‘If they touch our cloudberries,that means war’: Rural liveability and acceptance of environmental impacts from event tourism

Introduction

The increase in visitors to nature in northern Sweden (JHT, 2021; Tillväxtverket, 2020) raises questions about how actors in the area view the immediate environmental impacts. Nature-based events rely on physical resources and aesthetics to design routes and create memorable experiences (Hinch and Kono, 2018; Margaryan and Fredman, 2021). However, the impact on nature is not only limited to the aesthetics. Impacts specifically related to nature-based events are still largely unknown, but common impacts from individual outdoor activities include soil erosion, loss of vulnerable vegetation (Manning, 2011), littering and water quality degradation (Marion et al., 2016). The presence of a large number of people over a short time can severely damage the trails and surrounding vegetation (Salesa and Cerdà, 2020). Heavy use opens up new trails and compacts the ground, preventing vegetation from recovering (Havlick et al., 2016). At the same time, visitors can be a source of empowerment for local actors, but also a sensitive issue when the quality of nature is spoiled (Strzelecka et al., 2023). Despite the environmental impacts, different actors still seem to endorse and accept private organisers utilising nature for events (e.g. Dobeson, 2021; Hinch and Holt, 2017, see also Sharpley, 2020). I therefore ask, how do local actors shape their favourable view of an event despite the physical impacts on nature?

There is an evident lack of non-economic contributions to event research in publications. Events are often depicted as taking place in an ‘empty space’ or as ‘a force majeure’ for organisers or public authorities to vanquish (Margaryan and Fredman, 2021). While organisers and policies often aim to balance the social, environmental and economic factors according to the triple-bottom line, this sustainability model has been criticised for a priori measures that fail to address emergent environmental and social problems related to events (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018; Smith-Christensen, 2009; Weed, 2014). Although events can bring about social opportunities, social cohesion and civic engagement (Mair, 2019; O’Brien and Chalip, 2007), the limited time and space that characterise events (Getz, 2020) can have long-lasting environmental impacts that spawn social consequences, such as internal conflicts regarding overuse of local resources and a sense of ownership. To get beyond the triple-bottom-line sustainability, and to understand how events relate and connect to local actors, Mair (2019) proposed examining event sustainability based on liveability, viability and equity. In this paper, I use the lens of liveability to understand how local actors view and relate to the environmental impacts of events.

This paper is set within the Anthropocene era, which discusses how humanity culturally relates to a changing planet and its relationship with nature (Moore, 2019). I explore how actors view the impact before, during and after the annual trail marathon Fjällmaraton in an inland region of northern Sweden. Previous studies have described local actors in the area as being closely connected to the surrounding landscape, perceiving it as majestic (Wall-Reinius et al., 2019). However, the increasing number of visitors and the subsequent damage to the natural environment has created tensions, particularly regarding the right to the land and what effects are considered as acceptable (Godtman et al., 2019; Wall-Reinius et al., 2018). By examining how local actors in the area determine which aspects are important, and how the environmental impacts affect their everyday lives, liveability can therefore provide insights into how acceptance emerges of these impacts.

Liveability and events

Liveability encompasses various aspects, including healthy living conditions, attractive surroundings, social cohesion and inclusion, affordable housing, functional roads and recreational opportunities (Lowe et al., 2015; Mair, 2019). These factors form a complex mosaic of tangible elements such as infrastructure, and intangible elements such as heritage, combined with shifting interactions and renegotiations (Wheeler and Laing, 2008). Additionally, liveability is linked to how local expertise guides ownership and governmental policies (Paul and Sen, 2020; Ruth and Franklin, 2014). Achieving a harmonious coexistence requires a continuous joint re-evaluation of the surroundings (Bauman, 2003) and extends beyond individual happiness or life satisfaction (de Haan et al., 2014; Gieling and Haartsen, 2017; Vergunst, 2003). An operationalised definition can describe liveability as a continuous communitarian discussion that aims to achieve a desirable standard of living in the face of external factors, beyond an individual quality of life.

The relationship between human actors and the environment is increasingly important as climate change drives the need to live and use resources sustainably (de Haan et al., 2014). This requires new self-assessment tools to determine how local environments satisfy the needs and well-being of local actors (de Haan et al., 2014; Lowe et al., 2015). However, promoting a healthy environment and sustainable development for the well-being of local actors can potentially be detrimental to nature. Norgaard (2011) presented such a dilemma in her study of a rural town in Norway. While the local residents were aware of and concerned by the effect of climate change, they continued their daily lives without changing their behaviour. Hence, liveability alone does not always capture the complexity of how local actors relate to sustainability challenges and the connection with the environment.

