuum. The tourism first perspective focuses mainly on thedevelopment of the tourism industry characterized by the indicators of business andits growth. Tourism represents development and supporting the industry is justified bythe positive economic benefits it creates for the business. Furthermore, regionaldevelopment is treated as a natural consequence of that approach. In contrast to this,the development first perspective underlines that tourism is a potential tool to enhanceregional development goals but not an end in itself in development; the goals in thedevelopment first are aiming to achieve planned social and economic benefits for thelocal people and regional economies.

By utilizing Burns’s (1999) categorization Saarinen (2007a) has empirically exam-ined the relationship between tourism and regional development in the Nordic contextand the peripheral areas in Northern Finland. He studied the role of tourism inregional development and conceptualized three main discourses based on the way


427

tourism and its meaning and importance were discussed and debated in the media andpolicy documents.

Tourism as an industry

discourse is based on the importance oftourism as an economic activity and the related indicators. As such it refers to Burns’stourism first idea. The second discourse,

tourism as a tool for regional development

,also pays attention to the economic impacts of tourism, such as tourism revenues andemployment, but the main emphasis is based on the benefits created for the socio-economic development of regions and communities. Thus, the scale of discussion ishigher than a single business. In addition, the viewpoint takes notice of the negativeimpacts of tourism in the regional context. In order to prevent and manage thenegative outcomes of tourism development, the role of sustainable planning inemphasized. Hence, the discourse encompasses the principles in sustainability and itcan be interpreted as resembling Burns’s development first concept. The thirddiscourse,

tourism as a problem

, represents a critical perspective of tourism develop-ment. This viewpoint stresses the aspect of tourism that can cause problems to thelocal social, cultural, economic and physical environment. In addition, tourism isdefined and considered as a potential problem to other (local) industries, such asforestry and mining and their future prospects (see Butler, 1999; Saarinen, 2003).Further, tourism is also seen as problematic in relation to the general principles ofsustainable development (see Saarinen, 2006; Sharpley, 2000).

Tourism-centred and Regional Development-centred Approaches in Planning

Based on Burns’s (1999) findings and the previous empirical tourism developmentdiscourses, the tourism planning and regional development nexus can be categorizedinto tourism-centred and regional development-centred approaches (Figure 1). Theformer has dominated tourism planning for a long time and it refers to Getz’s (1987)view of planning as boosterism and Burns’s tourism first concept in development. Inthe tourism-centred model, tourism has been placed at the central focus of develop-ment and tourism is seen as the primary industry in peripheral areas. In practice, theindustry is developed as an enclave industry without integration and links to otherlocal or regional industries or those links are very narrow and dominated by the needsand values of the tourism industry. In other words, local industries are set to “serve”the tourism industry and its development needs. The tradition has close connections tothe tourism as an industry discourse in which the bases of tourism development areindustrial requirements only (see Saarinen, 2007a).

Figure 1

. Tourism-centred (a) and regional development-centred (b) approaches for tourism planning and regional development (Saarinen, 2007a, figure 3.1).

Another planning approach, the regional development-centred, is an option for thetourism-centred tradition (see Figure 1). In this model, tourism represents one possi-ble opportunity among other industries and activities in the regional economy. Aregion, environment and local needs are at the core of development in this case. Theregional development-centred model can be interpreted as deriving from the conceptof development first created by Burns (1999). The model emphasizes collaborationbetween tourism and other (local) industries. For example, attention has been paid tolink agriculture to the tourism industry in the tourism literature (e.g. Fleischer &Tchetchik, 2005; Telfer & Wall, 1996, 2000; Torres, 2003; Walpole & Goodwin,2000). In other words, tourism is part of the local socio-economic structure support-ing, together with other local industries, regional development, well-being and the

428

P. Kauppila

et al.

sustainable use of resources and the environment. In terms of tourism and regionaldevelopment discourses, the regional development-centred model refers to tourism asa tool for regional development discourse.

