Tourism collaborative governance and rural community development:

case studies from Finland and China

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies No 136

Parhad Keyim

Tourism collaborative governance and rural

community development: case studies from Finland and China

Publications of the University of Eastern FinlandDissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies

No 136

Itä-Suomen yliopistoYhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta

Joensuu2016

Juvenes Print - Suomen Yliopistopaino OyTampere, 2016

Vastaava toimittaja: professori Kimmo KatajalaToimittaja: FM Eija Fabritius

Myynti: University of Eastern Finland Library

ISBN: 978-952-61-2289-2 (NId.)ISBN: 978-952-61-2290-8 (PdF)

ISSNL: 1798-5749ISSN: 1798-5749

ISSN: 1798-5757 (PdF)

I dedicate this work to my late father Keyim Turdi

Keyim, ParhadTourism collaborative governance and rural community development: case studies from Finland and China, 41 p.University of Eastern FinlandFaculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, 2016Publications of the University of Eastern Finland, Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies, no 136ISBN (print): 978-952-61-2289-2ISSN (print): 1798-5749ISSN-L: 1798-5749ISBN (PdF): 978-952-61-2290-8ISSN (PdF): 1798-5757Dissertation

aBSTraCT

Based on case studies from villages in Finland and China, this dissertation investi-gates tourism’s impacts on rural communities where divergent development poli-cies and practices have been implemented within the differing socioeconomic and institutional settings of two countries. Tourism’s perceived socioeconomic contri-butions are revealed differently in the village communities, which are respectively situated within the rural contexts of Finnish Nordic democracy and state-socialist China, when its contributions are examined from the perspective that the benefits of tourism should be shared equitably among stakeholders. A community tourism collaborative governance (CTCG) approach, a specific model of rural community development through tourism, has been perceived as a positive contribution to a village in Lieksa, Finland, though only to a limited degree. The community’s moderate involvement in tourism decision-making and implementation is realised within the context of the Nordic democracy and civil society, and the LEAdER support of the EU. The applicability of the CTCG in the Chinese context is chal-lenged by the socioeconomic and institutional features of the country’s entrenched state-socialist political system. As the case studies reveal, these features are com-posed of a politico-structural top-down governance style combined with large companies, business-bureaucracy partnerships, socio-cultural institutions with a weak civil society, little bottom-up development experience, and a shortage of local capital, skills and knowledge. The concept of CTCG is tentative in nature and its applicability needs to be complemented by additional empirical studies in diverse rural settings.

Keywords: Tourism collaborative governance, rural community development, Finland, China

Keyim, ParhadMatkailun yhteisöllinen hallinta ja maaseutuyhdyskuntien kehittäminen: Tapaustutkimukset Suomesta ja Kiinasta, 41 p.University of Eastern FinlandFaculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, 2016Publications of the University of Eastern Finland, Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies, no 136ISBN (nid.): 978-952-61-2289-2ISSN (nid.): 1798-5749ISSN-L: 1798-5749ISBN (PdF): 978-952-61-2290-8ISSN (PdF): 1798-5757Väitöskirja

aBSTraKTi

Tämä väitöskirja perustuu tapaustutkimuksiin Suomessa ja Kiinassa. Tutkimus selvittää matkailun vaikutuksia maaseutuyhdyskuntiin, joissa erilaisia alueke-hittämisen toimintatapoja on sovellettu kahden maan erilaisissa sosioekono-misissa ja institutionaalisissa olosuhteissa. Matkailun sosioekonomiset vaiku-tukset näyttäytyvät erilaisina kyläyhteisöissä, joiden kontekstina on yhtäällä Suomen pohjoismainen hyvinvointivaltio ja toisaalla Kiinan valtiojohtoinen so-sialismi, kun niitä tarkastellaan osallisten tasapuolisen hyödyn näkökulmasta. Maaseutuyhteisöjen kehittämiseksi matkailun avulla luodun aluepoliittisen toi-mintatavan, yhteisöllisen matkailun hallinnan (community tourism collaborative governance, CTCG), on koettu Lieksassa hyödyttäneen paikallisyhteisöä ainakin jossain määrin. Yhteisön rajallinen osallistuminen matkailua koskevaan päätök-sentekoon toteutuu pohjoismaisen demokratian ja kansalaisyhteiskunnan sekä EU:n LEAdER-tuen puitteissa. Vastaavan CTCG:n soveltamista Kiinassa haittaa-vat maan poliittisen järjestelmän institutionaaliset ja sosioekonomiset piirteet. Tapaustutkimus osoittaa, että nämä rakenteet koostuvat ylhäältä alaspäin orien-toituneesta hallintatavasta, johon liittyvät suuret yritykset, yritysten ja hallinnon kumppanuudet, heikon kansalaisyhteiskunnan sosiokulttuuriset instituutiot, vähäinen kokemus alhaalta ylös -kehittämistavasta sekä pula paikallisesta pää-omasta ja tietotaidosta. CTCG on konseptina alustava ja sen soveltuvuuden sel-vittämiseen tarvitaan lisää empiiristä tutkimusta erilaisista maaseutualueista.

Avainsanat: matkailun yhteisöllinen hallinta, maaseudun kehittäminen, Suomi, Kiina

Foreword

I owe my great thanks to my supervisor, colleagues, friends and family. Their guidance and support throughout these years allowed me to produce this doc-toral dissertation. I express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Markku Tykkyläinen, for his academic guidance and practical support; he encouraged me to present my research at numerous seminars, and gave detailed instruc-tions on how to continue; he provided valuable comments on my synopses, ar-ticles and conference presentations; and he acted as a referee for my numerous grant applications. I also thank the pre-examiners of my doctoral dissertation, Professor Markku Löytönen and Jarkko Saarinen. Their valuable comments and suggestions helped me to improve the synopsis and finalise this dissertation.

I thank all of my colleagues and friends within and beyond the Department of Geographical and Historical Studies. They have generously provided both ac-ademic and practical support over the years. I cannot express my thankfulness enough to Adjunct Professor Paul Fryer, who acted as an unofficial co-supervisor to my work; his support began even before I was accepted to the department as a doctoral candidate when he introduced me to my supervisor and instructed me on how to write a doctoral application; he was the first person that welcomed me at the airport in Joensuu and arranged my temporary accommodations; and he provided detailed comments on all of my research papers and did the proofread-ing. I thank doctor Kati Pitkänen for providing me with the contact information of tourism entrepreneurs in North Karelia, translating my web-based question-naires into Finnish, and commenting on my research papers. I thank Saija Miina and Paula Inkeroinen for translating the interview questionnaires into Finnish, and filling out grant applications in Finnish. I thank Esko Lehto for allowing me to participate in the seminars and excursions of his rural projects, which famil-iarised me with the rural situations of North Karelia; he also introduced me to some key tourism actors who facilitated my empirical research. Also, I thank all of my friends in Turpan for helping me to collect research data. After all, I would like to thank all of you (and those who are not mentioned here) for being with me over the years! Hämminglargha köp rähmät!

Finally, my warmest thanks go to my family and extended families. Their generous support has given me the strength to finish this work. I thank and miss my late father who was the most responsible, hardworking, generous and caring man that I have ever met. I thank my wife Minäwär and our daughters Shähla and Bärna for understanding and supporting me all the time.

Parhad Keyim

Contents

1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ..................... 111.1 Background, Objectives and Research Questions ............................................. 111.2 Methods and data Collection ................................................................................... 14

2 COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE, TOURISM AND RURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................... 16

2.1 Governance and Collaborative Governance ....................................................... 162.2 Community Tourism Collaborative Governance (CTCG): a Potential

Mechanism for Sustainable Rural Community development? ................... 20 2.3 Features of the CTCG .................................................................................................. 21

3 SUMMARY OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES ................................ 254 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................... 29

4.1 The CTCG and Rural development: A Comparison between Finland and China ...................................................................................................... 29

4.2 Seeking Alternatives to the CTCG in Western China: Hope for the Future? .................................................................................................. 33

4.3 Concluding Remarks and Implications ................................................................ 34

REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 35

ARTICLES ................................................................................................... 41

FIGURE

Figure 1. A framework of the CTCG and pillars of development ............................ 21

ABBREVIATIONS

CTCG Community Tourism Collaborative Governance EU The European UnionOECD The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development TPTB Turpan Prefecture Tourism Bureau TSSM Tourist Scenic Spot Management Committee of Grape Valley of TurpanXUAR Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region

1 Background and objectives of the study

1.1 BaCKground, oBjeCTiveS and reSearCh QueSTionS

Peripheral rural communities in developed and developing countries, specifical-ly in Finland and China, have been facing major changes and challenges (Chen, 1997; OECd, 2006; Saarinen, 2007; Gao et al., 2009; Hall, et al., 2009; Fredricsson and Smas, 2013). These on-going processes have manifested in socioeconomic problems including, among others, growing unemployment, out-migration, age-ing population, and the deterioration of rural community amenities and ser-vices.

In Finland, the European Union’s (EU) agricultural ‘harmonisation’ policy (Saarinen, 2007), which has promoted the mechanisation of primary productions, intensified the reduction of family-based farming and accelerated the decline of primary sector employment. The accession of Finland to the EU in 1994 dra-matically intensified the decrease in family-based farming and pushed farmers to search for new sources of income (Rinne and Saastamoinen, 2005). EU policy has continued Finnish agricultural policy, which has aimed at improving farm productivity since the mid-1960s (Tykkyläinen, 2006). This policy has encouraged agricultural mechanisation, the decline of labour in farming, and led to depopu-lation of rural areas, especially in the northern, north-eastern, and eastern parts of the country where the Finnish case studies were carried out.

In China, the pace of rural development has also slowed down and is manifest in the prominent problems of relocating extra rural labour, the growing income gap between both urban and rural residents, and eastern costal areas and western border regions of the country, where the case study was conducted. These prob-lems are usually reduced to the ‘Three Nong’ issues, namely agriculture, farmers, and rural areas (Gao et al., 2009).

The socioeconomic issues in the rural areas of both these countries have been addressed respectively. More concretely, in Finland, the previously stated socio-economic challenges of rural areas pushed both the farmers and the authorities to initiate alternative rural development strategies (Rinne and Saastamoinen, 2005), including tourism. In China, dealing with rural socioeconomic challenges has always been a priority of governmental tasks. This is due to the fact that China was and still is the biggest agrarian society by population in the world (Su, 2011), and China’s political stability and economic modernisation are directly related to

12

how to deal with rural issues, including improving the socioeconomic condition of relatively underdeveloped rural areas (Chen, 1997).

Tourism in both the rural areas of Finland and China is recognised as a po-tential community development mechanism through its support of local income and employment creation, the maintenance of local amenities and services, and local cultural resource conservation, for example (Saarinen, 2007; Su, 2011; Hall, et al., 2009; Fredricsson and Smas, 2013). Specifically, in Finland the Rural Policy Committee (2009) recognises the tourism industry as an important source of rural development. Saarinen (2007) argues that tourism has the potential to contribute to the local economy, helping to improve the employment structure and maintain rural communities. In North Karelia, a region which has suffered from various socioeconomic problems (Tykkyläinen, 2006) and where the case study village is located, the tourism industry has been considered as a future direction for regional development (Komppula and Reijonen, 2006). The region’s economic de-velopment can be stimulated by strengthening the local service industry (Hyytiä and Kola, 2013), which includes a tourism industry dominated by private micro-sized family businesses promoting rural tourism and nature based activities (Komppula and Reijonen, 2006).

In the Chinese context, tourism development in rural areas is thought to be a useful instrument to build ‘a harmonious society’ through its support for in-come creation, the elimination of poverty, and sustainable development within the ‘previously marginalised groups’ in less-developed rural regions (Ryan, et al., 2009; cited in Su, 2011). Since the ‘build a new socialist countryside’ policy (Ahlers and Schubert, 2010) was made public in 2006, rural tourism has been viewed as a tool to facilitate social harmony and help construct ‘new socialist ru-ral communities’ in China (Chio, 2011). According to Su (2011), the China National Tourism Administration has facilitated farm diversification towards tourism (i.e. the establishment of national model sites of rural tourist attractions) by offering both financial incentives and government policy support. Su (ibid.) also argues that insufficient off-farm employment opportunities in many rural areas of China encouraged the emergence of a dominant form of rural tourism in China: namely “Nong jia le” (Happy Farmer Home) tourism, which are farms located near scenic sites like a national park, wetlands or heritage water towns with cultural interests. Some case studies in the villages of Jiuzaigou National Park, China acknowledge that local communities enjoy some benefits from such kinds of tourism (Li, 2006; dombroski, 2008; Yang, 2011).

However, a relatively unexplored theme in previous studies is that tourism’s potential benefits to peripheral rural communities are affected by rural develop-ment policies and practices, specifically an effective and fair collaborative govern-ance approach. Such an approach can be formulated through the cohesive efforts of state and non-state actors (also defined as ‘government vs. non-government’ or ‘public vs. private’), but it is shaped by several factors that are imbedded both within and beyond the divergent socioeconomic and institutional settings of ru-ral communities. Therefore, this dissertation aims to explore the socioeconomic

13

impacts of tourism on rural communities that implemented divergent tourism development policies and practices within the differing socioeconomic and in-stitutional contexts of developed and developing countries. Tourism’s impacts on rural communities are investigated based on the host’s (i.e. the people and places that tourists encounter, and the organisations and businesses that provide tour-ism services), especially the perceptions and responses of tourism entrepreneurs. It is logical to focus on the entrepreneurs’ perceptions towards tourism since they have the most frequent interaction with tourists (Sharpley, 2014) and the tourism industry as a whole. Consequently, their perceptions and responses are essential to understanding the functioning of tourism in destination communities.

The limitations of a survey on perceptions can be supplemented through undertaking triangulation with other research data, including participant ob-servation and in-depth interviews (Northcote and Macbeth, 2005). This disserta-tion also aims to explore the differences of the community tourism collaborative governance approach (CTCG: a specific model of rural community development through tourism that is formulated in this work) between the two countries, and suggests alternatives to the approach within the Chinese rural context.

The case studies focus on two rather different peripheral villages in Lieksa, Finland and Turpan, China, which lies along the ‘Silk Road’ of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). These sites are correspondingly situated within the rural socioeconomic and institutional contexts of Finnish Nordic democracy, and state-socialist China. The research conducted in these rather different sites provides an opportunity to investigate the connectivity of rural community development to ‘space-bonded assets’ (Neil and Tykkyläinen, 1998) in different institutional settings with various social and human resources. In Nordic countries ‘place-based development’ through local, regional, national and EU cooperation is emphasised as a way to tackle the major challenges facing rural areas, such as globalisation, climate change and the centralisation of the economy, population and services (Hedström and Littke, 2011). In other words, through these case studies this dissertation aims to investigate the connectivity of com-munity development to destination capitals (Sharpley, 2010). In addition, the case studies support the formulation of the CTCG. The CTCG is tentative in nature in that it has been gradually developed through data analysis from both case stud-ies within the interdisciplinary theoretical frames of tourism, public administra-tion (i.e. governance), development studies, and rural studies. Simultaneously, the theoretical development of the CTCG concept and research results from the empirical case studies complement each other.

In order to achieve the previously stated research aims, the following ques-tions constitute the main objectives of the study:

1. What are the perceived socioeconomic impacts of tourism on rural communities that are located in the differing socioeconomic and institutional settings of developed and developing countries?

14

2. What are the differences of the CTCG within the rural contexts of Finnish Nordic democ-racy and state-socialist China?

3. Is the CTCG approach applicable within the specific rural settings of western China? If not, what are the alternatives to the approach?

1.2 meThodS and daTa ColleCTion

The study applied Yeung’s (2003) process-based methodological framework and Yin’s (2003) case study approach. Yeung’s process-based methodological framework is useful for this research because it deploys “different methodological practices as differ-ent moments of a research process that is sensitive to specific research questions and/or contexts” (Yeung 2003, 442). The framework stipulates validity, reliability, and reflexivity through triangulation, actor network tracing, and in situ (i.e. the village level) research. According to Yeung (ibid., 446),

validity refers to whether the research process and instruments used are approximating the correct phenomenon and whether they explain what they set out to explain. Reliability simply refers to the replicability of findings. Reflexivity can be defined as the capacity of the research practice to allow the researcher to reflect upon his/her own situatedness in the research process.

Yeung (ibid.) specifies that triangulation enables researchers to recognise different voices of society by comparing different sources of data and findings that address the same phenomenon. The complexity of social life (i.e. rural community devel-opment through tourism) may be unravelled by tracing actor networks, which requires the researcher to be immersed in the network (i.e. the research commu-nity) by intensive research methods, including participant observations, focus groups, and dialogue. In situ research enables researchers to obtain more reliable and valid data through direct observations. Yin’s (2003) case study approach is also applied as a methodological tool because it enables the utilisation of multiple sources of evidence and is recommended when “how or why questions are being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which the investigator has little or no control” (ibid., 1).

This study applied the previously addressed methodological tools in the articles (I, II, IV, V) although their applications are slightly different in each individual article. The differences can be observed in more detail in the articles attached at the end of this dissertation. However, the articles generally relied on research methods such as fieldwork surveys, participatory observation, in-depth interviews, and a review and analysis of secondary sources, including published and unpublished official documents and statistics, relevant internet resources, and academic papers. The survey results are triangulated with the secondary sources.

15

Specifically, the Chinese case studies, which are presented in more detail in section three and the appended articles (I, IV), were conducted in the village of Buyluk (Putao gou in Chinese, Grape Valley in English) in Turpan, XUAR. Since the village contains a concentration of family-based small tourism businesses (AMAS), a typical rural tourism phenomenon developed in state-socialist China, this study is a representative exploration of the relationship between the tour-ism development practices and the local community development. Fieldwork surveys were conducted in the village in 2011 with key informants including local residents, the AMAS, and local government officials. Questionnaires de-signed to investigate the relationship between tourism and local socioeconomic development were disseminated among the previously mentioned groups. 650 questionnaires were distributed to households (excluding the households of lo-cal AMAS business operators) and the response rate was 57%. 57 questionnaires, which corresponds to all of the officially registered AMAS tourism operators in 2011, were distributed among members and the response rate was 77%. The busi-ness characteristics of the AMAS, including investment capacity, seasonality, and entrepreneurial skills, were also investigated.

In addition, face-to-face interviews focusing on tourism and the local village development themes were conducted with some members of the three groups. The data was stored by the researcher. Much of the data was shared unofficially with the researcher and is identified as ‘personal communications’ in the text. The survey results were triangulated with secondary sources that include aca-demic papers (Xiong and Han, 2005; Wang, 2007; Wang and dong, 2007; Li, 2008; Wang, 2009; Qin, 2011), internet resources (Tianshan Net, 2006; China daily, 2009; People’s daily, 2010; TSSM, 2010; Tianshan Net, 2011; Xinhua Net, 2015), and the government of Turpan’s and the XUAR’s published and unpublished of-ficial documents and statistics (Xinjiang International Engineering Consultation Center, 2007; TPTB, 2008; The Buyluk Office of Turpan city, 2013; Statistic Bureau of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, 2015).

In the Finnish case studies, regional (North Karelia) and village (Vuonislahti) level surveys were conducted during the different periods of the research. More specifically, three rounds (May, June and October of 2013) of web-based surveys were distributed to 479 tourism entrepreneurs in North Karelia (article II). Only 56 of them responded, so the response rate is low (13.7%). The questionnaires included 26 questions on attitudes grouped into three themes: the economic and socio-cultural impacts of tourism, the local development policy, and the develop-ment related capacities of local residents. The survey results were triangulated with previous academic findings (Hyytiä and Kola, 2013; Komppula and Reijonen, 2006; Pesonen et al., 2013; Tykkyläinen, 2006), and Finnish official documents, such as publications from the Rural Policy Committee in Finland (Rural Policy Committee, 2009). due to the low response rate, this research has limitations for generalisation. However, triangulation of the research findings with other scholarly work and relevant documents indicates that the responses from the 56 participants reflect the trends of entrepreneurs’ perceptions of the local tourism

16

phenomena, including the socioeconomic impacts of tourism and local tourism development policy.

In order to further verify the findings of the previous study in Finland, ad-ditional rounds of fieldwork surveys were conducted in Joensuu in March 2014 and in the village of Vuonislahti from June to November 2015 (article V). This case is a representative study for examining the capability of Finnish rural de-velopment policies and practices intended to promote rural socioeconomic regen-eration through community-based tourism because it is located in the sparsely populated peripheral municipality of Lieksa, which has suffered from the various socioeconomic problems (Tykkyläinen, 2006; Tykkyläinen et al., 2017).

Currently, nature-based tourism is emphasised as one of Lieksa’s development strategies (Tykkyläinen et al., 2017). Eleven in-depth interviews with tourism re-lated state (i.e. public, and quasi-public sector) and non-state actors were conduct-ed. These interviews focused on themes that examine the relationship between local tourism collaboration activities and their socioeconomic contribution to the village. The interviews also addressed the policy and measures of Lieksa munici-pality, the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY- keskus), PIKES1, Finnvera (Finnish state-owned financing company), and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. Participants from the state included representa-tives from the North Karelia Regional Council (one person), the Karelia Expert2

(one person), and Joensuun seudun Leader3 (two people). Interviews with the non-state actors (seven individuals) involved local tourism entrepreneurs and representatives from community associations. The interviews were arranged be-forehand by e-mail or telephone, and were conducted at the interviewee’s home, workplace or other public place. Each interview lasted between one and two hours and all of them were recorded. The interviews were analysed by focus-ing on two main research questions: Is tourism considered as a socioeconomic development mechanism in Vuonislahti? What is the relationship between local tourism collaboration activities and tourism’s socioeconomic contribution to the village? The results of the interviews were triangulated with academic findings (Puhakka, 2008; Törn, et al., 2008; Puhakka, et al., 2009; Vihinen, 2009; Makkonen and Hokkanen, 2013; Halonen, et al., 2015; Haveri, 2015; Kotilainen, et al., 2015).

1 PIKES is a company that is owned by the municipalities of Lieksa, Nurmes, and Valtimo.2 Karelia Expert is a tourism service company that is co-owned by the North Karelia Regional Council, several municipalities in the region, and the PKO business group.3 Joensuun seudun Leader is a local branch of the LEAdER. The LEAdER program is a European Union initiative to support endogenous socio-economic development in rural areas of member states, see for example Ray, C. (2000). Editorial. The EU LEAdER programme: rural development laboratory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (2), 163–171.