To add some nuance to these aspects of liveability, Buen Vivir (Spanish for ‘living well’; see Villalba, 2013) is a concept originating from Latin America that discusses the usage of natural resources in relation to a sense of ownership over future development, the integration of different groups, democratisation and the guarantee of basic needs. Rather than relying solely on self-assessments of the surroundings, consideration should be given to who ultimately benefits from the exploration and development (Beling et al., 2018; Chassagne, 2020; Vanhulst and Beling, 2014). This perspective is particularly relevant to the development of tourism and events. To ensure that tourism is meaningful for local actors, strategies and policies must incorporate local perspectives, knowledge and practices to guide future development (Chassagne and Everingham, 2019). This inclusion should reflect a plurality of knowledges (Sousa Santos, 2014), in which different types of knowledge and practices bring about solutions that address local needs (Buzinde et al., 2020). Despite this, local actors are often excluded from planning and nature resources are commodified for outside purposes (Acosta, 2012; Walsh, 2018). To create social cohesion, planning and policies must embrace a plurality of knowledges that recognise various styles of living (Chassagne, 2020; Sousa Santos, 2014), based on the symbolic and material discourse from the area (Tetreault, 2017). Given this, liveability needs to encompass a discussion of how private and public entities utilise resources and how local actors embrace activities such as events for their benefit.

Local actors formalise a collective narrative from the challenges they confront regarding visitors in everyday life. Visitors’ desires for new experiences constantly interact with the host and the surroundings, bringing issues to the surface (Selstad, 2007). This is exemplified by the Dutch island of Texel, where tourism altered everyday life for local actors in terms of avoiding crowded places, traffic, barriers to other types of development and perceived deterioration of nature-based values (van der Duim and Caalders, 2004). The local actors found informal solutions to problems without undermining the consensus. Additionally, Gieling and Haartsen (2017) found that satisfied community members were less likely to volunteer actively to improve their surroundings, whereas those who were dissatisfied volunteered more frequently. These examples demonstrate that a liveable place necessitates a will for active engagement and a caring attitude for the surroundings, but also shows that tourism drives local participation when issues emerge.

Events are just one component of liveability, fostering social cohesion, connections between people and engagement in the local place, especially when they involve local actors (Mair, 2019; Mair and Smith, 2021). Events become especially fruitful when they include existing networks and cooperation to retain the economic benefits (Chalip, 2004). They are also framed as a developmental tool that can address social-cultural and sustainable issues, enabling cross-organisational collaboration and catalysing actions (Getz and Page, 2016). However, events sometimes fail to address issues that are relevant to the general public and may run the risk of becoming more of a political project (Dredge and Whitford, 2011; Phi et al., 2014), over-emphasise commercialisation and social values (Arcodia and Whitford, 2007; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2016; Mair and Whitford, 2013) or a vehicle for tourism development that fails to include relevant issues for the residents (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018). Events are not occasions outside an ordinary context but are intertwined within local cultures (Pernecky, 2013). Events promote liveability when they involve and interlink with local cultures. However, the short timeframe of events actualises how local actors experience and manage the nearby resources, magnifying how liveability relates with events.

Fjällmaraton

This study follows the Fjällmaraton (Mountain Marathon) in Jämtland, in north-central Sweden. It is a nature and participant-based mountain marathon held over 2 weeks in June and August. The event largely follows established hiking paths and begins and ends in the villages of Vålådalen, Ottsjö and Trillevallen. The area is renowned for winter sport, and the event is a significant summer sport competition. Since its first edition in 2005, the Fjällmaraton has grown to host around 2000 participants in 2021.

Jämtland

The study area is characterised by a mosaic of high peaks, highlands and forest-covered valleys that are ideal for outdoor summer activities. It is a sparsely populated area with fewer than 300 permanent inhabitants and an estimated 100 second-home owners. Åre, a well-known ski tourism destination in Sweden, is located a 40-minute drive away and has emerged as an attractive destination for summer sports. In addition, visiting natural areas in Sweden is based on Allemansrätten, a constitutional right that allows local and foreign visitors to roam freely on private and public land. The region is of interest to several stakeholders, including residents, landowners, hunters, hotel owners and Sami reindeer herders. The Sami are an indigenous people primarily living in northern Sweden, Norway, Finland and Russia. In Sweden they have exclusive rights to certain resources connected to their cultural heritage, particularly reindeer husbandry and hunting (Rydberg, 2011). Recent developments led to discussions and tension about nature protection, as for example when there was a proposal for a national park in the area, as it perceives to change local way of living and sense of ownership (Wall-Reinius et al., 2018). The Fjällmaraton adds to the complexity of the number of interests in the area.