Geographical Conditions for Tourism Development

The concept of periphery has been under discussion in tourism literature for a long time(see Christaller, 1963). A periphery can be defined in relation to a core which attractsresources and capital. A typical characteristic of a periphery is not only geographicalbut also social and cultural isolation (Shields, 1991). Peripheries are often situated faraway from cores, markets and decision-making and they are characterized as country-side areas with traditional industries prevailing and a declining population (Botterillet al., 2000, pp. 8–9; Stuart, Pearce, & Weaver, 2005, pp. 236–237). Friedmann (1966)points out that both concepts of core and periphery are relative and dynamic in nature.Taking this into consideration at the local level, for example, cores can also be foundin the countryside, and the characteristics of those cores distinguish them from thesurrounding rural areas. Referring to the dynamic nature of the periphery concept,single resorts located in a periphery are able to develop “cores in a periphery” over time(see Kauppila, 2004; Kauppila & Rusanen, 2009).

From the viewpoint of tourism planning and development, both models – thetourism-centred and the regional development-centred – assume different kinds ofcharacteristics in the regional economy and tourism resources in general. In thetourism-centred model, the structure of the regional economy does not necessarily

Figure 1. Tourism-centred (a) and regional development-centred (b) approaches for tourismplanning and regional development (Saarinen, 2007a, figure 3.1).


429

need to be diversified, because tourism is at the focus when developing theeconomic base of the area. However, diversity makes it easier to link tourism withother industries influencing on the one hand, larger multiplicative effects in the areaand on the other hand, smaller leakages from the area. Instead tourism resourceshave to be excellent in order that tourism promotion is generally an appropriate andrealistic option.

In terms of the regional development-centred model, tourism is the only industryamong the other industries to promote. Therefore, the structure of the regional econ-omy has to be quite diverse, otherwise it is not possible to develop several industriessimultaneously. Instead the tourism resources of the area do not need to be excellent,because development activities do not focus on tourism only. Naturally, a diverseresource base provides better opportunities to promote tourism as a stimulator forregional development.

A four-field model for tourism planning and regional development is portrayed inFigure 2. It is based on the relationship between the structure of the regional economyand tourism resources, and by means of this model the role of tourism in the develop-ment of the economic activity in destinations can be assessed. The model is inter-preted in the context of peripheral areas, and it can be derived and applied in thecontext of Northern Finland and Sweden (for example see Hall et al., 2009; Kauppila,2004; Lundmark, 2005; Saarinen, 2004).

(1) If the structural base of the regional economy is one-sided and the tourismresources of the area are modest, then industry policy should focus on an existingtraditional industry or “find” a new one. Considering the one-sided structure of theregional economy, the model refers to a traditional or new industry in the singular.In Northern Finland, the traditional industries are, for example, agriculture andforestry, fishery, handicrafts, reindeer herding and their upgrading (see Kauppila,2004; Saarinen, 2003, 2007a). In terms of new opportunities, the mining industryseems to be a very promising industry at present in the peripheral areas in NorthernFinland. In the case of tourism, resources are quite modest and thus, tourism is not

Figure 2. The structure of the regional economy, the tourism resources of the area andindustry policy. The numbers in the figure are referred in the text.

430

P. Kauppila

et al.

the most important developing industry. To sum up, the area can be portrayed as amonoculture, that is regional development is dependent on one industry and hencevulnerable.

(2) If the structural base of the regional economy is diverse but the tourismresources of the area are modest, then development policy has two options: traditionaland new industries. The enabler for this is a diverse economy base. In practice, theperiphery’s economic structure is very rarely diverse in nature and, therefore, thespectrum of progressing industries is low. In addition, rural areas are usually lackingboth material and immaterial resources. Due to the modest tourism resources, thetourism industry is not included among the primary developing industries.

(3) If the structure of the regional economy is diverse and the tourism resources ofthe area are excellent, then industry policy has – at least in principle – several options:traditional industries, new industries and the tourism industry. In this case, tourism isamong the most significant industries. As mentioned earlier, peripheral areas havetheir own limitations with respect to diversity.

