See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232829697

Indigenous tourism from a visitor's perspective: an empirical examination of

Valene L. Smith's 4Hs at a Sámi festival in Norway

Article  in  Journal of Heritage Tourism · May 2011

DOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2011.558198

CITATIONS READS

13 400

2 authors, including:

Mehmet Mehmetoglu
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
59 PUBLICATIONS   2,662 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mehmet Mehmetoglu on 17 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Heritage Tourism
Vol. 6, No. 2, May 2011, 129 –141

Indigenous tourism from a visitor’s perspective: an empirical

examination of Valene L. Smith’s 4Hs at a Sámi festival in Norway
Tore Einar Johansena∗ and Mehmet Mehmetoglub
a
Department of Business Administration and Social Science, Harstad University College, Harstad,
Norway; bDepartment of Tourism, Lillehammer University College, Lillehammer, Norway
(Received 25 May 2010; final version received 18 January 2011)

Over the past three decades, indigenous tourism has received a growing amount of
attention from both the tourist market and tourism academics. The research conducted
regarding indigenous people has often treated the subject from a conflict perspective.
In this study, a symbiotic perspective is employed in that visitors’ attractions built upon
indigenous resources may positively contribute to indigenous hosts. Nevertheless, to
do so is dependent upon acquiring an understanding of visitors’ preferences in an
indigenous tourism context. To empirically ascertain visitors’ preferences, a framework
proposed by Valene L. Smith has been adopted. This framework operationalises the
indigenous tourism product as consisting of four primary components: habitat,
handicrafts, heritage, and history. This study first identifies these four components, and
then examines the magnitude of their effect on visitors’ experiences and perceptions at
a Sámi festival in Northern Norway. The findings indicate that habitat is clearly the
most salient component of this particular indigenous event in that it positively
influences the visitors’ satisfaction with the festival, their willingness to recommend
the festival to others, and their willingness to pay to attend the festival. Further details
of the findings as well as the study’s implications are also provided.
Keywords: indigenous tourism; cultural tourism; festival; Sámi; visitors’ experience

Introduction
The impact of tourism can be seen from either a perspective of conflict or a symbiotic
perspective, with the symbiotic perspective being the one taken in this work. Tourism
based on Sámi attractions has a long tradition in Norway (Johansen, 2007, p. 124; Pettersson
& Viken, 2007, p. 179; Viken & Müller, 2006, p. 2). In recent decades, this tourism has
changed due to changing conditions in both Sámi society and tourism patterns. Today,
Sámi attractions in Norway are mostly under the control of Sámi society itself and are
based on both traditional Sámi culture and more modern expressions (Lyngnes & Viken,
1998; Pettersson & Viken, 2007; Viken 2004). In this work, we look at a Sámi festival
called Riddu Riddu, which is along the coast of Troms County. This festival has grown
out of the revitalisation process of Sámi culture and society, which has also been seen as an
important part of this process. From its start as a local festival, Riddu Riddu has grown to
an international indigenous festival with participants and visitors from all around the world.

∗
Corresponding author. Email: tore.einar.johansen@hih.no

ISSN 1743-873X print/ISSN 1747-6631 online

# 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2011.558198
http://www.informaworld.com
130 T. E. Johansen and M. Mehmetoglu

The festival is itself a powerful testament to the modernisation and internationalisation of

Sámi society, yet still tries to show its roots in traditional Sea Sámi culture.
Smith (1996) has developed a model for analysing resources for tourism development
in indigenous societies entitled the 4Hs: habitat, heritage, history, and handicrafts. We have
conducted our investigation at the Riddu Riddu festival on the basis of her model, as seen
from a customer’s perspective. Our main purpose here is to examine the relationship
between the 4Hs and the visitors’ experience at the festival, and how this model fits at a
modern indigenous attraction.

