Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies -...

transcript

University of Eastern Finland

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies

Business School

LEADERSHIP OF STAKEHOLDER COOPERATION

IN A COMMUNITY TYPE TOURISM DESTINATION

Case study Ylläs

Master’s Thesis, Service Management

Emma-Lotta Alegria (268971)

5 June 2017

Abstract

UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

Faculty

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies

Department

Business School

Author

Emma-Lotta Alegria

Supervisor

Raija Komppula

Leadership of stakeholder cooperation in a community type tourism destination. Case study

Ylläs.

Main subject

Service management

Master’s degree

5.6.2017

Number of pages

Abstract

The purpose of the thesis is to examine how stakeholder cooperation and destination leadership

construct in Ylläs area. Previous studies suggest that both concepts are regarded as success factors

for tourism destinations. The effect that unique, local settings have on these concepts are also taken

into consideration. Ylläs is a destination that possesses diverse natural resources and offers a great

variety of activities. Regardless, it has not managed to maintain its position as the number one ski

destination in Finland, making it therefore an interesting case from the stakeholder cooperation and

destination leadership viewpoint.

The study uses qualitative research approach. Intensive case study method is used to investigate

the unique issues affecting Ylläs. The data is collected as semi-structured theme interviews. Alto-

gether eight interviews are conducted, consisting of ten informants. The informants are chosen with

snowball sampling based on the suggestions made by the first interviewee. The data is analysed

using theory-bound and theme-based content analysis. In this method, theory is used to help inter-

pret the data and the themes are constructed based on the theoretical framework.

The main findings suggest that the cooperation is not working effectively, mainly due to disagree-

ments among entrepreneurs, lack of collective vision and trust, and difficulties in committing to

joint efforts. The DMO has been to some extent ineffective in its operations and the municipality

has not been supporting tourism development very strongly in the past. No definitive leader is

present in guiding the cooperation and the local actors are not keen to attain this position. The

destination being divided into two villages creates a unique local setting that has had its effect on

the overall development of the area, and further created rivalry between the villages. It would be

essential to put more emphasis on diminishing the gap between the villages, enhancing the coop-

erative atmosphere, and creating ways to bring forward the importance of leadership and coopera-

tion for the destination’s success. It would be important to find a leader to guide the cooperation.

Key words

community type destination, destination leadership, cooperation, stakeholder, destination

marketing organisation (DMO), elite network

Tiivistelmä

ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO

Tiedekunta

Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta

Yksikkö

Kauppatieteiden laitos

Tekijä

Emma-Lotta Alegria

Ohjaaja

Raija Komppula

Työn nimi (suomeksi ja englanniksi)

Sidosryhmien yhteistyön johtaminen yhteisötyyppisessä matkakohteessa. Tapaustutkimus

Ylläs.

Pääaine

Palvelujohtaminen

Työn laji

Pro Gradu -tutkielma

5.6.2017

Sivuja

Tiivistelmä

Tutkielman tavoitteena on selvittää miten sidosryhmien välinen yhteistyö ja matkakohteen johtajuus

rakentuvat Ylläksen alueella. Aiemmat tutkimukset ovat osoittaneet, että molemmat käsitteet ovat

tärkeitä matkakohteen menestykselle. Tutkimuksessa huomioidaan myös miten paikalliset olosuh-

teet vaikuttavat näihin käsitteisiin. Matkakohteena Ylläs tarjoaa monimuotoiset luonnonolosuhteet

ja laajan valikoiman eri aktiviteetteja. Siitä huolimatta se ei ole onnistunut säilyttämään paikkaansa

Suomen suosituimpana hiihtokohteena, tehden siitä siten mielenkiitoisen tutkimuskohteen matka-

kohteen yhteistyön ja johtajuuden kannalta.

Tutkimus toteutetaan kvalitatiivisena tutkimuksena. Intensiivistä tapaustutkimusmetodia käytetään

selvittämään Ylläkseen liittyviä uniikkeja asioita. Aineisto kerätään puolistrukturoituina teemahaas-

tatteluina. Yhteensä toteutetaan kahdeksan haastattelua, joihin lukeutuu kymmenen haastateltavaa.

Haastateltavat valitaan lumipallo-otannalla, perustuen ensimmäisen haastateltavan ehdotuksiin. Ai-

neisto analysoidaan käyttäen teoriasidonnaista ja teemoihin perustuvaa sisällönanalyysiä, jossa teo-

ria ohjaa aineiston tulkinnassa ja teemat rakennetaan teoreettisen viitekehyksen pohjalta.

