Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Vol. 17, No. 5, September 2009, 529–549

Local discourses and international initiatives: sociocultural

sustainability of tourism in Oulanka National Park, Finland
Riikka Puhakkaa∗ , Simo Sarkkib , Stuart P. Cottrellc and Pirkko Siikamäkia
a
Oulanka Research Station/Thule Institute, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; b Thule Institute,
University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; c Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States
(Received 23 May 2008; final version received 3 December 2008)

National parks have become important tourist attractions and tools for regional devel-
opment. New international initiatives, such as PAN (Protected Area Network) Parks
in Europe, now promote sustainable tourism in protected areas. This paper examines
the sociocultural sustainability of tourism perceived by local stakeholders of Oulanka
National Park in northeastern Finland. The central question concerns the role of PAN
Parks certification in community and tourism development. Four discourses were iden-
tified, based on 40 semi-structured interviews exploring different views on sociocultural
development pertaining to tourism in the national park: (1) integrating nature-based
tourism and conservation, (2) defending the rights of local people, (3) stressing the eco-
nomic utilization of nature and (4) accepting tourism development and the national park.
Although local stakeholders mostly have a positive perception of tourism in the park, it
cannot be concluded whether the park facilitates development in a sustainable manner or
not. Key problems identified are lack of participation opportunities and contradictions
with traditional subsistence economies. The various positions of stakeholders in these
discourses tend to influence their views on sustainability. Findings imply the necessity
to monitor the distribution of benefits and burdens of park development holistically to
multiple stakeholders.
Keywords: sustainable tourism; nature-based tourism; national parks; certification;
PAN Parks; Finland

Introduction
Following the growth of nature-based tourism, national parks have become important
tourist attractions worldwide. Parks are now more dynamic and innovative; coordinating
conservation and the utilization of nature is seen as advantageous for both conservation and
regional development (Fennell & Weaver, 2005; Hammer, Mose, Siegrist, & Weixlbaumer,
2007; Zachrisson, Sandell, Fredman, & Eckerberg, 2006). Besides the risks involved in
tourism in protected areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guide-
lines recognize potential benefits related to enhancing economic opportunity, protecting
natural and cultural heritage and enhancing quality of life (Eagles et al., 2002). Meanwhile,
pressure on parks to produce tourism income and to show economic efficiency has grown;
park authorities increasingly have to manage parks as a business if they wish to receive
public funding (Eagles & McCool, 2002). Tourism development can generate financing
for the management of protected areas and can help communities cope with economic

∗
Corresponding author. Email: riikka.puhakka@oulu.fi
ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 online
C 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09669580802713457
http://www.informaworld.com
530 R. Puhakka et al.

restructuring (McCool & Patterson, 2000). As expectations of benefits are fulfilled, local
support for park development is usually enhanced (Bushell & McCool, 2007).
Various international initiatives and certification programmes play an increasing role
in encouraging synergy between conservation and tourism (Buckley, 2002; Honey, 2007).
In 1997, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Dutch leisure company Molecaten founded
PAN (Protected Area Network) Parks Foundation1 , a non-profit organization aimed at
balancing the needs of wilderness protection and community development by facilitating
sustainable tourism development in Europe’s protected areas (Font & Brasser, 2002; Font
& Clark, 2007). PAN Parks certification, listed as one of the two most relevant management
practices for Natura 2000 sites in Europe (Environment DG, 2001), is an attempt to balance
economic growth, cultural integrity and ecological sustainability via partnerships with
conservation organizations, travel agencies, business communities and other groups on
local, national and international levels. The first PAN Parks, including Oulanka National
Park in Finland, were certified in 2002, and now there are 11 PAN Parks in nine countries.
As the role of primary production has decreased steadily, nature-based tourism has
become an instrument for regional development in the northern peripheral areas of Finland
(Saarinen, 2005, 2007). Statistics from Metsähallitus, the state-owned enterprise that admin-
isters the land and water areas of Finland, indicate that the average number of visits to Finnish
national parks doubled in the 1990s with continued growth in the 2000s. In 2007, there were
1.7 million visits to 35 national parks (Metsähallitus, 2008). The current aim of Finnish
parks is to integrate the socio-economic goals of nature-based tourism with the ecological
goals of conservation by implementing the principles of sustainability (Puhakka, 2008).
Thus, national parks increasingly function as intermediaries between local and national/
international interests in both nature conservation and regional development issues
(Saarinen, 2007). Conservation is, however, the most important goal of Finnish protected
areas (Heinonen, 2007; Metsähallitus, 2000), which have been rated as well managed and,
with some exceptions, achieving their aims of conserving biodiversity (Gilligan, Dudley,
Fernandez de Tejada, & Toivonen, 2005; Hockings, Stolton, Leverington, Dudley, &
Courrau, 2006).
This paper examines how local stakeholders perceive the sociocultural sustainability of
tourism in Oulanka National Park (Oulanka NP). The central questions concern the role of
PAN Parks’ status in community and tourism development: Does it benefit sociocultural
development in the region and does it have some negative sides from the perspective of local
people? The research questions are related to wider issues, which are discussed in the paper:
Can tourism in national parks promote and combine economic, ecological and sociocultural
dimensions through certifications such as PAN Parks, and how do local stakeholders see the
role of the park agency or PAN Parks as an institution facilitating sustainability (Cottrell &
Raadik, 2008)? This paper, based on a qualitative approach, identifies four discourses that
have different views on sociocultural development pertaining to tourism in the national park.
Each is analyzed to provide a multi-vocal account of local perceptions about sociocultural
sustainability and to discuss the potential for conflict over protected areas. By focusing on
the sociocultural role of tourism, this study supplements the previous studies in Oulanka
NP examining the ecological impacts of tourism (e.g. Törn, Tolvanen, Norokorpi, Tervo, &
Siikamäki, 2009) and the opinions of local people towards conservation and tourism (Törn,
Siikamäki, Tolvanen, Kauppila, & Rämet, 2008).

The sociocultural and institutional sustainability of tourism

The sociocultural dimension is integral to sustainability (WTO, 2004). In tourism research,
the role of tourism in promoting or hindering sociocultural progress needs more attention
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 531

(Liu, 2003) as sociocultural aspects are often marginalized in favour of economic and
ecological viewpoints (Cole, 2006). In this paper, sociocultural sustainability is divided
into three analytical perspectives: (1) opportunity to participate in decisions affecting
livelihoods, (2) fair distribution of benefits and burdens between various interest groups
and (3) cultural sustainability, for instance the continuance of local values (see Heikkinen,
Lakomäki, & Baldridge, 2007; Rannikko, 1999).
The importance of participation is acknowledged in community-based tourism stud-
ies, which highlight such issues as pro-poor tourism (Ashley, 2002), local participation
and empowering marginalized people by tourism (Reid, 2003; Sofield, 2003). Nevertheless,
community-based tourism does not automatically lead to the empowerment of local commu-
nities (Saarinen, 2006). Firstly, participation might be dominated by powerful stakeholders
(Johnson & Wilson, 1999; Mowforth & Munt, 2003). Secondly, it may happen merely on
the level of operational decisions while the values and visions guiding the development
may remain untouched by participatory interventions (Whyte, Greenwood, & Lazes, 1991).
Thirdly, the lack of trust between facilitators and participants, and also between different
participant groups, might lead to polarization and bad compromises. Open communica-
tion is seen as one opportunity to foster trust between multiple actors (Kyllönen et al.,
2006) and generate more flexible modes of governance. Successful participation may be
truly interactive or happen through self-mobilisation (Tosun, 2006). Local participation as
a prerequisite to sustainability is emphasized in the sociocultural dimension, and also in
the institutional one (Cottrell & Cutumisu, 2006; Cottrell, Vaske, Shen, & Ritter, 2007;
Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000).
The benefits and burdens of development are not always distributed equitably between
interest groups (Mowforth & Munt, 2003). For instance, tourism is dependent on natural
resources, and resource exploitation may lead to exclusions (Holden, 2005), or some groups
may be left out of tourism benefits, but suffer from environmental degradation linked to
tourism (Lee & Jamal, 2008). The best practices leading to fair allocation of resources often
include win-win solutions between the various stakeholders and dimensions of sustainabil-
ity (WTO, 2004). Nevertheless, to achieve benefits brought by tourism, some trade-offs
may be necessary, for instance increased employment against decreased local control over
resources (Cottrell et al., 2007; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005). In other words, tourism may be
economically beneficial for the region or locality, yet that alone does not make tourism sus-
tainable when viewed from a holistic sociocultural perspective (Mowforth & Munt, 2003;
Saarinen, 2006). Furthermore, economic profits do not guarantee fair allocation of benefits
and costs, as local residents have multiple positions (Southgate, 2006), and the benefits of
tourism are also related to other factors, for instance the wider concept of wellbeing (Jamal,
Borges, & Stronza, 2006). Another trade-off may concern whether current benefits deter
future options (Saarinen, 2006; WTO, 2004).
Cultural sustainability refers to the continuation of local values, way of life and iden-
tity (Heikkinen et al., 2007). Tourism development may support the cultural and social
aspects of sustainability, for instance by providing an alternative to fading traditional in-
dustries, stimulating infrastructure development, fostering pride pertaining to culture and
community, promoting cultural understanding amongst visitors, preserving cultural her-
itage, promoting cross-institutional understanding and creating educational opportunities
(Besculides, Lee, & McCormick, 2002; Simpson, 2008). However, tourism can introduce
new lifestyles, attitudes and even values to hosts (Liu, 2003; Stronza, 2007), and contribute
to changes in the livelihood structures of communities. The concerns are that traditional
local values and habits change in the midst of globalization processes and global gover-
nance. Some authors argue that increasing applications of international certifications pose
similar challenges to local cultures (Buckley, 2002; Font & Clark, 2007; Honey, 2007).
532 R. Puhakka et al.