Indigenous tourism
Indigenous tourism refers to tourism activities in which indigenous people are directly
involved, either by displaying their own culture or by their active involvement as entrepre-
neurs or artists (Butler & Hinch, 2007, p. 5; Zeppel, 2001, p. 237). The increasing interest
towards indigenous tourism is based on the hosts’ distinctive culture, which also provides a
competitive advantage in the international tourism market. It is further known that indigen-
ous people’s traditional land is also gaining in value since unspoiled landscape is a scarce
resource (Page & Dowling, 2002, p. 92). Having said that, the impact of widespread cultural
tourism to indigenous societies is significant, including an acculturation and irreversible
destruction of natural habitats and a commoditisation of local culture (Hinch & Delamere,
1993, p. 136; Smith, 2003, p. 117). Indigenous societies face the same type of challenges as
those faced by other communities in remote areas in which tourism is seen as a possible
catalyst for economic development. Tourism opens up a discussion as to how local
culture evolves and is presented to tourists and locals alike.
A starting point for these discussions in tourism research can be traced back to Smith’s
(1977/1989) seminal anthology entitled ‘Hosts and guests: the anthropology of tourism’.
Incidentally, Smith’s primary agenda for her work was an attention to the impact of
tourism from an anthropological perspective and the related issues, among others, of
acculturation, marginalisation, and problems with authenticity and commodification when
culture is packaged for tourists.
According to Smith (1977/1989, p. 4), indigenous tourism has developed over the past
three decades from being a niche tourist experience available to ‘only a limited number of
visitors’ into being a significant tourism activity in many native communities today.
Research on this topic has naturally followed a similar pattern in that more and more
studies have been conducted on indigenous tourism. These include the impact of indigen-
ous tourism (Butler & Hinch, 1996, 2007; Johnston, 2006; Smith, 1977/1989; Zeppel,
2006), the impact from visitors of indigenous tourism (Dearden & Harron, 1992; McIntosh
& Ryan, 2007), and the demands imposed by visitors (Getz & Jamieson, 1997; Grekin &
Milne, 1996; Pettersson, 2001), with the development of small-community festivals also
being part of this equation. How to measure social benefits and costs in this regard has
been an important question, and important work has been carried out (Delamere, 2001;
Delamere, Wankel, & Hinch, 2001; Hinch & Delamere, 1993).
In Norway, Sámi society is an atypical situation compared with many other indigenous
people around the world. Within the Nordic countries, the socioeconomic situation for the
Sámi is comparable with that for the majority population, and in Norway, the level of
income, education, and other measureable levels are very close to that of other Norwegians.
The situation for the Sámi population in the Nordic countries is quite favourable in compari-
son with that for the Sámi population in Russia. The Norwegian Sámi have old traditions in
working with tourism, dating from the end of the nineteenth century when cruise tourists
 Journal of Heritage Tourism 131

visited the Sámi camp in Tromsdalen close to the city of Tromsø and travelled to the North
Cape to see and purchase Sámi handicrafts. In terms of historical experiences, it is easier to
see similarities between the Sámi and other indigenous people. Including language and
religion, Sámi culture has been suppressed by the majority society during the last few
centuries, but as with many other indigenous people, the Sámi have experienced a cultural
revitalisation since the 1970s. Today, Sámi society is a modern part of the Norwegian
society, yet both different and similar to Norwegians.

Conflict perspective
In a sociological structural context, conflict is basically the assumption that fundamental
rules, values, and norms are established by the dominant group in the society in order to
impose its values and behaviour onto subordinated groups. In Karl Marx’s theory of the
organising of capitalism, the working class is subordinated by the capitalist class, and
social change is a result of revolution, not of evolution (Sharpley, 2003, pp. 1 – 7). The econ-
omically dominant class also rules other spheres of life and society, from politics to religion.
In what Sharpley defines as a ‘neo-Marxist perspective on tourism’, the working class is
dominated in their leisure time by mass tourism, which is sold to them by the capitalists,
i.e. the tour operators (Sharpley, 2003, pp. 1 – 7). In this case, a revolution in tourism
would be the rejection of mass packaged tours in favour of an individualistic travelling
style. In the current context of indigenous tourism, indigenous people have traditionally
been the subordinated group (Minde, 2003a). Indigenous culture has often had to adapt
to the values and norms of tourists, who are normally Western oriented (Ryan, 2005).
In the 1990s, several studies were carried out on the involvement of indigenous people
in tourism. A new edition of Valene L. Smith’s book on the 4Hs came out in 1989, and her
both optimistic and critical view was followed by several works on aboriginal tourism
in Canada, Australia, and the South Pacific (Altman, 1989; Altman & Finlayson, 1993;
Hinch & Delamere, 1993; Sofield, 1993). These studies documented examples of success
stories with indigenous people’s involvement in tourism, in addition to cultural, political,
and economic barriers. In their anthology entitled ‘Tourism and indigenous people’, Butler
and Hinch (1996) discuss the issues of how tourism can benefit indigenous societies by
focusing on tourism development options that take into account the turbulence created by
the pursuit of these options. The intention of their book is to show how to overcome the
complexity of indigenous tourism by analysing two dimensions of the issue (Butler &
Hinch, 1996, p. 8). The first dimension concerns the degree to which indigenous culture is
a theme at an attraction, whereas the second dimension is about the degree to which
indigenous people are in control of the attraction. The most controversial scenario would
be represented by attractions developed around indigenous themes in which indigenous
people themselves have little or no control at all.
The overall conflict between the tourism industry and host communities is one between
systems and structures in the process and organisation of capitalism (Robinson, 1999,
p. 24). Robinson points out three central themes that can lead to conflict: the commodifica-
tion of the host culture, the utilisation of natural resources, and the degree of economic
dependency on tourism for the host community (Robinson, 1999, p. 24). Along with man-
ufacturing and other service sectors, tourism leads to the remaking of cultures, and this
process generates conflict. The impact of tourism is related to benefits and conflict when
visitors become involved with the indigenous host community. Robinson and Boniface
(1999) discuss tourism and cultural conflict along four dimensions: the tourist and host
community, the tourist and tourism industry, the tourism industry and the host community,
132 T. E. Johansen and M. Mehmetoglu