(4) If the structure of the regional economy is one-sided but the tourism resourcesof the area are excellent, development policy has just one option. Therefore, develop-ment resources should focus on the tourism industry that is referred to as a one-sidedstructure. However, in this case the regional economy represents a monoculture,tourism being the only industry with opportunities to develop. Particularly in periph-eral areas, the tourism industry is usually treated as “the last resort”, because theprimary industries are faced with problems and industrial production and populationare moving to cores (Saarinen, 2007a; see also Johnson et al., 1994).

Figure 2

. The structure of the regional economy, the tourism resources of the area and industry policy. The numbers in the figure are referred in the text.

In the model presented, fields (3) and (4) can be interpreted, according toSaarinen’s (2007a) concepts, as the tourism-centred approach, but in field (4) the one-sided regional economy limits links between tourism and other (local) industries.Fields (2) and (3) conform quite well to Saarinen’s regional development-centredapproach, although only field (3) contains the tourism industry among developingindustries in the area. Instead, in field (2) tourism is excluded. It is noteworthy that infield (3) both approaches can be applied. Emphasis depends on whether tourism is oneindustry vehicle in the industry policy of the area or one industry among traditionaland new ones. The requirement of the regional development-centred model, thediversity of the regional economy, is very challenging, for example, in the peripheralareas in Northern Finland. In field (1), neither approach is relevant because, on theone hand, tourism resources are modest only and on the other hand, the economicstructure of the area is one-sided.

Conclusions and Discussion

The tourism-centred and regional development-centred models in tourism planninghave close connection to Burns’s (1999) tourism first and development firstconcepts (Saarinen, 2007a). In the tourism-centred model, the focus is the industryand its needs, but the regional development-centred model regards tourism as onlyone industry among other (local) industries. Thus, in the latter case tourism istreated equally and seen as a respectable opportunity to vitalize the regionaleconomy also taking traditional industries into consideration. Sustainable tourism


431

planning based on the ideology of sustainable development stresses a need torespect the environmental, socio-cultural and economic base of the area and there-fore, the regional development-centred model can be interpreted as better represent-ing the concept of sustainability (also see Lasanta, Laguna, & Vicente-Serrano,2007; Tooman, 1997a, 1997b).

In the Nordic context and especially in the region’s peripheries, the recent focus hasbeen on tourist resorts (see Hall et al., 2009). In Finland, for example, the presentnational tourism policy (Suomen matkailustrategia…, 2006) as well as Lapland’stourism strategy (Lapin matkailustrategia 2007–2010, 2007) emphasize resorts andtheir role in tourism development. The resort-oriented development resemblesSaarinen’s (2007a) tourism-centred model and hence, there seems to have emerged afew challenges from the perspective of regional development. The most critical issuerelates to the regional dimension of the positive socio-economic impacts of tourism:they usually occur at the resort level and are not spread to a wider geographical area.In Northern Finland and Sweden, large resorts have increased the number ofenterprises, jobs and population during the last few decades, but these positive effectshave not reached the areas surrounding those resorts (see Hall et al., 2009; Kauppila,2004; Kauppila & Rusanen, 2009; Lundmark, 2005). Actually, the location munici-palities of the resorts have suffered from the typical features of a declining ruralperiphery as a whole, such as the recession of economic life and a decreasing andageing population.

In this light, it is fruitful to discuss the nexus of the resort-oriented developmentand regional development. A realistic option could be to associate the tourism-centredmodel with elements of the regional development-centred model. This new model canbe conceptualized as a spatio-functional model emphasizing both regional and func-tional collaboration (Figure 3). The former means the collaboration between a core (aresort) and a periphery (surrounding area), whereas the latter can be analyzed byextending Saarinen’s (2007a) tourism-centred approach to two levels: a collaborationwithin the tourism industries and between the tourism industries and other (local)industries.

Figure 3

. A spatio-functional model for collaboration within the tourism industries and between the tourism industries and other (local) industries at the local level. The internal circle represents the core (resort) and the external circle the periphery (surrounding area).