17

2 Collaborative governance, tourism and rural community development

2.1 governanCe and CollaBoraTive governanCe

The concept of governance does not have a unified meaning. However, Stoker (1998, 17) points out that there is “a baseline agreement that governance refers to the development of governing styles in which boundaries between and within public and private sectors have become blurred.” Stoker (1997) also argues that, “[i]ts focus is on the interdependence of governmental and non-governmental forces in meeting economic and social challenges. Governance is about governmental and non-governmental organizations working together” (cited in Marsden and Murdoch, 1998, 41). These definitions prompt one to ask, “What is government, and governing?” According to Stoker (1998, 17), government refers to,

the formal institutions of the state and their monopoly of legitimate coercive power. Government is characterized by its ability to make decisions and its capacity to enforce them. In particular government is understood to refer to the formal and institutional processes which operate at the level of the nation state to maintain public order and facilitate collective action.

Howlett and Ramesh (2014, 318) refer to governing as “what governments do: con-trolling the allocation of resources among social actors; providing a set of rules and operating a set of institutions setting out ‘who gets what, where, when, and how’ in society.” However, Murdoch and Abram (1998) argue that the delivery of economic and social programmes and projects should be shifted from state spon-sorship [government] to partnership arrangements involving both government and non-government organisations. This means that socioeconomic challenges should be tackled through cooperative arrangements.

Since the 1990s, governance studies have become a key aspect of social sci-ences, including human geography where much work on governance has focused on studies of local and rural governance (Johnston et al., 2000). According to Edwards et al. (2001), partnerships have become an important mechanism for implementing rural development policy in Britain. However, the state remains crucial in governing the process of governance through partnerships because it dominates the partnership activities through steering, funding and resourcing.

18

Jones and Little (2000) argue that partnerships are a key component of rural gov-ernance, but the formation of partnerships in rural communities is hindered by a variety of obstacles, including, among others, internal tensions, and a lack of private sector interest and experience.

The term collaborative governance has emerged over the last three decades, yet its definition remains vague (Emerson et al., 2012). Ansell and Gash (2008, 544) define collaborative governance as,

[a] governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stake-holders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and delib-erative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets.

By proposing a model of collaborative governance, Ansell and Gash (ibid.) identify critical variables of successful collaboration, including starting conditions, insti-tutional design, leadership, collaborative processes and fine-grained variables. Emerson et al. (2012, 2) define collaborative governance as,

the processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished.

Emerson et al. (ibid.) also argue that unlike Ansell and Gash’s definition of collabora-tive governance, which refers to only formal, state-initiated arrangements, their defi-nition encompasses so called ‘multipartner governance’ that can include partnerships within and/or among the state, private sector, civil society, and community spheres.

Relating to the scope of this study, the concepts of governance and collabora-tive governance also have many interpretations when applied to the field of tour-ism studies (Jamal and Getz 1995; Scheyvens, 1999; Bramwell and Sharman 1999; Vernon et al. 2005; Sharpley, 2010; Bramwell and Lane, 2011; Hall, 2011; Zapata and Hall, 2012; Graci, 2013; Czernek, 2013). Elaborations of the previously mentioned works are not presented here; instead, they are discussed in the associated sec-tions of this dissertation. Thus, based on the results of articles III, IV and V, this study defines collaborative governance as:

collaborative processes between state and non-state actors (also conceived of as ‘government vs. non-government’ or ‘public vs. private’) used to organise society in an equitable manner and that are dependent on the socioeconomic and institutional settings of the society.

This definition includes the following criteria: (1) the forum requires collaboration between state and non-state actors, (2) the aim of the forum is to organise society in an equitable manner, (3) accomplishment of the forum’s objective is contingent on the institutional and socioeconomic settings of the society. Each criterion will be elaborated on below.

19

The establishment of collaborative governance requires state and non-state actors to work together since neither group has the ability to organise society impartially. Yet, the actors’ integration level of cooperative ability can be situated on a spectrum of, from low to high, cooperation, coordination and collaboration (Keast et al., 2007). This study applies the highest types of integration among state and non-state actors, collaboration, since it involves “much closer relationships, connections and resources and even a blurring of the boundaries between agen-cies [actors]” (Keast, 2007, 19).

The ultimate goal of collaborative governance is to organise society in an equitable manner. Here, social equity is discussed through the lens of sustain-able development. The World Commission on Economic development (1987, 43) defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” and points out that the concept is underpinned by three fundamen-tal principles: environmental integrity, economic prosperity, and social equity. The environmental integrity principle of the sustainable development is not in-cluded in the scope of this study. According to the social equity principle, all members of a society, both in the present and future, should have equal access to resources and opportunities (Bansal, 2005; Sharpley, 2010). Bansal (2005, 198) also argues that, “if any one of the [sustainable development] principles is not supported, economic development will not be sustainable.” Kuusi (1964) states that “[i]n the contemporary society, democracy, social equality and economic growth seem to be interdependent in a fortunate way” (cited in Kettunen, 2001, 231). Without equal access to income-related benefits, conflict between peoples [societies] will erupt in order to achieve some perceived sense of equity (WCEd, 1987). However, Seers (1969) claims that those economic growth policies that aim at merely achieving economic prosperity have frequently failed to solve social and political problems, including widespread social inequality (cited in Sharpley, 2000, 3). Thus, this study argues that if development policies and prac-tices merely emphasise economic growth instead of advocating for the equitable sharing of benefits among all members of society, the ultimate goal of collabora-tive governance is hardly achievable. The equitable sharing of benefits means that the benefits are distributed according to the stakeholders’ input, as in a well-functioning market economy.

The last, but not least, emphasised point of this study is that organising soci-ety equitably through collaborative governance is contingent on the institutional and socioeconomic settings of the society. The concept of [collaborative] govern-ance is about the practice of collective decision-making concerning all members of a society, and “the construction of governance regimes matters to the well-being of our societies” (Chhotray and Stoker, 2009, 5). This concept aligns with the principles of Nordic welfare state ideology, which emphasises the equal distribu-tion of wealth and opportunities geographically (Tykkyläinen et al., 2017). The managerialism practices of the governance approach, in which public agencies [the state actors] make decisions unilaterally behind closed doors (Futrell 2003;

20

cited in Ansell and Gash, 2008), fails when organising society because it does not “look beyond a tight core of institutions based around bureaucracy and political parties and a limited elite form of democracy” (Chhotray and Stoker, 2009, 23). In other words, organising society equitably requires an institutional setting (i.e. Nordic welfare state) that promotes private ownership, civil society and semi-collective decision-making process, specifically an institutional setting that safe-guards alternative development which encourages grassroots community-based development (Sharpley, 2000; Ansell and Gash, 2008). In addition, according to Czernek (2013, 99), matching up “formal institutions (all norms of law connected with a given political and economic system)” and “informal institutions (values, traditions, customs, culture, morality etc. rooted in a society’s cultural heritage)” is required to develop an economy effectively.

2.2 CommuniTy TouriSm CollaBoraTive governanCe (CTCg): a PoTenTial meChaniSm for SuSTainaBle rural CommuniTy develoPmenT?

As previously stated, the ultimate goal of the collaborative governance is to or-ganise society in an equitable manner. This goal, which emphasises the equitable sharing of resources and benefits among the broader members of the society, is pursuant to the social equity principles of sustainable development. In the context of tourism, some scholars (Bramwell and Lane, 2011; Bramwell, 2011) argue that tailored and effective (collaborative) governance is required in order to promote sustainable tourism in destination areas and communities that aim to balance the three dimensions of sustainability (i.e. economic, social-cultural and ecological). The Report of the World Summit on Sustainable development (2002, 34; cited in Sharpley, 2010, 1) states that the objective of sustainable tourism is to,

[p]romote sustainable tourism development… in order to increase the benefit from tourism resources for the population in host communities while maintaining the cultural and envi-ronmental integrity of the host communities and enhancing the protection of ecologically sensitive areas and natural heritages.

However, sustainable tourism development in a community cannot be achieved without the sustainability of the community itself (Richards and Hall, 2000). That is, the community needs to be managed in a sustainable manner in the first place since the community is the basic reason for tourists to travel by providing both natural and cultural tourism resources.

due to inherent weaknesses in the conceptualisation of the ‘parental para-digm’ of sustainability (Sharpley, 2010), the concepts of sustainable tourism and sustainable rural community development have acquired various definitions, though they will not be discussed in detail in this study. However, by emphasis-ing equality in the organisation of a society through collaborative practices be-

21

tween state and non-state actors, the concept of collaborative governance is in line with some of the principles of sustainable tourism. According to Sharpley (ibid.), the principles of sustainable tourism include, among others, the encouragement and expectation of local communities’ participation in tourism (i.e. planning, development and control) with the support of the government and industry, and assurance of the equitable sharing of tourism benefits among all stakeholders. Thus, sustainable rural community development through tourism can be im-proved if the community-based tourism development policies and practices are in line with the criteria of collaborative governance (Figure 1).

This means that the CTCG can be formulated through the cohesive col-laboration efforts of state and non-state actors situated within and beyond the community in different geographical scales. Yet the establishment of the CTCG requires socioeconomic and institutional settings that protect community re-sources (i.e. natural and cultural), promote private ownership, civil society and collective decision-making processes; or, more specifically, settings that safe-guard alternative development that encourages grassroots community-based tourism development (Sharpley, 2000; Ansell and Gash, 2008). The CTCG is thus shaped by both the endogenous (i.e. local, regional) and exogenous (i.e. regional, national, and supra-national) socioeconomic and institutional factors of rural areas (Czernek, 2013).

2.3 feaTureS of The CTCg

The main features of fair and effective tourism collaborative governance ap-proach (CTCG) are outlined below (Figure 1):

Figure 1. A framework of the CTCG and pillars of development.

22

Broader and equal collaborationTourism in rural communities can be a multi-faceted industry that engages multiple actors from the business community, the public sector and rural com-munities. Moreover, no single actor has access to sufficient resources to ensure the promotion of sustainable community development through tourism. Thus, broader and equal collaboration between the various state and non-state actors is required to combine and utilise each actor’s resources (i.e. knowledge, expertise, and capital) to maximise the socioeconomic contribution of tourism to local rural communities (article V). Broader and equitable collaboration in decision-making and implementation can provide a dynamic mechanism for resolving conflicts related to local tourism planning and development issues, effectively mobilising local human, cultural and natural resources (Jamal and Getz, 1995; Bramwell and Sharman, 1999; Vernon et al., 2005).

In order to maximise the socioeconomic contributions of tourism towards a certain community, all stakeholders in the community should be implicated in the actual development and management of tourism as much as possible (Inskeep, 1991). Community participation is a crucial ingredient of sustainable tourism development since it creates better opportunities for local people to maximise their benefits from local tourism development (Tosun, 2000). In other words, local community participation is a critical element of sustainable tourism development to ensure the equitable sharing of tourism benefits among all stakeholders and achieve the ultimate goal of collaborative governance.

In general, community participation in tourism can be realised in two ways: involvement in decision-making, and participation in the benefits of tourism (Li, et al., 2016). The former generally empowers local residents to determine their hopes and concerns for tourism, while the latter is always through employment (McIntosh and Goeldner, 1986; cited in Li, et al., 2016). However, the involve-ment of stakeholders in broader and equitable local rural tourism development decision-making and implementation, especially the involvement of community residents and local entrepreneurs, is shaped by socioeconomic and institutional features composed of endogenous and exogenous factors imbedded within and beyond communities (Czernek, 2013).

According to Czernek (ibid.), endogenous factors include, among others, con-flicting economic interest groups, local demographic characteristics (such as age and education), local socio-cultural features (such as leadership, interpersonal relationships and trust), and local economic development levels. The exogenous factors include, but are not limited to, the global and domestic tourism trends of demand, the state’s economic development level and public finances. The institu-tional factors, both local endogenous and non-local endogenous, include local, re-gional, national and supra-national regulations, and the creation of social capital.

In Nordic countries, such as Finland, rural policies include rural tourism poli-cies that emphasise bottom-up development and local community involvement through public-private partnerships is prominent in the implementation and co-ordination of both national and EU policy (Hedström and Littke, 2011). However,

23

due to the prevailing socio-political, economic and cultural structure in many developing countries, including China, community participation in tourism is usually implemented by allocating tourism revenues to local residents, encourag-ing them to operate small businesses and/or to find jobs in the tourism industry, rather than allowing them to participate in local tourism development decision-making (Li, 2006; dombroski, 2008; Tosun, 2000; Yang, 2011).

Legitimate and skilled convenerParker (2000) argues that tourism collaboration and partnerships can be more successful when a convener who is perceived as legitimate leads them. Jamal and Getz (1995) suggest that a convener can be a government agency, industrial firm, a group (i.e. the local Chamber of Commerce), or a local tourist organisation (i.e. visitor’s bureau) that is characterised by legitimacy, expertise, resources, and authority.

However, in some cases local governments dominate local economic and po-litical resources (i.e. relatively advanced skills, experience, capital resources, and authority) in rural areas (Murdoch and Abram, 1998; Jones and Little, 2000). This can result in the local authorities’ supremacy in convening and controlling de-velopment processes, and contradicts the ideal collaborative governance model, which advocates for broader and equitable collaboration between state and non-state actors. That is, “[t]he state [government authorities] sets the ‘rules of the game’ of governance. All of these elements affect what happens in destination governance” (Amore and Hall, 2016, 118).

Ideally, a government reassigns its regulation to a ‘support function’ from a ‘steering function’ by a “shift from a hierarchical bureaucracy based on the state towards a greater use of networks beyond the state, as well as markets and quasi-markets” (Bramwell and Lane, 2011, 413). In some areas, a local government, based on its relative advantage in terms of its authority and resources over other actors, may control local development processes, including socioeconomic devel-opment in rural communities. In other words, despite the local state authorities’ responsibility shifting towards ‘partnership’ governance, local rural governance remains dominated by state sectors through their steering, funding and resourc-ing partnership activities (Edwards et al., 2001).

In a tourism context, “power governs the interaction of individuals, organiza-tions and agencies influencing, or trying to influence, the formulation of tourism policy and the manner in which it is implemented” (Hall, 1994, 52). due to the imbalance of power and resources between actors, “collaborative arrangements in destinations can become conversations among local elites, rather than involving a representative range of stakeholders” (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999, 396). In such situations, local authorities and their elite business partners may dominate tour-ism collaboration in destinations. However, an absence or insufficiency of non-state actor (i.e. local communities, small entrepreneurs, and resident associations) participation in decision-making processes is likely to affect all other aspects of tourism development policies and operation (de Araujo and Bramwell, 2002).

24

Furthermore, Vernon et al. (2005, 329) argue that “incomplete representation, un-equal power relations of stakeholders, or lack of accountability can weaken the effectiveness of policies and initiatives.”

Collaborative governance not only requires the broadly based involvement of actors who can fully represent their own groups, but also non-hierarchical and flexible alliances among them. The involvement of non-state actors, especially local communities, in collaborative governance may need to be enhanced by tak-ing institutional (i.e. legislation) and socioeconomic (i.e. social capital building) measures that support grassroots bottom-up development.

Adequate resourcesJamal and Getz (1995) suggest that sufficient resources, including expertise, time, and money, are needed for processing and implementing tourism collaboration. If the collaboration starts successfully, much of the required investment can be fi-nanced by growing incomes, profits and taxations in a virtuous cycle of prosperity. The collaboration process itself requires investment for building and enhancing social capital including, for example, leadership and other skills, organisational and physical infrastructure, community confidence and identity, entrepreneur-ship, networks, and trust (Putnam, 1993, cited in Shortall and Shuckmith, 1998).

However, as previously stated, while local state authorities have relatively advanced resources for supporting collaboration, local communities may be re-stricted from being fully in control of their participation in tourism development due to a lack of ownership, capital, skills, knowledge and resources (Scheyvens, 1999). In short, these features of collaborative governance, namely broader and eq-uitable collaboration, a legitimate and skilled convener, and adequate resources, are interconnected and the overall fairness and effectiveness of such governance depends on the influence of each of these factors.

25

3 Summary of the individual articles

This dissertation consists of five associated articles that aim to investigate the main objects of the study. Four articles are case studies, two on the Chinese con-text and two on the Finnish context, and the other article is a general theoretical article. Summaries of each of the five articles are presented below. A more de-tailed discussion of the findings of all five articles will be presented in the next section along with a related theoretical discussion.

Article I: Government roles in rural tourism development: a case from Turpan Article I is based on a case study of the Chinese village of Buyluk (Grape Valley) in Turpan, which is situated along the ‘Silk Road’ in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). It suggests that under the government-led rural tourism development policy in Turpan, external tourism investment acceler-ated the construction of tourism-related infrastructure in the village, attracted more tourists, and thus created some jobs and business opportunities for locals. However, external tourism enterprises dominate tourism businesses in the vil-lage so the benefits of tourism to the local residents are limited. While the Turpan prefectural and municipal-level governments´ various dominant roles (i.e. plan-ners, investors, investment stimulators, promoters, educators and regulators) in local rural tourism development are successfully implemented, the equitable sharing of tourism benefits among all stakeholders is not achieved. Especially, the benefits to the residents of the village and their family-based small tourism businesses (AMAS) are limited.

The results of the surveys and interviews indicate that this is caused by the various political-structural and business-operational obstacles within and be-yond the village. In other words, the top-down political command structure, the business-bureaucracy’s support of external enterprises’ control over local tour-ism development, and the inadequacy of local village residents and their AMAS businesses in development related capacities led to limited socioeconomic ben-efits for local residents, such as limited direct or indirect tourism income and job opportunities. The community’s inadequacy in development related capacities includes insufficient vocational skills and financial resources, difficulties in ob-taining government financial support and bank loans, insufficient marketing, lack of ownership, lack of experience in bottom-up development, and insufficient decision-making and implementation power when faced with other stakeholders,

26

such as government and external enterprises. This study further suggests that the government of Turpan needs to increase the socioeconomic contribution of tour-ism to the village by promoting economic benefit-oriented community participa-tory tourism at the least, instead of implementing an external enterprise-oriented tourism development policy.

Article II: Entrepreneurs’ perspectives towards tourism and rural development in North Karelia, FinlandBased on an internet-based survey of entrepreneurs’ attitudes on tourism activi-ties in the region of North Karelia, article II examines the socioeconomic impact of rural tourism, and the relationship between the perception of tourism develop-ment policy and the socioeconomic contribution of tourism. This article suggests that local entrepreneurs see more positive (i.e. profits to municipalities, demand for local products, business and job opportunities, better provision of infrastruc-ture and services, and maintaining local culture) than negative (i.e. increasing costs of living, uneven income distribution, and increasing noise and pollution) socioeconomic impacts of tourism in North Karelia. Thus, tourism could be a future direction for promoting socioeconomic development in the region, which currently depends on forestry, mining, and agriculture. The region also consist-ently suffers from high unemployment.

In addition, local entrepreneurs have a moderately positive opinion of the local rural tourism development policy, which guarantees community participa-tion in planning, decision-making and implementing policy, public availability of information, and encourages cooperation between the public, private and third sectors in local rural tourism development. However, the entrepreneurs do not think that they have sufficient development related capacities, including busi-ness skills and financial resources. Furthermore, this article suggests that the more positively entrepreneurs evaluate local policy, the more benefits they see from tourism to the local area. But, due to the low response rate, the article has limited generalizability for the entrepreneurs’ perceptions of the local tourism phenomena.

Article III: Collaboration and rural development in a tourism contextAs a theoretical debate, article III argues that if tourism is a mechanism for resolv-ing the socioeconomic problems in rural areas of developed and developing na-tions, it benefits from collaboration between governments and non-governmental entities (business, community, and voluntary) in non-hierarchical and flexible partnerships. However, tourism’s potential benefits for rural areas are affected by rural development policies and practices (a collaborative approach in particu-lar) that have been formulated and implemented in different socioeconomic and institutional settings of developed and developing countries. More specifically, the phases of the tourism collaboration approach, which include problem-setting, direction-setting, and structuring stages, are interconnected and modulated by the differing socioeconomic and institutional settings of rural areas within de-

27

veloped and developing countries. Thus, the outcomes of tourism collaboration, which are seen to have a more positive than negative impact, are also affected by the differing socioeconomic and institutional settings of rural areas. This article outlines a conceptual tourism collaboration approach that will be utilised as a theoretical background for comparative case studies.

Article IV: Tourism and rural development in western China: A case from TurpanAlso based on a Chinese case study in Buyluk, Turpan, article IV argues that the local community does not receive a fair share of the benefits of tourism when com-pared to the local government and external tourism investors. This is due to some socioeconomic and institutional constraints, including the political-structural (i.e. hierarchical top-down government system, and absence of private ownership), business operational (i.e. business-bureaucracy partnerships), and socio-cultural (i.e. absence of civil society and bottom-up development experience, and a lack of local capital, skills, and knowledge) factors within and beyond the village. The Finnish case studies (articles II, V) indicate that in order to increase tourism’s benefits to the local community, a ‘collaborative governance’ approach is needed to encourage cooperation between governmental and non-governmental organi-sations and promote grassroots ‘bottom-up’ development practices that would effectively mobilise the local human, cultural, and natural resources.

More specifically, the various levels of the government of Turpan need to shift their hierarchical bureaucracy-based governmental ‘steering function’ towards a governance ‘support function’ in order to ensure that all tourism related actors in the local community and beyond are able to enjoy the benefits of tourism equita-bly. This could be realised by ensuring rural residents’ participation rights in lo-cal tourism development, through participation in the benefits of tourism, includ-ing employment with the governmental tourism management authorities and/or compensation through relevant regulations; or by supporting local rural residents and their AMAS businesses to develop their tourism-related capacities through vocational training, including training in foreign language skills like Mandarin Chinese and English, e-marketing, and costumer management. It could also be done by promoting long-term preferential policies, including low interest loans, and tax exemptions for locally owned micro-rural tourism enterprises (AMAS); and by allowing and supporting the creation of local NGOs, which are still nas-cent, it might help to further decentralise governance, prevent bureaucracy, and halt corruption.