Figure 1. Modified prism of sustainability with sociocultural emphasis (adapted from Cottrell &
Raadik, 2008; Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000).

Nevertheless, local cultures do not remain still as if in a museum (Agrawal, 1995); they
are dynamic and evolving entities, which change over time while retaining distinctiveness.
Self-determination as a prerequisite to cultural sustainability means that development must
be acceptable to those who take part in it (Rannikko, 1999; Sofield, 2003).
The fourth dimension of sustainability, the institutional one, has been examined in
the tourism literature only recently (Cottrell & Cutumisu, 2006; Cottrell & Raadik, 2008;
Cottrell et al., 2007) although it is a key factor in facilitating other dimensions of sustainable
development in the long term (Eden, Falkheden, & Malbert, 2000; Johnson & Wilson, 2000).
According to Valentin and Spangenberg (2000), institutional sustainability “refers to human
interaction and the rules by which they are guided, i.e. to the institutions of the society”.
Thus, this dimension refers to norms, values and practices applied to certain contexts
via management interventions (Johnson & Wilson, 2000; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; van
der Duim & Caalders, 2002). By institutional sustainability we do not mean the stability
and rigidness of institutions, but institutional flexibility to new circumstances to adapt to
the challenges of changing socio-ecological systems. Institutional interventions, such as
national park agencies or PAN Parks, can govern and facilitate change, which is important
to realizing sustainability (Cottrell & Cutumisu, 2006). Figure 1 presents an institution as
an ongoing facilitator of sustainability.
Since development is a continuous process, learning and innovations lie at the centre of
institutional sustainability (Johnson & Wilson, 1999). Innovations can emerge from con-
flicts and contradictions when diverse and contested views are negotiated constructively
(Parkins & Mitchell, 2005). Nevertheless, a discursive arena is necessary where issues can
be negotiated. Blueprint plans, such as protected area or PAN Parks guidelines, may serve as
a starting point for negotiations. Such guidelines are often deeply rooted in scientific knowl-
edge, which might be problematic because knowledge used in management practice may be
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 533

inaccurate or insufficient from a public viewpoint, and the institutionalization of certain sci-
entific practices has triggered many environmental disputes (Forsyth, 2003). Therefore, the
combination of blueprints and active participatory negotiation processes has been proposed
in order to enhance dynamic institutional sustainability (Johnson & Wilson, 1999).

The study area

Oulanka NP is located in Oulu and Lapland provinces of Finland, adjacent to the Russian
border and close by the Arctic Circle (Figure 2). This sparsely populated region has

Figure 2. Location of Oulanka National Park in Kuusamo and Salla municipalities in northeastern
Finland.
534 R. Puhakka et al.

traditionally been dependent on forestry, reindeer herding, hunting and fishing. The park
was established in 1956 to protect unique riparian ecosystems with rich flora and fauna. The
protection of the Oulankajoki river–Juuma area was discussed already in the 1910s–1930s,
but the ownership of common lands was not then totally resolved, and local people were
afraid that nature conservation would violate their rights. Thus, the proposed Oulanka and
Juuma National Parks were not included in the first round of parks established in 1938. Their
establishment came up again in the 1950s. Locals still opposed conservation; settlement
was expanding fast in forest areas and economic interests were directed at forests and river
rapids. After the dispute over the ownership of the Kuusamo rapids was resolved in court,
the Oulankajoki riverside was left to the state to establish Oulanka NP while the Juuma
area went to local landowners and was not included within the park boundary in 1956.
There were two major expansions to the park in 1982 and 1989, including the Juuma area,
which raised further dispute at the local level (Ruuttula-Vasari & Juvonen, 2006). These
contradictions are connected to a traditionally strong resistance to nature conservation in
rural areas in Finland (and in many other countries) (Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997; Sandell,
2005; Selby & Petäjistö, 2008).
Currently Oulanka NP covers approximately 28,000 hectares; it is managed by
Metsähallitus whose public administration duties include the management of protected
areas (Heinonen, 2007). The Natural Heritage Services of Metsähallitus, funded mostly by
the state, manages Finnish national parks within the Parliamentary legislation, the Ministry
of the Environment’s guidelines (e.g. 2002) and Metsähallitus’ (e.g. 2000) own principles
and management and land-use plans for each park. Following the International Union for
Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) protected area management categories, Oulanka NP is a
category II (national park) (Chape, Blyth, Fish, Fox, & Spalding, 2003; see Dudley, 2008).
According to Gilligan et al. (2005), the park had the highest management effectiveness
score of any area assessed in a survey of 206 forest protected areas worldwide (Dudley
et al., 2004).
Tourism development started in Oulanka in the 1930s, and since the national park was
established it has been one of the most popular and well-known parks in Finland. Within the
conservation regulations (Metsähallitus, 2000), the park offers various activities for an array
of tourists throughout the year, with a majority of visitors in the summer. In 2007, there
were 185,500 visits to Oulanka NP (Metsähallitus, 2008), which had tripled since 1992.
A fifth of visitors are foreigners – mostly from Germany and the Netherlands (Muikku,
2005). Thirty partnership companies organize recreation services in the park, and around
20 accommodation companies are located close by. According to a travel cost method study
(Hakala, 2003), the annual direct income from park visitors was 13.5 million Euros in 2000.
Thus, Oulanka NP plays an important socio-economic role in the Kuusamo–Salla region,
which, with its popular ski resort Ruka, is one of the most attractive tourist destinations in
Finland.
Further demands on the management and land use of Oulanka NP are posed by PAN
Parks certification, the world’s first operational, third-party certification system under the
World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) framework for management effectiveness
(PAN Parks, 2008). A park becomes certified following verification, which is carried out by
a team of independent experts, in accordance with PAN Parks’ (2006a, 2006b, 2006c) prin-
ciples and criteria. A verification group conducts an annual monitoring and a re-verification
after a 5-year period. A park must meet five principles each with specific criteria: natu-
ral values, habitat management, visitor management, sustainable tourism development and
tourism business partners. Partner verification, carried out by a local team, offers a business
the right to use the PAN Parks logo in return for a commitment to sustainability; at present
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 535

there are 13 local partners in Oulanka region. In addition, each park establishes a local
PAN Park stakeholder group, which formulates a sustainable tourism development strategy.
In Oulanka region, the strategy was written in 2004 in accordance with Metsähallitus’
principles for sustainable nature tourism and limits of acceptable change (LAC) approach
(Heinonen, 2007).
The minimum size of a PAN Park is 20,000 hectares with a wilderness/core zone of at
least 10,000 hectares in an essentially natural state and only slightly modified by humans.
PAN Parks (2006a) criteria do not permit extractive uses in this zone (e.g. hunting/culling,
fishing, logging, grazing or motorised transportation) even if based on traditional use, yet
in practice legislation protecting the rights to certain uses must be complied with. In the
core zone of Oulanka NP, reindeer herding and bear hunting by local people are allowed;
sport fishing was prohibited in 2005. In other areas of the park, local residents have some
special rights related to hunting, fishing and reindeer herding.