First

, in the spatio-functional collaboration of the primary tourism industries, theobjective is to produce tourism packages taking a regional viewpoint into consider-ation, that is, to bring together enterprises that gain direct tourism revenues. The morediverse resources and attractions the core and the periphery include, the betteropportunities they have to provide service products for the overall tourism supply of adestination. The role of rural areas surrounding the resorts is to specialize in suchtourism products, like nature- and culture-based products, which can not be producedin the cores. Brenner (2005) proposes that resorts could be regarded as starting pointsor gates for the trips to the unknown, attractive countryside. In this case, the travelmodel is called base camp (Oppermann, 1995; Stewart & Vogt, 1997), hub-and-spoke(McKercher & Lew, 2004) or base site (Lau & McKercher, 2007). The purpose of theregional collaboration is, thus, to spread tourists to a wider geographical area in theform of day-trips, for example. This requires the decentralizing of sights, attractionsand services.

Second

, the spatio-functional collaboration deals with purchase chains between theprimary tourism industries and other (local) industries benefiting indirectly from

432

P. Kauppila

et al.

tourism. In the peripheries, there are more favourable conditions to carry ontraditional industries compared to the cores. On the one hand, the more direct tourismenterprises make purchases from those enterprises located within the destination, thelarger the money flows are inside the destination, the smaller the leakages are outsidethe destination. Generally speaking, the more diverse the economic base of the areais, the better opportunities there are to create long purchase chains within the area andthus satisfy the need of the indirect demand of the tourism industries. Tooman(1997a,b) states that at the local level, links have to be strengthened and developedbetween tourism and other local industries, like agriculture and handicrafts, rightfrom the beginning of the development process in order to keep the economic struc-ture of the area as diverse as possible in the future. However, the one-sided economicstructure of peripheral areas is usually a limiting factor in terms of multiplicativeeffects.

Regardless of the promising prospects and figures for global tourism, the industryis also a regional phenomenon and tied to certain places which have different poten-tials to develop it. Tourism is often seen as “the last resort” for economic developmentin peripheral areas. Indeed, depending on the potential of a region, tourism can beused successfully in regional development. Still, it should be remembered that it isneither always the best available tool to contribute to the regional economy nor is theindustry automatically the saviour for all types of peripheral areas (see Lundmark,2005). Added to this, an economic transition from one-sided agriculture and forestry

Figure 3. A spatio-functional model for collaboration within the tourism industries andbetween the tourism industries and other (local) industries at the local level. The internal circlerepresents the core (resort) and the external circle the periphery (surrounding area).


433

to one-sided tourism is a transition from one monoculture to another, and a monocul-ture always includes a risk from the perspective of the region and communities.

References

Botterill, D., Owen, R. E., Emmanuel, L., Foster, N., Gale, T., Nelson, C., & Selby, M. (2000) Perceptionsfrom periphery: The experience of Wales. In F. Brown & D. Hall (Eds.),

Tourism in PeripheralAreas. Case Studies,

pp. 7–38 (Clevedon: Channel View Publications).Brenner, L. (2005) State-planned tourism destinations: The case of Huatulco, Mexico,

Tourism Geogra-phies,

7,

pp. 138–164.Burns, P. (1999) Paradoxes in planning: Tourism elitism or brutalism?

Annals of Tourism Research,

26,

pp. 329–348.Butler, R. W. (1999) Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review,

Tourism Geographies,

1,

pp. 7–25.Chadwick, R. (1994) Concepts definitions and measures used in travel and tourism research. In J. R. B.

Ritchie & C. Goeldner (Eds.),

Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers,

pp. 47–61 (New York: John Wiley & Sons).Christaller, W. (1963) Some considerations of tourism location in Europe: The peripheral regions –

underdeveloped countries – recreation areas,

Regional Science Association; Paper XII, LundCongress,

pp. 95–105.Dowling, R. K. & Fennell, D. A. (2003) The context of ecotourism policy and planning. In R. K. Dowling

& D. A. Fennell (Eds.),

Ecotourism Policy and Planning,

pp. 1–20 (Wallingford, UK: CABIPublishing).