Päätulokset osoittavat, että yhteistyö ei toimi kunnolla johtuen pääosin erimielisyyksistä yrittäjien

välillä, yhteisen vision ja luottamuksen puutteesta sekä vaikeuksista sitoutua yhteiseen tekemiseen.

Yhteismarkkinointiorganisaatio on ollut jokseenkin tehoton toiminnassaan ja kunta ei ole aiemmin

tukenut turismin kehitystä kovin voimakkaasti. Yhteistyön johtamiselle ei ole löytynyt johtohahmoa

eivätkä paikalliset toimijat vaikuta innokkailta pyrkimään tähän rooliin. Matkakohteen jakautumi-

nen kahteen eri kylään luo omalaatuisen paikallisen asetelman, jolla on ollut vaikutusta koko alueen

kehitykseen ja joka on luonut kilpailuasetelman kylien välille. Olisi välttämätöntä kehittää keinoja

kylien tuomiseen lähemmäs toisiaan, parantaa yhteistyön ilmapiiriä ja löytää keinoja, joilla tuoda

esiin johtajuuden ja yhteistyön tärkeyttä matkakohteen menestykselle. Tärkeää olisi myös löytää

johtaja ohjaamaan yhteistyötä.

Avainsanat

yhteisötyyppinen matkakohde, matkakohteen johtajuus, yhteistyö, sidosryhmä, matkakoh-

teen yhteismarkkinointiorganisaatio (DMO), eliittiverkosto

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Research background ................................................................................................................. 6

1.1.1 The competitive tourism business ....................................................................................... 6

1.1.2 Previous studies regarding destination cooperation and leadership .................................... 6

1.1.3 An image survey of Ylläs .................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Tourism destination Ylläs .......................................................................................................... 8

1.3 The objectives and focus of the study ........................................................................................ 9

1.4 Key concepts ............................................................................................................................ 10

1.5 Qualitative case study ............................................................................................................... 12

2 STAKEHOLDER COOPERATION AND DESTINATION LEADERSHIP ......................... 13

2.1 The concepts of destination and stakeholder ............................................................................ 13

2.1.1 Public sector’s role in destination development and collaboration ................................... 14

2.1.2 Local entrepreneurs’ role in destination development and collaboration .......................... 15

2.1.3 DMO’s role in destination development and collaboration ............................................... 16

2.2 Destination cooperation ............................................................................................................ 21

2.2.1 The benefits of destination cooperation – why collaborate? ............................................. 21

2.2.2 Cooperation as the basis for destination marketing, planning and development .............. 23

2.2.3 Ways to enhance stakeholder involvement ........................................................................ 24

2.2.4 Prerequisites for collaboration ........................................................................................... 26

2.3 Destination leadership .............................................................................................................. 28

2.3.1 Defining destination leadership ......................................................................................... 28

2.3.2 Individual actors as a cornerstone for destination leadership ............................................ 30

2.3.3 Elite networks and DMO’s relation to them ...................................................................... 33

2.3.4 Allocation of power and different methods for gaining it ................................................. 34

2.3.5 Systemic leadership as a method to build leadership ........................................................ 35

2.4 Locality and context dependency ............................................................................................. 36

2.5 Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................. 38

3 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................ 41

3.1 Qualitative approach................................................................................................................. 41

3.2 Intensive case study method ..................................................................................................... 41

3.3 Data collection .......................................................................................................................... 42

3.3.1 Selecting the informants .................................................................................................... 42

3.3.2 The size of the data ............................................................................................................ 43

3.3.3 Agreeing on the interviews and conducting them ............................................................. 44

3.3.4 Semi-structured theme interviews ..................................................................................... 45

3.4 Transcription of the interviews, anonymity and content analysis ............................................ 46

3.4.1 Transcription and anonymity ............................................................................................. 46

3.4.2 The analysis process .......................................................................................................... 46

4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS........................................................................................................ 49

4.1 Description of the development of collaborative arrangements in Ylläs along the years ........ 49

4.1.1 Overall development of tourism in Ylläs........................................................................... 49

4.1.2 Two separate ski resorts ..................................................................................................... 49

4.1.3 Joint marketing along the years ......................................................................................... 50

4.2 Local context of two villages ................................................................................................... 51

4.2.1 Rivalry between the villages .............................................................................................. 52

4.2.2 The “us and them” mind-set .............................................................................................. 53

4.2.3 A new road as an effort to unify the villages ..................................................................... 54

4.3 Collaboration and joint marketing ............................................................................................ 55

4.3.1 Pleasing everyone .............................................................................................................. 56

4.3.2 Financing and budgeting of joint marketing ...................................................................... 60

4.3.3 Membership fees ................................................................................................................ 61