Methodology

Through an ontological assemble reality of events (see Kapferer, 2015), the data is based on a qualitative multi-method research study conducted between May and September 2021. This study included semi-structured and casual conversation interviews, as well as participant and photo-elicitation observations. I approached all informants for interview through spontaneous conversations, during which I first introduced the research inquiry, the objective of the research and then general questions about environmental impacts. All informants for these interviews signed a consent form stating that their participation was anonymous and that they could withdraw any time. Some informants withdrew before meeting, fearing that participation might lead to further conflicts. They have been given a short description instead of names to avoid revealing their identities (see Supplemental Appendix). All interviews apart from two were recorded and more extensive notes were taken during the non-recorded interviews. All interviews were conducted in Swedish, in a comfortable setting to establish trustworthiness and to encourage the informants to maintain their standpoints, norms and values, as suggested by Lincoln (2004) and Hollinshead (2004).

Semi-structured interviews were held with 30 informants who are full-time or part-time residents, or are regularly active in the area. The informants included retirees, senior citizens, small-scale tourism entrepreneurs, landowners, reindeer herders, remote workers, tourism employees, business stakeholders and frequent recreationists. Four of the informants were second-home owners who knew the area well, and seven frequently visited the area for work or pleasure. Local inhabitants and second-home owners may have a more heterogeneous attachment to places than permanent residents (Adie et al., 2022), which enriches the findings. Two informants chose phone interviews even though they lived in the area. The interviews lasted between 30 minutes and 2 hours, with an average duration of around 50 minutes. The questions were adapted from initial academic research questions following a thematic interview guideline (Brinkmann and Kvale, 2018). A funnel structure allowed generous space to create narratives and encourage exploration of subjects for later clarification during the conversation (Galletta, 2013). The informants were first asked about their daily lives to reflect and familiarise themselves with concepts, such as nature, impacts and development. Next, they were asked about development and impacts from the event and tourism. The third section explored subjects that arose during the interview. All interviews were transcribed verbatim. Selected quotes were translated.

Since some of the topics that arose during interviews were sensitive, I began engaging in casual conversations. These types of interviews a non-linear structure proved to be particularly fruitful, because they uncover details in freer discussions while still keeping the research objective in mind (Bernard, 2017), thus bringing attitudes and feelings to the surface, unpacking complex problems and checking the validity of the other interviews (Picken, 2018). These casual conversations encompassed over 30 informants, and lasted between a few minutes and an hour. They were not recorded and the key features were noted afterwards allowing for the natural conversation to flow.

Notes were added based on participant observation on reactions and situations that occurred before and during the days of the event. Additionally, photo-elicitation observation of the environmental impacts was conducted during the event to discuss with informants. Photos enrich the data, eliciting emotions during conversations (Rose, 2016).

The analysis followed a three-phase coding process (Saldaña, 2016), starting with pattern codes, followed by provisional codes and then fixed themes. The analysis was done abductively, allowing for a back-and-forth dialogue between theory and the data, and sense-making to confirm the theory and produce plausible results (Kolko, 2010; Thomas, 2010; Timmermans and Tavory, 2022).

Findings

Three analytical categories develop how the informants expressed acceptance of the impacts of the event. First, I describe how the general acceptance of the impacts emerged, then how the local actors engage within and outside the event structure to prevent impacts, and finally how the acceptance changed in relation to future development.

Discussion

Researchers have suggested that events need to contribute and be relevant to local well-being, rather than exist for outsiders (Arcodia and Whitford, 2007; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2016; Mair and Duffy, 2015). Local actors tend to accept the impacts of the events (Sharpley, 2020), and while empowerment and a stronger connection with nature are likely to drive support for visitors (Strzelecka et al., 2023), these findings provide some nuance to how acceptance of environmental impacts emerges. In line with Pernecky (2013), and as described within the field of tourism (Prince, 2018, 2019), the Fjällmaraton connects visitors and local actors in mundane practices. Limiting the impacts through various local control mechanisms maintains the acceptance of the event. The culture of different knowledge and practices (Sousa Santos, 2014) blurred the boundaries between local actors and the event organiser, symbolically inviting event participants to be in nature on the same premises. This also shrinks the distance between the host and guests, as well as the organiser and local actors, ensuring symbolic equal use of resources. Unlike the apathy described by Norgaard (2011) towards changing livelihoods due to the global environment, these findings illustrate how physical impact on nature leads to local action. As much as the world shapes the local actors, they shape their acceptance to the event by maintaining resilience as an ingrained part of local culture.