and conflict within the host community. The effect of these meetings is limited according
to acculturation or changing cultural patterns, which brings problems and requires
compromises from the indigenous society (Cukier, 1996; Robinson, 1999, p. 10; Wall &
Long, 1996).
‘The socio-cultural and economic distance between hosts and the guests is one of the
prime contributing factors to the impacts of tourism in the Third World’ (Gurung,
Simmons, & Devlin, 1996, p. 124). Butler and Hinch (1996) reveal examples of the nega-
tive impact of tourism in relation to dependency, conflict, and the external domination of
tourism in which local populations have had little opportunity of becoming involved.
The disparity level between the visiting population and those being visited is important,
and stereotypes and the so-called emblematic signs of indigenous people are the key to
their marketing appeal (Olsen, 2003; Viken & Müller, 2006). There is a mismatch
between external agencies and local indigenous interests in developing tourism, in which
indigenous input into decision-making is minimal (Butler & Hinch, 1996, p. 278; Olsen,
2006; Yang & Wall, 2009). Smith (1996) emphasises that when two or more different
cultures meet, as is often the case in tourism, some changes will occur. These changes
may have been inevitable with or without tourism, but underlie the need for involvement
from the indigenous society.

The symbiotic perspective

The relationship between tourism and indigenous people and society can be described in
evolutionary terms, as a growth in which both parts are influenced and receive useful
input from each other. A symbiotic perspective on indigenous tourism describes a situation
in which cooperation is defined by not only power relationships in which indigenous people
have traditionally been subordinated, but also by one in which they are in a position to
define the relationship between tourism and the indigenous society (Hinch & Butler,
2007). A case which illustrates this point is the Sámi festivals in Troms County, which
today are important and well-known tourist attractions. Valene L. Smith takes the discus-
sion beyond the question of the impact of tourism and looks at the resources for developing
tourism in indigenous societies. In her article ‘Indigenous tourism: the four Hs’ (Smith,
1996), she presents an analytic tool for the possibility of tourism based on the touristic
potential in the indigenous society and environment. Her model is seen as a response to
the predominance of problem-oriented research in indigenous tourism (Müller & Pettersson,
2001). The 4Hs (habitat, handicrafts, heritage, and history) are presented in Figure 1 as a

Figure 1. The 4Hs, interrelated elements of indigenous tourism.

 Journal of Heritage Tourism 133

framework for planning in an indigenous society, and she gives examples from both the
Indians of North America and the Inuits of Alaska and Greenland.
The 4Hs are useful for investigating the potential of tourism, but as Claudia Notzke
points out in her study on Canada, the development of tourism in indigenous societies
depends on the development of tourism products, the evolution of cooperation between
suppliers and the travel trade, and the development of the market (Notzke, 2004, p. 33).
The question is whether Smith’s 4H model yields an accurate portrayal of Sámi recourses
for tourism. It has been argued that this model is particularly relevant to homogenous
groups living in remote areas (Smith, 2003, p. 125). When applied to other modern
indigenous societies, this model seems to yield a meaningful analysis of the resources
for tourism development for Sámi societies in both Sweden (Müller & Pettersson, 2001)
and the Southern Alberta region of Canada (Notzke, 2004).

Habitat
According to Smith, habitat is the most important element among the 4Hs. Smith notes that
the remaining indigenous societies live in both the Arctic and Subarctic, in addition to
deserts, tropical savannas, and woodlands. These areas are low in productivity with low
population densities. Sámi areas are often described as ‘Europe’s last wilderness’ (Müller
& Pettersson, 2001), which fits with Smith’s description of indigenous tourism as becoming
a form of cultural ecotourism (Smith, 1996). To indigenous people, the connection between
land and culture is closer, and it is impossible to attain a full understanding of the culture
without a close connection to the landscape. Among the Norwegian Sámi, there is a close
connection between nature and identity, both for the inland reindeer herders and for those
fishing along the coast (Nilsen, 2003). Indigenous people also live in sparsely populated
areas with a vulnerable ecology, which makes nature part of the tourist experience.
Traditional ecological knowledge supports tourism products based on nature and local
experiences (Butler and Menzies as cited in Butler & Hinch, 2007). Here, nature plays a
crucial role with visitors and also fits with Smith’s definition as being primary element:
‘As their geographic home, the habitat nurtured native peoples’ (Smith, 1996, p. 290).
The geographic setting is seen as the very heart of native culture in places where people
no longer depend on the land for their survival (Notzke, 2004, p. 34) or where habitat is
not seen as an important element of indigenous tourism products (Müller & Pettersson,
2001). The Riddu Riddu festival takes place in a traditional Sámi area with the geographi-
cal setting being very important part of the festival, although the habitat in itself is not
important as a theme.