4.4 Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................. 63

4.4.1 The new marketing organisation (Ylläksen Markkinointi Oy) .......................................... 64

4.4.2 Municipality ....................................................................................................................... 67

4.4.3 Entrepreneurs and companies ............................................................................................ 70

4.5 The leader of cooperation ......................................................................................................... 74

4.5.1 The lack of strong, visible personalities ............................................................................ 74

4.5.2 The ways to carry out the leadership in the area ............................................................... 76

5 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 79

5.1 Main findings and theoretical implications .............................................................................. 79

5.2 Managerial conclusions ............................................................................................................ 83

5.3 Evaluation of the study, research ethics and future research suggestions ................................ 86

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 90

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Theme interview framework

Appendix 2 Research questions and main findings

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research background

1.1.1 The competitive tourism business

Competition among tourism destination is considered to continually increase, making it challenging

for any tourism destination to gain success on this competitive field (Bornhorst, Ritchie & Sheehan

2010; Pike & Page 2014). To maintain the already achieved competitiveness can, likewise, be chal-

lenging for many destinations as “the consumers are now spoilt by the choice of available destina-

tions” (Pike & Page 2014). Another challenge facing a destination is the fundamental nature of tour-

ism industry: things rarely remain the same. Tourism is dynamic by nature and faces constant

changes. (Russell & Faulkner 2004.) Tourism industry experiencing constant changes and the com-

petition among destinations being tough, the question lies: What are the success factors that differen-

tiate a destination from others? Komppula (2016) and Hankinson (2012) both suggest that destination

leadership and stakeholder collaboration play an important role in gaining this success. According to

Hankinson (2012), in order to build collaboration among stakeholders, strong destination leadership

is needed, suggesting that these two concepts are intertwined with each other. From a destination’s

point of view, both concepts are regarded as the key success factors for destination development

(Komppula 2016; Hankinson 2012).

1.1.2 Previous studies regarding destination cooperation and leadership

According to some of the researchers, destination leadership currently does not have a generally ap-

plicable definition and compared to the number of studies regarding, for instance, destination gov-

ernance, it has not received nearly as much attention in the research field (Beritelli & Bieger 2014;

Kennedy & Augustyn 2014). When it comes to stakeholder collaboration in a destination, Bregoli

and Del Chiappa (2013) consider it to be to some extent a neglected research topic in the tourism

field. According to the authors, stakeholder collaboration is, however, an important issue as stake-

holder coordination is vital in order to make all destination stakeholders work together towards the

development of a destination. Another important reason for its significance is, as the authors state,

that the management of destinations can often be challenging because of the high fragmentation

within them. (Bregoli & Del Chiappa 2013.) The lack of studies on these two themes as well as the

fragmentation within destinations, make stakeholder collaboration and destination leadership inter-

esting research topics.

As Komppula (2016) found in her study of the travel destination Ruka, leadership in a destination is

dependent on the ability of destination stakeholders to cooperate. This finding brings forward how

these two concepts are intertwined with each other; collaboration builds the basis for destination lead-

ership. Pechlaner, Kozak and Volgger (2014) further support this finding as they state that the very

basis of destination leadership is about getting all destination stakeholders to work together on com-

mon destination development goals. The idea of destination leadership and destination stakeholder

collaboration being tied together builds the very basis for this study. The fact that these two concepts

have been recognised as significant cornerstones and key success factors in gaining competitiveness

(Komppula 2016; Hankinson 2012), makes them the focal points of the study.

1.1.3 An image survey of Ylläs

This research focuses on destination leadership and stakeholder collaboration activities in Ylläs area.

The reason for choosing Ylläs as the case for the study has its underlying reasons in a research survey

that was conducted in 2015 regarding how Finnish people who are interested in travelling to Lapland

perceive Ylläs as a travel destination. The study also compared Ylläs to other major ski resorts in

Lapland: Levi, Ruka and Saariselkä. The survey revealed several interesting issues about Ylläs and

its image. Ylläs was considered as a destination that is in close contact to nature and offers a genuine

Lapland experience. Ylläs was the number one destination among cross country skiers and hikers,

however, in downhill skiing the resort fell behind Levi and Ruka in its popularity, regardless of its

noteworthy resources for this activity. Ylläs was considered most suitable for people that are active

and like to experience, for example, different sport activities. However, Ylläs, alongside Saariselkä,

was considered more suitable for visitors of 50 years or older, whereas Levi and Ruka were consid-

ered as destinations for younger people. These destinations were also described as more youthful and

action-packed. Levi and Ruka were also generally better known as destinations than Ylläs and

Saariselkä. (Pesonen & Komppula 2015.)

