Towards Combining Forestry and Tourism in Finland: Forest Landscape Preferences of International Tourists in Northern Finland

Transcription

1 Towards Combining Forestry and Tourism in Finland: Forest Landscape Preferences of International Tourists in Northern Finland Liisa Tyrväinen, Ville Hallikainen, Harri Silvennoinen, Field work: Aarno Niva, Jouni Puoskari, Sinikka Rovanperä The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Rovaniemi Research Unit Forest management and silviculture in the north - balancing future needs Metsäntutkimuslaitos Skogsforskningsinstitutet Finnish Forest Research Institute

2 Introduction Tourism and forestry are important sources of livelihood in many rural areas of Finland They compete with each other according to the joined production landscape use model (e.g. Saastamoinen 1982), especially in the northern parts of the Finland In addition to wilderness and nature conservation areas, commercial forests are also important to nature tourism Tourists mainly evaluate the environment in terms of landscape Nature and landscape qualities are highly important motives in the selection of tourism destination (e.g. Hallikainen 1998)

3 Introduction, continued The previous research suggests that tourists prefer mature forest stands, and their attitudes are negative towards final harvesting, in particular towards clear cuttings, which is a widely used method in commercial forests (e.g. Silvennoinen and Tyrväinen 2002) The landscape preferences of Finnish people are rather well known, but the preference studies of foreign tourists are sparse The results may give valuable information in the conflict management between tourism entrepreneurs and forest managers.

4 The study questions How the international tourists consider various forest landscapes (views) as their tourism environments? How important are various motives and expectations about tourism destination to the respondents, and how are these motives and expectations related to their landscape preferences? How does the tourist's demographics explain his / her landscape preferences?

5 Theoretical framework for the study of environmental experiences PERSON'S FORMER EXPERI- ENCES PERSON'S INNER SYSTEM (Genetic background) PERSON'S VALUES AND ATTITUDES Person's expectations IDENTITY OF REGION PERSON'S STATE OF MIND PERSON SEMIOTIC SYSTEM Observation PICTURE *Visual Area ECO- LOGICAL SYSTEM Area MAN'S ACTIVI- TIES ENVIRONMENT *Visual *Auditive *Odorative *Dermal touch Observation Figure in area Figure in area Regional identity SOCIAL SYSTEM *Cultural background *Person's social status OVERALL IMPRESSIO NS *Beaty *Anxiety *Wilderness character EXPERIENCE EXPRESSION OF EXPERIENCE *Verbal *Numeric CHANGING ELEMENTS IN NATURE *Season *Weather *Mental state - duration - intensity *Visual *Behavioral

6 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Person's outdoor recreation motives, activities and suitable recreation environments are related to each other Motive Activity Environment

7 Data collection and questionnaires, statistical analysis Data were collected in Finnish Lapland , selected places, e.g. Rovaniemi airport, tourist resorts... Several time periods, in mid-winter, spring, summer Structured questionnaire and colour photos representing various forest stands, the same or corresponding stands in their summer and winter appearance (28 summer and 29 winter views), ranking scale 0 10 (not suitable at all maximum suitability) 451 respondents ranked summer and 299 ranked winter views (called as summer and winter data in the following) Frequencies, cross-tabs, log-linear models, factor analysis, k-means cluster analysis, GLMs, multinomial logistic models, conditional inference trees

8 Data and statistical analysis

9 Characteristics of the respondents (summer, winter data) Not any significant differences in the distributions of sex or education The respondents of the summer data were younger and more urban About 70% of the respondents in the summer data were from central or eastern Europe About half of the respondents in the winter data came from Atlantic Europe The experiences of original nature, good services and some extreme experiences were the most important motives / expectations attached to the respondents' tourism destination, safaris and especially culture experiences were considered as less important (in both of the data sets)

10 Results, the most important motives / expectations - means and 95% confidence intervals for the motive groups (sum variables) Respondents ranking summer landscapes Respondents ranking winter landscapes Scale: Not important at all (1) Very important (5) All motives are considered as important rather important

11 RESULTS The rankings of the 4 landscape categories in summer and winter

12 Tourists' landscape preference groups - Based on the rankings of the four landscape categories Summer landscapes Winter landscapes Metsäntutkimuslaitos Skogsforskningsinstitutet Finnish Forest Research Institute

13 Predicting respondent's preference group, summer data, version 1 Responden's preference gropup N = Negative M = Medium P =Positive The most negative The most positive Residential environment LC = Large city SC = Small city TCs = Town, countryside Nature = The importance of nature in a tourism destination Service = The importance of service in a tourism destination

14 Predicting respondent's preference group, summer data, version 2 AE = Atlantic Europe CE = Central Europe SE = Southern Europe EE = Eastern Europe Out = Outside Europe N = Negative M = Medium P = Positive The most negative The most positive

15 Predicting respondent's preference group, winter data Residential environment LC = Large city SC = Small city Tcs = Town or countryside N = Negative M = Medium P = Positive The most negative The most positive Metsäntutkimuslaitos Skogsforskningsinstitutet Finnish Forest Research Institute

16 Conclusions A great proportion of timber-covered economic forests are suitable environments for nature-oriented tourists, especially in winter Forest management may increase forest's landscape value in its winter appearance, creating spacious view The average results do not vary very much from a data set to another, advanced modelling of the complicated relationships (preferences, motives, activities, demographics) would need several large data sets (variation in the results from a data set to another)

17 Thank you