Handicrafts
An important part of the revitalisation process is the flowering of indigenous art in music,
poetry, painting, and handicrafts. Handicrafts are also regarded as important for the tourist
industry, and provide an income for the producers and those at the tourist sites (Smith, 1996,
p. 299; Smith, 2003, p. 130). The authentic experience to visitors has to do with the local
production by indigenous artists, which is also connected to nature, habitat, and geography.
At festivals and markets, the artists themselves are found to be selling their products, which
is also part of the discussion as far as the authenticity of products such as CDs, T-shirts,
drums, and wooden products is concerned. These products may be on the border of the
Sámi culture, but also bear witness to an evolving culture in the modern world (Ryan,
2005).
134 T. E. Johansen and M. Mehmetoglu

Heritage
In Smith’s words, heritage is ‘that body of knowledge and skills which ensure human sur-
vival together with the beliefs and values that give meaning to life and [. . .] distinguish
between right and wrong’ (Smith, 1996, p. 290). Research shows that tourists visiting indi-
genous tourist attractions have a special interest in five central dimensions of a culture:
gazing, lifestyle, authenticity, personal interaction, and informal learning (McIntosh &
Ryan, 2007, p. 78). Personal interaction with indigenous people is often regarded as the
most important element for tourists, and meeting other people is an important element
when visiting the festival (Harron & Weiler, 1992, p. 84), which is probably the best
place to get in contact with the Sámi people and their culture.

History
In Smith’s understanding, the term history refers to the post-contact period and the contact
relationship between indigenous people and Western culture. This is a history fraught with dis-
aster and violence, even genocide. From the long period of acculturation to acceptance and
cultural and economic growth in recent years, there exists what Smith calls ‘deep-seated
and ancient antipathies’ (Smith, 1996, p. 293). This demonstrates that acculturation, which
in Norway is known as Norwegianisation, has not been forgotten in either Western or indigen-
ous society, thereby making it difficult for older indigenous persons to take part in or support
the tourism industry (Minde, 2003b). ‘This subtle role of culture contact and/or political
history in indigenous tourism is the most difficult of the element to analyze’ (Smith, 1996,
p. 294). Knowing the history of a person is a crucial point in enabling an understanding of
the different forces and attitudes towards tourism among indigenous people such as the Sámi.
Contact between the majority society and indigenous people has had a long history of
suppression and acculturation, with tourism having the potential to be a continuation of this
history (Lehtola, 2004; Minde, 2003a). This is the background as to why the traditional
focus in research on indigenous tourism has been on the impact of tourism and the conflict
perspective (Ryan, 2005; Zeppel, 2001), though for the same reasons, the symbiotic
perspective has received less attention. In this work, such a perspective is applied when
implying a possible mutual dependency between tourism and indigenous people.
However, this requires a concern that must be equally shared towards the interests of the
indigenous people and a meaningful experience for the tourists. To deal with the latter
and to provide indigenous tourism suppliers with information, Smith’s framework, which
contains four specific elements of indigenous tourism, is employed. In order to examine
the significance of these elements, Figure 2 shows the relationship to the visitors’ experi-
ence. Indigenous tourism is represented by the constructs of habitat, handicrafts, heritage,
and history, while the visitors’ experience is represented by the constructs of overall
satisfaction, word-of-mouth intentions, and a willingness to pay.

Methodology
Study site
The data for this study were collected in the summer of 2008 at a Sámi festival entitled ‘Riddu
Riddu’ (which in the Sámi language means ‘Little storm by the coast’), which takes place on
an annual basis in the Kåfjord located in Northern Norway. The festival shows coastal Sámi
life and culture, encompassing music, performing arts, courses, seminars, and movies among
others. The festival was started by the local Sámi associations in 1991 as a Sea Sámi culture
festival. Today, the festival has become one of the largest annual Sámi festivals for
 Journal of Heritage Tourism 135

Figure 2. Hypothesised structural models.

international indigenous people, receiving permanent support from the Norwegian Govern-
ment, the Sámi Parliament, Troms County, and Kåfjord Municipality. Remote villages,
whether they are Norwegian or Sámi, face some of the same problems with infrastructure
such as working to get young people to stay and so on, though in recent years, Sámi
culture has become a working force in helping to maintain values in small towns. Another
Sámi festival is called Markomeannu, held in Evenes and Skånland Municipalities. This fes-
tival focuses on the culture in local villages, ‘markebygdene’, along with other Sámi cultural
expressions, demonstrating a new attitude to the border between the Norwegian and Sámi
cultures, including things which are not typically Sámi, but that normal Sámi people do.