Similar to cloudberries, keeping the narrative among themselves is crucial. Acceptance of the impacts of the event is not about the economic gains but about hope that the event will provide reciprocal benefits, coexistences or a spiritual return. Instead of viewing local involvement as creating acceptance (O’Brien and Chalip, 2007), the Fjällmaraton creates a shared idea of the impact and development. In line with previous research on liveability and tourism (van der Duim and Caalders, 2004), the perceived absence of government support created an urge to act informally. The actions of local actors could indicate dissatisfaction with their surroundings (Gieling and Haartsen, 2017). However, volunteering provides insight into the event that enables them to steer its development beyond formal control. The event is not therefore appreciated but becomes appreciated through a silent negotiation to maintain acceptance. A favourable outward acceptance could arguably not exist without these benefits. Liveability emerges through active engagement, not a passive perceived acceptance.

Looking through a lens of Buen Vivir, which emphasises diversified knowledge and questioning who benefits from the use of resources (Beling et al., 2018; Chassagne, 2020; Vanhulst and Beling, 2014), these findings indicate that indirect involvement with local knowledge and practices helps local actors gain control over the impact and the event. Previous research has shown that events exploration and development come with dire consequences on the environment, resulting in social consequences (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2016, 2018). Involvement and sacrifices create a feeling of ownership and belonging, prevents a heterogeneous world view and enables coexistence (Acosta, 2012; Sousa Santos, 2014). The immediate outward acceptance of the event contradicts concerns over ambiguity surrounding the expansion of tourism. However, the difference with this event is that its impacts are perceived as manageable. When events become a vehicle for development (Dredge and Whitford, 2011; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018), informal involvement creates acceptance and appreciation that steer the development in a more desirable direction. This involvement brings into question who ultimately is the organiser of the event.

The local actors were nevertheless unsure about how to relate to the future development of the event. When nature turns into a commodity for private consumption (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018; van der Duim and Caalders, 2004), and when private companies use nature and redirect common resources as an alienable commodity (Dobeson, 2021), the local actors need to adapt to a market logic. This creates uncertainties on how to steer and shape the surroundings according to their vision and makes it difficult to continue with multiple practices. Just as tourism grew stronger in their backyards, further growth in the form of larger and more types of events would require far more engagement from the local actors. It becomes unclear how to maintain the current level of acceptance to the resource utilisation with further impact on the environment. It would require more sacrifices. There are limits. Picking too many cloudberries may result in reactions.

Conclusions

In the context of the Anthropocene era, where humans utilise planetary resources at an ever-increasing rate (Moore, 2019), this paper aimed to understand how local actors shaped their acceptance of impacts from a nature-based event. Drawing from Mair’s (2019) call to explore sustainability through liveability, and supported by Buen vivir, I argue that active engagement is necessary for accepting the impacts on nature and maintaining local resources. Rather than perceiving that the local environment (Lowe et al., 2015) or dissatisfaction lead to active engagement (Gieling and Haartsen, 2017), internal and informal practices are crucial for liveability, which maintains acceptance of a private event organiser using local resources, but also blurs the distinction between the organiser and local actors. Mair (2019) suggests that events create liveability through civic engagement, as such, I argue that liveability extends beyond perception and into everyday practices with the surroundings.

Liveability provides a framework for examining sustainability in terms of perceptions of the surroundings (Mair, 2019; Paul and Sen, 2020). Buen Vivir highlights aspects that would otherwise remain hidden in a global northern context (Beling et al., 2018). Both of these provide insightful perspectives and awareness of how local practices and knowledge are essential for sustainability. The gradual loss of control over nearby resources used by events (Dobeson, 2021) can cause the local actors to change their responses, making outward acceptance more challenging. Similar to tourism (van der Duim and Caalders, 2004), sustainability requires inclusion of informal actions and practices in planning and strategies to create liveability, and requires consideration of who eventually benefits from utilisation of these resources in the long term.

Future research should acknowledge some of the limitations of this study. The informants were categorised into a single group, whereas a quantitative inquiry could describe potential differences. Further research should scrutinise other types of environmental impacts from nature-based events. Ethnographic studies on events may provide further insights into how these acceptances emerge culturally.

Supplemental Material