Research methods and materials

A qualitative approach was used to gain an in-depth understanding of local stakeholders’
perceptions of tourism and park development in Oulanka NP. The research included 40 semi-
structured interviews conducted in the surrounding area of the park in 2007 concurrently
with a questionnaire study (Cottrell, van der Donk, & Siikamäki, 2008). A minimum of 3
interviewees were selected from each target group: NGOs (fishing, hunting and conservation
organizations, 3 persons), partner companies of PAN Parks (7 persons), other tourism
companies (6 persons), non-tourism companies (4 persons), municipalities and public
sector (4 persons), park employees (5 persons) and local people from four villages close by
the park (11 people not included in any above-mentioned group). Half of the interviewees
worked in the tourism sector full or part-time. The aim of this selection was to hear different
perspectives about Oulanka NP and PAN Parks, tourism development and the use of natural
resources. Interviewees were not randomly selected: they were selected to represent several
target groups including both men and women from different age groups. Five interviewers
conducted the interviews, with 28 in Finnish and 12 in English ranging from 15 minutes to
2 hours. The interviews were arranged beforehand by telephone, and conducted at homes,
workplace or other public places. Interviewees included 24 men and 16 women between 28
and 76 years of age.
The questions were taken from the PAN Parks Methods and Techniques Manual (Cottrell,
2006) to determine stakeholder feelings about tourism development and its sustainability
in Oulanka region, the role of Oulanka NP and businesses in promoting tourism and
the effects of the national park and PAN Parks on local businesses, communities and
sustainable development. Although the questions focused on tourism and the benefits of
PAN Parks, some interviewees also discussed other issues (including negative aspects of the
park and tourism development for the local community, and concerns about participation
opportunities). In fact, PAN Parks was discussed very little in some interviews due to
stakeholders’ unfamiliarity with it.
Interview transcripts were examined via discourse analyzis, which focused on the whole
text, its meanings, discourses and mutual relations instead of linguistically analyzing single
words, sentences or their structure (Gill, 2000). The main emphasis was focused on the
substance and content of the material (i.e. what are the meanings?) (Silverman, 2001;
see Gössling & Peeters, 2007; Puhakka, 2008; Saarinen, 2005), while rhetorical analyzis
(i.e. how are the meanings produced?) (see Kurz, Donaghue, Rapley, & Walker, 2005; Van
Dijk, 1997) provides an interesting subject for further research. To cover the whole variety
536 R. Puhakka et al.

of local perceptions and discuss the potential for conflict over protected areas, the study
identified four discourses referring to sociocultural development pertinent to tourism in
the national park. Discourses are ways of referring to or constructing knowledge about a
particular topic; they make it possible to understand a topic in a certain way and restrict
other possibilities for presenting it. Discourses are not only words and meanings, yet they
are attached to and affect the physical environment through social practices (Fairclough,
2003; Hajer, 1995; Hall, 1997; Tribe, 2004). The use of language guides action and might
lead to or prevent particular social practices or ways of thinking (see Kurz et al., 2005;
Macnaghten, Brown, & Reicher, 1992; Van Dijk, 1997).
In this study, the discourses were formed by analyzing the meanings associated with
tourism development, national parks and PAN Parks. By looking for repeated themes in the
interviews with the help of “codes” (sentences summing up the main ideas of the interview
transcripts) to which the data had been reduced, a higher level of abstraction was obtained
and collected in one table to facilitate comparison (see Miles & Huberman, 1984). The
following section presents the main ideas of each discourse illustrated by quotations from
the interviews. Interviewees may, however, use more than one discourse in their speech. In
the discussion and conclusion, the use of discourse analyzis is extended to social practices
by discussing the actions that local stakeholders are trying to achieve through their use of
language and by considering barriers to practices (Kurz et al., 2005) and the potential for
conflict between the discourses.

Discourses for sociocultural sustainability

Discourse integrating nature-based tourism and conservation
The first discourse refers to the integration of ecological and socio-economic needs of
protected areas by developing sustainable nature-based tourism. National parks are seen as
having a role in fulfilling the goals of sustainability. According to this discourse, nature-
based tourism is important to local community development; it offers increased jobs,
additional income and enhances the quality of life for residents in peripheral areas like
northern rural Finland.
I wish there would be more people. I really wish for sustainable tourism with enough and more
money for very good parks so that we can take all those people and put them in the right places
so that they don’t ruin the whole nature. (Park employee)

Although this discourse considers tourism to have been mostly developed according
to sustainable ideals in Oulanka NP, a critique towards a continual growth of tourism is
raised. Environmental impacts are noted largely as ecological (e.g. erosion, introduction
of alien species) and social (e.g. crowding), which tourist destinations and residents must
endure. Socio-economic benefits, however, are felt to exceed negative impacts if tourism is
developed in accordance with sustainable principles. Visits to parks are also considered to
promote citizens’ understanding of, and interest in, nature, which may increase support for
conservation. The role of the national park is seen to set restrictions for tourism to the park
and participate in its promotion by providing facilities and opportunities for businesses and
local cooperation with the business sector.
In this discourse, PAN Parks certification is considered a promotional tool for nature-
based tourism. Although tourism entrepreneurs and other stakeholders admit that economic
benefits for business have not been fully realized, they expect benefits to grow as PAN
Parks visibility increases and nature-based tourists, especially Central Europeans, become
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 537

more familiar with it. A few interviewees, however, expressed their disappointment in the
usefulness of PAN Parks’ status and expect more proactive action from the Foundation.
Yes, I think it [PAN Parks] really helps. PAN Parks partners will have new ideas to develop
products based on the PAN Parks concept. Also it is positive for the surrounding region;
international tourism to the area is enlarging. Right now there are [maybe (sic)] not so many
direct benefits, there are some groups. But it takes time. (Representative of municipality)

In addition, PAN Parks and Oulanka NP are viewed as having other positive impacts,
such as the enhancement of responsible environmental business practice. Nevertheless,
environmental responsibility is not considered dependent on the certification or other exter-
nal motives alone, yet originates from the environmentally conscious entrepreneurs’ own
initiative as illustrated by the promotion of sustainable practices in these enterprises. Some
interviewees expressed concern about PAN Parks “green washing” and hoped the Founda-
tion would maintain strict criteria by not accepting all tourism businesses (e.g. snowmobile
companies) as partners.
This PAN Park status hasn’t, at least in our place, affected us in any way. We haven’t changed
our practices because of it. I think that even without the park, if companies want to be
environmentally friendly, they will operate without these kinds of systems.∗ (Entrepreneur of
a PAN Parks partner company)
The park is considered to contribute to local community development in several ways
including information provision about local traditions and educational opportunities. Al-
though visitors are seen to be encouraged to learn about local culture and their guides to
be familiar with local conditions to some extent, this discourse stresses the importance
of accounting for local culture and tradition in tourism by their deeper consideration in
the provision of information and activities in Oulanka NP, and thus responding to tourist
interest in culture. Since this discourse emphasizes PAN Parks’ socio-economic benefits to
the community, direct conflicts with local people are not noted. The privileges of residents
are not stressed in protected areas, yet all citizens and tourists should have an equal right
to enjoy these areas. Nonetheless, the responses did not reflect total satisfaction with op-
portunities to participate in decision-making process concerning Oulanka NP and tourism
development. This discourse considers that Metsähallitus and PAN Parks Foundation could
increase a dialogue for cooperation with local businesses and other stakeholders.
Responses representing this discourse primarily reflect tourism businesses (PAN Parks
partners), park employees, municipalities and the public sector among stakeholders who
work directly with tourism issues; they tend to be very familiar with PAN Parks. These
stakeholders perceive tourism to create socio-economic benefits that can replace the loss
of traditional activities in peripheral areas and, therefore, support the actions integrating
nature-based tourism and conservation (e.g. certifications, such as PAN Parks). For some
of them, it is about promoting their own source of livelihood.