Sampling
Due to the fact that Getz (1991, p. 195) suggests 200 completions for even the smallest of
events and that the analytic technique (structural equation modelling, SEM) chosen for this
study requires a minimum of approximately 150 respondents (see e.g. Schumacker &
Lomax, 2004), there was an attempt to obtain roughly 200 completed usable questionnaires
at the festival. Subsequently, through a convenience sampling strategy, 300 respondents
were approached, with 199 of them agreeing to participate in the survey, thereby providing
us with an acceptable response rate of 66%.

Research instrument and variables

Respondents were requested to fill in a questionnaire consisting of five pages containing
several closed questions. This questionnaire aimed to determine the festival visitors’
136 T. E. Johansen and M. Mehmetoglu

socio-demographic profile, their visit characteristics, their evaluation of different

products’ aspects at the festival, their motivation for visiting the festival, and their
evaluation of indigenous tourism elements (i.e. habitat, handicrafts, heritage, and
history) of the festival, as well as their overall satisfaction with the festival, their
willingness to recommend the festival to others, and their willingness to pay. These
self-administered questionnaires took 12 – 15 min to complete. Two field assistants
were present during the completion of the questionnaires, in case the respondents
needed assistance.

Exogenous variables
In order to operationalise the indigenous tourism elements, 14 questions were originally
prepared and included in the questionnaire. However, in the analysis stage, this figure
was reduced to eight items due to cross-loadings between the questions. These eight
items were represented by answers (on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 ¼ not important
to 7 ¼ very important) given by the respondents to each of the following questions: how
important is it for you that (1) nature is incorporated in the festival, (2) the festival takes
place in a natural landscape, (3) the festival has a large assortment of Sámi handicrafts,
(4) the festival offers Sámi handicrafts, (5) the festival contributes to strengthening Sámi
identity, (6) the festival contributes to strengthening the local Sámi culture, (7) the festival
provides sufficient information about Sámi traditions, and (8) the festival contains activities
and exhibitions based on Sámi history?

Endogenous variables
The three endogenous variables were related to the visitors’ experience, which included the
visitors’ overall satisfaction with the festival, their willingness to recommend the festival to
others, and their willingness to pay. These three constructs were originally operationalised
in terms of three questions per construct. After a reconsideration of the contents of these
items, only two items per construct were chosen for the analysis. These items include
answers (on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 ¼ totally disagree to 7 ¼ totally agree)
given to the following six statements: (1) I am happy with my decision to come and visit
the festival, (2) overall, I am satisfied with the festival, (3) I will recommend the festival
to my friends, (4) I will talk favourably about the festival, (5) I am willing to pay more
for this festival than for other similar festivals, and (6) I am willing to visit the festival
even if the entrance fees go up.

Data analysis and results

For the purposes of this study, an SEM technique was chosen as the analytic strategy. The
reason for this choice was simply the fact that SEM, in contrast to traditional regression
analyses, is a technique that takes into account measurement error in the observed variables
(both dependent and independent) in a given model (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006) consist-
ing of latent constructs. Subsequently, it was decided to run three separate SEM analyses,
shown in tandem in Figure 2, to examine the direct effects of the indigenous tourism
elements on the visitors’ overall satisfaction (SEM_1), willingness to recommend the
festival to others (SEM_2), and willingness to pay for the festival (SEM_3). Prior to
running each of these full SEM analyses, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed
to assess the quality of each of the three measurement models.
 Journal of Heritage Tourism 137

Measurement models
The confirmatory factor analyses showed that the factor loadings for all three of the
measurement models were significant. Furthermore, for all three of the measurement
models, the values of NFI (normed fit index), TLI (Tucker – Lewis index), CFI (comparative
fit index), and GFI (goodness-of-fit index) were above the recommended level of 0.90, and
the RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) values were either 0.08 or ,0.08,
indicating good fitting models (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Having
assessed the overall model, the psychometric properties of the latent variables in each
measurement were also evaluated. First, the reliability values for all of the constructs in
each of the measurement models were above the recommended level of 0.70. Second,
the VE (variance extracted) values for all of the latent variables in each of the measurement
models were above the recommended level of 0.50.