Regardless of the fact that Ylläs has the potential to be a top ski resort in Lapland, especially when it

comes to nature and different skiing activities (Ski.fi 2017), it seems to fall behind Levi and Ruka

on some major issues, such as popularity and how much people know about the area. Having the

image survey findings in mind, it is interesting to study how different actors see the role of leadership

and collaboration in the area, and how these issues have possibly contributed to the current state of

things.

1.2 Tourism destination Ylläs

Some general information regarding Ylläs is presented here in order to give an overlook of the area.

Ylläs can be described as a versatile travel destination. Its nature offers many different visitor attrac-

tions to choose from, and the destination has a variety of activities and services available for a tourist,

varying from downhill skiing, cross country skiing and snowshoeing all the way to mountain biking,

camping and canoeing (Ylläs 2016).

Ylläs is located in the northern part of Kolari municipality in Lapland, Finland. Ylläs area altogether

entails the Lappish villages of Äkäslompolo, Ylläsjärvi, Luosu, and Hannukainen. (Ylläs 2017a.)

Äkäslompolo and Yllärjärvi, the two villages that are in focus in this research, have approximately

850 residents in total (Ylläs 2017b). Ylläs fell itself is 719 metres high and forms a range of fells

together with six wild fells in the area. Ylläs is located near to the Pallas-Yllästunturi national park.

(Ski.fi 2017.) This national park has some of the oldest hiking tracks in Finland and by the number

of visitors, it is the most popular national park in the country (Luontoon.fi 2017).

There are two ski lift companies on opposite sides of Ylläs fell. Ylläs Ski Resort is located in

Äkäslompolo village whereas Sport Resort Ylläs operates in Ylläsjärvi village. Altogether the two

ski resorts comprise of 63 ski slopes and 28 ski lifts. The longest slope in Ylläs fell is 3000 meters

long and the elevation in the slopes reaches 464 metres at the highest. (Ski.fi 2017.) In order to shed

light on these figures and how they compare to other major ski resorts in Finland, in this case Levi

and Ruka, table 1 draws an outline of the matters.

Table 1. Statistical figures of Ylläs, Levi, and Ruka ski resorts

Ylläs Levi Ruka

Number of slopes 63 43 34

Number of ski lifts 28 28 21

The longest slope (metres) 3000 2500 1300

Highest elevation in the slopes (metres) 464 325 201

Cross-country skiing tracks (kilometres) 330 230 169.5

Reference: Ski.fi 2017

Table 1 demonstrates that out of the three destinations, Ylläs and its natural surroundings seem to

offer the best and largest settings for different skiing activities. These figures, hence, support and shed

light to the findings made in the image survey by Pesonen and Komppula (2015). According to Ski.fi

(2017), Ylläs is a leading destination in Finland when it comes to the number of ski slopes, their

length as well as the elevation in the slopes. For instance, out of all the slopes in Ylläs, altogether

eight slopes reach the length of two to three kilometres. Ylläs also offers the widest range of cross-

country skiing possibilities. (Ski.fi 2017.) The historical aspects and the overall development of tour-

ism in Ylläs along the years are represented in more detail in the beginning of the analysis and results

section.

1.3 The objectives and focus of the study

For any tourism destination to be successful, it is crucial to understand destination leadership issues

(Pechlaner et al. 2014). Similarly, stakeholder cooperation holds a central position when it comes to

effective development of a destination (Bregoli & Del Chiappa 2013). Therefore, this research seeks

to explore how stakeholder collaboration and destination leadership construct in Ylläs area. The study

pays attention to the underlying issues that are required for effective collaboration and destination

leadership, and what the state of these issues currently are.

The main research question:

As destination success factors, how do destination cooperation and leadership construct in

Ylläs area?

The supportive research questions:

How does cooperation construct/work among stakeholders in order to make development and

strategic decisions together?

How is leadership constructed in the area?

How do the local characteristics of Ylläs area affect cooperation and leadership?

The research is focused and limited to destination leadership issues, stakeholder collaboration, and

how these concept relate to each other. It does not consider issues, such as destination governance,

destination management or organisational leadership, as these are all significant concepts on their

own and their inclusion might call for a much wider research or distract the focus and original purpose

of this study.

1.4 Key concepts

Saraniemi and Kylänen (2011) regard a destination as a platform on which different stakeholders

interact with each other. Bornhorst et al. (2010) further define tourism destination as “a geographical

region, political jurisdiction, or major attraction, which seeks to provide visitors with a range of sat-

isfying memorable visitation experiences” (Bornhorst et al. 2010).

In this study Ylläs is understood as a community type destination. Franch, Martini & Buffa (2010)

regard community-type destinations as networks in which different stakeholder interact with each

other. The network is based on different kind of ties between the actors, with varying intensity.