Article V: Tourism collaborative governance and rural community development in Finland: the case of Lieksa (under review).Based on research from a peripheral locale of Finland, namely the village of Vuonislahti in Lieksa, this article identifies a community tourism collaborative gov-ernance approach (CTCG). In general, the article suggests that the village has achieved some socioeconomic benefits through a moderately fair and effective

28

CTCG, which is shaped by several factors imbedded within and beyond the di-vergent socioeconomic and institutional settings of the rural community in the context of Finnish Nordic democracy. However, the village’s socioeconomic de-velopment through community-based tourism is both promoted and hindered by certain features of the CTCG that are imbedded within the community and beyond the socioeconomic and institutional context of the village (the municipal-ity of Lieksa, the state of Finland, and supra-national actors).

From a positive perspective, the moderately fair and effective CTCG in Vuonislahti is promoted through an ensured broader and equitable tourism collaboration model grounded in the Nordic tradition of a common free peas-ant society. Yet, these seemingly village-specific (endogenous) factors cannot be separated from the favourable general sociocultural atmosphere that includes a strong tradition of consensus-seeking between different interest groups, a col-lective decision-making process, and an exogenous institutional atmosphere that includes local, regional, national, and supra-national regulations in the context of Nordic democracy. Together these factors safeguard strong private ownership, free market capitalism, a strong degree of local democracy, low levels of corrup-tion, and high levels of trust.

From the negative perspective, the interviews and other research papers reveal that tourism collaboration in Vuonislahti is also restrained by some en-dogenous (village specific) and exogenous socioeconomic and institutional fac-tors. The village’s specific economic (i.e. interest group conflicts, weak village economy), demographic (i.e. ageing population, youth out-migration, insufficient professional education), and socio-cultural (i.e. weak leadership, poor interper-sonal relationships and trust) factors have hindered its socioeconomic develop-ment through community-based tourism. Unfavourable exogenous factors that have hindered the village’s development include, for example, decreased interna-tional tourism from Russia, declining public financial support, the dominance of the state sector (i.e. municipal, regional, national, and supra-national) and local elite in financial decision-making, the state’s preference for top-down working practices, a development strategy focused on big projects, insufficient efforts to create social capital, and problems that occurred among state actors during the co-operation processes.

29

4 Discussion and conclusion

This section compares the CTCG that has been formulated within the rural so-cioeconomic and institutional settings of the Finnish Nordic democracy with the government led rural tourism development policies and practices in a tour-ism destination village (articles I, IV) with one situated in the regime of China’s entrenched state-socialist political system (Brown, et al., 2012). Moreover, this section examines alternatives to the CTCG approach that could emerge in rural western China if the CTCG approach is not appropriate within that particular socioeconomic and institutional context.

4.1 The CTCg and rural develoPmenT: a ComPariSon BeTween finland and China

The comparison will be conducted using the frame of the main features of fair and effective CTCG as previously developed.

Broader and equal collaborationAs previously stated, the broader and equitable collaboration between the state and non-state actors during tourism development, especially the inclusion of the local community in decision-making and implementation processes, is a crucial factor for the realisation of equitable benefit sharing among all stakeholders and to fulfil the ultimate goal of collaborative governance. The Finnish case study in Vuonislahti (article V) demonstrates that a moderately effective CTCG has been established through broader and equitable collaboration among the state and non-state actors within and beyond the village, though to a limited degree. This is due, at least partially, to the Finnish rural socioeconomic and institutional set-tings within the context of Nordic democracy and is rooted in the nation’s long history of democracy and civil society, which safeguard private ownership, free market capitalism, a strong degree of local democracy, low levels of corruption, and high levels of trust. Another case study from the region of North Karelia (article II) also suggests that local tourism entrepreneurs perceive local rural tour-ism development policies, which enables community participation in planning, decision-making, implementation, and encourages cooperation between the pub-lic and private sectors, positively.

However, the CTCG in the village is not immune to problems. The broader and equitable tourism collaboration in the village is restrained by some endog-enous and exogenous factors (article V). The village’s specific economic, de-mographic, and socio-cultural factors have hindered its socioeconomic devel-

30

opment through community-based tourism. Unfavourable exogenous factors, like decreased international tourism, have also hindered village development. Some of these findings are consistent with previous Finnish case studies which address the lack of participatory opportunities (i.e. decision-making) for local tourism entrepreneurs and other stakeholders involved in tourism development processes even though it has already been acknowledged that regularly sharing ideas among different stakeholders and including local residents in the tourism planning process results in more legitimate and sustainable policies (Puhakka et al., 2009; Törn et al., 2008).

The case studies from the village of Buyluk in Turpan, China (articles I, IV) indicate that the local government and external companies dominate tourism development in the village without fully including other actors, such as local resi-dents and their AMAS businesses. More specifically, the main purposes of local tourism planning and development, which is directed by the government, are to attract more tourists and increase economic profits for the local government and external tourism investors, but not necessarily for the benefit of local residents. This situation is caused by the Chinese state-socialist rural institutional and so-cioeconomic settings, which include a hierarchical top-down government system, lack of civil society and bottom-up development practices, and the residents’ lack of development related capacities.

due to China’s current vertical and parallel bureaucratic system (Li, et al., 2016), government organisations intervene in tourism development according to their practical interests and needs to such an extent that regional governments and companies have become the primary partners and beneficiaries in the tour-ism process because of the power and resources they hold (Ying and Zhou, 2007). Often other stakeholders, such as local residents, have only a limited chance to participate in the economic activity and are excluded from the decision-making processes. Since the government owns the land, communities can only passively allow tourism developers to use their land for state-supported projects (Li, 2004). The procedures that guarantee local citizens the opportunity to participate in public decision-making in Western societies have not yet been established in China (Bao and Sun, 2007).

In addition, China’s rurality has been insulted and stigmatised. It is associated with poverty, ignorance, poor sanitation, underdevelopment, backwardness, bar-barism, and stupidity (Su, 2011). According to Bao and Sun (2007), many Chinese local governments consider local community residents to be so weak and foolish that it is their right to freely make decisions on behalf of the residents without consultation. Moreover, Su (2011) argues that the insufficiency of small rural tour-ism businesses in management and marketing skills, and the difficulty of secur-ing bank loans prevents them from running efficient businesses.

Legitimate and skilled convenerAccording to Hedström and Littke (2011, 64), “[a] viable business development environment is crucial for economic development in peripheral areas. A sound

31

business sector secures employment, incomes and growth in the local area.” Government (state actors) involvement in tourism in Western countries is often limited to establishing a favourable political, regulatory and economic climate that can promote tourism development (Sharpley, 2008). The Finnish socioeco-nomic and institutional settings that are framed by the long history of democracy and civil society, along with the Nordic welfare system, have created a relatively good operational climate for the restructuring of rural areas, including com-munity development through tourism. More specifically, Finnish rural policy, issued by the Rural Policy Committee, aims to integrate the specific needs of rural areas into the central government’s decision-making processes in various sectors (Vihinen, 2009). Appointed by the Finnish government, the committee is comprised of representatives from ministries, expert organisations, and private stakeholders who work together on a partnership basis that enables direct contact between the central government, regional administration and local community actors (Uusitalo, 2007; Vihinen, 2009).

The Finnish case study from Vuonislahti (article V) also shows that locals have received various types of support (i.e. marketing support, business subsidies, and vocational skills training) from both state (local, national, and supra-national) and non-state (i.e. civic associations, and private foundations) actors in order to develop their businesses. The state actors include Lieksa municipality, the North Karelia Regional Council, Karelia Expert, the Centre for Economic development, Transport and the Environment (ELY- keskus), and the EU’s LEAdER programme, while non-state actors include the Finnish Cultural Foundation. This finding is consistent with Vatanen and Halonen’s (2013) statement that some entrepreneurs in Lieksa receive support from the LEAdER programme for developing rural tourism businesses, and benefit from the broader development projects of the PIKES. Komppula (2014) points out that municipalities in Finland play a crucial role in creating a favourable entrepreneurial environment for small rural tourism entrepreneurs.

However, some unsatisfactory institutional practices have also been observed to hinder rural tourism development in Finland. These practices include the state sectors’ (i.e. municipal, regional, national, and supra-national) dominance in fi-nancial decision-making, problems among the state actors during the cooperation processes, the state actors’ preferences for top-down working practices, a develop-ment strategy that focuses on big projects, and insufficient efforts to create social capital that would promote community bottom-up development practices.

In the Chinese context, the government dominates all facets of development (Bao and Sun, 2007) so that rural tourism related decisions are primarily made by the government and tourism investors without the participation of local commu-nities. The Chinese government has created a special type of tourism governance model by transferring the government’s managerial operation directly to tour-ism enterprises while maintaining ownership of tourism destinations (Su, et al., 2007; Feng, 2008). This tourism governance model, which has become a common practice in rural China, is also present in the case study of Buyluk (articles I, IV),

32

where the local government lacks the necessary investment capital and decided to develop the local tourism industry by attracting external companies.

The prevalence of this government-tourism enterprise model, also referred to as ‘business-bureaucracy partnerships’ (article I), results in some of the nega-tive impacts noticed by other scholars. These negative impacts include corrup-tion, unfulfilled promises and high leakage rates for profits (Feng, 2008; Bao and Zuo, 2013; cited in Li, et al., 2016). Additionally, abuse of power, lack of effective monitoring, evaluation and supervision, lack of community participation, and lack of collaboration among various tourism development actors are also present in the case study. These negative impacts usually lead local tourism to become a political tool to satisfy power holders and business interests at the expense of pub-lic benefits (Feng, 2008; Li and Wall, 2008), while excluding local residents from tourism development processes and limiting their benefits (Feng, 2008; article I).

Adequate resourcesAccording to the interviews, the Finnish case study from Vuonislahti (article V) shows that unfavourable economic conditions within the village (i.e. weak local economy) and beyond (i.e. a decline in public finances), degraded rural public facilities, and the state actors’ preferences to financially support bigger tourism enterprises, have hindered the village’s socioeconomic development through community-based tourism. The case study of North Karelia (article II) also in-dicates that local tourism entrepreneurs do not think that they have sufficient development related capacities (i.e. skills and financial resources), which are im-portant ingredients of tourism collaboration and need to be enhanced with the support of local authorities.

This might be due to the current institutional and economic situation of Finland. The state has given municipalities (i.e. Lieksa) wide decision-making powers and responsibilities over matters in their jurisdiction yet, simultane-ously, it has dramatically reduced state transfer payments to the municipalities (Haveri, 2015). This means that the Finnish municipalities’ legitimacy as a con-vener of local issues (i.e. supporting village development through community-based tourism) is being challenged due to the difficulty of balancing between the ever-increasing local welfare service needs assigned as a municipal respon-sibility (Puhakka, 2008) and decreasing state transfer payments. Thus, Finnish municipalities, including Lieksa, might be unable to allocate sufficient finances to local development issues, such as community-based tourism. This finding partly parallels Pesonen et al.’s (2013) suggestion that stronger support (i.e. preferential tax policy, simplified license procedures etc.) is essential for small tourism enter-prises in Finland.

In the Chinese context, the case studies from Buyluk (articles I, IV) indicate that local residents and their AMAS businesses have insufficient development related capacities, which means that they receive limited socioeconomic benefits from tourism in the form of limited direct or indirect tourism income and job op-portunities. More concretely, the AMAS businesses in the village lack vocational

33

skills and financial resources, fail to obtain government financial support and bank loans, and have insufficient marketing. This finding is partly consistent with Su’s (2011) argument that community participation in rural tourism in China is constrained due to limited resources, including limited bank loans for small tourism entrepreneurs.

4.2 SeeKing alTernaTiveS To The CTCg in weSTern China: hoPe for The fuTure?

The case studies from Buyluk (articles I, IV) and other studies (Li, 2004; Ying and Zhou, 2007) indicate that the CTCG formulated within the Finnish socioeco-nomic and institutional settings, which is rooted in a long history of democracy and civil society, and emphasises the local community’s involvement in tourism decision-making and implementation may not be appropriate within the par-ticular socioeconomic and institutional context of rural China. China’s economic growth through partnership activities [governance] is strongly regulated by rig-id, bureaucratic public sectors [state actors] (Brown, et al., 2012) dominated by the Chinese Communist Party (Alpermann, 2009). Therefore, the village level govern-ance, including tourism collaborative activities, can only be possible within the realm of the public sector permission represented by the Party. This means that, “the self-governance of villagers can only be as democratic and autonomous as the [Chinese communist] Party allows it to be” (Chan, 2003). Thus, this particular Chinese situation requires an alternative to the CTCG approach. The approach must, at least, promote community participation in the benefits of tourism, as demonstrated by some case studies in certain villages of Jiuzaigou, China (Li, 2006; dombroski, 2008; Yang, 2011), and reasonably benefit local communities even when local residents do not participate in tourism decision-making.

In the western border regions of China, including the XUAR, there are more socioeconomic problems than in the coastal regions of the country (Gustafsson and Shi, 2003; Borooah, et al., 2006; Cao, 2010; Chaudhuri, 2010; Beydulla, 2012). Utilising tourism as a means of rural socioeconomic regeneration might be in line with the Chinese national strategy, which aims to resolve national rural so-cioeconomic issues like income disparities between rural and urban zones, and between eastern and western China (Ryan and Huang, 2013a,b; cited in Li, et al., 2016). In the long run, community participation in the benefits of tourism might contribute to the promotion of the community’s full participation in rural tourism development (Bao and Sun, 2007). In addition, China’s current rural reform poli-cies, which have the specific objective of averting cases of exploitative compul-sory seizures of land (Salidjanova and Koch-Weser, 2013), could empower rural residents and promote grassroots development practices if the policies reinforce farmers’ land rights as stakeholders in rural regeneration processes, including village development through community-based tourism.

34

4.3 ConCluding remarKS and imPliCaTionS

To summarise, this study suggests that tourism’s potential benefits to ever chal-lenged peripheral rural communities (i.e. growing unemployment, out-migration, ageing population, and the deterioration of rural amenities and services) is af-fected by rural development policies and practices that are conveyed in differing socioeconomic and institutional settings of developed and developing countries. When socioeconomic contributions are examined from the perspective that the benefits of tourism should be shared equitably among all the related stakehold-ers, we can see that they are revealed differently in communities situated within the divergent rural socioeconomic and institutional contexts of Finnish Nordic democracy and state-socialist China.

The CTCG, a specific model of rural community development through tour-ism, has been perceived to positively contribute to a village community in Lieksa, Finland. The benefits that the community receives, however, are limited because it is only moderately involved in tourism decision-making and implementation processes. The applicability of the CTCG in the Chinese context is challenged by the socioeconomic and institutional features of the country’s entrenched state-socialist political system. These features are composed of political-structural (i.e. hierarchical top-down government system, and the absence of private owner-ship), business operational (i.e. business-bureaucracy partnerships), and socio-cultural (i.e. the absence of civil society and bottom-up development experiences, shortage of local capital, skills, and knowledge) factors.

However, this study has some limitations. The concept of CTCG is tentative in nature so that its theoretical progress needs to be complemented with additional research findings from empirical case studies conducted in diverse socioeconom-ic and institutional contexts of countries under different regimes. Thus, further empirical and theoretical research that aims to investigate the relationships be-tween tourism development policies and tourism’s socioeconomic contributions to rural communities within and beyond the Finnish and Chinese contexts will enhance the findings of this study.

35

References

Ahlers, A. L., & Schubert, G. (2010). “Building a new socialist countryside”–only a political slogan?. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 38(4), 35-62.

Alpermann, B. (2009). Institutionalizing village governance in China. Journal of Contemporary China, 18(60), 397-409.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571.

Amore, A., & Hall, C. M. (2016). From governance to meta-governance in tourism? Re-incorporating politics, interests and values in the analysis of tourism governance. Tourism Recreation Research, 1-14.

Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable de-velopment. Strategic management journal, 26(3), 197-218.

Bao, J. G., & Sun, J. X. (2007). differences in community participation in tourism develop-ment between China and the West. Chinese Sociology & Anthropology, 39(3), 9-27.

Beydulla, M. (2012). Rural economy, environmental degradation and economic disparity: a case study in deryabuyi, Xinjiang. Central Asian Survey, 31(2), 193-207.

Borooah, V. K., Gustafsson, B., & Li, S. (2006). China and India: Income inequality and poverty north and south of the Himalayas. Journal of Asian Economics, 17(5), 797-817.

Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the state and sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 459-477.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2011). Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustai-nability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 411-421.

Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of tourism research, 26(2), 392-415.

Brown, T. L., Gong, T., & Jing, Y. (2012). Collaborative governance in mainland China and Hong Kong: Introductory essay. International Public Management Journal, 15(4), 393–404.

Cao, H. (2010). Urban–rural income disparity and urbanization: what is the role of spatial distribution of ethnic groups? A case study of Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region in western China. Regional Studies, 44(8), 965-982.

Chan, S. (2003). Villagers’ representative assemblies: towards democracy or centralism? China: An International Journal, 1(02), 179-199.

Chaudhuri, d. (2010). Minority Economy in Xinjiang—A Source of Uyghur Resentment. China Report, 46(1), 9-27.

Chen, W. (1997). Peasant challenge in post-communist China. Journal of Contemporary China, 6(14), 101-115.

Chhotray, V., & Stoker, G. (2009). Governance: From Theory to Practice. In V. Chhotray, & G. Stoker (4th Eds.), Governance Theory and Practice: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach (pp. 214-247). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

36

China daily. (2009) Turpan tourism ripens along with its grapes (20 May), accessed at: http://www.china.org.cn/travel/events_festivals/2009-05/20/content_17804063.html (06 July 2012).

Chio, J. (2011) The appearance of the rural in China’s tourism. Provincial China, 3 (1), 60–79.Czernek, K. (2013). determinants of cooperation in a tourist region. Annals of Tourism

Research, 40, 83-104.dombroski, K. (2008). The whole nine villages: local level development through mass tour-

ism in Tibetan China. In J. Connell & B. Rugendyke (Eds.), Tourism at the Grassroots (pp. 98–111). London: Routledge.

Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S., & Woods, M. (2001). Partnerships, power, and scale in rural governance. Environment and Planning C, 19(2), 289-310.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29.

Feng, X. (2008). Who Benefits?: Tourism development in fenghuang county, China. Human organization, 67(2), 207-220.

Fredricsson, C & and Smas, L (2013). Small-scale Tourism in Rural Areas - Trends and Research in the Nordic Countries. Stockholm: Nordregio Working Paper 2013:3.

Gao, S., Huang, S., & Huang, Y. (2009). Rural tourism development in China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(5), 439-450.

Graci, S. (2013). Collaboration and partnership development for sustainable tourism. Tourism Geographies, 15(1), 25-42.

Gustafsson, B., & Shi, L. (2003). The Ethnic Minority-Majority Income Gap in Rural China during Transition. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 51(4), 805-822.

Halonen, M., Kotilainen, J., Tykkyläinen, M., & Vatanen, E. (2015). Industry life cycles of a resource town in Finland. European Countryside, 7(1), 16-41.

Hall, C. M. (2011). A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analy-sis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 437-457.

Hall, C. M., Saarinen, J., & Müller, d. K. (2009). Nordic Tourism: Issues and Cases. Bristol: Channel View.

Haveri, A. (2015). Nordic local government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(2), 136-149.

Hedström, M., & Littke, H. (2011). Perspectives on rural development in the Nordic countries:-Policies, governance, development initiatives. Stockholm: Nordregio Working Paper 2011:3.

Howlett, M. and Ramesh, M. (2014). The two orders of governance failure, Policy and Society, 33 (4), 317–327.

Hyytiä, N., & Kola, J. (2013). Tourism policy as a tool for rural development. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, ppt025.

Inskeep, E. 1991. Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Jamal, T. B., & Getz, d. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of tourism research, 22(1), 186-204.

Johnston, R.J., Gregory, d., Pratt, G. & Watts, M. (2000). The dictionary of human geogra-phy. (4th Eds). Oxford: Blackwell.

37

Jones, O., & Little, J. (2000). Rural challenge: partnership and new rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2), 171-183.

Komppula, R. (2014). The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of com-petitiveness for a rural tourism destination–A case study. Tourism Management, 40, 361-371.

Komppula, R., & Reijonen, H. (2006). Performance determinants in small and micro tour-ism business. Tourism Review, 61(4), 13–20.

Kotilainen, J., Eisto, I., & Vatanen, E. (2015). Uncovering mechanisms for resilience. European Planning Studies, 23(1), 53-68.

Keast, R., Brown, K., & Mandell, M. (2007). Getting the right mix: Unpacking integration meanings and strategies. International Public Management Journal, 10(1), 9-33.

Kettunen, P. (2001). The Nordic welfare state in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of History, 26(3), 225-247.

Li, P., Ryan, C., & Cave, J. (2016). Chinese rural tourism development: Transition in the case of Qiyunshan, Anhui.–2008–2015. Tourism Management, 55, 240-260.

Li, W. (2006) Community decision making participation in development, Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (1), 132–143.

Li, Y. (2004). Exploring community tourism in China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(3), 175-193.

Li, N. (2008). Between the rural and the Urban: a Uygur rural society in the tourism de-velopment, Journal of Xinjiang University, 36 (5), 77–81 (in Chinese).

Makkonen, T., & Hokkanen, T. J. (2013). ICT Innovation and Local Economy. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 13(3), 257-268.

Marsden, T., & Murdoch, J. (1998). The shifting nature of rural governance and community participation. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 1-4.

Murdoch, J., & Abram, S. (1998). defining the limits of community governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 41-50.

Neil, C., & Tykkyläinen, M. (1998). Local economic development: a geographical comparison of rural community restructuring. United Nations University Press.

Northcote, J., & Macbeth, J. (2005). Limitations of Resident Perception Surveys for Understanding Tourism Social Impacts The Need for Triangulation. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(2), 43-54.

OECd. (2006).The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and development.

People’s daily. (2010) Turpan Airport today officially opened to traffic [Tulufan jichang jinri zhengshi tonghang] (9 July), accessed at: http://politics.people.com.cn/GB/14562/12105760.html (04 July 2012).

Pesonen, J., Vesterinen. N., & Taatinen. T. (2013). National Trends in Rural Tourism - Finland. In C. Fredricsson and L. Smas, (Eds.), Small-scale Tourism in Rural Areas - Trends and Research in the Nordic Countries (p.25-33). Stockholm: Nordregio Working Paper 2013:3.