Structural models
As shown in Table 1, all the commonly applied fit measures (NFI, TLI, CFI, GFI, and
RMSEA) were acceptable, thus suggesting that the data fit each of the three models
quite well.
In addition, the findings indicate that the ‘habitat’ element of the festival positively
influenced the visitors’ overall satisfaction with the festival, their willingness to recommend
the festival to others, and their willingness to pay for the festival. However, the effect of
‘habitat’ appeared to be larger on overall satisfaction. While the ‘handicrafts’ element of
the festival negatively influenced the overall satisfaction and willingness to pay, it did
not have any significant effect on the willingness to recommend it to others. The ‘heritage’
element of the festival did not have any significant effect on overall satisfaction, the
willingness to recommend, or the willingness to pay. Moreover, the ‘history’ element of
the festival positively affected the overall satisfaction, whereas it did not have any signifi-
cant effect on the willingness to recommend or the willingness to pay.

Discussion and conclusions

This study has examined what the visitors consider to be the most important factor in an
indigenous event. A total of 199 respondents answered the questionnaire about Riddu
Riddu, with the results being valid for this festival and saying something about what is
important at other Sámi festivals in Norway. One could expect that some of the conclusions
may also be of interest for indigenous festivals in other places.

Table 1. Results of the three SEMs (standardised coefficient and p values).

SEM_1 overall SEM_2 word-of- SEM_3 willingness
satisfaction mouth to pay
Habitat 0.795 0.001 0.376 0.011 0.432 0.022
Handicrafts 20.676 0.009 20.187 0.394 20.638 0.027
Heritage 20.192 0.393 0.291 0.141 0.002 0.994
History 0.750 0.010 0.126 0.608 0.609 0.062
NFI ¼ 0.97; TLI ¼ NFI ¼ 0.97; TLI ¼ NFI ¼ 0.96; TLI ¼
0.96; CFI ¼ 0.98; 0.97; CFI ¼ 0.98; 0.96; CFI ¼ 0.98;
GFI ¼ 0.95; GFI ¼ 0.95; GFI ¼ 0.95;
RMSEA ¼ 0.079 RMSEA ¼ 0.076 RMSEA ¼ 0.082
138 T. E. Johansen and M. Mehmetoglu

When the data are analysed in light of Smith’s model of the 4Hs, the findings show that
habitat is the most important element. This result corresponds with the traditional view of
indigenous culture and society, as indigenous people are always regarded as having a
special connection to place and habitat (Butler & Menzies, 2007, p. 16; Carr, 2004;
Nepal, 2005, p. 112; Zeppel, 2001, p. 233). The local natural resources have been the
backbone of indigenous culture. For the Sámi people, in particular, the connection with
the reindeer herding system has often defined how the Sámi have looked at themselves
and how the majority of society defines the Sámi people.
This work shows a connection between place and people, which in some ways is unex-
pected. Sámi people in Norway have the same conditions today as other Norwegians, as
well as the same economic conditions and level of education. The festival’s entrepreneurs
put the festival on at their place of birth, but often live in cities such as Tromsø, enjoying the
same way of life as other Norwegians. When habitat has this type of significant effect, it
reveals that being a Sámi or obtaining an indigenous experience is closely connected to
a place that is regarded as having something special to do with indigenousness.
The Riddu Riddu festival is arranged in Manndalen, which is a little village in a narrow
fjord with a traditional Sámi population. For generations, the economic outcome has been
based on farming and fisheries, much like the same traditions in many ethnic Norwegian
villages. The festival has artistic performances with indigenous people from all over the
globe and shows how indigenous culture is interpreted in a modern context. With this
kind of background, it would not be expected that habitat would be this important for
the audience. The conclusion on this point is that Valene L. Smith’s statement in her
theory is still valid: ‘The habitat [. . .] becomes the primary element among the 4Hs to be
evaluated in relation to tourism development’ (Smith, 1996, p. 290).
Two of the other Hs, heritage and handicrafts, seem to not have had such a strong effect
on the visitors at the festival. Sámi heritage is an important theme at Riddu Riddu, where
traditional food, intangible heritage such as language and storytelling, old farming, fishing
equipment, and methods are presented. Much the same as with handicrafts, it is demon-
strated as art and is for sale at the festival area, together with modern artwork. These
elements have their expected place at an indigenous festival. This is also a possible expla-
nation as to why the score on this point is low since people get what they expected.
The fourth element, history, seems to be of more interest as it affects overall satisfaction
positively. Here, it is possible to find the explanation in Smith’s interpretation of history in
her article. In Smith’s context, history ‘refers specifically to post-contact relations between
aboriginal peoples and the Westerners . . .’ (Smith, 1996, p. 292) and also has to do with the
difficult history of acculturation and assimilation, in combination with the revitalisation
process over the later decades. The festival itself is a symbol of indigenous pride, and its
location in this small and previously poor and contemptible village strengthens this
feeling of newly won pride and of being a part of the revitalisation of Sámi culture
(Pettersson, 2003, p. 328). The important change in the attitude towards the Sámi people
and their culture in Norwegian society came as late as 1980s, and even today’s younger
generation feel that they are part of this change. When people exhibit satisfaction with
this element, it is because they agree with the idea behind the festival and agree with the
process in which both the audience and festival take part.
Tourism and indigenous culture must strike a balance between authenticity and stereo-
types. Stereotypes are the simple ideas that people have of a given society or culture, though
these ideas have truth at their core, and people believe in them. Because of these stereo-
types, people want to see and experience a new culture and want their ideas to be both
confirmed and challenged at the attraction (McIntosh & Ryan, 2007, p. 76; McKercher
 Journal of Heritage Tourism 139