(Franch et al. 2010.)

Kotter (1990, 104) defines that “leadership is about coping with change (by setting a vision and in-

spiring people)”. Beritelli & Bieger (2014) further distinguish that destination leadership has to do

with individual actors, their visions, ability to influence other actors and creating relationships. The

focus is on the community as a whole, consisting of all the different actors operating in it, and also

on who is setting the goals in order to make everyone in a destination strive towards them. Destination

leadership, therefore, deals with human factors as the goal is to inspire and motivate stakeholders.

(Pechlaner et al. 2014.)

Pforr, Pechlaner, Volgger and Thompson (2014) describe cooperation in their study as working to-

gether on tourism-relevant issues. This cooperation can be executed, for instance, through gatherings,

conferences and workshops. (Pforr et al. 2014.)

In this study, stakeholder is defined as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the

achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman 1984, 46; ref. Franch et al. 2010, 75). In the

context of a destination, Strobl and Peters (2013) bring out that these stakeholders can be, for instance,

the DMO, public sector, tourism businesses and entrepreneurs, and landowners.

According to Sheehan and Ritchie (2005), destination management/marketing organisations (DMO)

can be regarded as visitor agencies or offices that seek to bring together the inputs that are needed to

attract tourists to a specific geographical area, in this case a specific destination. DMO’s most central

role is normally regarded to be the marketing of a destination. In addition to this role, DMO’s often

also act as a connector between local firms that operate in the destination and outside buyers that can

be, for instance, tour companies or individual tourists. (Sheehan & Ritchie 2005.) In this study, the

DMO of Ylläs area is regarded as a marketing organisation.

Elite network/ ruling elite can be regarded as a group of the most influential destination actors. Ruling

elite has a significant role in driving change and development in a destination. (Pforr et al. 2014.)

1.5 Qualitative case study

The purpose of the research is to form a comprehension of a particular phenomenon. Hence, the study

is conducted using a qualitative research method. The study seeks to develop a deeper understanding

of this particular destination and to understand the special factors affecting it. The emphasis is not on

developing generalizable information but on understanding this particular case. (Eriksson & Ko-

valainen 2008, 4-5.) Thus, qualitative approach is considered suitable for this study.

The research is based on a case study method, which in this case is Ylläs travel destination. The aim

is on building an understanding of how stakeholder collaboration and destination leadership construct

in the area. Laine, Bamberg and Jokinen (2009, 9-11) regard case study method appropriate in studies

that seek to increase the understanding of a multifaceted phenomenon. In case study method, ques-

tions, such as ‘how’ and ‘why’ are expected to provide the answers to the research topic. (Laine et al.

2009, 9-11.) The focus in this kind of studies is on creating an understanding of a particular case and

how the case relates, for instance, to its historical or cultural context (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008,

117). This research is conducted as an intensive case study in which the goal is to build a comprehen-

sive and holistic understanding of the unique surroundings of Ylläs area. The aim is not on developing

generalizable or comparable information, as often is the case in extensive case studies where several

cases are being investigated simultaneously. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008, 306-309.) Semi-struc-

tured theme interviews are used for the data collection. The collected data is then analysed with

theory-bound content analysis method in which the theoretical background of the study helps the

researcher to interpret the data (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2002, 98). The study follows the structural guide-

lines given to this type of studies: it first looks into the theoretical aspects of destination cooperation

and leadership, followed by a more detailed depiction of the methodological issues. The analysis and

results are then brought out, and finally the findings are compared and attached to the theoretical

aspects of the study. The study is also evaluated, the ethical aspects are discussed and future research

topics are suggested at the end of the research.

2 STAKEHOLDER COOPERATION AND DESTINATION LEADERSHIP

2.1 The concepts of destination and stakeholder

Saraniemi and Kylänen (2011) describe destinations as either physical or virtual spaces in which

different institutions and actors are located. Within these environments these institutions and actors

make marketing-related transactions and activities, thereby constructing a destination. Tourism, on

the other hand, is constructed of different places and a central issue is the location as it creates the

basis for the production, consumption, and experiences to become interrelated. Together these two

concepts create a tourism destination. (Saraniemi & Kylänen 2011.)

To take the concept of a tourism destination a step further, community-type destinations are consid-

ered as networks in which different stakeholder interact with each other (Franch et al. 2010; Beritelli,

Bieger and Laesser 2007). These interactions form the foundation for this type of destinations (Franch

et al. 2010) and the relationships among stakeholders can be both transactional or personal (Beritelli

et al. 2007). Not one actor or an institution can control the destination exclusively, the network is

rather based on different kind of ties between the actors with varying intensity. (Franch et al. 2010.)