Fleischer, A. & Tchetchik, A. (2005) Does rural tourism benefit from agriculture?

Tourism Management,

26,

pp. 493–501.Friedmann, J. (1966)

Regional Development Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela

(Cambridge: The MITPress).

Getz, D. (1987) Tourism planning and research: Traditions, models and futures,

Strategic Planning forTourism: An Australian Travel Research Workshop,

5–6 November 1987, Lord Forrest Hotel,Bunbury, Western Australia: Conference papers and workshop notes, pp. 2–43.

Hall, C. M. (2000)

Tourism Planning. Policies, Processes and Relationships

(Harlow, UK: Pearson).Hall, C. M. (2005)

Tourism: Rethinking the Social Science of Mobility

(Harlow, UK: Pearson).Hall, C. M. & Jenkins, J. M. (1998) The policy dimensions of rural tourism and recreation. In R. W.

Butler, C. M. Hall, & J. Jenkins (Eds.),

Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas,

pp. 16–42 (Chiches-ter: John Wiley & Sons).

Hall, C. M., Müller, D. K., & Saarinen, J. (Eds.) (2009)

Nordic Tourism: Cases and Issues

(Clevedon:Channel View Publications).

Inskeep, E. (2001)

National and Regional Tourism Planning

(London: Thomson Learning).Johnson, J. D., Snepenger, D. J., & Akis, S. (1994) Residents’ perceptions of tourism development,

Annalsof Tourism Research,

21,

pp. 629–642.Kauppila, P. (2004) Matkailukeskusten kehitysprosessi ja rooli aluekehityksessä paikallistasolla:

Esimerkkeinä Levi, Ruka, Saariselkä ja Ylläs. [Development process of resorts and their role inregional development at the local level: Cases studies of Levi, Ruka, Saariselkä and Ylläs],

NordiaGeographical Publications,

33,

pp. 1–260.Kauppila, P. & Rusanen, J. (2009) A grid cell viewpoint to resorts: Case studies in Northern Finland,

Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism,

9(1),

pp. 1–21.Krippendorf, J. (1987)

The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel

(Oxford:Butterworth-Heinemann).

Lapin matkailustrategia 2007–2010 (2007) [Lapland’s tourism strategy for 2007–2010]. 30 May 2008.Available from: http://www.lapinliitto.fi/matkailu.index.html

Lasanta, T., Laguna, M., & Vicente-Serrano, S. M. (2007) Do tourism-based ski resorts contribute to thehomogeneous development of the Mediterranean mountains? A case study in the Central SpanishPyrenees,

Tourism Management,

28,

pp. 1326–1339.Lau, G. & McKercher, B. (2007) Understanding tourist movement patterns in a destination: A GIS

approach,

Tourism and Hospitality Research,

7,

pp. 39–49.

434

P. Kauppila

et al.

Lundmark, L (2005) Economic restructuring into tourism in the Swedish Mountain Range,

ScandinavianJournal of Hospitality and Tourism,

5,

pp. 23–45.Marien, C. & Pizam, A. (1997) Implementing sustainable tourism development through citizen participa-

tion in the planning process. In S. Wahab & J. J. Pigram (Eds.),

Tourism, Development and Growth.The Challenge of Sustainability,

pp. 164–178 (London: Routledge).McIntyre, G. (1993)

Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local Planners

(Madrid: WorldTourism Organization).

McKercher, B. & Lew, A. A. (2004) Tourist flows and the spatial distribution of tourists. In A. A. Lew, C.M. Hall, & A. M. Williams (Eds.),

A Companion to Tourism,

pp. 36–48 (Malden, Oxford andCarlton: Blackwell).