and du Cros, 2002, p. 40). When habitat achieves this importance, it has to do with the
feeling of authenticity that the visitors get at places such as Manndalen and the Riddu
Riddu festival. The festival programme is often dominated by expressions that could
have been presented anywhere, but myths and stereotypes connect the indigenousness
with its natural surroundings, and authentic indigenous attractions are rural phenomena.
The emphasis which is put on nature and habitat presents a challenge to Riddu Riddu as
an indigenous festival. It is necessary for the festival to demonstrate a responsibility towards
the environment, even if nature itself is not a topic. The visitors also expect responsibility,
because it fits with the myths about indigenous people and makes the connection between
indigenous tourism, sustainable tourism, and ecotourism more important.
Seen from a symbiotic perspective, it is possible to imagine the common interest
between indigenous people and the tourism industry. Habitat includes the environment
where people live in rural areas and on their forefather’s land in a local context. It is in
the interest of both tourism and indigenous society to take care of this environment and pre-
serve the way of life people enjoy here. The landscape is shaped both by the nature itself and
by the activities of people, whether it is traditional farming activity or a modern way of life.
The Riddu Riddu festival is initiated and run by local people, though some of them stay in
the city during the week, and the theme at the festival is indigenous. In this way, it fulfils the
model of indigenous involvement and thematic content described by Butler and Hinch
(1996, p. 10). This attraction has the necessary positive impact on the local indigenous
society, and habitat is an important component of the festival, as regarded by the visitors.

References
Altman, J. (1989). Tourism dilemmas for aboriginal Australians. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(4),
456–476.
Altman, J., & Finlayson, J. (1993). Aborigines, tourism and sustainable development. The Journal of
Tourism Studies, 4(1), 38–50.
Butler, C.A., & Menzies, C.R. (2007). Traditional ecological knowledge and indigenous tourism. In
R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples. Issues and implications. Boston,
MA: Elsevier.
Butler, R., & Hinch, T. (Eds.). (1996). Tourism and indigenous peoples. London: International
Thomson Business Press.
Butler, R., & Hinch, T. (Eds.). (2007). Tourism and indigenous peoples. Issues and implications
(pp. 74–83). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Carr, A. (2004). Mountain places, cultural spaces: The interpretation of cultural significant land-
scapes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(5), 432–459.
Cukier, J. (1996). Tourism employment in Bali: Trends and implications. In R. Butler & T. Hinch
(Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples (pp. 49–75). London: Elsevier.
Dearden, P., & Harron, S. (1992). Tourism and the hilltribes of Thailand. In B. Weiler & C.M. Hall
(Eds.), Special interest tourism (pp. 95–104). London: Belhaven Press.
Delamere, T. (2001). Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes toward the social impacts of
community festivals, part II: Verification of the scale. Event Management, 7, 25–38.
Delamere, T., Wankel, L., & Hinch, T. (2001). Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes
toward the social impacts of community festivals, part I: Item generation and purification of the
measure. Event Management, 2, 11–24.
Getz, D. (1991). Festivals, special events and tourism. London: Norstr and Reinhold.
Getz, D., & Jamieson, W. (1997). Issues, opportunities and entrepreneurship in native tourism: A case
study in Alberta, Canada. In D. Getz & S. Page (Eds.), The business of rural tourism (pp. 93–107).
London: Routledge.
Grekin, J., & Milne, S. (1996). Toward sustainable tourism development: The case of Pond Inlet,
NWT. In R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples (pp. 76–106). London:
Elsevier.
140 T. E. Johansen and M. Mehmetoglu