Beritelli et al. (2007) further highlight that these destinations are comparable to regions that have

businesses as the key service providers, however, they also have political stakeholders involved, such

as local municipalities. Development processes in these kind of destinations are considered to involve

informal connections, knowledge, and trust. The history of a destination as well as the history of the

relationships among different destination stakeholders and institutions also have an effect on these

processes. (Beritelli et al. 2007.) Based on these findings, the literature regarding community type

destinations seems to emphasise interaction and ties between destination stakeholders, referring,

therefore, to the importance of stakeholder cooperation. This study has its focus on the destination

marketing organisation (DMO), the public sector, and local entrepreneurs when it comes to the des-

tination stakeholders and different parties included in the destination cooperation

In the following theory section, the literature related to destination leadership and collaboration

among different stakeholders are brought out. Hankinson (2012) states that successful destination

leadership requires the ability to build strong cooperation among destination stakeholders. Komppula

(2016) furthermore states that successful cooperation among destination stakeholders can be regarded

as one of the key elements for a destination’s success. She also suggests that destination leadership is

accredited to individuals within a destination. (Komppula 2016.) Both Hankinson (2012) and Komp-

pula (2016), therefore, suggest that destination leadership and cooperation among destination stake-

holders are linked with each other, and both concepts are important determinants of a destination’s

success, as suggested in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Destination success factors (paraphrasing Komppula 2016; Hankinson 2012)

2.1.1 Public sector’s role in destination development and collaboration

Public sector, such as the local municipality, is an important actor when it comes to destination de-

velopment issues (Komppula 2014; Franch et al. 2010). In their study of investigating how destination

stakeholders perceive the importance of cooperation to enhance their own business activities,

Presenza and Cipollina (2010) find that the firms regard the public sector, such as tourism bureaus

and regional governments, more significant for their management and marketing undertakings than

other private stakeholders (Presenza & Cipollina 2010). Komppula (2014) brings out that in Finland,

in most cases, it is the local governments that carry the responsibility of destination policymaking,

especially in destinations where there is no DMO. If these decision making organs are lacking desti-

nation vision and strategy, it can lead to competing development projects and fragmented marketing

projects executed by municipalities instead of marketing organisations. The interviewees in Komp-

pula’s (2014) study considered that municipalities should not take care of operative marketing but

rather provide the basis for it by giving financial support to the DMO’s marketing activities. Another

role that public sector can have, is to enforce stakeholder engagement. Public sector should create a

Destination success

Destination

leadership Stakeholder co-

operation

climate that supports entrepreneurial actions and attracts investments to a destination. (Komppula

2014.)

2.1.2 Local entrepreneurs’ role in destination development and collaboration

Local entrepreneurs are considered important for a tourism destination and its development (Strobl

& Peters 2013, Russell & Faulkner 2004; Russell & Faulkner 1999; Komppula 2014). Komppula’s

(2014) findings suggest that, on the contrary to the mainstream destination competitiveness approach

that emphasises DMO’s role, local entrepreneurs were found to be eager to take responsibility for

increasing competitiveness. (Komppula 2014.) A lack of creative, committed and risk-taking entre-

preneurs can inhibit a destination’s overall development (Russell & Faulkner 2004; Russell & Faulk-

ner 1999; Komppula 2014). On the contrary, having creative and determined entrepreneurs can help

a destination to better adapt to changes that tourism destinations often come across (Russell & Faulk-

ner 2004; Russell & Faulkner 1999). Strobl and Peters (2013) suggest congruent views as they state

that entrepreneurs are a driving force when it comes to destination development matters. The authors

also bring out the fact that people who are members of the local DMO, can also be local entrepreneurs

or owners of local businesses. This remark emphasises the role and power of entrepreneurs in desti-

nation management and development activities even further. (Strobl & Peters 2013.)

In Ruka ski resort, tight and continuous cooperation among the key entrepreneurs over the years has

been one of the area’s success factors. This collaboration is considered to construct among individuals

instead of organisations, and the emphasis in building this cooperation has been on individuals that

have possessed key roles in the area. These key actors have been, for instance, entrepreneurs or hired

executives. Personal enthusiasm as well as commitment to the destination are also considered to have

made the successful collaborative atmosphere possible. (Komppula 2016.) Congruently, Russell and

Faulkner (2004) and Strobl and Peters (2013) bring out that central destination entrepreneurs can have

the power to drive a destination’s success. These findings, therefore, seem to emphasise the im-

portance of taking into consideration the key actors or key entrepreneurs, and including this network

to destination planning activities. In order to create and maintain entrepreneurial atmosphere, a des-

tination needs to provide a setting where entrepreneurs have the support from the community and feel

encouraged to execute their visions (Russell & Faulkner 2004).