Moscardo, G. (2005) Peripheral tourism development: Challenges, issues and success factors,

TourismRecreation Research,

30,

pp. 27–43.Murphy, P. E. (1985)

Tourism: A Community Approach

(London: Methuen).Müller, D. K. (2002) Second home ownership and sustainable development in Northern Sweden,

Tourismand Hospitality Research,

3,

pp. 343–355.Oppermann, M. (1995) A model of travel itineraries,

Journal of Travel Research,

33,

pp. 57–61.Saarinen, J. (2003) The regional economics of tourism in Northern Finland: The socio-economic implica-

tions of recent tourism development and future possibilities for regional development,

ScandinavianJournal of Hospitality and Tourism,

3,

pp. 91–113.Saarinen, J. (2004) ‘Destinations in change’: The transformation of process of tourism destinations,

Tourist Studies,

4,

pp. 161–179.Saarinen, J. (2006) Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies,


33,

pp. 1121–1140.Saarinen, J. (2007a) Tourism in peripheries: The role of tourism in regional development in northern

Finland. In D. K. Müller & B. Jansson (Eds.),

Tourism in Peripheries: Perspectives from the farNorth and South,

pp. 41–52 (Wallingford: CAB International).Saarinen, J. (2007b) Contradictions of rural tourism initiatives in rural development contexts: Case of

Finnish Rural Tourism Strategy,

Current Issues in Tourism,

10,

pp. 96–105.Scheyvens, R. (2002)

Tourism for Development

(Harlow: Pearson).Sharpley, R. (2000) Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide,

Journal ofSustainable Tourism,

8,

pp. 1–19.Shields, R. (1991)

Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity

(London: Routledge).Simmons, D. G. (1994) Community participation in tourism planning,

Tourism Management,

15,

pp. 98–108.Sofield, T. H. B. (2003)

Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism Development

(Amsterdam: Pergamon).Stewart, S. I. & Vogt, C. A. (1997) Multi-destination trip patterns,


24,

pp. 458–461.Stuart, P., Pearce, D., & Weaver, A. (2005) Tourism distribution channels in peripheral regions: The case

of Southland, New Zealand,


7,

pp. 235–256.Suomen matkailustrategia vuoteen 2020 & Toimenpideohjelma vuosille 2007–2013 (2006) [Finland’s

tourism strategy to 2020 & Action Plan for 2007–2013],

Kauppa- ja teollisuusministeriön julkaisuja

21/2006.Swarbrooke, J. (2000)

Sustainable Tourism Management

(London: CABI Publishing).Telfer, D. J. & Wall, G. (1996) Linkages between tourism and food production,

Annals of TourismResearch,

23,

pp. 635–653.Telfer, D. J. & Wall, G. (2000) Strengthening backward economic linkages: Local food purchasing by

three Indonesian hotels,


2,

pp. 421–447.Timothy, D. J. (2002) Tourism and community development issues. In R. Sharpley & D. J. Telfer (Eds.),

Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues,

pp. 149–164 (Clevedon: Channel View Publications).Tooman, L. A. (1997a) Applications of the life-cycle model in tourism,


24,

pp. 214–234.Tooman, L. A. (1997b) Multipliers and life cycles: A comparison of methods for evaluating tourism and

its impacts,

Journal of Economic Issues,

31,

pp. 918–932.Torres, R. (2003) Linkages between tourism and agriculture in Mexico,


30,

pp. 546–566.


435

Tosun, C. (2006) Expected nature of community participation in tourism development, TourismManagement, 27, pp. 493–504.

Walpole, M. J. & Goodwin, H. J. (2000) Local economic impacts of dragon tourism in Indonesia, Annalsof Tourism Research, 27, pp. 559–576.

Williams, A. M. & Shaw, G. (1998a) Introduction: Tourism and uneven economic development. In A. M.Williams & G. Shaw (Eds.), Tourism and Economic Development. European Experiences, 3rd ed.pp. 1–16 (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons).

Williams, A. M. & Shaw, G. (Eds.) (1998b) Tourism and Economic Development. European Experiences,3rd edn (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons).

Copyright of Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality & Tourism is the property of Routledge and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

research note sustainable tourism planning and · pdf fileresearch note sustainable tourism...

Documents