Discourse defending the rights of local people

The second discourse focuses more on the role of the national park in local community
development than explicitly on tourism. It stresses local use of a park as an economic
resource, which also has cultural meaning, versus tourism or conservation. The growth of
nature-based tourism and any other livelihood that offers income for locals is viewed as
important to the region. Nevertheless, tourism does not necessarily mean benefits for local
people, mostly because it could decrease possibilities to utilize natural resources by other
local stakeholders.
538 R. Puhakka et al.

In this discourse, protected areas and PAN Parks are perceived critically although the
benefits for nature-based tourism companies were noted by some. A key point is the need
to maintain local rights for subsistence and recreational use; the national park is seen to
restrict the traditional use of nature (e.g. fishing, hunting and reindeer herding). Attention
is given to disadvantages caused by the park and its conflict with local people. Interviewees
do not necessarily know if the negative impacts are due to Metsähallitus or PAN Parks;
they often see both as institutions with similar goals and ideas. Moreover, the lack of trust
and cooperation between the park and local people is a central issue. According to this
discourse, open communication should be increased as local residents are not yet familiar
with PAN Parks, and locals should have more opportunities to participate in decision-
making exercises related to the park and tourism development. Some interviewees noted
that decision-making has become too bureaucratic in Oulanka NP, which they feel should
be more flexible, while considering local perspectives more.
Hunting and fishing rights of local people should be maintained. However, they have been
taking such rights away many times. . . . Sure some fishing rights have been taken away. I think
that the residents of neighbouring areas should have local permits to hunt and fish the region;
they should get cheaper fishing permits than tourists.∗ (Representative of NGO)

Protection and local use of nature are not considered conflicting ideals in this discourse.
The emphasis is placed on knowledge gained from everyday experience of living with nature
versus scientific expertise, which forms the basis for institutional nature conservation. The
discourse stresses that residents in peripheral areas have used natural resources for their
livelihood for centuries; they have lived in harmony with nature and not ruined it. Overall,
knowledge of local culture and way of life is emphasized; responses do not reflect total
satisfaction with its consideration in Oulanka NP and tourism development.
Local people, those who were born and have lived here, should have some rights. They can live
with nature without raping it. Before these modern inventions, they have earned their bread
almost totally from nature. I suppose it hasn’t been ruined. . . . To some extent in the fishing
and hunting issues, you always need to ask advice from Helsinki [the capital of Finland]. I
think those Helsinki bosses know very little about these issues.∗ (Local resident)

The negative environmental impacts of tourism are recognized to some extent, yet in
contrast to the first discourse, the growth of tourism is not widely criticized for environ-
mental reasons. The focus is on impacts transparent to everyone (e.g. litter and erosion)
whereas other less concrete and less local impacts are not mentioned. National parks are
not considered primarily from an ecological perspective; restrictions for tourism activities
could be somewhat lightened in parks according to this discourse. Interviewees are not nec-
essarily familiar with the concept of sustainable tourism, but they believe that institutions
such as the park agency or PAN Parks might enhance environmentally responsible business
practice.
I understand that driving with snowmobiles and vehicles like those is forbidden in the national
park; I don’t think they belong to the park. But such natural activities as horse trekking and
reindeer safaris, for instance, where else would they belong to than this kind of park because
they’re part of locals’ subsistence and culture.∗ (Representative of NGO)
This discourse primarily reflects local residents, representatives of NGOs and en-
trepreneur’s comments who do not work in the tourism sector and represent those not
very familiar with PAN Parks. Most local people who are employees of the park used
two discourses in the interviews: they have adopted the goals of their employer, illustrated
by the first discourse, while also consider some critical issues related to local residents.
Most interviewees representing this discourse live close by Oulanka NP, and fish, hunt and
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 539

pick berries or mushrooms in the park; consequently, they defend their right to use nature.
Natural resources may be important for their livelihoods, and conservation might reduce
their income. The contradictory processes of establishing and expanding Oulanka NP and
other more recent conservation issues in Kuusamo may also drive the critical attitude
towards protected areas (Törn et al., 2008).

Discourse stressing the economic utilization of nature

The third discourse concerns economic development in the region with the emphasis
on sources of livelihood from a broader perspective; nature-based tourism is given less
attention than in the first discourse. Although tourism development is supported in Oulanka
NP and surrounding areas, small-scale, nature-based tourism is seen to play a minor role
in regional development as it benefits only a small percentage of the local population.
This discourse considers that tourism has grown in Kuusamo region, and facilities offered
by the park are already adequate, yet potential remains for further tourism development.
The timber-processing industry, large-scale tourism to the ski resort in Ruka and proposed
uranium mining, for instance, are regarded as more important livelihoods in the region than
sustainable nature-based tourism.
We understand that tourism is very important to us. Here at – we employ people for the whole
year; tourism employs people for only 4 months, mostly, the summer is very quiet. We should
do something for the summer. The way they are constructing in Ruka is what people want; if
we only had Oulanka, it would be very quiet. . . . The problem with tourism is that they do not
employ many local people here; they employ a lot of one or two people companies here, but
not as labour. (Non-tourism entrepreneur)
Some visually noticeable environmental impacts of tourism (e.g. erosion) are recog-
nized, but nature-based tourism is not seen to cause problems of any consequence. Repre-
sentatives of this discourse are not very familiar with the concept of sustainable tourism,
which may prevent entrepreneurs from adopting environmentally sustainable practices. In
this regard, the focus is more on the economic development of the tourism industry.
If you think about the park, the perception of sustainability is different than in our place. If
you think about us, we live with the money from tourism. The park aims to stay as it is; there
should be as few paths and tracks as possible, and people should walk along the same paths.∗
(Tourism entrepreneur)
This discourse does not stress the role of the national park in bringing economic and
social benefits for the region since conservation may hinder the economic usage of natural
resources. Nevertheless, the park is considered to play an important role in the region’s
marketing, and should support businesses by promoting tourism. Although PAN Parks is
not regarded as widely known, it is perceived as a tool to increase benefits of nature-based
tourism, which will contribute to local community development in the future. In contrast to
the second discourse, this one does not see any remarkable conflicts between the park and
local people with mostly sufficient open communication and cooperation between the park
agency and local stakeholders and businesses.
No, I don’t think so [that there’s a conflict between PAN Parks and local people]. First of
all, local people don’t even really know what PAN Parks is. I don’t think there has been any
conflict. . . . It was the Shore Conservation Programme, which was discussed more.∗ (Tourism
entrepreneur)
Although this discourse was not strongly represented in the interviews, some tourism
and non-tourism entrepreneurs who are somewhat familiar with PAN Parks used it. They
540 R. Puhakka et al.

focus more on the economic success of their own or other businesses in the whole region
than on the national park and its small-scale tourism or subsistence economies. Meanwhile,
they support actions aimed to develop the region economically.