Puhakka, R., Sarkki, S., Cottrell, S. P., & Siikamäki, P. (2009). Local discourses and inter-national initiatives. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(5), 529-549.

38

Puhakka, R. (2008). Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks. Fennia, 186(1), 47-58.

Qin, W. (2011). On the protection of national traditional culture during the tourism de-velopment- the Protection of National Culture in Turpan, Xinjiang. Fortune World 12, 262-263 (in Chinese).

Richards, G., & Hall, d. (2000). The community: A sustainable concept in tourism de-velopment? In G. Richards, & d. Hall (Eds.), Tourism and Sustainable Community Development (pp. 1–13). London: Routledge.

Rinne, P., & Saastamoinen, O. (2005). Local economic role of nature-based tourism in Kuhmo Municipality, Eastern Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(2), 89–101.

Rural Policy Committee. 2009. Countryside for Vigorous Finland. Government Report to Parliament on Rural Policy. Sastamala: Rural Policy Committee publications 10/2009.

Saarinen, J. (2013). SUSTAINABILITY ANd RESPONSIBILITY IN RURAL TOURISM. In M. Lähdesmäki & A. Matilainen (Eds.), COMMUNITIES AS A PART OF SUSTAINABLE RURAL TOURISM. Conference proceedings (pp. 110-116). Kotka: Finland.

Saarinen, J. (2007). Contradictions of rural tourism initiatives in rural development con-texts: Finnish rural tourism strategy case study. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(1), 96-105.

Salidjanova, N., & Koch-Weser, J. (2013). Third plenum economic reform proposals: A scorecard. U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Washington dC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management, 20(2), 245-249.

Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management, 42, 37–49.

Sharpley, R. (2010). The myth of sustainable tourism. Centre of Sustainable Development Working Papers Series2009, (4).

Sharpley, R. (2008). Planning for tourism: The case of dubai. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 5(1), 13-30.

Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical di-vide. Journal of Sustainable tourism, 8(1), 1-19.

Statistic Bureau of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. (2015) di xian jingji [Prefecture and county economy], accessed at: http://www.xjtj.gov.cn/sjcx/dxjj_3384/ tlfdq_1036/ (22 April 2015).

Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International social science journal, 50(155), 17-28.

Su, B. (2011). Rural tourism in China. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1438-1441.Su, d., Wall, G., & Eagles, P. F. (2007). Emerging governance approaches for tourism in the

protected areas of China. Environmental management, 39(6), 749-759.The World Commission on Economic development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford

University Press: Oxford.

39

The Buyluk Office of Turpan city (2013) Jiedaoban gaikuang [Short introduction to the street office] (25 April), accessed at: http://ptgjdb.turpanchina.gov.cn/cont.jsp?urltype=news.NewsContentUrl&wbnewsid=7578&wbtreeid=16043 (07 April 2014).

Tianshan Net. (2006) Yesu putaogou nongjia [Staying overnight in Grape Valley farm] (13 June), accessed at: http://www.xjts.cn/GB/channel3/19/200606/26/275918.html (07 July 2012).

Tianshan Net. (2011) Tulufan putagou jingqu wunianei jiang banqian sanfenzhi er jumin [The Grape Valley, Turpan will move its two-thirds of residents in five years]. (26 June), accessed at: http://www.tianshannet.com.cn/news/content/2011-06/26/ con-tent_5922577.htm (11 January 2012).

Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism management, 21(6), 613-633.

TPTB =Turpan Prefecture Tourism Bureau (2008) Lvyou tongji [Tourism statistics]. Unpublished raw data. Turpan, China.

TSSM = Tourist Scenic Spot Management Committee of Grape Valley of Turpan. (2010) Zhaoshang yinzi [Investment]. (5 September), accessed at: http://www. tulufan-putaogou.com/POPshow.asp?id=80 (02 July 2012).

Tykkyläinen, M., Vatanen, E., Halonen, M., & Kotilainen, J. (2017) Global-Local Links and Industrial Restructuring in a Resources Town in Finland: The case of Lieksa. In Halseth, G. (Eds.), Transformation of Resource Towns and Peripheries: Political Economy Perspectives (pp. 85-111). London and New York: Routledge.

Tykkyläinen, M. (2006). dynamics of job creation, restructuring and industrialization in rural Finland. Fennia–International Journal of Geography, 184(2), 151–167.

Törn, A., Siikamäki, P., Tolvanen, A., Kauppila, P., & Rämet, J. (2008). Local people, nature conservation, and tourism in northeastern Finland. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 8.

Uusitalo, E. (2007). Local and regional levels as active actors in Finnish rural policy. Zemes Ukio Mokslai, 181-187.

Vatanen, E., & Halonen, M. (2013). Maahanmuuttajat maaseutua uudistamassa: esimerk-kinä Lieksan matkailuelinkeino. Maaseudun Uusi Aika 2:3, 78- 85.

Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, d., & Curry, K. (2005). Collaborative policymaking: Local sustainable projects. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 325-345.

Vihinen, H. (2009). Finnish model for rural policy. Maaseudun Uusi Aika 17: 85-89. Wang, C. (2007) Study on Turpan Grape Valley resident perception of tourism impact and

attitude, Market Modernization, 497, 222–223(in Chinese).Wang, CY., & dong, L. (2007). Investigation and Analysis on Community Participation

in Tourism in Grape Valley in Turpan. East China Economic Management 21:3, 116-120(in Chinese).

Wang, P. (2009). Analysis of development of Integrated Marketing of the Scenic Resorts in Tulufan. Journal of Nanning Polytechnic 14:1, 74-76(in Chinese).

Xinjiang International Engineering Consultation Center. (2007) Tulufan Putaogou lvyou jingqu chanpin chuangxin yu sheshi wanshan jianshe xiangmu [Product innova-tion and facilities construction projects of the Grape Valley scenic spot in Turpan]. Unpublished raw data. Urumqi, China.

40

Xiong, H., & Han, C. (2005) Study of local residents benefiting from tourism in Grape Valley, Turpan, in Proceedings of the Third Conference of Recreational Agriculture and Rural Tourism development, Urumqi, China, pp. 78–82.

Xinhua Net. (2015) Guojia lvyouju juzhang tan xiangcun lvyou [discussion on rural tour-ism by the president of China National Tourism Administration]. (19 August), accessed at:http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2015-08/19/c_1116309197.htm (19 August 2015).

Yang, Q. (2011) Partnership for facilitating sustainable protected area management: a case study of Jiuzhaigou National Park in south-western China, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand (Master’s thesis).

Yeung, HWC. 2003. ‘Practicing New Economic Geographies: A Methodological Examination’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(2), 442-462.

Ying, T., & Zhou, Y. (2007). Community, governments and external capitals in China’s rural cultural tourism: a comparative study of two adjacent villages. Tourism Management, 28(1), 96e107.

Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research –Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Zapata, M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2012). Public–private collaboration in the tourism sector:

balancing legitimacy and effectiveness in local tourism partnerships. The Spanish case. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4(1), 61-83.

41

Articles

Keyim, P. 2012. governmenT roleS in rural TouriSm develoPmenT: a CaSe from TurPan. Tourism Today, 12: 113-133.

Keyim, P., & adamiaK, C. (2014). enTrePreneurS’ PerSPeCTiveS TowardS TouriSm and rural develoPmenT in norTh Karelia, finland. Tourism Today, 14: 91-102.

Keyim, P. (2015a). CollaBoraTion and rural develoPmenT in a TouriSm ConTexT. In M. Kozak and N. Kozak, (Eds.), Tourism Development (p. 161-176) Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Keyim, P. (2015B). TouriSm and rural develoPmenT in weSTern China: a CaSe from TurPan. Community Development Journal. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsv046. This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PdF of an article accepted for publication in Community development Journal following peer review. The version of record Keyim, P. (2015b). Tourism and rural development in western China: A case from Turpan. Community development Journal. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsv046. is available online at http://cdj.oxfordjour-nals.org/content/early/2015/12/19/cdj.bsv046.abstract.

Keyim, P. (2016). TouriSm CollaBoraTive governanCe and rural CommuniTy develoPmenT in finland: The CaSe of lieKSa (under review).

Article I, II, and III are republished both in the printed and in the electronical version of this doctoral thesis with the kind permission of the original publish-ers. Article IV is republished only in the printed version of the thesis. Article V is under review and published only in the printed version of the thesis. Contribution of Authors in Article II:Parhad Keyim: research design, data collection, planning research methods, ana-lysing results, and writing conclusions.

Adamiak Czesław: statistical analyses and their preliminary interpretation, and language check.

Article 1

Keyim, P. 2012. governmenT roleS in rural TouriSm develoPmenT: a CaSe from TurPan. Tourism Today, 12: 113-133.

113Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

Development through rural tourism: the case of Turpan

Government roles in rural tourism development: a case from TurpanParhad Keyim1

keyimu.pahati@uef.fi

ABSTRACT

Rural tourism has become a development tool for many rural areas, and during the develop-ment processes government (the public sector) plays different roles within the context of Western countries and China. The purpose of this paper is to explore government’s vari-ous roles in local (village) socio-economic development through rural tourism in the Turpan prefecture. The study focuses particularly upon the Grape Valley scenery in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China. In so doing, it identifies a number of issues and chal-lenges facing local socio-economic development through rural tourism in the Grape Valley. The study concludes that Chinese decentralized policy in tourism does not penetrate to the township and village-level of government. It also indicates that development through rural tourism is not sufficiently achieved due to the various political-structural and business-oper-ational obstacles.

Keywords: Turpan, rural tourism, government, local development

INTRODUCTION

As indicated by many scholars (Murphy, 1983, 1988; Haywood, 1988; Inskeep, 1991; Sim-mons, 1994; Sharpely, 2000), rural tourism has become a development tool for many rural areas and during this development processes various actors (stakeholders) play different roles (Verbole, 2000). In the Chinese context, during its transition from a planned economy to a market economy, decentralization policy (fiscally) in tourism (Sofield & Li, 2011) is imple-mented according to the Chinese ‘open door policy’ since the late 1970s. This policy ‘only has penetrated to the county (municipal) level, and the township-level government does not have much authority’ (Qun et al., 2011). The county (municipal)-level government is play-ing a leading role (Qun et al., 2011) in the rural tourism development processes, although Li

1 I would like to thank Dr. Markku Tykkyläinen for his professional advice and suggestion on this article. Also thanks to Dr. Outi Luova for her helpful comment. Special thanks go to many anonymous friends in Turpan for their valuable help with conducting fieldwork sur-veys. Further, like to thank Laura Mononen for helping to produce the map.

Parhad Keyim

114 Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

(2004) argued that rural tourism development usually relies on the joint involvement of gov-ernments, tourism enterprises, tourists, and ethnic minority peoples. In addition, due to the Confucianism-rooted Guanxi (literarily meaning ‘personal relationship networking’) prac-tice in China, the business bureaucracy collaboration between external enterprises and gov-ernment officials prevail in the local and rural tourism development process (Li et al., 2007). Thus, other actors/stakeholders which include local family-owned small tourism enterprises and local community residents’ role in rural tourism development process are limited and/or not encouraged. (Swain, 1995; Fan, 2002; Li, 2004; Li et al., 2007), so much so that local socio-economic development through rural tourism is not sufficiently achieved. This is the case in the Grape Valley (“Buyluk” in Uyghur and “Putaogou” in Chinese) in Turpan, China. Figure 1 below indicates the region under consideration for this study.

Figure 1: Location of Turpan in China and location of case study area in Turpan.

The Grape Valley residents have achieved limited local socio-economic development ben-efits through rural tourism, though the Grape Valley is only one of the five 5A scenery re-gions in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Despite that is it only one of five, it is one of the highest ranked rural tourism destinations in China. The 5A ranking of a tourism destination is the equivalent of a 5-star hotel in the hotel rank system (Zhang et al., 2011). Rural tourism development in the Grape Valley in Turpan brought limited local socio-economic development at the village community level, though Turpan is one of the XUARs’ most important tourist attractions from 1978 to 2007, so much so that its tourists’ number and tourism revenue increased about 3700 times and 2800 times respectively, although there are fluctuations among different years (Xinjiang Statistics Bureau, 2008; TPTB, 2008).

The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to investigate and evaluate the various roles played by different levels of government in the development of rural tourism in Turpan. We will inves-tigate the role of various levels of government as tourism planner, tourism investor, tourism investment stimulator, tourism promoter, tourism educator, and tourism regulator.

115Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

Development through rural tourism: the case of Turpan

GOVERNMENT, RURAL TOURISM AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

Government roles in (rural) tourism development in ChinaIn a European context, the public sector plays multiple rules in tourism such as: co-ordina-tion; planning; legislation and regulation; entrepreneur stimulation; social tourism; manage-ment; research, education and training; subventions to operators; consumer protection; and promotion (IUOTO, 1974; Alejziak, 2008). But, the government in the West does not play as big a role as in China, because usually the tourism-related decisions are made by the privately-owned enterprises and organizations in the West (Bao&Sun, 2007).

In China, government plays an active role as planners, investors, investment stimulators, pro-moters, educators and regulators (Qun et al., 2011), even though decentralization policy in tourism is implemented according to Chinese ‘open door policy’ (Sofield & Li, 2011). China is a country implementing a ‘conservative transition’, one of the ‘continuing state socialist societies that have transformed their economic systems but not their political structures and processes’ (Hall& Roberts, 2004). What this means is that the traditional top-down political command structure still prevails. And, in this top-down decision-making system, different levels of government, except the township-level government (Qun et al., 2011), dominant roles in tourism development prevail. But government’s various roles in rural tourism devel-opment (usually leading by tourism planning ) are not sufficiently implemented, as shown in Li & Wall’s (2008) studies that there various obstacles in the tourism planning approaches in China such as shortage of human resources and funds, lack of collaboration among various tourism development actors (government agencies, planning institutions, tourism sectors, private sectors), lack of community participation, lack of effective monitoring, evaluation and supervision. Besides, insufficient tourism planning supervision has led to many problems such as the abuse of power and corruption, so that to a large extent, local planning has be-come a political tool to satisfy power holders and business interests at the expense of public benefits (Li & Wall, 2008).

Further, there are regional differences in the Chinese fiscal decentralization policy during the transition period from a planned to a market economy that causes regional differences while considering the government’s roles in the rural tourism development processes. In oth-er words, in the relatively more developed Chinese costal region governments are relatively free in terms of tourism development policy making and implementation, as shown in the Ying &Zhou’s (2007) case study in Xidi Village, compared to the inland and western bound-ary regions such as the XUAR. This might be due to the ‘China’s current vertical bureaucratic system, which lacks a clear definition of governments’ respective purviews and commitments in administration, enables the governments (prefectural and municipal level) to intervene into the rural cultural tourism development to an optional extent, according to their practical interests and needs.’(Ying &Zhou, 2007).

Besides that, the deeply Confucianism-rooted Guanxi (literarily meaning ‘personal relation-ship networking’) phenomenon in China (Li et al., 2007) that is characterized by instru-

Parhad Keyim

116 Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

mentality, reciprocity and unethical consequences causes unbalanced power relationships among rural tourism development actors. Fan (2002) classified guanxi into three major types, namely, ‘family guanxi’ (a special relationship based mostly on blood or kinship), ‘helper guanxi’ (the process of exchanging favours often based on relationships such as friendship, schoolmates and principal–subordinate tie and ‘business guanxi’ (the process of finding busi-ness solutions through personal connections mainly via an ‘intermediary’). He further di-vided ‘business guanxi’ into two categories: ‘B2B guanxi’ (both parties are business people) and ‘B2G guanxi’ (one party is a business person while the other is a government official). These guanxi have to be purposefully cultivated and maintained by continous and deliberate exchange of such things as gifts, banquets, and money in order to get benefits from guanxi participation. Since the guanxi study is not the main purpose of this study, only the ‘B2G guanxi’ will be discussed. Thus, due to these guanxi game rules, government officials can obtain promotion opportunities and increased personal income (formally or informally) from the higher levels of governments and business elites because of their contributions (by in-viting external investment and solving the financial problems of the local government that urgently needed to promote tourism development and ‘selling’ prefer policy to the business elites). As most government officials are appointed rather than elected in China, local eco-nomic performance and political loyalty are the most important criteria in the evaluation of officials (Zhang, 2002). At the same time, by meeting the government’s urgent need for investments, the external enterprises have been able to gain favorable development policies, such as easier access of business licenses, resources, venues, and protection. Thus, in this ‘B2G guanxi’ game, the governments and the external enterprises usually take the superior position among tourism development actors, as they control the necessary ingredients for tourism development including polices, funds, and community resources (such as lands and local cultural heritages) (Li et al., 2007).

After all, ‘whereas the role of governments in western countries is often limited to estab-lishing a favorable political, regulatory and economic climate in order to enable tourism to flourish, the role of governments in less developed countries is (or should be) more ac-tive, embracing entrepreneurship, management and promotion. In short, in many developing countries, governments are obliged to undertake a dual role; establishing policies and plans for the development of tourism, and supporting and managing the development of tourism’ (Sharpley, 2008).

Rural tourism and local developmentThe rural tourism concept has many interpretations. According to the European Community (EC) ‘rural tourism refers to all tourism activity in a rural area’ (Roberts & Hall, 2001). Since the definition of the ‘rural’ is also the problematic, this leads to the appearance of various ‘rural tourism’ concepts in the tourism literature. But, the definition of ‘rural’ is beyond the scope this study, so it will not further discussed. Thus, Bramwell & Lane (1994) argued that ‘usually rural tourism includes activities and interests in farms, nature, adventure, sport, health, education, arts, and heritage.’ Pedford (1996) defined ‘rural tourism’ in socio-cultural ways and argued that rural tourism activities should be related to the ‘living history of rural

117Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

Development through rural tourism: the case of Turpan

communities such as rural customs and folklore, local and family traditions, values, beliefs, and common heritage.’ MacDonald & Jolliffe (2003) further integrated rural and socio-cul-tural elements of ‘rural tourism’ and developed ‘cultural rural tourism’ definition in which they further argued that tourists visit rural areas in order to not only seeking information about the local culture and ‘experiencing folklore, customs, landscapes, and historical land-marks’, but also ‘enjoying other activities in a rural setting such as nature, adventure, sports, festivals, crafts, and general sightseeing’ as well.

The concept of development also suffers definitional problem and there exist different de-velopment thoughts. One of these thoughts that so called Modernization theory (Sharpley, 2000), empathizing economic growth as the core of development. According to this para-digm, development is assumed to occur as a result of the economic benefits (foreign ex-change earnings, the multiplier concept) that diffuse from growth impulses (the tourism sec-tor) or growth poles (resorts). Tourism’s role in development is narrowly acknowledged as economic growth, contradicting more recent development theory such as sustainable rural tourism. Cecily & Tykkylainen (1998) also recognize this by referring to local development as ‘the mobilization and management of resources in order to create wealth in a community. Local economic development and ensuring the continuity of a resource community (in the sense of retaining its common identity and culture) are not necessarily synonymous’.

Another development concept so-called Alternative development (Streeten, 1977; Redclift, 1987) breaks from the economic growth-based policies, proposes a broader resource-based, ‘bottom-up’ approach embracing human and environmental concerns. It empathize a grass-roots, community focus to development that achieving fulfillment of basic needs of people within community and encouraging self-reliance. Alternative development also advocates the importance of recognizing the environmental constraints to development. This school of thought provides the foundation for sustainable development (Sharpley, 2000) by linking the concepts of alternative development and sustainable tourism. The emerging literature on local community involvement in tourism development (Murphy, 1983, 1988; Haywood, 1988) shows sustainable (alternative) tourism became the focus of research that advocates (rural) tourism as a vehicle of local development. Thus, rural tourism has been considered the means of accelerating economic and social development and has become a development tool for many rural areas.

Nevertheless, though rural tourism, to some degree, contributes to local economic develop-ment, it can not be regarded as a ‘panacea’ for lagging rural areas, especially in the Chinese context. As Li (2004) pointed out, community participatory tourism is hardly implementable because of the presence of the political-structural (bureaucratic top-down political command structure and state manipulation of development), business-operational (B2B guanxi’ and unwillingness of tourism developers to let the local residents participate in tourism) and socio-cultural (‘low educated, simple-minded status of villagers’) impediments that hinder community participatory tourism.

Parhad Keyim

118 Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

RESEARCH METHODS

In this case study, multiple research methods such as surveys, interviews, informal discus-sions, and review and analysis of secondary sources were used. During August 2011, surveys were conducted with key informants: local residents of the Grape Valley Villager Commis-sion and local family-based small tourism businesses (AMAS, abbreviated from Ailiwi milli örüp-adet sayahetchiligi in Uyghur language). Similar self-administrative structured ques-tioners were disseminated among the Grape Valley Villager Commission residents and the AMAS operators. Because most of the residence in the Grape Valley are Uyghur people (about 85%, author’s survey) and most of the AMAS are operated or co-operated (farmers rent their yards for tourism business) by them, questionnaires in Uyghur were used during the survey. Informal face-to-face interviews were also conducted with some of the local residents and the AMAS operators. As the researcher is Uyghur himself, this eliminated the language barrier and guaranteed the reliability of interview. Structured questioners were sent to 57 AMAS operators all together and the valid respond rate is 77%. 650 questionnaires are distributed to the local residence and valid respond rate is 57%. In addition to statistical data provided by these sources, further secondary data was collected from relevant official docu-ments and statistics, newspaper articles, and academic papers. The major area of inquiry is to seek to understand the role of prefectural and municipal level of government in local (village level) community development through rural tourism.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Rural tourism in Turpan: an overviewBeginning with the intention to alleviate poverty through tourism, China’s rural tourism has undergone over 20 years of development (Gao et al., 2009). The Zhujiang (Pearl) River Delta, Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu of China become the frontier of this kind of tourism development (Keyim et al., 2005). Since the ‘New Socialist Countryside policy’ made public in 2006, rural tourism has been viewed as a tool to facilitate social harmony and help con-struct the new socialist rural communities in China (Chio, 2011). Typically, rural tourism is called Nongjiale in Chinese (Chinese literature means: places where you can ‘enjoy yourself in farmers` families) by local residents (He, et al., 2003). Facilities usually include houses, a courtyard, an orchard, transplant nursery, bamboo grove, or perhaps an additional fishpond and children’s play-ground. Since, most Nongjiale are close to the city and transportation is convenient, most tourists do not need to stay overnight.