2.1.3 DMO’s role in destination development and collaboration

Distinction between destination management and destination marketing organisation

Pike and Page (2014) make a distinction between destination marketing and management organisa-

tions. According to the authors, DMOs are normally very limited when it comes to management ac-

tivities in a destination, and very few DMOs are, in fact, management organisations. Usually a DMO

does not have the control, mandate, or resources that are needed to effectively manage a destination.

The authors state that DMOs are operating in a destination within several restrictions. The most no-

table restriction facing a DMO is that it is at the mercy of political actors and stakeholders when it

comes to the continuity of its funding. DMOs also have very little control over issues that concern

the management of the natural environment, including, for instance, how the land is used or the in-

frastructure planned. Similarly, a DMO does not have much power to affect how the overall customer

experience turns out to be, regardless of what it has pledged in its marketing undertakings. The au-

thors, therefore, state that DMOs most commonly have more to do with marketing activities rather

than with management issues. (Pike & Page 2014.) Komppula (2016) brings out that most of the

destinations in Europe appear to be formed as community type destinations which makes it very

challenging, if not impossible, for one organisation to possess the authority to single-handedly man-

age the development of an area (Komppula 2016). As the case destination Ylläs is being understood

as a community type destination, its DMO can also be considered to acts more as a marketing organ-

isation rather than as a management organisation.

DMO as a connector within a destination

The main purpose for destinations to establish DMOs has the underlying reason in the fact that most

businesses that operate in a destination are small and family owned. This setting often leads to a

situation where the competition between the local businesses as well as between destinations can be

very tough. DMOs are established so that there is a neutral actor pulling together the resources in

order to create a collective and stronger impact and visibility to the competitive tourism market.

DMO’s main purpose is often regarded to be to take care of marketing communication activities,

including the process of designing as well as implementing them. (Pike & Page 2014.) Some studies

also consider DMOs to be responsible for working on the well-being of the people that live in a

destination, helping make sure that visitors are getting the best possible visitation experience, and

looking after destination management issues (Bornhorst et al. 2010). These findings, hence, regard

DMOs to have a variety of tasks and responsibilities within a destination.

There is regarded to be a correlation between the success of a destination and its DMO (Bornhorst et

al. 2010; Byrd 2007; Franch et al. 2010; Timur & Getz 2008), however, some differences can be

detected among different studies. Bornhorst et al. (2010) suggest that in their investigated cases the

DMO was the only organisation that had the capability to develop strategies in order to deal with

different stakeholders and also to create marketing strategies that attract visitors to the area. Both of

these issues were considered to initially affect the efficiency of the DMO. If a DMO is successful in

providing these services to a destination and its stakeholders, it will increase its capability to gather

resources more effectively and create stronger marketing strategies. (Bornhorst et al. 2010.) Byrd

(2007) similarly suggests that it is the DMO’s or community planner’s responsibility to engage stake-

holders in the destination development process. DMO is responsible for informing both the visitor

and the stakeholder. By informing stakeholders and by deepening their understanding of different

matters, the destination tourism is considered to become stronger. The author regards stakeholder

involvement a central asset in destination development. Creating and maintaining this involvement

as well as developing the tourism product as a whole, is considered to be a DMO’s responsibility.

(Byrd 2007.)

Bornhorst et al. (2010) suggest that a DMO must pay attention to the relationship management with

the multitude of destination stakeholders. This includes, for instance, effective informing of the

stakeholders and creating cooperative atmosphere. It is regarded important to build relationships with

tourism suppliers, local residents and government officials. DMO is considered more likely to suc-

ceed if the managers and leaders within it are willing to work on stakeholder relationships. (Bornhorst

et al. 2010.) This study, hence, finds stakeholder relationships and cooperation important and regards

it as a DMO’s responsibility to ensure their successfulness. The authors, however, also bring out that

stakeholders ultimately either enable a successful cooperation or cause fragmentation that inhibits it

(Bornhorst et al. 2010). Similarly, Volgger and Pechlaner (2014) state that the success of a DMO is

dependent on its networking ability among different stakeholders. A successful networking ability

can, again, enhance a DMO’s power and acceptance. (Volgger & Pechlaner 2014.) The authors,

hence, seem to regard DMO’s role important but also emphasise the DMO’s dependence on well-

working cooperation.