Discourse accepting tourism development and the national park

In the fourth discourse, tourism development and the national park are perceived neutrally
or slightly positively. The benefits and burdens of nature-based tourism and conservation,
participation opportunities or aspects of cultural sustainability are not as important issues
for the representatives of this discourse as other discourses. Tourism is still regarded as an
important livelihood for the region and considered to have been developed in a positive
way.
I feel it’s good if tourism is increasing. Of course the park may work as a flagship, why not.
. . . I don’t think it [tourism] has any negative sides. We have got along with it.∗ (Local resident)

In contrast to the second discourse, this one does not raise criticizms of protected areas,
or see contradictions between the park and local stakeholders. Over 50 years old, Oulanka
NP is already a well-established part of the region. Cooperation between the park agency
and locals is mostly viewed as adequate; one local resident even said that the decision
making of the park is not a part of residents’ business. Nonetheless, information about PAN
Parks should be increased because local people, or even Finnish tourists, are not seen to be
familiar with it. According to this discourse, local culture has been suitably considered in the
park and tourism development, and the park contributes to local community development
(e.g. by offering jobs). The attitude towards PAN Parks is neutral or positive as it probably
attracts foreign tourists to the region.
I have to say that PAN Parks has remained rather unfamiliar to me. So I really wish to have
more information about PAN Parks, or maybe I should acquire it myself. While it hasn’t been
directly related to our company, it has remained strange and unknown to me. . . . So I really
can’t say how it affects our region here.∗ (Tourism entrepreneur)

Similar to the previous two discourses, environmental impacts and the responsibilities
of tourism are not understood comprehensively, but visual, concrete impacts are stressed.
Even more tourism activities might be accepted in the national park. The representatives
of this discourse do not necessarily understand the entire meaning of the sustainability
concept, yet they often pay most attention to the environmental dimension. Being less
critical than stakeholders representing the first discourse, they believe tourism has been
developed according to sustainable ideals in Oulanka NP, and does not cause significant
problems. The park or PAN Parks may enhance environmentally responsible business
practice although some interviewees said that adopting sustainable practices holistically is
too troublesome for themselves. The role of the park is considered to set restrictions for
tourism operations and to cooperate with companies in promoting tourism.
I think it [sustainable tourism] has been aimed for, but it’s dependent on tourists’ behaviour.
. . . I don’t think there’re any bigger problems. There’re only some little things, some garbage
is always left in the park.∗ (Local resident)
Local residents and entrepreneurs who do not necessarily visit Oulanka NP often
represent this discourse. As these stakeholders are not very familiar with PAN Parks, they
evaluated the park’s role primarily on the basis of their general beliefs and opinions. Thus,
they do not have as strong interests towards the park as the representatives of the first and
second discourses, and they do not actively take a stance on park issues. Many interview
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 541

questions were difficult to answer for these stakeholders since the issues are not closely
related to their own lives, or they are not very interested in the socio-economic development
of the region and have no clear opinion of it.

Summary of the discourses

The main points are summarised in Table 1 to allow comparisons between the four discourses
which have different views on sociocultural development and tourism in the national park.
By identifying various discourses, this study complements the results of the previous
research in Kuusamo, which indicate that local people’s multiple opinions towards tourism
and conservation depend on their socio-economic background and values (Törn et al., 2008;
see also Puhakka, 2008; Saarinen, 2005; Sandell, 2005; Selby & Petäjistö, 2008).

Table 1. Four discourses referring to sociocultural development pertinent to tourism in the national
park.

Discourse integrating nature-based Discourse defending the rights of

tourism and conservation
Frame Sustainable nature-based tourism is
important to local community
development
Most important Ecological, sociocultural, economic
values
Primary role of Promotional tool for nature-based
PAN Parks in tourism
the region
Participation Not totally satisfactory
opportunities
Main benefits and sociocultural and economic benefits
burdens and ecological burdens of tourism
Cultural Important; the park contributes to
sustainability community development in various
ways, yet local culture could be
more considered in the park
Quotation from “It is finding a balance; how many
the interview people do you really want there? It is
data really busy at ‘Pieni karhunkierros’.
I do not know if it is really good to
make it too big, but many people do
not know what can be found in the
park area. It would be against the
protection if Oulanka would be
promoted too much”. (Entrepreneur
of a PAN Parks partner company)
Discourse stressing the economic
utilization of nature
Frame Small-scale nature-based tourism
plays a minor role in regional
development
local people
Local usage of natural resources is
more important than nature-based
tourism or conservation
sociocultural, economic
Hindrance for locals’ traditional right
to use nature
Not satisfactory
sociocultural and economic burdens of
the park, economic benefits of
tourism
Important; local culture and way of life
should be more considered in the
park
“I think PAN Parks have moved
decision-making power further away
from the local level; they don’t
necessarily know and can’t take local
circumstances into consideration so
thoroughly. I think these issues were
previously handled well just with
local actors of Metsähallitus”.∗
(Representative of NGO)
Discourse accepting tourism
development and the national park
No strong interests towards tourism or
the park, but a slightly positive
perception of both

(Continued)
542 R. Puhakka et al.

Table 1. (Continued)

Most important Economic sociocultural, economic

values
Primary role of Promotional tool for nature-based No knowledge/promotional tool for
PAN Parks in tourism nature-based tourism
the region
Participation Satisfactory Satisfactory
opportunities
Main benefits and Economic benefits of tourism Socio-economic benefits of tourism
burdens
Cultural Local culture has been suitably Local culture has been suitably
sustainability considered in the park considered in the park
Quotation from “Of course we do not want to log all of “I haven’t really heard about any
the interview it, but how much of protected forest contradictions. The national park is
data is enough? Here we do not have so already so old that people have get
many choices to make a living. The used to it and learned to live with it
raw material here is very good; now side by side. So I believe that local
we can’t use it as much as we could. people take the national park into
So that’s it: do those protected areas consideration. At least for me, it’s a
bring in what we lose?” positive thing that there’s such a
(Non-tourism entrepreneur) great national park so close here”.∗
(Local resident)

Note: ∗ Translated from Finnish to English by the authors.

Discussion
The various ideas about sociocultural development might be a source of learning and inno-
vation when facilitating change (Parkins & Mitchell, 2005). In Finland, the implementation
of participatory planning has increased lay citizens’ formal opportunities to get involved in
decision-making process (Tuulentie, 2007). Public forums where issues can be discussed
exist already in Oulanka NP (e.g. the management and land-use plan, sustainable tourism
development strategy and local PAN Park group meetings). The demands for increased
participation opportunities of the second discourse are not, however, necessarily met with
participation only in operational decisions about park management, if the values guiding
development are not open for debate as well (Whyte et al., 1991; see Johnson & Wilson,
1999).
One value-laden source of conflict is the idea of wilderness where “people are only
occasional and respectful visitors” as PAN Parks (2006a) criteria state (see Nash, 1982).
In contrast, the second discourse stresses that humans are an integral part of nature, and
traditional use poses no threat to environmental sustainability. This idea may work as a
barrier to supporting the park development based on a different wilderness concept (see Kurz
et al., 2005), and thus hinder communication and politically disempower representatives
of this discourse. Increased restrictions suggested by PAN Parks (2007) (e.g. excluding
the remaining hunting and fishing in the core zone) might even lead to a conflict. In a
truly interactive participation process (Tosun, 2006), the wilderness concept restricting
subsistence activities would be negotiable. This requires accepting lay-person knowledge
as a part of the continuous decision-making process, hence part of an institutional change
as well. The implications of PAN Parks wilderness concept, and its adjustment to local and
national conditions, need further research: the perception and conceptualization of nature
has political consequences (Adams & Hutton, 2007; Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997).
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 543