Located along the ancient Silk Road and being the ‘Melting point of intersection of Eastern and Western culture’, ‘one of the cultural centers of Uyghur people’ and ‘Pathway of Bud-dhism into China’, the Turpan Prefecture (including Turpan City, Toqsun County and Pichan County) was first area developed for tourism in the XUAR. Tourism in Turpan developed very fast in terms of tourists’ numbers and tourism revenues since it was opened completely for tourists in 1979, just after Chinese ‘open door policy’ was initiated. From 1978 to 2007,

119Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

Development through rural tourism: the case of Turpan

tourist numbers and tourism revenues increased about 3700 times and 2800 times respective-ly, although there are strong fluctuations among different years (Xinjiang Statistics Bureau, 2008; TPTB, 2008).

The Grape Valley in Turpan, one of the earliest Nongjiale developed place in China, gradu-ally became Turpan’s, the XUAR’s and even China’s key tourist attractions. The Grape Val-ley gradually became recognized as a sightseeing location after the initiation of the Chinese ‘open door policy’. In the early 1980s, the Turpan Tourism Company constructed tourist attraction based on the grape vineyards there and began hosting the tourists (Yang and Liu, 2000). In 2001, the Grape Valley was recognized as one of the 4A class tourism sceneries of China and was upgraded to 5A scenery in 2007.

The Nongjiale in the Grape Valley, is locally referred to as “Ailiwi milli örüp-adet sayahetch-iligi” (AMAS) in Uyghur and “Minzu minsu jiafang” in Chinese (Ethnic custom home). In recent years, this new type of small family-based rural tourism business, the AMAS, rapidly developed in the Grape Valley in 2009 there were 179 AMAS all together (China Daily, 2009). Table one below shows that the AMAS business in the Grape Valley is a quite recent phenomenon (71% of the AMAS started after 2003) and has many disadvantages such as weaknesses in financing and government support, insufficient marketing, highly seasonal, low overnight visitation capacity, lack of vocational skills (language barrier etc.) and tourism business experience, and high dependency on tourism income (Keyim et al., 2005; Keyimu et al., 2005; Keyimu, 2006; Wang and Dong, 2007; Authors` survey in 2011)

Table1: Basic facts about AMAS in the Grape ValleyThe AMAS businesses are a recent phenomenon:

• 71% of the AMAS businesses started after 2003The AMAS businesses have many disadvantages such as weak in financing and govern-ment support:

• 97% of the AMAS started tourism business with their own money without government support.

• Only 0.07% of the AMAS obtained very limited tourism business development subsi-dies from government.

The AMAS businesses are insufficient in marketing:• 90.1% of the AMAS never advertised their business in any way.

The AMAS businesses are highly seasonal:• 52.3%, 52.3%, 93.2% and 45.6% of tourists that visited the AMAS are hosted in June,

July, August and September (multiple choice surveys).• About half (46.5%) of the tourists stay in the AMAS less than one hour during their

visit.The AMAS businesses have low overnight visitation capacity:

• 13.2% of the AMAS can provide bed for tourists.

Parhad Keyim

120 Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

The AMAS business operators lack of vocational skills (e.g. language barrier) :• 53.5 % of the AMAS operators, who are mostly Uyghur nationality, are not fluent in

Mandarin Chinese.The AMAS business are highly dependent on tourism income:

• 78.6% of the AMAS admitted that about 50 % of their household income came from tourism service.

The AMAS businesses have some competitive advantages than external mass tourism en-terprises in terms of flexible service and the ability of providing relatively authentic tour-ism experience:

• The AMAS businesses usually run by the Uyghur farmers` family members and they have strong demonstration ability of Uyghur culture. 28.2%, 11.3% and 2.8% of the AMAS businesses family members can perform folk song and dance, tailor traditional handcrafts and deliver folktale respectively.

Source: Keyim et al., 2005; Keyimu et al., 2005; Keyimu, 2006; Wang and Dong, 2007; Authors` survey in 2011

Inappropriate involvement and influence of Guanxi mentioned earlier put the AMAS busi-ness in the Grape Valley into a very disadvantaged position in the rural tourism development processes. For example, some local residents imply that some of the leading officials (village head, Chinese communist party secretary of the village etc.) in the Grape Valley Villager Commission are running family businesses (the AMAS, small department store and small family restaurants) and cooperated with the external enterprises and tourism agencies. Their businesses are always better than their counterparts as the enterprises and tourism agencies are able to ‘deliver’ tourists to them. Thus the AMAS operators are forced to be involved in the Guanxi game circle in order to survive or flourish as their business are usually depend-ent on the tourists that come as packaged tourists to the Grape Valley rather than aim at visit them. The AMAS have to try to maintain good Guanxi with the officials of the Villager Com-mission, external enterprises and package tour operators in any expense, even have to bribe the tourist guide and bus driver, etc. This might indicate that there exist economic leakages in the case of the rural tourism development in the Grape Valley, suggesting that economic benefits of rural tourism for the local community residents represented by the AMAS may be limited.

Thus, the AMAS is a typical type of rural tourism phenomenon in Turpan and is mainly concentrated in the Grape Valley. So, in this article, rural tourism development in the Grape Valley will be studied as the representative of rural tourism development in Turpan, in order to analyze and evaluate prefectural and municipal level government roles in local (village level) socio-economic development through rural tourism.

Research findings and discussion While the eastern coastal areas of China are more open and free in economic activities, the

121Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

Development through rural tourism: the case of Turpan

inland and especially in the western border areas like the XUAR, the planned economy has survived. In these relatively planned economic development regions, including the XUAR, prefectural and municipal-level governments still strongly undertake various roles during the rural tourism development processes. Thus, in this case study area, prefectural and munici-pal-level authorities like the Turpan Prefectural and Turpan Municipality-level governments play various dominant roles in the rural tourism development processes.

The governments: as planners. The Turpan Prefectural Government (TPG) is responsible for tourism development plan in Turpan. It is issued with the aid of some universities/research institutes thought the final deci-sion is made by the prefectural government officials. Alongside with Chinese state’s and the XUARs’ Socio-economic ‘Five years’ Development Plans and Tourism Development ‘Five years’ Plans, the Turpan Prefecture Tourism Bureau (TPTB) issues tourisms development plan under the leadership of TPG in every five years. Thus, tourism administrations like the TPTB and Tourist Scenic Spot Management Committee of Grape Valley of Turpan are responsible for tourism development in the Grape Valley and in charge of ‘top-down’ policy interpretation, implementation and making more detailed local tourism development plans. In recent years, the TPG and the TPTB issued tourism related plans (TPTB, 2005; TPNPC, 2006). These plans stress that the prefectural tourism industry development guiding principle is ‘Government-led, Enterprise-based, Market-oriented operation’.

To build Turpan as a world-renowned destination of Silk Road culture, natural scenery and ethnic customs are set as tourism development goals. These plans emphasized promoting tourism based on the unique arid natural landscape, historical heritage, folk culture and cos-tumes of ethnic minorities. Preservation of the natural environment, cultural tradition, and the costumes of ethnic minorities are also emphasized. Also stressed is the improvement of living standards of local residents led by tourism development, promotion of social devel-opment, and safeguarding national unity. Also stressed is the enhancement of external in-vestment attraction by issuing preferential policies for external enterprises (financial support policy, preferential tax policies and destination emigration policies). Related to the research area, emphasized to develop the Grape Valley as ‘Folk costume and eco-tourism areas’ of Turpan, overlong the tourists stay time, establish the AMAS management system and service standards and organize local festival activities, etc.

In addition to those plans, the TPG also issued Turpan’s Eleventh ‘Five years’ Rural Tourism Development Plan (2006~2010) (XPTPI, 2007). This plan sets the rural tourism development goals as: • To consider rural tourism as the implementation of Chinese state policy of ‘Construct the

new socialist countryside’ (Develop production, affluent life, civilization, clean and tidy village and democratic management) and solve the ‘Three rural issue’ (Agriculture, Rural areas and Farmers).

• To emphasized the rural tourism development principles of ‘government-led, protect the site and wealth the people’.

Parhad Keyim

122 Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

• To protect the interests of farmers and herdsmen combining the scenic area development and farmers’ participation, and by giving ‘Three priorities’ (priority to the interests of the farmers in the scenic area development, priority to solving the employment problems of farmers, priority to farmers’ access to project right) during tourism development proc-esses in the rural areas.

• To emphasize the provision of preferential policies (fiscal policy for rural tourism infra-structures constructions, promotion policy of rural tourism by connecting rural tourism marketing with the XUAR and the TPGs` domestic and international tourism marketing activities, vocational training and tax exemption policy for the local farmers owned/par-ticipated small rural tourism enterprises) in order to encourage and guide rural residents to participate in tourism business.

• To stress paying attention to and highlighting the local folk customs (food and bever-age, folk dance, folk art) and history, architectural features during the establishment of tourism enterprises (external tourism enterprises and local family-based small tourism enterprises) and rural tourism product development.

• To emphasized strengthening market supervision, standardizing rural tourism in order to protect the overall interests of local residents, rural tourism enterprises and tourists.

However, as planners though the governments (TPG and TPTB) mentioned economic, socio-cultural, and ecological aspects of tourism development, these plans did not become imple-mented efficiently due to the existence of various limitations mentioned earlier. For example, in the Grape Valley Villager Commission, local residents’ involvement is ignored in tourism planning under the excuse that local residents lack education and decision making capacity and the governments´ lack of participatory planning implementation funds. In addition to the unbalanced power relationship among the government, external entrepreneurs, and the AMAS, the local rural residents are ignored in tourism planning. In other words, the local residents and their role in the rural tourism development process are ignored in the planning. And, these findings are parallel with Wang and Dongs’ (2007) research in the Grape Valley that there is a lack of a reasonable community participation mechanism and legal system.

The governments: as investors. The TPG is responsible for tourism infrastructural improvement with the aid and cooperation of relevant XUAR and state authorities. The TPG improves the tourism investment environ-ment by improving hard and soft infrastructure, such as improved transportation networks, telecommunications and urban facilities, and customer complaints channels etc. Geographi-cally, Turpan Prefecture is located at the intersection of transportation between the northern and southern parts of the XUAR, state highway No 312 and No 314 across the territory additional to local highway system. In recent years, the TPG accelerated the construction of regional tourism transportation systems under the aid of the Chinese state and XUAR gov-ernment, increased accessibility to tourism destinations. For example, in July, 2010, Chinese National Civil Aviation and the XUAR Eleventh ‘Five years’ Plan project funded Turpan Airport (People’s Daily, 2010). This airport has the yearly ability to process 400,000 passen-gers. It is only half an hour from the XUARs´ capital airport Ürümchi Airport. The Ürümchi

123Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

Development through rural tourism: the case of Turpan

Airport is one of the five biggest airports in China and is connected to the major cities of cos-tal China and airports in Commonwealth of Independent States, Pakistan, Turkey and Russia. At the same time, the TPTB promoted its tourism market by promising 50% tourism ticket discount in all tourism destinations in Turpan and by implementing a “buy one ticket get one free” offer for the charter flight tourists. Also, the TPG newly constructed or renovated tourism attractions such as Turpan Museum and Turpan Public Art Gallery etc. From 2006 to 2009, 26 ‘standardized tourist’s toilet’ in major tourism destinations were built. Online tourism information and complaints channels have been created. In the Grape Valley alone, the TPG combine with the aid of state bond matching funds, completed road construction, the upper and lower water pipeline reconstruction, and construction of iconic doors, car park, and other ancillary facilities. Many tourism attractions were wither constructed or renovated, such as the Grape Valley Amusement Park, Darwaz Folk Customs Park (Uyghur traditional rope walking) and Nasirdin Apandim Amusement Park in addition there was a 1.5 km long grape corridor constructed, along with renovations and construction of new residential hous-ing along the 15km long Grave Valley tourism area. As a result, the Grape Valley set an example among the all tourism destinations in the XUAR by improving sanitation facilities.

Indeed, the TPG greatly improved tourism related infrastructure such as accommodation facilities, transport facilities, shopping facilities and food services in addition to improv-ing basic infrastructure (communication, sanitation, water, electricity, etc). However, these infrastructural improvements are usually aimed to accelerate tourism development (increase visitors number, their expenditure and length of stay) by satisfying tourists’ needs without sufficient consideration of local rural residents and their AMAS business´ needs and inter-ests. Basic infrastructure constructions in rural areas of Turpan, including the Grape Valley, are still lagging behind. For example, the sanitation facilities of the AMAS are poor, only 50.7% of them admitted that they have water flush toilets (Keyimu, 2006). The govern-ments are not sufficiently implementing their rural preferential policies mentioned in rural tourism development plans and the AMAS businesses are not supported sufficiently. For ex-ample, almost all the AMAS (97.7%) operators are self-financed, weak in financing (53.5% o the AMAS invested less than 30 000 Chinese Yuan [CNY]) comparing to the 28 million CNY investment of the Xinjiang Western Tourism Development Co., Ltd (TSMCGV, 2010). 38.6% of the AMAS claimed that they got very limited business startup loans from banks (among them 64.8% the AMAS obtained less than 10 000 CNY from bank). Only 0.07% of the AMAS obtained tourism business development subsidies from the government of less than 2000 CNY. In addition to weak finance, lack of vocational skills and tourism business experience cause the AMAS business can not compete with the external tourism enterprises that are much stronger.

The governments: as investment stimulators. Following the instruction and aid of state and the relevant authorities of the XUAR, the TPG and the TPTB encouraged external capital investment in tourism in the form of cooperative or wholly-owned investment as shown in Table two below. Thus, the governments invited external enterprises promoting tourism development which included tourism project invest-

Parhad Keyim

124 Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

ments in the rural areas. And thanks to these investment, from 2000 to 2006 tourism revenue in Tupan increased by 26% yearly (Xinjiang Statistics Bureau, 2008).

Table 2: Tourism investment and tourism development in TurpanName of the tourism investors:• Xinjiang Daxibu Luyou Gufen Youxian Gongsi (Xinjiang Western Tourism Development

Co., Ltd.),• Xinjiang Dehui Touzi Youxian Gongsi (Xinjiang Dehui Investment Co., Ltd.)• Xinjiang Delong Shiye Gongsi (Xinjiang Delong Industrial Company, bankrupted in

2004)• Tulufan Huoyanshan Luyou Kaifa Youxian Gongsi (Turpan Flaming Mountain Tourism

Development Co., Ltd.)• Xinjiang Xiyu Guoji Luxingshe (XinJiang Western Region International Travel Service

Co., Ltd.)• Tulufan Luzhou Guoji Huayuan Dafandian Youxian Zeren Gongsi (Turpan Oasis Inter-

national Garden Hotel Co., Ltd.) • Wenzhou Shanghui (Wenzhou Chamber of Commerce.)The amount of investment (2000-2009):• One billion Chinese Yuan all together.Upgraded cultural heritage tourism destinations: • The Grape Valley; The Yarghol Ancient City; The Bezeklik Thousand Buddha Caves

; The Qara Qocho Ancient City; The Astana Cemetery; The Tuyuk Thousand Buddha Caves; The Emin Minaret; The Karez Folk Park etc.

Constructed tourism destinations:• The Kumtagh Desert Scenic Spot; The Qizil tagh (Flaming Mountains) Tourist Attrac-

tions; The Turpan Dukes House etc.Tourism facility constructions and job creation:• Constructed more than 50 ´Star hotels´ and ´Resident hotels´, including 22 ´Star hotels´

with the capacity of 7000 beds. • Hotel business created 120 million Chinese Yuan revenue and 2500 job opportunities. • 120 hotels owned restaurants and ´Resident small restaurants ´ employed about 1500

staff.

Source: Adapted from TPTB (2008-2010).

Indeed, external tourism investment accelerated tourism-related infrastructure construction and thus created some job opportunities for locals. But, at the same time, usually external tourism enterprises dominated tourism businesses in rural areas such as the Grape Valley so that the benefits of tourism to the local rural community residents are limited. For example, in the Grape Valley local residents’ satisfaction level for the job opportunity and income in-crease that driven from tourism business is only 49. 36% and 64.36 % respectively ( Xiong and Han, 2005).

125Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

Development through rural tourism: the case of Turpan

The governments: as tourism promoters.The TPTB enhanced tourism promotion by utilizing different kinds of media. The TPTB cooperate with the domestic and international media such as Xinjiang Air Travel Newspaper, The Xinjiang Daily, Western Magazine, China Youth Daily, China Central Television, Urum-qi Television and Australian National Television to promote tourism of Turpan. The TPTB organized or participated in domestic and international tourism fairs staged in Chinese costal cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and some foreign countries like Ja-pan and South Korea in order to attract more external investment while promoting tourism at the same time. In 1990, the TPG organized ‘The 1st China Silk Road Turpan Grape Festival’ which commemorate the 2100 year opening of the Silk Road and this festival is organized annually since then. Turpans’ tourism destination promotion also has Chinese characteristics in that it takes advantage of tourism rankings: In March 1988, Peng Zhen (formerly a Chinese high official), handwrote the ‘Grape Valley’ calligraphy in Chinese and now it has become a symbol of the Grape Valley Amusement Park (TSMCGV, 2010); In 1998, Turpan city was named an ‘excellent tourism city in China’ and in 2007 was named a ‘national historical and cultural city in China’. In 2007, The Grape Valley was upgraded to 5A scenery (TPTB, 2008). And, this prestige will help to get support from higher levels of governments (Qun et al., 2011).

Following the growing notoriety of the Grape Valley, different tourism enterprises run busi-ness in the Grape Valley simultaneously. But continued unfair business competitions among these independently operated tourism entrepreneurs caused development chaos in the Grape Valley. In order to solve this problem, the Turpan municipal government established the Tourist Scenic Spot Management Committee of Grape Valley in 2004 that responsible for tourism development in the Grape Valley (TPTB, 2008). Since then, this committee imple-mented ‘One ticket policy’ that all the tourism spots within the Grape Valley scenery are allowed to be visited only after the tourists buy a package ticket at the main gate leading to the Grape Valley.

The TPG also utilize internet marketing for destination promotion. Recent years, the Tourist Scenic Spot Management Committee of Grape Valley of Turpan established a website that run in three languages: Chinese, English and Japanese (though foreign language websites are not running perfectly) to promote tourism in the Grape Valley. This website includes information including brief introductions to touristic spots in Turpan and the Grape Valley, tourism investment, Turpan area travel agencies, domestic flights and train schedules, Turpan municipal transport, Turpan and the Grape Valley tourism route recommendations, Uyghur residential life and costumes, Uyghur music, art and dance culture and short news about the AMAS development in the Grape Valley (TSMCGV, 2010). In 2007, the TPG established the Unified Tourism Marketing Services Limited and started to run business in May in the same year (Wang, 2009). This company is supervised by the TPG Tourism Management Commit-tee and the Turpan Tourism Association that are subsidiaries of governments instead of inde-pendent organizations. The Unified Tourism Marketing Services Limited was established by merging 8 tourism enterprises and a cultural relics unit that run business in 16 tourist spots all

Parhad Keyim

126 Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

across Turpan. It selected seven big travel agencies in the XUAR as a marketing agent. It has invested and constructed Turpan Tourist Service Center and unified the attraction’s electronic access control system and monitoring system.

However, the government’s (the TPG and the TPTB) role as tourism promoters is not ef-ficient while considering the unstable and declining tourists numbers and tourism revenues in Turpan. For example, from 2006 to 2007 tourist numbers and tourism revenues by the ‘China Silk Road Turpan Grape Festival’ decreased by 14.3% and 14.5% respectively (Qin wei, 2011). According to the statistics of the Unified Tourism Marketing Services Limited (Wang, 2009; TPTB, 2010), from 2006 to 2007 ticket revenues and tourists numbers in Tur-pan increased 88.12% and 38.83% respectively, but in 2008 these figures decreased by 45% and 38% respectively. In 2009, from January to November ticket revenue further decreased by 32.7%. Government marketing activities usually prefer to market external enterprises that had good relations with governments (business-bureaucracy collaboration) and different media, and can afford the high marketing fee. The marketing of the AMAS is not included in the government’s task as planned, except the very limited introduction about the AMAS on the Tourist Scenic Spot Management Committee of Grape Valley of Turpan’s website and outdated advertisement at the site of Turpan Tourist Service Center (author’s survey in 2011). 90.14% of the AMAS admitted that never advertised their business in any way (Keyimu, 2006).

The governments: as educators. The TPTB cooperated with the Turpan Vocational Education Center, the training center of the XUAR Tourism Bureau, and Xinjiang Vocational University to train tourism manage-ment staff and tour guides. Their goal was to strengthen the training of qualified personnel, especially in marketing and promotional personnel that proficient in history, culture, and ethnic customs of Turpan. Until at the end of 2009, there are more than 300 scenic tour guides obtained relevant certificates (TPTB, 2010).

However, though the governments were concerned to train tourist guides and tourism man-agement officials, the results are still not satisfactory. There is still a lack of qualified tourist guides and tourism management officials that are acquainted with local culture, language, and history. These unqualified staff and tourist guides sometimes provide insufficient and/or distorted information to the tourists about the local folk costume and arts. For example, although there is no evidence to support that the famous Uyghur folk story character Nasirdin Apandim lived in the Grape Valley, a local resident is hired to be pretend to be a descendent and tourists are lured to take pictures for a charge.

The governments: as regulators. The TPTB implemented tourism-relevant laws and regulations of the Chinese state and the XUAR. And combined with those regulations, the TPTB also issued relevant regulations that suit the local situation which includes the AMAS related regulations.

127Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

Development through rural tourism: the case of Turpan

According to these regulations, the assessment of hotel stars and travel agencies are standard-ized and strengthened so that the safety of tourists and tourism activities are further ensured.

The Turpan municipality government organized the police and agricultural supervisory departments evacuated the La ke renchun (people that lured tourists to visit their AMAS with competitive prices and sometimes cheating) that gathered in front of the main gate of the Grape Valley. It also intensified the handling of complains about tourism service in the AMAS. Tourists complaints about the AMAS tourism services are reported to the XUAR Tourism Bureau and these complains are publicized in the media and travel agencies. Travel agencies are required to organized tourism activities in the registered AMAS operators that published on the official website of the XUAR Tourism Bureau in order to protect the legiti-mate rights and interests of tourists. The AMAS required having a clear price tag and if the AMAS operators were found to bribe tour guides in order to lure tourists to buy goods and pay a higher price, their business license will be cancelled and the tour guides license will be cancelled too.