Gurung, G., Simmons, D., & Devlin, P. (1996). The evolving role of tourists guides: The Nepali
experience. In R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples (pp. 107–128).
London: Elsevier.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harron, S., & Weiler, B. (1992). Ethnic tourism. In B. Weiler & C.M. Hall (Eds.), Special interest
tourism (pp. 83–94). London: Belhaven Press.
Hinch, T., & Butler, R. (2007). Introduction: Revisiting common ground. In R. Butler & T. Hinch
(Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples. Issues and implications (pp. 1–14). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Hinch, T., & Delamere, T. (1993). Native festivals as tourism attractions: A community challenge.
Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 18(2), 131–142.
Johansen, T.E. (2007). Sámi culture as an attraction for tourism in coastal area of Northern Norway. In
J. Saarinen & K. Tervo (Eds.), Tourism and global change in polar regions (pp. 124–127). Oulu:
University Press.
Johnston, A.M. (2006). Is the sacred for sale? London: Earthscan.
Lehtola, P. (2004). The Sámi people. Traditions in transition. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.
Lyngnes, S., & Viken, A. (1998). Sámisk kultur og turisme på Nordkalotten. Rapport Oslo: NMH/BI.
McIntosh, A.J., & Ryan, C. (2007). The market perspective of indigenous tourism: Opportunities for
business development. In R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples. Issues
and implications (pp. 73–83). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism. The partnership between tourism and
cultural heritage management. New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press.
Minde, H. (2003a). The challenge for indigenism: The struggle for Sámi Land Rights and Self-
Government in Norway 1960–1990. In S. Jentoft, H. Minde, & R. Nilsen (Eds.), Indigenous
peoples. Resource management and global rights (pp. 75–106). Delft: Eburon.
Minde, H. (2003b). Assimilation of the Sámi – implementation and consequences. Acta Borealia, 20,
121– 146.
Müller, D., & Pettersson, R. (2001). Access to Sámi tourism in Northern Sweden. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1, 5–18.
Nepal, S.K. (2005). Limits to indigenous ecotourism: An exploratory analysis from the Tl’azt’en
Territories, Northern British Columbia. In C. Ryan & M. Aicken (Eds.), Indigenous tourism.
The commodification and management of culture (pp. 111–126). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Nilsen, R. (2003). From Norwegianization to coastal Sámi uprising. In S. Jentoft, H. Minde, &
R. Nilsen (Eds.), Indigenous peoples. Resource management and global rights (pp. 163–184).
Delft: Eburon.
Notzke, C. (2004). Indigenous tourism development in Southern Alberta, Canada: Tentative engage-
ment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(1), 24–54.
Olsen, K. (2003). The touristic construction of the ‘emblamatic’ Sàmi. In A.-L. Siikala, B. Klein, &
S.R. Mathisen (Eds.), Creating diversities: Folklore, religion and the politics of heritage (Studia
Fennica, Folkloristica) (pp. 292– 305). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
Olsen, K. (2006). Making differences in a changing world: The Norwegian Sámi in the tourist
industry. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6(1), 37–53.
Page, S.J., & Dowling, R.K. (2002). Ecotourism. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Pettersson, R. (2001). Sámi tourism – supply and demand: Two essays on indigenous peoples and
tourism (ETOUR scientific book series 2001:8) Östersund: Etour.
Pettersson, R. (2003). Indigenous cultural events: The development of a Sámi cultural festival in
northern Sweden. Tourism, 51(3), 319–332.
Pettersson, R., & Viken, A. (2007). Sámi perspectives on indigenous tourism in northern Europe:
Commerce or cultural development? In R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous
peoples. Issues and implications (pp. 176–187). Boston, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G.A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling. London:
LEA.
Robinson, M. (1999). Cultural conflicts in tourism: Inevitability and inequality. In M. Robinson
& P. Boniface (Eds.), Tourism and cultural conflicts. Wallingford: CAB International.
Robinson, M., & Boniface, P. (Eds.). (1999). Tourism and cultural conflicts. Wallingford: CAB
International.
Ryan, C. (2005). Events and artifacts. In C. Ryan & M. Aicken (Eds.), Indigenous tourism. The
commodification and management of culture (pp. 151–154). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
 Journal of Heritage Tourism 141

Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling.
London: LEA.
Sharpley, R. (2003). Tourism, tourists and society. Huntingdon: Elm Publications.
Smith, M. (2003). Issues in cultural tourism studies. London: Routledge.
Smith, V.L. (1996). Indigenous tourism: The four Hs. In R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and
indigenous peoples. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Smith, V.L. (1977/1989). Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sofield, T.H.B. (1993). Indigenous tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(4),
729–750.
Viken, A. (2004). Tourism and Sámi identity – an analysis of the tourism-identity nexus in a Sámi
community. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6(1), 7–4.
Viken, A., & Müller, D. (2006) Introduction: Tourism and the Sami [Special issue]. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6(1), 1–6.
Wall, G., & Long, V. (1996). Balinese homestays: An indigenous response to tourism opportunities. In
R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples (pp. 27–48). London: International
Thomson Business Press.
Yang, L., & Wall, G. (2009). Minorities and tourism: Community perspectives from Yunnan, China.
Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 7, 77–98.
Zeppel, H.D. (2001). Aboriginal cultures and indigenous tourism. In N. Douglas, N. Douglas, &
R. Derrett (Eds.), Special interest tourism. Brisbane: Wiley.
Zeppel, H.D. (2006). Indigenous ecotourism. Sustainable development and management. Wallingford:
CABI Publishing.

View publication stats