Increased networks are seen to enhance collaborative planning (Dredge, 2006), and PAN
Parks is considered to play a central role in developing networks (van den Berg, van Bree,
& Cottrell, 2004; Cottrell & Cutumisu, 2006; Mateev, 2007; van Hal, 2007). Moreover,
networking increases opportunities for self-mobilisation, which can be considered a form
of participation (Tosun, 2006). Increased networking and self-mobilisation bring members
of these networks closer to achieving the socio-economic benefits of tourism development.
One further research need is to examine the willingness of local people to take part in
a local PAN Park stakeholder group and other networks. If locals are enthusiastic about
joining the group, the collaboration could be widened to better cover variations in local
opinions.
Development often leads to trade-offs between different issues (Cottrell et al., 2007;
Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005), which may cause disputes between the discourses at the lo-
cal level. PAN Parks generates socio-economic benefits by creating networks, attracting
tourists and helping businesses in their marketing efforts, yet brings a set of internationally
defined values (e.g. the wilderness concept), which may not be sensitive to local variations
and subsistence economies. Other trade-offs may be to choose between the emphasis on
heavy resource utilization, underlined in the third discourse, and, as suggested by the first
discourse, the softer forms of development that combine ecological and socio-economic
dimensions.
The first discourse considers that Oulanka NP’s PAN Parks status facilitates sustain-
ability quite holistically. The positions of local stakeholders, however, influence their sat-
isfaction with, and views about, the park (cf. Southgate, 2006); representatives of the first
discourse mainly benefit from tourism to the park. By highlighting the socio-economic ben-
efits, this discourse persuades locals to support the park development and actions aimed to
promote tourism, for instance introduction of international certifications. On the other hand,
local recreation and subsistence, stressed in the second discourse, are part of the holistic
concept of local wellbeing (cf. Jamal et al., 2006), which in turn might be threatened by
the emphasis on wilderness “where humans are visitors and do not remain” (PAN Parks,
2006a). Thus, the park creates synergy between the various dimensions of sustainability, but
primarily only when looked on from a position that gets benefitted from the development.
A positive relationship between residents’ acceptance of the tourism industry and their
economic dependency on it has been found by a number of studies (e.g. Haralambopoulos
& Pizam, 1996). Tourism development might lead to a gap between those who are involved
in tourism and those who are not (Cottrell et al., 2007). One of the main challenges for
PAN Parks is to increase its visibility and to realize socio-economic benefits, expected
particularly in the first and third discourses, which will hopefully be distributed as evenly as
possible between various stakeholders. The benefits would probably improve the commu-
nity attitude towards nature conservation (Bushell & McCool, 2007). Nevertheless, there
has been no data to prove that when parks are certified there is an increased demand or even
an increase in visitor awareness (Font & Clark, 2007).
The first discourse is the most satisfied one with the national park’s contribution to local
community development, but also the second one aims to effectively confirm the importance
of considering local cultures and traditions in the park and tourism development. In Oulanka
NP, an example of a positive contribution to cultural sustainability is a restoration of an old
mill, which is a part of local cultural heritage and represents the land-use and livelihood
histories of the region. The first discourse aims to increase educational opportunities for
local people; Oulanka NP has, for instance, organized a nature-guide course. This education
is linked to economic development since it offers further employment opportunities. In
addition, the cultural and environmental education of tourists would be useful as the first
544 R. Puhakka et al.

and second discourses stress; the more tourists know about local conditions the more likely
they value them and act in responsible manner (Moscardo, 1999).
Meanwhile, tourism development causes environmental impacts, and hence may dete-
riorate opportunities to practise culturally important subsistence economies (e.g. reindeer
herding) (Heikkilä, 2006). This poses challenges for cultural sustainability, as reindeer herd-
ing is a traditional livelihood in the Oulanka region. Tourism may also cause visual impacts
on landscapes, noted in all four discourses. Landscapes are a part of people’s living worlds
and include cultural meanings (Carr, 2004), and, therefore, dramatic changes in traditional
landscapes might also change meanings attached to them (Tuulentie, 2007). As mentioned
in the discourses, however, the park agency and PAN Parks with their regulations provide
a positive contribution to environmental sustainability in the region (Eagles & McCool,
2002). Meanwhile, paying less holistic attention to the negative impacts of tourism in the
second, third and fourth discourses may work as a barrier to sustainable practices by moving
responsibility away from the individual consumer or entrepreneur (see Kurz et al., 2005).

Conclusion
The four discourses identified in this study present different interpretations of the context.
The various positions of local stakeholders representing these discourses influence their
views on sustainability (Mowforth & Munt, 2003). The first discourse regards the PAN
Parks status of Oulanka NP to benefit local community development, and considers the
role of the park as very positive as a facilitator of the various dimensions of sustainabil-
ity (Cottrell & Raadik, 2008; Mateev, 2007; van Hal, 2007). It conceives the park as a
global public good, and supports the goals of Metsähallitus (Puhakka, 2008) and PAN
Parks Foundation (Font & Brasser, 2002), which might empower stakeholders such as
nature-based tourism entrepreneurs representing this discourse. Nonetheless, the biggest
challenges are related to institutional sustainability (Eden et al., 2000) since participation
opportunities offered by the park are not seen as totally adequate. Some challenges are
also raised when it comes to integrating the values of the ecological dimension with an
ongoing growth of tourism; trust in institutions such as PAN Parks as facilitators of envi-
ronmental sustainability could be at a higher level. Enhanced participation could help in
overcoming the problems of trust (Kyllönen et al., 2006). For the fourth discourse, tourism
development and the national parks are more irrelevant issues, yet the goals of the first dis-
course are accepted and wider support for them could probably be easily developed through
persuasion.
The second and third discourses are somewhat contradictory with the park’s idea of
sustainability, and they consider, at least partly, that the park hinders local community
development (Sandell, 2005; Zachrisson et al., 2006). The second discourse feels that
the park agency and PAN Parks hamper sociocultural development by restricting local
peoples’ traditional rights. Losing all traditional livelihoods and becoming too dependent
on tourism may also be viewed as a threat (Tuulentie, 2007). The third discourse considers
the park to obstruct economic growth by preserving natural resources, yet sees PAN Parks as
promoting tourism development in Oulanka NP. Thus, these discourses do not support the
establishment of new protected areas in the region. According to them, care should be taken
to ensure that when public goods are created, the burdens derived from loss of development
opportunities are not cast upon local people. The regulations, which are imposed by Park
status on local areas, might cause problems; to resolve these contradictions, participation,
transparency, open communication and active learning processes are needed (Johnson &
Wilson, 2000).
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 545

This study indicates that local stakeholders mostly have a positive perception of tourism
development in Oulanka NP, and tourism benefits the community in several ways, but it
is not clear whether the park facilitates sustainable development or not. While monitoring
sociocultural sustainability, it is important to cover a wide range of opinions from local
people and not assume that economic development automatically promotes sustainability. It
is essential to consider sociocultural effects holistically and pay attention to the distribution
of the benefits and burdens of park development, including those not related to monetary
interests. The main problems identified are contradictions with traditional subsistence
economies and the lack of participation opportunities, which have been noticed in other
PAN Parks as well and need further research (Cottrell & Cutumisu, 2006; Cottrell & Raadik,
2008; Font & Clark, 2007). The qualitative data does not enable the analyzis of the weight of
the various discourses in Oulanka region, yet the results of the questionnaire study provide
quantitative information about the views of a larger group of local stakeholders. Most
of the 314 respondents had a positive attitude towards PAN Parks and tourism and park
development, yet they were not totally satisfied with the current situation in Oulanka region
and not very familiar with PAN Parks (Cottrell et al., 2008). In addition, complementing the
discursive approach with departures rooted more deeply in material practices (e.g. changes
in management practices) would provide a holistic basis for examining the benefits and
burdens of tourism development in national parks.

Acknowledgements
We especially thank the interviewees who took part in this study. We gratefully acknowledge
Mylène van der Donk, Emma Pakkanen, Hanne Vaarala and the staff of the Oulanka
Research Station for the assistance with the interviews. The study was funded by the
Academy of Finland (projects no 114490 and 118363). We also thank four anonymous
referees for helpful comments.

Notes on contributor/s
Riikka Puhakka is a post doc researcher at Oulanka Research Station at Thule Institute, University
of Oulu, Finland. The station is within the Oulanka National Park and close to the Arctic Circle. Her
research interests include nature-based tourism, protected areas and sustainability.
Simo Sarkki, is a PhD student at Thule Institute, University of Oulu, and a researcher at the Finnish
Environment Institute. His research interests include forests, nature conservation, participation and
environmental disputes.
Stuart P. Cottrell is Associate Professor and Global Tourism coordinator in the Department of Human
Dimensions of Natural Resources at Colorado State University, USA. His research interests include
travel behaviour, visitor management, responsible environmental behaviour and sustainable tourism
development working with the European Protected Area Network known as PAN Parks.
Dr. Pirkko Siikamäki is a natural scientist at Thule Institute, University of Oulu, and head of Oulanka
Research Station. Her tourism research interest is sustainable nature-based tourism with a focus
on management and the adaptive planning of protected areas and on the environmental impacts of
tourism.