However, though the TPTB stress the supervision of the AMAS, it did not mention how to regulate the complex relationships among the governments (the TPG and the TPTB), enter-prises (external enterprises and the AMAS) and the local rural residents. Further, the regula-tory role of the TPTB is limited, as tourism involves many different government departments each with its own responsibilities and limitations, so there is no one department that has full authority (Qun et al., 2011). Thus, in the study area, unregistered tourism business activities such as Heidaoyou (unlicensed illegal tourist guide) and Heiche (illegal taxis) exist. Lack of standardized market regulation and vicious competition among the AMAS businesses in the Grape Valley curbed the enthusiasm of local rural residents involved in tourism to a certain extent (Wang and Dong, 2007). In conclusion, prefectural and municipal-level governments´ various roles in local socio-economic development through rural tourism at village-level in Turpan are not successfully implemented while concerning the equal benefits to all stake-holders, especially concerning the economic benefits to the Grape Valley residents and their AMAS businesses.

CONCLUSION

As illustrated above, government (the TPG and the TPTB) and external tourism enterprises (through business-bureaucracy collaboration) played various dominant roles during the so-cio-economic development through rural tourism in the Grape Valley, Turpan, though there exist other stakeholders such as the local small farm family-based rural tourism businesses (AMAS) and local rural residents. The local residents of the Grape Valley and their AMAS business are usually excluded from local socio-economic development processes through rural tourism that rural tourism can not be claimed a useful local development tool while considering local residents economic achievement.

Parhad Keyim

128 Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

Though community-based tourism is considered by some Western and Chinese scholars as a valuable approach to enlarge socio-economic befits of tourism to the local community, the political-structural (bureaucratic top-down political command structure), business-operation-al (business bureaucracy collaboration) and socio-cultural (‘low educated, simple-minded status of villagers’) barriers hinder community participatory tourism in the Grape Valley in Turpan. Those obstacles during rural tourism development processes such as bureaucratic top-down political command structure, business-bureaucracy supported external enterprises control over local (tourism) development and local rural residents’ lack of development re-lated capacity (e.g. insufficient vocational skills and financial resources, and insufficient de-cision making and implementing power that equal to other stakeholders such as government and external enterprises etc.) causes limited socio-economic benefit to local rural residents such as limited direct or indirect tourism income and job opportunities. Due to the AMAS minimal or complete lack of experience in bottom-up development (usually the AMAS is planned, organized and supervised by government officials without community consulta-tion), their small sizes, and business instability because of the high seasonality and less prof-itability, the AMAS businesses contribute little in a socio-economic sense at the local rural community level.

The prefecture and municipal-level governments’ dominant role in local socio-economic de-velopment through rural tourism and the various obstacles that prevent community-based rural tourism in the Grape Valley, Turpan will not vanish in the near future. Under these circumstances, it might be wiser to consider promoting so called “economic benefit-oriented communal approach” (Ying & Zhou, 2007) in rural tourism development. In the long run, this economic benefit-oriented community participatory tourism (communal approach) will contribute to promote the community’s full participation in rural tourism development on the long run. Because ‘…the ability of the community to participate (tourism) can grow. As the tourism industry develops, they (rural residents) will gradually become managers of tourism, supervisors of its impacts, and masters of community development…’ (Bao & Sun, 2007) and ‘It is only when priority is given to the developmental needs and interests of local com-munities over the goals of the tourism industry itself that broader social development will be achieved’ (Simmons, 1994; Brohman, 1996). But, this communal approach requires the gov-ernments (the TPG and the TPTB) must consider the benefits of the Grape Valley community residents and guarantee their rights of tourism related decision making, development and operation. So, implementation of active community participatory tourism or empower the AMAS business operators in the Grape Valley requires the development policy and practices that comprise continues learning and innovative processes which should be developed in a local rural context in order to strengthen the skills, resources, and conditions of micro, com-munity-based family enterprises (AMAS) that might mostly represent rural residents’ benefit.

The government needs to adjust its favorable policy towards external enterprises, by making great efforts to improve coordination and cooperation mechanisms among various rural tour-ism development actors in the Grape Valley, because rural tourism has been viewed as a tool to facilitate social harmony and help construct the new socialist rural communities in China

129Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

Development through rural tourism: the case of Turpan

(Chio, 2011). The need to ensure rural resident’s participation rights by relevant legislation and needs to assure long-term preferential policies (low interest loans, tax exemptions etc.) towards locally-owned micro rural tourism enterprises (AMAS) is highlighted in this study. Indirect community benefits should also encouraged by connecting rural tourism activity with the local supply chain of agricultural production, farming, and handicraft. It needs to enhance communication and education among the government, the enterprises and the local residents in order to actualizing community based tourism in the Grape Valley.

Further studies needed to address the role of NGOs and similar civil organizations in rural tourism development in the Grape Valley, which are still not existent or in the preliminary stage that need to create and/or transform into real civil organization from official and semi-official status. As the creation of the local NGOs might help further decentralize governance, prevents bureaucracy and corruption. Also, the establishment of efficient local NGOs might operate as mediators between different rural tourism actors (stakeholders) that in most cases rarely cooperated and collaborated. It would also be of assistance to establish links between the local government and grass-root residents that are usually ignored during the develop-ment policy decision making processes. And, on the long run this will help establish and strength bottom-up governance and development practice that barely exist in the XUAR at the moment.

REFERENCES

• Alejziak, W 2008. Globalization and decentralization as directions for the development of tourism policy in the 21st century. New Problems of Tourism1, 25–42.

• Bao JG & Sun JX 2007. Differences in Community Participation in Tourism Develop-ment between China and the West. Chinese Sociology and Anthropology 39:3, 9–27.

• Bramwell B & Lane B 1994. Rural Tourism and Sustainable Rural Development. Lon-don: Channel View.

• Brohman J 1996. New directions in tourism for Third World development. Annals of Tourism Research 23:1, 48–70.

• Cecily N & Tykkylainen M 1998. An introduction to research into socio-economic re-structuring in resource communities. In Cecily N & Tykkylainen M (eds). Local eco-nomic development: a geographical comparison of rural community restructuring, 3-26. Tokyo: United Nations.

• Chio J 2011. The Appearance of the Rural in China’s Tourism. Provincial China 3:1, 60-79.

Parhad Keyim

130 Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

• China Daily 2009. Turpan tourism ripens along with its grapes (20 May). < http://www.china.org.cn/travel/events_festivals/2009-05/20/content_17804063.html> 06.07.2012.

• Fan Y 2002. Questioning guanxi: definition, classification and implications. International Business Review11:5, 543–561.

• Gao SL, Huang SS & Huang YC 2009. Rural Tourism Development in China. Interna-tional Journal of Tourism Research11:5, 439-450.

• Hall D & Roberts L 2004. Conclusions and future agenda. In Hall D (eds). Tourism and transition: governance, transformation, and development, 217-227. Wallingford, Oxon, UK; Cambrdige, MA, USA: CABI.

• He JM, Li HX 2003. Systematic analysis on factors affecting the development of rural tourism: case study of Chengdu. Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 8:3B, 919-925 (in Chinese).

• Haywood M 1988. Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tour-ism Management 9 :2, 105–118.

• Inskeep E 1991. Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Ap-proach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

• IUOTO 1974. The role of the state in tourism. Annals of tourism research1:3, 66-72.

• Keyimu P 2006. Study of rural tourism development: Evidence from Putao Gou Tulufan. Market Modernization 485, 265-266 (in Chinese).

• Keyim P, Yang DG & Zhang XL 2005. Study of rural tourism in Turpan China. Chinese Geographical Science15:4, 377-382.

• Keyimu P, Yang DG & Cai WQ 2005. A comparative study on the managerial patterns and demands of rural tourism: Evidence from Putao Gou Tulufan. In Zheng JX, Guo HC & Chen T (eds). Agro-tourism and rural tourism development, 80-85. Jiangsu: China University of Mining and Technology Press (in Chinese).

• Li Y & Wall G 2008. The Evolution and Status of Tourism Planning: Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development 5:2, 165-182.

• Li YP, Lai K & Feng XG 2007. The Problem of ‘Guanxi’ for Actualizing Community Tourism: A Case Study of Relationship Networking in China. Tourism Geographies9:2, 115-138.

131Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

Development through rural tourism: the case of Turpan

• Li YP 2004. Exploring Community Tourism in China: The Case of Nanshan Cultural Tourism Zone. Journal of Sustainable tourism12:3, 175-193.

• Murphy P 1988. Community driven tourism planning. Tourism Management 9:2, 96–104.

• Murphy P 1983. Tourism as a community industry. Tourism Management 4:3, 180–193.

• MacDonald R & Jolliffe L 2003. Cultural Rural Tourism Evidence from Canada. Annals of Tourism Research30:2, 307–322.

• People’s Daily. (2010) Turpan Airport today officially opened to traffic [Tulufan jichang jinri zhengshi tonghang] (9 July). < http://politics.people.com.cn/GB/14562/12105760.html> 04.06.2012.

• Pedford J 1996. Seeing is Believing: The Role of Living History in Marketing Local Heritage. In Brewer T (eds). The Marketing of Tradition, 13–20. Enfield Lock: Hisarlink Press.

• Qin W 2011. On the protection of national traditional culture during the tourism develop-ment - the Protection of National Culture in Turpan, Xinjiang. Fortune World 12, 262-263 (in Chinese).

• Qun Q, Wall G & Liu XH 2011. Government Roles in Stimulating Tourism Develop-ment: A Case from Guangxi, China. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 16:5, 471-487.

• Roberts L & Hall D 2001. Rural Tourism and Recreation: Principles to Practice. Walling-ford: CABI.

• Redclift M 1987. Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London: Routledge.

• Sharpley R 2008. Planning for Tourism: The Case of Dubai. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development 5:1, 13-30.

• Sharpley R 2000. Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical Di-vide, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8:1, 1-19.

• Swain MB 1995. A comparison of state and private artisan production for tourism in Yun-nan. In Lew AA & Yu L (eds). Tourism in China: Geographic, Political, and Economic Perspectives, 223–233. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Parhad Keyim

132 Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

• Simmons D1994. Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management 15:2, 98–107.

• Sofield L, Li S 2011. Tourism governance and sustainable national development in Chi-na: a macro-level synthesis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19:4-5, 501-534.

• Streeten P 1977. The basic feature of a basic needs approach to development. Interna-tional Development Review 19:3, 8–16.

• TPTB 2008-2010. Tourism Statistics. Unpublished government documents. Turpan, the XUAR, China: Turpan Prefecture Tourism Bureau (in Chinese).

• TPNPC 2006. Turpan Socio-economic Eleventh ‘Five years’ Development Plan: Outline (2006~2010). Promulgated 2 February 2006 by the first meeting of the Turpan Prefectur-al National People’s Congress Working Committee. Turpan, the XUAR, China: Turpan Prefectural National People’s Congress (in Chinese).

• TPTB 2005. Turpan Tourism Eleventh ‘Five years’ Development Plan (2006~2010). Tur-pan, the XUAR, China: Turpan Prefecture Tourism Bureau (in Chinese).

• TSMCGV 2010. Investment [Zhaoshang yinzi] (5 September). Tourist Scenic Spot Man-agement Committee of Grape Valley of Turpan. <http://www.tulufanputaogou.com/POP-show.asp?id=80> 02.07.2012.

• Verbole, A 2000. Actors, Discourses and Interfaces of Rural Tourism Development at the Local Community Level in Slovenia: Social and Political Dimensions of the Rural Tour-ism Development Process. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8:6, 479-490.

• Wang P 2009. Analysis of Development of Integrated Marketing of the Scenic Resorts in Tulufan. Journal of Nanning Polytechnic 14:1, 74-76(in Chinese).

• Wang CY & Dong L 2007. Investigation and Analysis on Community Participation in Tourism in Grape Valley in Turpan. East China Economic Management 21:3, 116-120(in Chinese).

• Xinjiang Statistics Bureau 2008. Xinjiang statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

• XPTPI 2007. Turpan Eleventh ‘Five years’ Rural Tourism Development Plan (2006~2010). Ürümchi, the XUAR, China: Xinjiang Panorama Tour Planning Institute (in Chinese).

133Tourism Today - Fall 2012 - Other Papers

Development through rural tourism: the case of Turpan

• Xiong HG & Han CX 2005. Study of local residents benefiting from tourism in Grape Valley, Turpan. In Proceedings of the Third Conference of Recreational Agriculture and Rural Tourism Development, Ürümchi 2005.78-82.

• Ying T Y & Zhou YG 2007. Community, governments and external capitals in China’s rural cultural tourism: A comparative study of two adjacent villages. Tourism Manage-ment 28:1, 96–107.

• Yang ZP & Liu MR 2000. Initial study on agriculture tourism in Xinjiang. Arid Land Geography 23:2, 155-158(in Chinese).

• Zhang TW 2002. Challenges facing Chinese planners in transitional China. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22, 64–76.

• Zhang H, Gu CL, Gu LW & Zhang Y 2011. The evaluation of tourism destination com-petitiveness by TOPSIS & information entropy -A case in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Tourism Management 32:2, 443¬-451.

Article 2

Keyim, P., & adamiaK, C. (2014). enTrePreneurS’ PerSPeCTiveS TowardS TouriSm and rural develoPmenT in norTh Karelia, finland. Tourism Today, 14: 91-102.

91Tourism Today - Fall 2014 - Full Paper

Entrepreneurs' perspectives towards rural tourism development in North Karelia

Entrepreneurs’ perspectives towards tourism and rural development in North Karelia, FinlandParhad KeyimCzesław Adamiak

keyimu.pahati@uef.ficzeslaw.adamiak@umk.pl

ABSTRACT

In the context of changes and challenges that rural areas are encountering, tourism in ru-ral areas is recognized as a useful development mechanism in terms of its socioeconomic contribution. In the Finnish context, the tourist industry is also recognized as an important source of rural development. Based on a survey of entrepreneurs’ attitude on tourism activi-ties in North Karelia, this paper examined the socioeconomic impact of (rural) tourism at the local level. Further it investigated the relationship between the perception of local tourism development policy and socioeconomic contribution of tourism. The results suggested that the entrepreneurs see more positive than negative socioeconomic impacts of tourism. It also suggests that the more positively the entrepreneurs evaluate local policy the more benefits they see from tourism to local area.

Keywords: Tourism, rural development, North Karelia

INTRODUCTION

Rural economies and societies in the Western countries have faced major changes and challenges during the recent decades (Ashley & Maxwell, 2001; OECD, 2006; Shortall & Shuckmith, 1998; Sharpley, 2007; Saarinen, 2007). These ongoing phenomena in rural ar-eas have been manifested in socioeconomic problems such as the decline in employment in primary sectors (e.g. agriculture and forestry) and personal incomes, the deterioration of infrastructure and services, outmigration and population ageing. In this context, tourism in rural areas is recognized as a useful tool for mitigating these negative socioeconomic trends by providing alternative sources of livelihood for rural families, creating local incomes and employment, encouraging the development of other local economic sectors, contributing to the maintenance of local amenities and services for residents, and aiding local cultural re-sources conservation (Lane, 1994; Hall & Jenkins, 1998; Hall, Müller, & Saarinen, 2009).

The study is based on a survey about entrepreneurs’ attitude on the role of tourism in rural de-velopment in North Karelia. The main purpose of this paper is to examine whether the (rural)

Parhad Keyim and Czesław Adamiak

92 Tourism Today - Fall 2014 - Full Paper

tourism industries are recognized as a local socioeconomic development tool in terms of economic and socio-cultural dimension. Further it investigates the relationship between the perception of local tourism development policy and socioeconomic contribution of tourism.

HOST PERCEPTION TOWARDS TOURISM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: A SHORT REVIEW

Many researches have been carried out on the residents’ perception towards the economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts of tourism (Harrill, 2004; Brida, Osti, & Barquet, 2010; Vareiro, Remoaldo, & Cadima Ribeiro, 2013). These researches are encouraged by the belief that understanding resident perceptions and responses is essential for efficient and sustainable tourism development planning (Sharpley, 2014).

Tourism is a multiple-stakeholder industry composed of ‘guests’ (e.g. tourists) and ‘hosts’ (e.g. the people and places that tourists encounter, and the organizations and businesses that provide tourism services). Balanced relationship between ‘guests’ and ‘hosts’, which largely depends on the ‘hosts’ who provide satisfying experiences for the tourists, is essential for the successful development of tourism destinations. Among ‘hosts’ (service providers), the tour-ism entrepreneurs understand most of the tourists’ perception as they most frequently interact with tourists by regular commercially-based exchange. Thus, in order to effectively plan and manage tourism (destination) it is logical to focus on the entrepreneurs’ perception towards tourism (Sharpley, 2014).

In the Finnish context, Komppula (2014) examined small rural tourism entrepreneurs’ per-ception towards the role of entrepreneurs in enhancing the competitiveness of a rural tourism destination. She found that collaboration between small rural tourism entrepreneurs is essen-tial in order to enhance destination competitiveness, and municipalities (public sectors) play a crucial role in creating favorable entrepreneurial environment. Puhakka, Sarkki, Cottrell, and Siikamäki (2009) explored local stakeholders’ attitudes on tourism’s sociocultural im-pact in a national park. They did not conclude whether the park facilitates sustainable devel-opment or not, yet their results show that local stakeholders have mostly positive perceptions of tourism in the park. The authors further imply that it is necessary to monitor the allocation of the benefits and burdens of park development holistically to multiple stakeholders.

STUDY AREA: RURAL TOURISM IN NORTH KARELIA, FINLAND

Major challenges in rural tourism development in the Nordic countries, including Finland, come from both outside and within of the tourism industry although it is impossible to clas-sify these challenges exactly into the above two categories. On one hand, socioeconomic cir-cumstances in the rural areas of the Nordic countries such as population decline, the crisis of public transport, high labor cost, the deterioration of rural amenities and services undermine the business development conditions of rural tourism. On the other hand, the shortcomings in the tourism industry itself such as high seasonality and high costs, lack of knowledge and entrepreneurial skills hinder the development of the industry.

93Tourism Today - Fall 2014 - Full Paper

Entrepreneurs' perspectives towards rural tourism development in North Karelia

In spite of the above shortages, rural tourism in the Nordic countries has developed over the past decade (Müller, 2013). This development has been driven both by the public sector’s awareness of its role in encouraging regional development in the replacement of traditional productive activities, and private stakeholders’ growing commitment to develop high-quality tourism products that meet international demand. However, it should be noted that despite the close connection between rural tourism and the concept of sustainable tourism, the devel-opment of rural tourism as any form of tourism brings certain impacts, also negative ones, to the local environment, society and other economy sectors. The planning of rural tourism development should thus also be adjusted in scale and forms to the local environments and socio-economic context to meet the sustainability criteria (Hall et al., 2009).

As in other Nordic countries, rural areas in Finland have suffered from socioeconomic prob-lems (e.g. unemployment, outmigration, the deterioration of rural amenities and services) caused by rural restructuring: in particular the mechanization of primary productions and the ‘harmonization’ of agriculture by European Union policy (Saarinen, 2007). The accession of Finland to the European Union in 1994 dramatically intensified the decrease in family-based farming and pushed the farmers to search for new sources of income (Rinne & Saastamoinen, 2005). The rural depopulation mainly results from two factors: the continuous decline in primary sector employment, and the reorganization of the public (and private) service sectors (Tykkyläinen, 2006). In other words, continuing Finnish agricultural policy that aims at im-proving farm productivity encouraged agricultural mechanization, decline in labor demand in farming, and depopulation of rural areas, especially in the northern, north-eastern and eastern parts of the country. Shifting from a welfare state to a market-led system of service provision, which emphasis the efficiency, also leads to the decrease in public employment (Tykkyläinen, 2006).

These socioeconomic problems in rural areas of Finland encouraged the authorities to ini-tiate alternative rural development strategies that include tourism. Saarinen (2007) argues that tourism has the potential to positively contribute to the local economy, helping to im-prove the employment structure and maintain rural communities. Rural Policy Committee (2009) recognized tourist industry as an important source of rural development in Finland. In spite of many shortcomings in rural tourism of Finland (e.g. poor visibility and accessibil-ity, high price and high seasonality), it has a development potential in clean and safe natural environment, stable political conditions, and distinct culture that combine the East and the West. There are approximately 5000 tourism micro companies in rural areas of Finland, and about 1600 farms offer tourism services (Pesonen, Vesterinen, & Taatinen, 2013). Visitors are mainly domestic tourists, while the foreigners make up about 20%, and mainly come from Russia, Germany, Sweden and Estonia. However, the strategy of rural tourism development in Finland has sometimes been criticized for pressing too much stress on the numerical de-velopment of tourist arrivals, which leads to setting unrealistic development goals, and may threaten the quality and sustainability of rural tourism (Hall et al., 2009).

North Karelia covers an area of 21.6 km2 and shares 302 km border with Russia. It is located

Parhad Keyim and Czesław Adamiak

94 Tourism Today - Fall 2014 - Full Paper

in the easternmost region of Finland (VisitKarelia, 2014). Its 165.5 thousand populations (in 2013) are mainly distributed in the municipalities of Joensuu, Lieksa, Kitee, Nurmes and Outokumpu. With approximately two thousand lakes including the 4th largest lake of Finland (Pielinen), two thousand holiday cottages, and regional culture North Karelia has emerged as an important tourism and leisure region over the years. Well-known natural and cultural tour-ism destinations in the region include Koli, Petkeljärvi, Patvinsuo and Ruunaa, Pielinen Mu-seum, Paateri, Bomba House, Valamo Monastery, Lintula Convent, Parppeinvaara Karelian village, Möhkö Village and Vuonislahti Village etc. Another tourist attraction is traditional cuisine based on local ingredients, and provided by the restaurants and country inns around these tourism sites.