Note
1. See www.panparks.org.
546 R. Puhakka et al.

References
Adams, W.M., & Hutton, J. (2007). People, parks and poverty: Political ecology and biodiversity
conservation. Conservation and Society, 5(2), 147–183.
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Develop-
ment and Change, 26, 413–439.
Ashley, C. (2002). Methodology for pro-poor tourism case studies. PPT Working Paper No. 10.
London: Overseas Development Institute.
Besculides, A., Lee, M.E., & McCormick, P.J. (2002). Residents’ perceptions of the cultural benefits
of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 303–319.
Buckley, R.C. (2002). Tourism ecolabels. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 183–208.
Bushell, R., & McCool, S.F. (2007). Tourism as a tool for conservation and support of protected
areas: Setting the agenda. In R. Bushell & P. Eagles (Eds.), Tourism and protected areas: Benefits
beyond boundaries (pp. 12–26). Wallingford: CAB International.
Carr, A. (2004). Mountain places, cultural spaces: The interpretation of culturally significant land-
scapes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(5), 432–459.
Chape, S., Blyth, S., Fish, L., Fox, P., & Spalding, M. (Compils.). (2003). United Nations list of
protected areas. The World Conservation Union and World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
Switzerland: IUCN & UNEP.
Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629–644.
Cottrell, S.P. (2006). PAN parks methods and techniques manual. Monitoring socio-economic aspects
of PAN parks. Report Series from Department of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism.
Colorado: Colorado State University.
Cottrell, S.P., & Cutumisu, N. (2006). Sustainable tourism development strategy in WWF PAN parks:
Case of a Swedish and Romanian national park. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism,
6(2), 150–167.
Cottrell, S.P., & Raadik, J. (2008). sociocultural benefits of PAN parks at Bieszscady National Park,
Poland. Finnish Journal of Tourism Research, 4(1), 56–67.
Cottrell, S.P., van der Donk, M., & Siikamäki, P. (2008). Results of questionnaire study 2007. Report 1
of socio-economic analyzis of PAN parks: Oulanka National Park. PAN Parks, Colorado State
University & University of Oulu. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from http://www.panparks.org/
Projects/Research/Downloadablestudies/S2.
Cottrell, S.P., Vaske, J.J., Shen, F., & Ritter, P. (2007). Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism in
Chongdugou, China. Society and Natural Resources, 20(6), 511–525.
Dredge, D. (2006). Networks, conflict, and collaborative communities. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 14(6), 562–581.
Dudley, N. (Ed.). (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland:
IUCN.
Dudley, N., Belokurov, A., Borodin, O., Higgins-Zogib, L., Hockings, M., Lacerda, L., et al. (2004).
Are protected areas working? An analyzis of forest protected areas by WWF. Gland: WWF
International.
Eagles, P.F.J., & McCool, S.F. (2002). Tourism in national parks and protected areas. Planning and
management. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Eagles, P.F.J., McCool, S.F., & Haynes, C.D. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected areas. Guidelines
for planning and management. Gland & Cambridge: IUCN.
Eden, M., Falkheden, L., & Malbert, B. (2000). The built environment and sustainable development:
Research meets practice in a Scandinavian context. Planning Theory and Practice, 1(2), 260–272.
Environment DG. (2001). Sustainable tourism and Natura 2000: Guidelines, initiatives and good
practices in Europe. Final Publication Vol 1 based on the Lisbon seminar, December 1999.
European Commission. Luxemburg, Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European
Communities.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse. Textual analyzis for social research. London: Routledge.
Fennell, D., & Weaver, D. (2005). The ecotourium concept and tourism-conservation symbiosis.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(4), 373–390.
Font, X., & Brasser, A. (2002). PAN parks: WWF’s sustainable tourism certification programme in
Europe’s national parks. In R. Harris, T. Griffin, & P. Williams (Eds.), Sustainable tourism: A
global perspective (pp. 103–120). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 547

Font, X., & Clark, S. (2007). Certification of protected areas: The case of PAN parks in Europe. In
R. Black & A. Crabtree (Eds.), Quality assurance and certification in ecotourism (pp. 299–315).
Wallingford: CABI.
Forsyth, T. (2003). Critical political ecology: The politics of environmental science. London:
Routledge.
Ghimire, K.B., & Pimbert, M.P. (Eds.). (1997). Social change and conservation. Environmental
politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas. London: Earthscan Publications.
Gill, R. (2000). Discourse analyzis. In M.W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with
text, image and sound. A practical handbook (pp. 172–190). London: Sage.
Gilligan, B., Dudley, N., Fernandez de Tejada, A., & Toivonen, H. (2005). Management effectiveness
evaluation of Finland’s protected areas. Nature protection publications of Metsähallitus A 147.
Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://www.metsa.fi/mee.
Gössling, S., & Peeters, P. (2007). “It does not harm the environment!” An analyzis of industry
discourses on tourism, air travel and the environment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(4),
402–417.
Hajer, M.A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse. Ecological modernization and the policy
process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hakala, K. (2003). Oulangan kansallispuiston virkistyskäytön taloudellinen arvottaminen. Unpub-
lished Master’s thesis in Finnish. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Economics and
Management.
Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation. Cultural representations
and signifying practices (pp. 13–64). London: Sage.
Hammer, T., Mose, I., Siegrist, D., & Weixlbaumer, N. (2007). Protected areas and regional develop-
ment in Europe: Towards a new model for the 21st Century. In I. Mose (Ed.), Protected areas
and regional development in Europe. Towards a new model for the 21st century (pp. 233–246).
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Annals
of Tourism Research, 23(3), 503–526.
Heikkilä, L. (2006). Reindeer talk. Sámi reindeer herding and nature management. Acta Universitas
Lapponiensis 110. Rovaniemi, Finland: University of Lapland.
Heikkinen, H.I., Lakomäki, S., & Baldridge, J. (2007). The dimensions of sustainability and the
neo-entrepreneurial adaptation strategies in reindeer herding in Finland. Journal of Ecological
Anthropology, 11(1), 24–41.
Heinonen, M. (Ed.). (2007). State of the parks in Finland. Finnish protected areas and their manage-
ment from 2000 to 2005. Nature Protection Publications of Metsähallitus A 170. Retrieved April
28, 2008, from http://www.metsa.fi/sop.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., & Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluating effectiveness:
A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas (2nd Ed.). Gland &
Cambridge: IUCN.
Holden, A. (2005). Achieving a sustainable relationship between common pool resources and tourism:
The role of environmental ethics. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(4), 339–352.
Honey, M. (2007). The role of certification and accreditation in ensuring tourism contribute to
conservation. In R. Bushell & P. Eagles (Eds.), Tourism and protected areas: Benefits beyond
boundaries (pp. 168–190). Wallingford: CAB International.
Jamal, T., Borges, M., & Stronza, A. (2006). The institutionalization of ecotourism: Certification,
cultural equity and praxis. Journal of Ecotourism, 5(3), 145–175.
Johnson, H., & Wilson, G. (1999). Institutional sustainability as learning. Development in Practice,
9(1–2), 43–55.
Johnson, H., & Wilson, G. (2000). Institutional sustainability: “Community” and waste management
in Zimbabwe. Futures, 32(3–4), 301–316.
Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2005). Community-based ecotourism in Phuket and Ao Phangnga, Thailand:
Partial victories and bittersweet remedies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1), 4–23.
Kurz, T., Donaghue, N., Rapley, M., & Walker, I. (2005). The ways that people talk about natural
resources: Discursive strategies as barriers to environmentally sustainable practices. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 603–620.
Kyllönen, S., Colbaert, A., Heikkinen, H., Jokinen, M., Kumpula, J., Marttunen, M., et al. (2006).
Conflict management as a means to the sustainable use of natural resources. Silva Fennica, 40(4),
687–728.
548 R. Puhakka et al.