North Karelia depends on its main economic sectors such as plastic, metal, stone and food industry, and consistently suffers high unemployment (Hyytiä & Kola, 2013). Thus, tourism industry in North Karelia has been considered as a future direction for regional development. Komppula and Reijonen (2006) claim that tourism industry in the region is dominated by pri-vate micro sized family businesses promoting rural tourism and nature based activities, and it is difficult to estimate the exact number of enterprises. They also point out that North Kare-lia’s tourism industry is not ‘visible’ considering the numbers of tourists despite considerable investments (local and regional) have been made during the past few years. Between 450 and 490 thousands tourists visited North Karelia annually between 2000 and 2012, and their number increased during that period despite high fluctuations between the years (Table 1).

Table 1: Number of the tourists’ visits in North Karelia

Year No. of tourists (nights spend) Change (%) 2000 462,157 -- 2001 464,418 0.49 2002 453,673 -2.31 2003 456,711 0.67 2004 454,849 -0.41 2005 467,550 2.79 2006 468,481 0.20 2007 465,905 -0.55 2008 430,241 -7.65 2009 416,306 -3.24 2010 468,454 12.53 2011 461,059 -1.58 2012 490,603 6.41

Source: Statistics Finland 2013.

95Tourism Today - Fall 2014 - Full Paper

Entrepreneurs' perspectives towards rural tourism development in North Karelia

RESEARCH METHODS

In this case study, a web-based survey is utilized as a main source of data. In May, June and October of 2013, three rounds of the survey were distributed to 479 tourism entrepreneurs in North Karelia. Only 56 of them responded, so the response rate is very low (13.7%). The questionnaires included 26 attitude questions grouped into three themes: the economic and socio-cultural impacts of tourism, and the local development policy and the development-related capacities of local residents (see Table 2). The answers were measured by 5-item Likert scale, from 1 – ‘strongly disagree’, to 5 – ‘strongly agree’.

Table 2: Indicators of rural development through tourism in North Karelia

Themes Survey indicators (5-item Likert scale)

Economic • Tourism increases available jobsdimension • Tourism creates business opportunities for local rural residents • Tourism generates revenues for the local municipality • Tourism income concentrates on a small group of people • Tourism leads to the increase of the cost of living (e.g. goods, services, land and housing) • Tourism brings new customers to local products (e.g. agricultural and forestry products, handicrafts)

Socio-cultural • Tourism increases local people’s pride on their home area/placedimension • Tourists are preferred at the cost of locals • Tourism increases traffic congestion and accidents • Tourism leads to the increase in noise and pollution in rural areas • Tourism has harmful impacts on local population by increasing crime and alcoholism • Tourism enhances maintenance and development of infrastructure • Tourism enhances the provision of public services (roads, recreation facilities, public transport) • Tourism helps to maintain local cultural heritage • Tourism helps to preserve and develop local unique skills and features (handicrafts, cuisine, festivals) • Tourism has negative impacts on local traditions and customs • Tourism product development and commercialization degrades local culture

Parhad Keyim and Czesław Adamiak

96 Tourism Today - Fall 2014 - Full Paper

Institutional • Local rural residents can participate in the processes of rural dimension (Local tourism development decision makingdevelopment • Local rural residents can participate in the rural tourism policy and development planningdevelopment • Local rural residents can participate in the processes of rural related capacities tourism development implementingof local residents) • Information on rural tourism development is publicly available • Local rural tourism development decision is jointly made by the public, private and the third sectors • Local rural tourism development plan is jointly made by the public, private and the third sectors • Local rural tourism development is jointly implemented by the public, private and the third sectors • Local rural residents have financial resources to participate in rural tourism development • Local rural residents have the vocational skills to participate in rural tourism development

To check the relations between variables, some of them were grouped and scaled by cal-culating the means of the groups. Before, correlation matrix and reliability analysis were performed to verify the validity of scaling. Correlation analysis between the new generalized variables was performed to identify the relations between respondents’ perceptions on the tourism development, and attitudes towards local rural tourism development policy.

RESULTS

Table 3 shows entrepreneurs’ attitudes towards the economic and socio-cultural impacts of tourism, and local tourism development policy.

Table 3: Descriptive statistics of answers to the questions measuring the perception of tourism impacts and attitudes towards local rural development policy

Statement Mean Standard N Deviation

Positive economic impacts:

Tourism increases availability of jobs 4.45 0.63 56

Creates business opportunities for local rural residents 4.52 0.79 56

Tourism brings new customers to local products 4.59 0.63 56

Generates revenues for the local municipality 4.63 0.62 54

97Tourism Today - Fall 2014 - Full Paper

Entrepreneurs' perspectives towards rural tourism development in North Karelia

Negative economic impacts:

Leads to the increase of the cost of living (e.g. goods, services, land and housing) 2.93 1.15 54

Tourism income concentrates on a small group of people 2.78 1.05 55

Positive impacts on provision of infrastructure and services:

Tourism enhances maintenance and development of infrastructure 4.15 0.74 54

Tourism enhances the provision of public services 3.66 1.08 56

Positive socio-cultural impacts:

Tourism increases local people’s pride on their home area/place 4.20 0.81 54

Tourism helps to maintain local cultural heritage 4.32 0.86 56

Tourism helps to preserve and develop local unique skills and features (handicrafts, cuisine, festivals) 4.42 0.75 53

Negative socio-cultural impacts:

Tourism increases traffic congestion and accidents 2.37 1.03 54

Leads to the increase in noise and pollution in rural areas 2.66 1.08 56

Tourists are preferred at the cost of locals 2.22 0.99 55

Tourism has negative impacts on local traditions and customs 2.07 0.91 56

Tourism product development and commercialization degrades local culture 2.02 1.05 53

Tourism has harmful impacts on local population by increasing crime and alcoholism 1.96 0.85 54

Opinion on development related capacities of local residents:

Local rural residents have financial resources to participate in rural tourism development 2.71 0.94 52

Local rural residents have the vocational skills to participate in rural tourism development 3.11 1.06 56

Parhad Keyim and Czesław Adamiak

98 Tourism Today - Fall 2014 - Full Paper

Attitude towards local rural development policy:

Local rural residents can participate in the processes of rural tourism development decision making 3.26 1.09 55

Local rural residents can participate in the rural tourism development planning 3.46 0.98 55

Local rural residents can participate in the processes of rural tourism development implementing 3.72 0.86 53

Information on rural tourism development is publicly available 3.53 1.03 53

Local rural tourism development decision is jointly made by the public, private and the third sectors 3.21 0.94 52

Local rural tourism development plan is jointly made by the public, private and the third sectors 3.26 0.96 53

Local rural tourism development is jointly implemented by the public, private and the third sectors 3.48 1.00 52

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS OF TOURISM

The impacts most often noticed by entrepreneurs are the positive economic impacts (profits to municipalities, new customers, business opportunities, and jobs). Positive impacts on the provision of infrastructure and positive cultural impacts were also noticed, especially main-taining local culture.

The negative economic and sociocultural impacts were not seen as important, all got answers below 3 (neutral answer) on average, relatively the most important negative impacts noticed by the entrepreneurs are the increase of the cost of living (mean 2.93), uneven income distri-bution (mean 2.78) and increase in noise and pollution (mean 2.66).

ATTITUDES TOWARD LOCAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT RELAT-ED CAPACITIES OF LOCAL RESIDENTS

The respondents have moderately positive opinion on the local (rural) tourism development policy: the participation of local residents in rural tourism development planning, decision making and implementing, cooperation between the public, private and third sectors in lo-cal rural tourism development, and public availability of information about rural tourism development.

99Tourism Today - Fall 2014 - Full Paper

Entrepreneurs' perspectives towards rural tourism development in North Karelia

The opinions whether the development related capacities of local residents (e.g. skills and financial resources) are sufficient for the local tourism development are mixed, neutral on average.

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OPINIONS ABOUT LOCAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND PERCEPTIONS OF VARIOUS IMPACTS OF TOURISM

The correlations between the opinions about local tourism development policy and percep-tions of various impacts of tourism are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Correlations between measures of perception of impacts of tourism and opin-ion about local rural development policy

Variable Pearson Sig. Correlation (2-tailed)

Positive economic impacts +0.353 0.008

Local cost of living -0.003 0.824

Local tourism income concentration -0.216 0.109

Provision of infrastructure and services +0.185 0.171

Positive cultural impacts +0.342 0.010

Negative socio-cultural impacts -0.224 0.097

Development related capacities of local residents +0.434 0.001

Note: The variables were obtained by scaling answers on groups of questions enumerated in table 3.

Significant, moderately strong positive correlations were found between the opinions on lo-cal development policy, and the perception of the positive economic and cultural impacts of tourism, as well as the development related capacities of local residents. Also the correlation between the perception of local policy and the opinion on the positive impacts of tourism on the provision of infrastructure and services is positive, but not statistically significant. The re-lations between opinion on local policy and the perception of negative impacts: income con-centration and negative socio-cultural impacts are negative, but not statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

Tourism in Finland has been seen as a potential rural development mechanism thanks to its positive socioeconomic contributions (Pesonen et al., 2013; Komppula & Reijonen, 2006; Saarinen, 2007). This study suggests that tourism in North Karelia is recognized (at least by

Parhad Keyim and Czesław Adamiak

100 Tourism Today - Fall 2014 - Full Paper

the entrepreneurs) as a mechanism to minimize socio-economic problems in the area. The local entrepreneurs notice more positive socio-economic impacts of tourism (e.g. profits to municipalities, demand for local products, business and job opportunities, a better provision of infrastructure and services, and maintaining local culture) than negative ones (e.g. the increase of living costs, uneven income distribution, and increase in noise and pollution).

Local entrepreneurs have moderately positive opinion on the local (rural) tourism develop-ment policy: securing community participation, ensuring the public availability of informa-tion, and encouraging cooperation between the public, private and third sectors in local rural tourism development. This finding implies that there may exist favorable rural development policies and practices, specifically ‘tourism collaboration’ approach (Keyim, 2014) in the North Karelia that seeks to maximize the socioeconomic contribution of tourism through the best use of existing local rural resources. Making full use of local comparative advantage of peripheral areas in Finland is economically more sustainable in the long term than any exter-nal intervention that aims to promote local employment (Tykkyläinen, 2006).

However, the entrepreneurs do not think that they have sufficient development related ca-pacities (e.g. skills and financial resources) that are important ingredients of ‘tourism col-laboration’ and that should be enhanced with the support of local authorities (Keyim, 2014). Stronger support (e.g. preferential tax policy, simplified license procedures etc.) is essential for small tourism enterprises in Finland (Pesonen et al, 2013).

Further, this study tries to investigate the relationship between the local tourism development policy and socioeconomic contribution of tourism. In general, the results indicate that the more positively the entrepreneurs evaluate the local policy the more benefits they see from tourism to local area. This result is partly similar to Hyytiä and Kola’s (2013) findings that the policy of further strengthening local services, which includes tourism industry, would promote economic development in North Karelia. However, due to the limitation of sample size, these results might not be sufficiently supported. It is worth conducting more empirical research within differing socio-economic and institutional rural settings in order to clarify the relationship between the local development policy and socioeconomic contribution of tourism.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The first author thanks the Kyösti Haataja Foundation (project 201410017) for its financial support.

101Tourism Today - Fall 2014 - Full Paper

Entrepreneurs' perspectives towards rural tourism development in North Karelia

REFERENCES

• Ashley, C., & Maxwell, S. (2001). Rethinking rural development. Development policy review, 19(4), 395–425.

• Brida, J. G., Osti, L., Barquet, A. (2010). Segmenting Resident Perceptions towards Tour-ism – a Cluster Analysis with a Multinominal Logit Model of a Mountain Community. International Journal of Tourism Research 12, 591–602.

• Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. (1998). The policy dimensions of rural tourism and recreation. In R. Butler, C.M.Hall and J. Jenkins, (Eds.), Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas (p. 19–42). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

• Hall, C. M., Saarinen, J., & Müller, D. K. (2009). Nordic Tourism: Issues and Cases. Bristol: Channel View.

• Harrill, R. (2004). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism development: a literature review with implications for tourism planning. Journla of Planning Literature 18(3), 251–266.

• Hyytiä, N., & Kola, J. (2013). Tourism Policy as a Tool for Rural Development. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, ppt025.

• Komppula, R. (2014). The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of com-petitiveness for a rural tourism destination–A case study. Tourism Management, 40, 361–371.

• Komppula, R., & Reijonen, H. (2006). Performance determinants in small and micro tour-ism business. Tourism Review, 61(4), 13–20.

• Lane, B. (1994). What is rural tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(1), 7–21.

• Müller, D. K. (2013) Rural Tourism in the Nordic Countries – A Short Assessment. In C. Fredricsson and L. Smas, (eds.). Small-scale Tourism in Rural Areas - Trends and Re-search in the Nordic Countrie (p. 15–22). Stockholm: Nordregio Working Paper 2013:3.

• OECD. (2006). The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance. Paris: OECD.

• Parhad Keyim (2014). Collaboration and rural development in a tourism context. (Unpub-lished book chapter).

• Pesonen, J., Vesterinen. N., & Taatinen. T. (2013). National Trends in Rural Tourism – Finland. In C. Fredricsson and L. Smas, (eds.). Small-scale Tourism in Rural Areas - Trends and Research in the Nordic Countries (p.25-33). Stockholm: Nordregio Working Paper 2013:3.

Parhad Keyim and Czesław Adamiak

102 Tourism Today - Fall 2014 - Full Paper

• Puhakka, R., Sarkki, S., Cottrell, S. P., & Siikamäki, P. (2009). Local discourses and in-ternational initiatives: sociocultural sustainability of tourism in Oulanka National Park, Finland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(5), 529–549.

• Rural Policy Committee. 2009. Countryside for Vigorous Finland. Government Report to Parliament on Rural Policy. Sastamala: Rural Policy Committee publications 10/2009.

• Rinne, P., & Saastamoinen, O. (2005). Local economic role of nature-based tourism in Kuhmo Municipality, Eastern Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(2), 89–101.

• Saarinen, J. (2007). Contradictions of rural tourism initiatives in rural development con-texts: Finnish rural tourism strategy case study. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(1), 96–105.

• Shortall, S., & Shucksmith, M. (1998). Integrated rural development: issues arising from the Scottish experience. European Planning Studies, 6(1), 73–88.

• Sharpley, R. (2007). Flagship attractions and sustainable rural tourism development: The case of the Alnwick Garden, England. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 125–143.

• Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Man-agement, 42, 37–49.

• Statistics Finland (2013) Transport and Tourism.

• Tykkyläinen, M. (2006). Dynamics of job creation, restructuring and industrialization in rural Finland. Fennia–International Journal of Geography, 184(2), 151–167.

• Vareiro, L. M. D. C., Remoaldo, P. C., & Cadima Ribeiro, J. A. (2013). Residents’ percep-tions of tourism impacts in Guimarães (Portugal): a cluster analysis. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(6), 535–551.

• VisitKarelia. (2014). North Karelia. < http://www.visitkarelia.fi/en/Travelling/North-Karelia > 06.10.2014.

Article 3

Keyim, P. (2015a). CollaBoraTion and rural develoPmenT in a TouriSm ConTexT. In M. Kozak and N. Kozak, (Eds.), Tourism Development (p. 161-176) Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

CHAPTER TWELVE

COLLABORATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN A TOURISM CONTEXT

PARHAD KEYIM

Abstract

Along with the changes and challenges encountered by the countryside, rural tourism is recognised as a useful development mechanism in terms of its socio–economic contribution. However, tourism’s potential benefits for rural areas may depend upon rural development policies and practices that have been formulated and implemented in different socio–economic and institutional settings. The main purpose of this chapter is to outline a conceptual tourism collaboration approach modulated by the differing socio–economic and institutional rural settings of developed and developing countries. Keywords: collaborative tourism, rural development, institutional setting.

12.1. Introduction

Rural economies and societies around the world, whether in developed or developing countries, have faced major changes and challenges (Ashley & Maxwell, 2001; Gao, Huang, & Huang, 2009; OECD, 2006; Saarinen, 2007; Sharpley, 2007; Shortall & Shucksmith, 1998). These ongoing issues in rural areas have manifested in socio–economic problems such as the decline in employment and incomes, deterioration of amenities and services, and endangerment of ecosystems and landscapes. In this context, tourism in rural areas is recognised as a useful development mechanism in terms of its socio–economic contributions by creating local incomes and employment, reviving weakened amenities and services to residents, and aiding local cultural resource conservation (Hall & Jenkins, 1998). However, an absent or relatively little explored theme in previous studies

Chapter Twelve 162

is the dependence of rural tourism’s potential benefits upon countryside development policies and practices (a collaboration approach in particular) that have been formulated and implemented in different socio–economic and institutional rural settings of developed and developing countries.

More specifically, the ideal tourism collaboration approach emphasises increasing the socio–economic contribution of tourism to rural areas (Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Jamal & Getz, 1995; Selin & Chavez, 1995; Vernon, Essex, Pinder, & Curry, 2005). This is effected by encouraging non-hierarchical and flexible partnerships between the governmental (the public) and non-governmental (business, community and voluntary) sectors (Bramwell, 2011; Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Murdoch, 2000), encouraging bottom-up development and effectively mobilising the local human, cultural and natural resources. However, the feasibility and efficiency of this approach are dependent on the different socio–economic and institutional settings of rural areas. Against this backdrop the main goal of this chapter is to outline a conceptual tourism collaboration model that recognises the differing socio–economic and institutional rural settings of developed and developing countries.

12.2. Literature Review

Gray defines collaboration as “a process of joint decision making among key stakeholders of a problem domain about the future of that domain” (1989, p.227). The problem domain refers to a situation in which the problems are complex and require an inter- or multi-organisational response (Trist, 1983). Stakeholders are actors with an interest or stake in a common problem or issue and include all individuals, groups or organisations “directly influenced by the actions others take to solve a problem” (Gray, 1989, p.5). The concept of collaboration and/or similar concepts have been frequently applied to the fields of tourism and rural studies (Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Cinneide & Burke, 1998; Jamal & Getz, 1995; Murdoch, 2000; Selin & Chavez, 1995; Vernon et al., 2005).

The relationships between collaboration, tourism and development are rather complex and interconnected. Murdoch (2000) argues that because of a lack of binary thinking in terms of development, one needs to consider a ‘network’ (collaboration) approach that links the internal problems of rural areas with external opportunities. In this context, whereas exogenous (top-down) development is the result of outside forces (e.g. market forces and government policy), endogenous (bottom-up) development is the result of local initiatives.

Collaboration and Rural Development in a Tourism Context 163

Some scholars (Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Murdoch, 2000) maintain that governmental and non-governmental collaborations encourage bottom-up development, which increases the socio–economic contribution of tourism at the local rural (i.e. village) level. Bramwell (2011) claims that governance (i.e. governmental and non-governmental partnerships) is important for promoting sustainable development at tourist destinations. The state needs to redefine its role and to encourage the establishment of institutional architecture that supports co-operation and capacity building within and between governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. In other words, in order to avoid the pitfalls of marginal rural areas, external rural development agencies not only need to utilise their economic and political resources, but also to support the development of ‘soft infrastructure’ such as social capital, trust relations and learning capacities by including local actors.

Tourism in rural areas is recognised as a useful development mechanism (Cinneide & Burke, 1998; Murphy, 1988; Simmons, 1994). Rural tourism has been identified as a vehicle for regenerating the rural economy and maintaining rural ways of life (Lane, 1994). More concretely, tourism can contribute to rural areas in a socio–economic perspective by creating local income and employment, contributing local amenities and services, and aiding local cultural resource conservation (Hall & Jenkins, 1998).

However, the socio–economic contributions of tourism to rural areas may depend on countryside development policies and practices (a collaboration approach in particular) that have been formulated and implemented in different socio–economic and institutional settings. The ideal ‘collaboration’ approach emphasises the non-hierarchical and flexible alliance partnerships between governmental and non-governmental actors. However, the existence and feasibility of a ‘collaboration’ approach in situ (e.g. municipalities and villages) depends on the differing socio–economic and institutional settings of rural areas. Hall and Roberts argue that “…it is often difficult, and maybe impractical, to attempt to isolate the role of tourism from other dynamic social, economic and political processes in contributing to developmental outcomes” (2004, p.218). In other words, rural (tourism) development policy and practice need to be carried out through a ‘collaboration’ approach by means of governmental and non-governmental partnerships that are supposed to encourage bottom-up development and increase the socio–economic contribution of tourism in rural municipalities and villages.

Chapter Twelve 164

12.3. A Conceptual Approach

The theoretical framework for this research draws primarily on Selin and Chavez’s (1995) evolutionary tourism partnership model. They suggest that tourism collaboration progresses through five stages: antecedents, problem-setting, direction-setting, structuring and outcomes. Based on this evolutionary tourism partnership model, this research outlines a tourism collaboration approach that can be modulated by the differing socio–economic and institutional settings of rural areas within developed and developing countries (Table 12.1).

Table 12.1 – A collaboration process for rural tourism

Antecedents: Socio–economic and institutional settings of rural areasCollaboration stages

Description

Problem-setting

Common problem identification: the changes and challenges in rural areas (problem domain), which are mainly manifested in socio–economic problems such as decline in employment and income, deterioration of rural amenities and services, and endangerment of rural ecosystems and landscapes, must be commonly identified by all stakeholders.

Recognition of interdependence: maximising the socio–economic contribution of tourism by all actors requires recognition of their interdependence. Because of the multiple stakeholders (i.e. the government, business, community and voluntary sectors) in the tourism industry, the problem domain requires collective action for its resolution and mutual agreement to ensure that the socio–economic benefits outweigh the costs of participation by each partner.

Involvement of broadly-based stakeholders: to avoid problems, rural development requires the involvement of all tourism–related stakeholders to combine and utilise local rural resilience (i.e. knowledge, expertise, and capital resources).

Consensus on legitimate/skilled convener: successful tourism collaboration requires common agreement among stakeholders concerning who has a legitimate stake (i.e. expertise, resources, and authority) in the collaboration issue.

Source: Selin & Chavez, 1995, p. 848; Jamal & Getz, 1995; OECD, 2006.

12.3.1. Contemporary socio–economic and institutional settings

Ashley and Maxwell (2001) have stated that rural areas are changing, particularly with respect to demography and diversification. More specifically:

Collaboration and Rural Development in a Tourism Context 165

- “Rural populations will stabilise while urban populations continue to grow rapidly. Will migration mean that rural areas lose their best young workers and become holding grounds for the very young and very old?” (2001, p.400).

- “Agriculture has declined sharply in relative terms, as an employer and as a contributor to exports and to GDP” (2001, p.398).

- “Most rural income in most places will be non-agricultural in origin (though with linkages to agriculture in many cases)” (2001, p.400).

If urbanisation causes the gradual reduction of social space in rural areas, it concurrently creates increasing demand for rural recreational spaces. The changing trends in rural areas stated above have created opportunities to establish rural recreational spaces in order to satisfy these urban demands and simultaneously provide employment for rural residents. Thus, as Baldock, Dwyer, Lowe, Petersen, and Ward (2001) claim, the countryside is perceived increasingly as a place for living and leisure instead of purely for ‘production/consumption’. For example, rural hinterlands of economically advanced EU regions are increasingly being developed for tourism, second homes, retirement purposes, and nature protection.

In an institutional context, Jamal and Getz argue that “turbulence in the global environment of the 90s is driving the need to develop collaborative coping mechanisms different from the hierarchically structured forms of the traditional organisation” (1995, p.191). Shortall and Shuckmith suggest that “it is clear that the Commission and the European Parliament anticipate a fundamental change in support policies from a sectoral approach (agriculture) to one that is more territorial (rural)” (1998, p.74). More specifically, the socio–economic challenges of rural areas are recognised by the EU Commission and are reflected in its Cork Declaration of 1996. The Declaration aimed at “reversing rural out-migration, combating poverty, stimulating employment and equality of opportunity; and responding to growing requests for more quality, health, safety, personal development and leisure, and improved rural well-being”. In order to achieve these goals, the Declaration proposed an integrated approach to be implemented in the form of a partnership among public, private and community interests (Shortall & Shucksmith, 1998). Integrated rural development emphasises the ‘multifunctionality’ of agriculture (rural areas), and supports various societal goals, including the creation of local rural incomes and employment, and maintenance of rural ecosystems and landscapes.

Chapter Twelve 166

12.3.2. Problem-setting

Selin and Chavez emphasise that “in the problem-setting stage, the various interests begin to appreciate the interdependencies that exist among them and begin to realise that problem resolution will require collective action” (1995, p.849). In the context of tourism and rural development, the problem-setting phase of this conceptual collaboration approach mainly is focused on identifying the problem domain, recognising interdependence, the involvement of all stakeholders, and finding consensus on a legitimate/skilled convener. Common problem identification: The changes and challenges in the contemporary rural world, whether in developed or developing countries, that mainly manifest in socio–economic problems, are well recognised (OECD, 2006; Sharpley, 2007). More specifically, the rural areas of developed Western countries are encountering regeneration problems. These problems are identified clearly by declining employment capacity, income and population, deteriorated rural amenities and services, and endangered rural ecosystems and landscapes affected by rural restructuring: in particular, the mechanisation of primary production and the ‘harmonisation’ of agriculture by European Union policy (Saarinen, 2007). Within developing countries, e.g. China, the rural development pace also is slowing as manifested in the growing income gap between urban and rural residents, and the prominent problem of relocation of extra rural labour, etc. These rural development issues in China are reduced to ‘Three Nong’ issues, namely agriculture, farmers, and rural areas (Gao et al., 2009). In these contexts, tourism is recognised as a useful mechanism that can bring potential benefits to rural areas (Hall & Jenkins, 1998). Recognition of interdependence: The character of the tourism industry with its multiple stakeholders (i.e. state, business, community and voluntary sectors) requires collective action in order to address the problem domain; it cannot be solved by a single actor (Cinneide & Burke, 1998). Specifically, mutual recognition of interdependence among stakeholders is required to maximise the socio–economic benefits of tourism for all actors. Additionally, common agreement among the stakeholders helps to ensure that the socio–economic benefits outweigh the costs of participation for each actor. Involvement of broadly-based stakeholders: According to Gray, “successful collaboration depends on including a broad enough spectrum of stakeholders to mirror the critical components of the problem” (1989,

Collaboration and Rural Development in a Tourism Context 167

p.68). Collaboration needs interactive work by cross-sectoral stakeholders on the problem domain in order to combine each actor’s resilience (e.g. knowledge, expertise, and capital resources) to solve common problems (Vernon et al., 2005). Tourism is a multiple stakeholder industry that is composed of multiple partner interests from the governmental and non-governmental sectors. Cinneide and Burke argue that “the coordinated development and marketing of tourism products requires the cooperation of product providers themselves and effective local and national partnerships between a range of private, public, and statutory stakeholders” (1998, p.305).

Further, the involvement of the various tourism stakeholders, especially community residents, is helpful for solving problems that appear during the implementation phase of tourism collaboration. De Araujo and Bramwell (2002) suggest that any restriction on participation by local communities, residents’ associations, and other local interest groups affects all other aspects of regional tourism development policies and operation. Locals living in a tourist destination suffer the main impacts of tourism (Butler, 1980) and broader social development is achieved only when priority is given to the developmental needs and interests of local communities over the goals of the tourism industry (Brohman, 1996; Simmons, 1994).

However, the inclusion of broadly-based stakeholders during collaboration may depend on the socio–economic and institutional settings of the problem domain. In developed Western countries, the role of the public sector in tourism is limited to establishing a favourable development ‘atmosphere’ (e.g. political, regulatory, and economic) to enable tourism to flourish (Sharpley, 2008). Tourism-related decisions are usually made through inclusive partnerships among the governmental and non-governmental sectors. In developing countries, however, there are operational, structural, and cultural limitations to local communities’ participation in tourism policymaking (Tosun, 2000). Tosun (2000) demonstrates that complex government bureaucracies fragment the planning process and obstruct coordinated policymaking. In some developing countries, there is a lack of opportunities for rural community residents to participate in local decision-making. Additionally, rural residents often have minimal experience of democracy (i.e. bottom-up decision-making and development). For example, in China the government plays the dominant role in tourism development, acting as planner, investor, investment stimulator, promoter, educator, and regulator (Keyim, 2012; Qin, Wall, & Liu, 2011). Thus, rural (tourism) development policy and practice emphasise the state’s dominant role without sufficiently

Chapter Twelve 168

considering other rural development actors that include local rural community residents (Bao & Sun, 2007; Keyim, 2012; Li, 2004; Li, Lai, & Feng, 2007). Rural residents in China are in a relatively inferior position among tourism stakeholders, since procedures that guarantee citizens the right to participate in public decision-making before, during, and after an event are not yet established as they are in Western societies (Bao & Sun, 2007). Consensus on legitimate/skilled convener: Collaboration requires common agreement among stakeholders concerning who has a legitimate stake in the issue. Pearce, Moscardo, and Ross (1996) highlight five prerequisites to participation: legal rights and opportunities to participate, access to information, provision of enough resources for people or groups to get involved, and being genuinely public, which is broad instead of selective, and involvement from the concerned communities. Bramwell and Sharman argue that “concern for the important systemic constraints which affect collaboration is integrated with the need to identify whether there is evidence of more democratic forms of policymaking” (1999, p.395). Partnerships may be more successful when they are led by a convener who is perceived as having legitimacy, expertise, resources, and authority and for this reason can be a government agency, industrial firm, or group (e.g. local Chamber of Commerce, tourist firm, LEADER organisation) (Jamal & Getz, 1995; Parker, 2000).

However, Murdoch and Abram (1998) counter that in a certain policy sector the state still needs to impose a ‘dominant strategic line’ since it usually dominates economic and political resources. In other words, the government should attract new external industries in order to solve the problems of marginality and backwardness of rural areas by utilising its economic and political resources (e.g. relatively advanced skills, experience, and preferential policy for land allocation and tax). Edwards, Goodwin, Pemberton, and Woods (2001) emphasise that although the responsibility of local state authorities has shifted to ‘partnership’ governance that is composed of a wider range of actors, ‘partnership committees’ remain dominated by state sector representatives, who steer partnership working, promote partnerships in policy documentation, and instigate, fund and resource partnerships. The lack of community ownership, capital, skills, knowledge and resources, as pointed out by Scheyvens (1999), constrains the countryside’s ability to fully control its participation in tourism development. In the Chinese vertical bureaucratic system, the government and its ‘business-bureaucracy collaboration’ partner (e.g. external enterprises) have become the legitimate convener of

Collaboration and Rural Development in a Tourism Context 169

rural (tourism) development, as they control the necessary ingredients for such development including policies, funds, community resources, land and local cultural heritage (Li et al., 2007). Also, Ying and Zhou argue that “in fact, China’s current vertical bureaucratic system, which lacks a clear definition of governments’ respective purviews and commitments in administration, enables the governments to intervene into the rural cultural tourism development to an optional extent, according to their practical interests and needs” (2007, p.104).

12.3.3. Direction-setting

The direction-setting phase of collaboration focuses on the achievement of ‘policy consensus’ (Vernon et al., 2005) among stakeholders on the solution of the problem domain. In other words, it emphasises the collective in the deeper exploration and negotiation of the problem by members and their intention to reach agreement. Goal establishment: Within challenged rural areas, tourism is identified and appreciated as a socio–economic development mechanism. However, tourism’s perceived role in this development may be appreciated differently in different socio-political settings (socio–economic and institutional context). That is to say, although the developed Western world is interested in the economic benefits of tourism for rural areas, it also considers the negative socio-cultural impacts. However, developing countries, such as China, mainly focus on the economic benefits of tourism in rural areas (e.g. creating income and employment) but overlook the negative socio–cultural impacts (Bao & Sun, 2007; Yang & Wall, 2008). Thus, one needs to consider the multiple interests of different stakeholders during collaboration. Otherwise, the ‘economy priority’ aim of a rural (tourism) development strategy in developing countries could lead to the flourishing of ‘business-bureaucracy collaboration’ (Keyim, 2012; Li et al., 2007) at the expense of more inclusive collaboration that includes the governmental and non-governmental sectors. Basic role establishment: Maximising and/or evenly distributing the socio–economic contribution of tourism to rural areas requires the encouragement of non-hierarchical and flexible alliances, partnerships among tourism-related government and non-government stakeholders. In other words, collaboration not only requires the involvement of all stakeholders but also non-hierarchical and flexible alliances among them. Vernon et al. argue that “incomplete representation, unequal power

Chapter Twelve 170

relations of stakeholders, or lack of accountability can weaken the effectiveness of policies and initiatives” (2005, p.329). Jamal and Getz suggest that “a stakeholder who is impacted by the actions of other stakeholders has a right to become involved in order to moderate those impacts, but must also have the resources and skills (capacity) in order to participate” (1995, p.194). Thus, the participation of non–governmental stakeholders must be encouraged by strengthening their development-related capacities, including vocational skills and financial resources, decision-making, and implementing power (Keyim, 2012).

12.3.4. Structuring (implementation)

The structuring (implementation) phase of collaboration involves institutionalising the shared meanings of the group and devising a regulatory framework to guide future collective action (Gray, 1985). Formalising relationships: Theoretically the ideal collaboration should be established among the various government and non-government stakeholders on an equal power basis. However, in practice the power of stakeholders is often unequal: “power governs the interaction of individuals, organisations and agencies influencing, or trying to influence, the formulation of tourism policy and the manner in which it is implemented” (Hall, 1994, p.52). Similarly, Bramwell and Sharman note that because of the power imbalance between stakeholders “collaborative arrangements in destinations can become conversations among local elites, rather than involving a representative range of stakeholders” (1999, p.396). The views of powerful participants (e.g. elites such as the government) may prevail in collaboration if sustained attention is not paid to the interests, values, and attitudes of all participants (Joppe, 1996). Yang and Wall (2008) argue that insufficient planning supervision in China has led to many problems, such as power abuse and corruption, and local tourism planning can become a tool to satisfy power holders and business interests at the expense of public benefits. Thus, the collaboration convener (usually the government) needs to step back to encourage collective decision-making and consensus-building in order to intensify participation (Robinson, 1997). In other words, the public sector needs to act as a ‘provider’ rather than an ‘enabler’ during collaborative policymaking by encouraging more ‘bottom-up’, decentralised, and inclusive forms of governance that would allow local communities and businesses to take more responsibility (Vernon et al., 2005) and maximise the socio–economic contribution of tourism to the local rural community.

Collaboration and Rural Development in a Tourism Context 171

Adequate resources for collaboration: Jamal and Getz (1995) suggest that sufficient resources, including expertise, time, and money, are needed to ensure the progress of collaboration. Scott (2004) argues that various stakeholders do not have the necessary resources to handle the multi-dimensional nature of the rural development problem. The partnership process itself requires investment for capacity-building and skill development of partners, especially for the most marginalised, weaker, and less-experienced interests in the community. Citing Putnam (1993), Shortall and Shuckmith (1998) contend that the essence of ‘capacity building’ is the creation of social capital of various forms that could benefit the whole community. Leadership and other skills, organisational and physical infrastructure, partnership and co-ordination, community confidence and identity, entrepreneurship, networks, trust, and even social cohesion are all examples of the social capital that can be created or enhanced through such an approach. Murdoch and Abram (1998) argue that the limitation of community residents during partnership work, caused perhaps by a lack of abilities or resources, requires the government to emphasise an ‘exogenous development’ approach in order to protect the least active residents and communities. The government also needs to encourage ‘endogenous development’ for the best use of existing rural resources that are critical to rural development. In other words, grass–roots ‘bottom–up’ development practices should be encouraged in order to solve some critical problems such as over–reliance on state support, dependence on single–sector large firms, and marginalisation of small–scale local enterprises. Local tacit knowledge can also be utilised as a resource for local capacity-building.

12.4. Conclusion

Based on Selin and Chavez’s (1995) evolutionary tourism partnership model, which progresses through stages of antecedents, problem-setting, direction-setting, structuring, and outcomes, this article outlines a tourism collaboration approach that can be modulated by the differing socio–economic and institutional settings of rural areas within developed and developing countries. These tourism collaboration phases are interconnected and, as Vernon et al. (2005) claim, the overall effectiveness of collaboration will be determined by influences in each of the collaboration phases.

According to this framework, resolving the common socio–economic problems that are caused by the changes and challenges in rural areas of

Chapter Twelve 172

the developed and developing world requires collaboration between the governmental and non-governmental (business, community, and voluntary) sectors in the form of non-hierarchical and flexible alliances and partnerships. In this context, tourism collaboration begins with the problem-setting stage that is initiated through an appreciation of the challenges by rural (tourism) development–related stakeholders. The recognition of the interdependence and broader involvement of stakeholders from all sectors is required at this stage in order to combine and utilise the resilience of the various stakeholders and to prevent problems during the implementation phase of tourism collaboration. However, the inclusion of broadly-based stakeholders during collaboration, which is best led by a legitimate and skilled convener, is modulated by the differing socio–economic and institutional settings of rural areas within developed and developing countries. In other words, the representativeness of various stakeholders during tourism collaboration needs to be considered in differing socio–economic and institutional contexts of rural areas in developed and developing countries.

Subsequently, the direction–setting phase of collaboration will be introduced through the identification and appreciation of tourism as a socio–economic development mechanism by all the rural development-related stakeholders. However, this perceived goal of tourism development in rural areas might be set differently in the various socio–economic and institutional settings of developed and developing countries. At this stage of collaboration the involvement of the various stakeholders from all sectors, especially the involvement of community stakeholders, for the purpose of maximising and evenly distributing the socio–economic contribution of tourism to rural areas can be modulated by differing socio–economic and institutional settings.

Finally, the structuring or implementation phase of tourism collaboration requires construction of a suitable structure for institutionalising the tourism and rural development process that supports the maximisation of its socio–economic contribution to the local rural community. It needs to establish a broader and equal partnership between governmental and non–governmental stakeholders, especially concerning decision-making and implementing power, in order to advocate the representativeness of stakeholders with different backgrounds. However, the broader involvement of stakeholders from all sectors during all phases of the tourism collaboration approach, especially the involvement of community stakeholders, is modulated by differing socio–economic and institutional rural settings within developed and developing countries. This all-inclusive tourism collaboration approach requires adequate resources to ensure the implementation of

Collaboration and Rural Development in a Tourism Context 173

collaboration through the provision of external and/or internal mandates, including initial government investment in community capacity–building and encouragement of ‘bottom–up’ development.

Overall, the problem-setting, direction-setting, and structuring phases of the collaboration approach, which are interconnected in the context of tourism and rural development, are modulated by the differing socio–economic and institutional settings of rural areas within developed and developing countries. Thus, the outcomes of tourism collaboration, which are seen to have a more positive than negative impact, are also affected by the differing socio–economic and institutional settings of rural areas. This study merely attempts to investigate tourism collaboration in a rural context through a conceptual approach; it would be worth conducting empirical research within socio–economic and institutional rural settings in different countries in order to prove the feasibility and efficiency of tourism collaboration in these contexts.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the Kyösti Haataja Foundation (project no – 201410017) for its financial support. Special thanks to Paul Fryer for his improvement of the manuscript.

References

Ashley, C., & Maxwell, S. (2001). Rethinking rural development. Development Policy Review, 19(4), 395-425.

Baldock, D., Dwyer, J., Lowe, P., Petersen, J.E., & Ward, N. (2001). The nature of rural development: Towards a sustainable integrated rural policy in Europe. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy.

Bao, J.G., & Sun, J.X. (2007). Differences in community participation in tourism development between China and the West. Chinese Sociology & Anthropology, 39(3), 9-27.

Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: A political economy approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 459-477.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2011). Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 411-421.

Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 392-415.

Chapter Twelve 174

Brohman, J. (1996). New directions in tourism for third world development. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 48-70.

Butler, R.W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5-12.

Cinneide, M., & Burke, J. (1998). The development of community-based rural tourism in Ireland. In C. Neil, & M. Tykkyläinen (eds.). Local economic development: A geographical comparison of rural community restructuring (pp. 209-306). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

De Araujo, L.M., & Bramwell, B. (2002). Partnership and regional tourism in Brazil. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4), 1138-1164.

Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S., & Woods, M. (2001). Partnerships, power, and scale in rural governance. Environment and Planning C, 19(2), 289-310.

Gao, S., Huang, S., & Huang, Y. (2009). Rural tourism development in China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(5), 439-450.

Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations, 38(10), 911- 936.

—. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Press.

Hall, C.M. (1994). Tourism and politics: policy, power and place. Chichester: John Wiley.

Hall, D., & Roberts, L. (2004). Conclusions and future agenda. In D. Hall (Ed.), Tourism and transition: Governance, transformation, and development (pp. 217-227). Trowbridge: Cromwell Press.

Hall, M., & Jenkins, J. (1998). The policy dimensions of rural tourism and recreation. In R. Butler, M. Hall, & J. Jenkins (eds.). Tourism and recreation in rural areas (pp.19-42). Chichester: John Wiley.

Jamal, T.B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 186-204.

Joppe, M. (1996). Sustainable community tourism development revisited. Tourism Management, 17(7), 475-479.

Keyim, P. (2012). Government roles in rural tourism development: a case from Turpan. Tourism Today, 12, 113-133.

Lane, B. (1994). What is rural tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(1-2), 7-21.

Li, Y. (2004). Exploring community tourism in China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(3), 175-193.

Collaboration and Rural Development in a Tourism Context 175

Li, Y., Lai, K., & Feng, X. (2007). The problem of ‘Guanxi’ for actualizing community tourism: A case study of relationship networking in China. Tourism Geographies, 9(2), 115-138.

Murdoch, J. (2000). Networks—a new paradigm of rural development? Journal of Rural Studies, 16(4), 407-419.

Murdoch, J., & Abram, S. (1998). Defining the limits of community governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 41-50.

Murphy, P.E. (1988). Community driven tourism planning. Tourism Management, 9(2), 96-104.

OECD (2006). The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance. Paris: OECD.

Parker, S. (2000). Collaboration on tourism policy making: Environmental and commercial sustainability on Bonaire, NA. In B. Bramwell, & B. Lane (eds.). Tourism collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practice and sustainability (pp. 78-97). Clevedon: Channel View.

Pearce, P.L., Moscardo, G.M., & Ross, G.F. (1996). Tourism community relationships. Oxford: Pergamon.

Qin, Q., Wall, G., & Liu, X. (2011). Government roles in stimulating tourism development: A case from Guangxi, China. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5), 471-487.

Robinson, G.M. (1997). Community-based planning: Canada’s Atlantic coastal action program (ACAP). Geographical Journal, 163(1), 25-37.

Saarinen, J. (2007). Contradictions of rural tourism initiatives in rural development contexts: Finnish rural tourism strategy case study. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(1), 96-105.

Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management, 20(2), 245-249.

Scott, M. (2004). Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: the role of partnership governance in the LEADER II programme. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(1), 49-59.

Selin, S., & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing an evolutionary tourism partnership model. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 844-856.

Sharpley, R. (2007). Flagship attractions and sustainable rural tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 125-143.

—. (2008). Planning for tourism: The case of Dubai. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 5(1), 13-30.

Shortall, S., & Shucksmith, M. (1998). Integrated rural development: issues arising from the Scottish experience. European Planning Studies, 6(1), 73-88.

Simmons, D.G. (1994). Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management, 15(2), 98-108.

Chapter Twelve 176

Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21(6), 613-633.

Trist, E. (1983). Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains. Human Relations, 36(3), 269-284.

Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D., & Curry, K. (2005). Collaborative policymaking: Local sustainable projects. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 325-345.

Yang, L., & Wall, G. (2008). The evolution and status of tourism planning: Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 5(2), 165-182.

Ying, T., & Zhou, Y. (2007). Community, governments and external capitals in China's rural cultural tourism: A comparative study of two adjacent villages. Tourism Management, 28(1), 96-107.

Article 4

Keyim, P. (2015B). TouriSm and rural develoPmenT in weSTern China: a CaSe from TurPan. Community Development Journal. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsv046. This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PdF of an article accepted for publication in Community development Journal following peer review. The version of record Keyim, P. (2015b). Tourism and rural development in western China: A case from Turpan. Community development Journal. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsv046. is available online at http://cdj.oxfordjour-nals.org/content/early/2015/12/19/cdj.bsv046.abstract.

Article 5

Keyim, P. (2016). TouriSm CollaBoraTive governanCe and rural CommuniTy develoPmenT in finland: The CaSe of lieKSa (under review).