Lee, S., & Jamal, T. (2008). Environmental justice and environmental equity in tourism: Missing
links to sustainability. Journal of Ecotourism, 7(1), 44–67.
Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6),
459–475.
Macnaghten, P., Brown, R., & Reicher, S. (1992). On the nature of nature: Experimental studies in
the power of rhetoric. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 2(1), 43–61.
Mateev, P. (2007). Analyzis of the benefits of PAN Parks: Central Balkan National Park, Bulgaria.
Unpublished Master’s thesis. The Netherlands: Wageningen University.
McCool, S.F., & Patterson, M.E. (2000). Trends in recreation, tourism and protected area planning. In
W.C. Gartner & D.W. Lime (Eds.), Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure and tourism (pp. 111–
119). Wallingford: CAB International.
Metsähallitus. (2000). The principles of protected area management in Finland. Guidelines on
the aims, function and management of state-owned protected areas. Nature Protection Pub-
lications of the Finnish Forest and Park Service B 54. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from
http://julkaisut.metsa.fi/julkaisut/pdf/luo/b054.pdf.
Metsähallitus. (2008). Käyntimäärät kansallispuistoittain 2007 (in Finnish). Retrieved March 12,
2008, from http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/fi/Eraasiatjaretkeily/Asiakastieto/Kayntimaarat/
Kansallispuistoittain/Sivut/Kayntimaaratkansallispuistoittain2007.aspx
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, M.A. (1984). Qualitative data analyzis. A sourcebook of new methods.
London: Sage Publishing.
Ministry of the Environment. (2002). Ohjelma luonnon virkistyskäytön ja luontomatkailun
kehittämiseksi [Programme for developing recreation in the wild and nature tourism]. In Finnish
with English abstract. The Finnish Environment 535. Finland: Finnish Environment Institute.
Moscardo, G. (1999). Making visitors mindful: Principles for creating sustainable visitor experiences
through effective communication. Champaign, IL: Sagamore.
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2003). Tourism and sustainability: Development and new tourism in the
third world (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.
Muikku, M. (2005). Oulangan kansallispuisto. Kävijätutkimus 2005 (in Finnish). Unpublished report.
Finland: Metsähallitus.
Nash, R. (1982). Wilderness and the American mind (3rd Ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
PAN Parks. (2006a). Verification manual. Principles and criteria 1–3. January 2006. Endorsed by the
supervisory board. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from http://www.panparks.org/Introduction/
Verification/Principles.
PAN Parks. (2006b). Verification manual. Principles and criteria 4. January 2006. Endorsed by the
PAN Parks supervisory board. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from http://www.panparks.org/
Introduction/Verification/Principles.
PAN Parks. (2006c). Verification manual. Principles and criteria 5. January 2006. Endorsed by the
PAN Parks supervisory board. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from http://www.panparks.org/
Introduction/Verification/Principles.
PAN Parks. (2007). PAN Parks verification. Oulanka National Park, Finland. Renewal verification
report P&C 1–3 and 4–5. Unpublished report.
PAN Parks. (2008). Verification manual. Public guide. January 2008. Retrieved September 12, 2008,
from http://www.panparks.org/Introduction/Verification.
Parkins, J.R., & Mitchell, R.E. (2005). Public participation as public debate: A deliberative turn in
natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 18(6), 529–540.
Puhakka, R. (2008). Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks. Fennia, 186(2).
Rannikko, P. (1999). Combining social and ecological sustainability in the Nordic forest periphery.
Sociologia Ruralis, 39(3), 394–410.
Reid, D.G. (2003). Tourism, globalization and development: Responsible tourism planning. London:
Pluto.
Ruuttula-Vasari, A., & Juvonen, S-K. (Eds.). (2006). Oulanka –kuohujen keskeltä kansallispuistoksi
(in Finnish). Metsähallitus, Pohjanmaan luontopalvelut.
Saarinen, J. (2005). Tourism in the northern wildernesses: Wilderness discourses and the development
of nature-based tourism in Northern Finland. In C.M. Hall & S. Boyd (Eds.), Nature-based
tourism in peripheral areas. Development or disaster (pp. 36–49). Clevedon: Channel View
Publications.
Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4),
1121–1140.
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 549

Saarinen, J. (2007). Protected areas and regional development issues in northern peripheries: Nature
protection, traditional economies and tourism in the Urho Kekkonen National Park, Finland. In
I. Mose (Ed.), Protected areas and regional development in Europe. Towards a new model for
the 21st century (pp. 199–211). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Sandell, K. (2005). Access, tourism and democracy: A conceptual framework and the non-
establishment of a proposed national park in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 5(1), 63–75.
Selby, A., & Petäjistö, L. (2008). Residents’ adjustments to adjacent national parks: A place-bound
structuration perspective. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 90. Retrieved
September 15, 2008, from http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2008/mwp090.htm.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction
(2nd Ed.). London: Sage.
Simpson, M.C. (2008). Community benefit tourism initiatives – A conceptual oxymoron? Tourism
Management, 29(1), 1–18.
Sofield, T.H.B. (2003). Empowerment for sustainable tourism development. Amsterdam: Pergamon
Press.
Southgate, C.R.J. (2006). Ecotourism in Kenya: The vulnerability of communities. Journal of Eco-
tourism, 5(1&2), 80–96.
Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism,
6(3), 210–230.
Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism
Management, 27(3), 493–504.
Tribe, J. (2004). Knowing about tourism. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research
in tourism. Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies (pp. 46–62). London: Routledge.
Tuulentie, S. (2007). Local participation as a prerequisite for socially sustainable tourism: Case stud-
ies from the Ylläs and Levi ski resorts in Northern Finland. In J. Jokimäki, M.-L. Kaisanlahti-
Jokimäki, S. Tuulentie, K. Laine, & M. Uusitalo (Eds.), Environment, local society and sustain-
able tourism (pp. 75–88). Arctic Centre Reports 50. Rovaniemi, Finland: University of Lapland.
Törn, A., Siikamäki, P., Tolvanen, A., Kauppila, P., & Rämet, J. (2008). Local people, nature con-
servation and tourism in northeastern Finland. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 8 [online]. Retrieved
April 28, 2008, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art8/.
Törn, A., Tolvanen, A., Norokorpi, Y., Tervo, R., & Siikamäki, P. (2009). Comparing the impacts
of hiking, skiing and horse riding on trail and vegetation in different types of forest. Journal of
Environmental Management, 90(3), 1427–1434.
Valentin, A., & Spangenberg, J.H. (2000). A guide to community sustainability indicators. Environ-
mental Impact Assessment Review, 20(3), 381–392.
van den Berg, C., van Bree, F., & Cottrell, S.P. (2004). PAN Parks implementation process: Cross
cultural comparison – Bieszczady & Slovenski Raij National Parks. In T. Sievänen, J. Erkkonen,
J. Jokimäki, J. Saarinen, S. Tuulentie, & E. Virtanen (Eds.), Policies, methods and tools for visitor
management (pp. 222–229). Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 2. Retrieved
April 28, 2008, from http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2004/mwp002.htm.
van der Duim, R., & Caalders, J. (2002). Biodiversity and tourism: Impacts and interventions. Annals
of Tourism Research, 29(3), 743–761.
van Dijk, T.A. (1997). Political discourse and racism: Describing others in western parliaments. In
S.H. Riggins (Ed.), The language and politics of exclusion: Others in discourse (pp. 31–64).
London: Sage.
van Hal, M. (2007). Report 3 of socio-economic analyzis of PAN Parks: Retezat National Park,
Romania. Unpublished report submitted to PAN Parks Foundation, Hungary.
Whyte, W.F., Greenwood, D.J., & Lazes, P. (1991). Participatory action research: Through practise
to science in social research. In W.F. Whyte (Ed.), Participatory action research (pp. 19–55).
Newbury Park: Sage.
WTO. (2004). Sustainable development of tourism. Conceptual definition. Retrieved March 5, 2008,
from http://www.world-tourism.org/sustainable/concepts.htm.
Zachrisson, A., Sandell, K., Fredman, P., & Eckerberg, K. (2006). Tourism and protected areas:
Motives, actors and processes. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management,
2(4), 350–358.