Franch et al. (2010) suggest that there is not one actor responsible for the destination management

but rather that a destination is regarded as a network consisting of different actors affecting each

other. However, the authors find that DMO and governmental actors are playing a noteworthy role in

the success of a community-type destination. (Franch et al. 2010.) Timur & Getz (2008) investigated

relationship networks of different stakeholders in destination development. It became evident also in

this study that DMO’s were holding the most central position in the networks and had, hence, a sig-

nificant role in the development of destinations. The study recognises a DMO’s central role in creat-

ing and maintaining cooperation between destination stakeholders in order to build sustainable de-

velopment. However, the authors bring out that other central stakeholders, such as hotels and attrac-

tion stakeholders, should also take part in communicating destination development and creating co-

operation. It is regarded important that destination stakeholders, including the DMO, seek to create

stronger connections with less active stakeholders. Other noteworthy stakeholders in destination de-

velopment are, according to the findings, hotels, attractions, as well as government actors. (Timur &

Getz 2008.)

Focus on individuals within the DMO

Beritelli, Buffa and Martini (2015) acknowledge that DMOs are often regarded to have the coordi-

nating role in destinations. However, this study investigated this coordinator role from the viewpoint

of notable individuals that are attached to the DMO, for instance, the directors or board members of

the organisation. Hence, the focus is on the coordinators inside the DMO and their role in the desti-

nation network. The findings suggest that in the investigated cases, individuals that are connected to

the DMO have an important role in a destination’s elite network. The authors highlight that a DMO’s

role as a destination coordinator is depended on the coordinator roles of the individuals that are affil-

iated to it. In other words, it is the actors linked to DMO that drive the coordination in a destination

and that a DMO is an organisation that constitutes of these actors. (Beritelli et al. 2015.) This would

mean that DMO itself is not the focal point but rather the people that operate in it. Bornhorst et al.

(2010) have some similar findings as they state that much of a DMO’s success depends on the people

that are running the organisation. If these people are effectively managing the DMO, the organisation

is more likely to attract good employees who, in turn, are more likely to be respected by other desti-

nation stakeholders. The authors suggest that this will enhance stakeholders’ trust on the DMO. This,

in turn, can enhance the DMO’s ability to drive the cooperation and partnerships, giving the DMO a

better standing to operate in the area. (Bornhorst et al. 2010.)

The impact of unique characteristics of a destination on a DMO’s role

DMO’s influence and role in a destination can be affected by the unique characteristics of a destina-

tion (Beritelli et al. 2007; Tuohino & Konu 2014). Beritelli et al. (2007) suggest that in destinations

that have strong tourist firms, DMO’s role is complementary in strategic development activities. On

the other hand, in destinations that have less well-organised tourism firms, DMO plays a leading role

in strategic development. In these destinations, the municipalities also support DMOs well. The au-

thors also suggest that in destinations that have a long history and, hence, older relationships, it is

more common to have a strong, neutral actor to guide the cooperation, for instance a DMO. The

bigger the destination and the larger the number of stakeholders in it, the bigger the role of a DMO

becomes in establishing and arranging destination governance and management. (Beritelli et al.

2007.) Similarly, Konu & Tuohino (2014) suggest that the role of a DMO may differ greatly among

different destinations. DMO may not always be the one in charge of the development (and also the

leadership) of a destination. For instance, in some areas municipalities and regional governments may

have a greater responsibility regarding these issues. What should be noted is that a DMO’s size and

influence concerning different management, leadership, and marketing actions can vary greatly from

a destination to another. (Tuohino & Konu 2014.)

Komppula (2014) suggests that a DMO’s role can often be overvalued in different destination man-

agement models. Her study rather emphasizes the importance of different stakeholders, especially

entrepreneurs and municipalities, in the development and management of a destination. (Komppula

2014.) Franch et al. (2010) also acknowledge in their study that municipalities and governmental

organs are important actors in a destination development process. Komppula’s (2016) study brings

out even more critical view to the DMO’s perceived role in destination development. The author

highlights that the case destination Ruka had already established a position as one of the biggest ski

resorts in Finland even before it had a DMO. This success was regarded to be the result of voluntary

collaboration among the most central actors in the destination. The driving forces of this collaboration

were seen to be the strong trust between the actors as well as their willingness to develop the desti-

nation together. These findings, therefore, challenge the idea of emphasising the DMO’s role when it

comes to destination cooperation and development. (Komppula 2016.)

Since there are several views on the role that DMOs play in destinations, Table 2 summarises some

of the main ideas from the authors discussed here. The purpose is to provide an overlook of the find-

ings. Therefore, Table 2 does not present any detailed insights that the authors have presented but

merely the main points. Several authors (Pike & Page 2014; Bornhorst et al. 2010; Byrd 2007; Vol-

gger & Pechlaner 2014; Franch et al. 2010; Timur & Getz 2008) seem to have somewhat similar

insights when it comes to the DMO’s role as a connector between destination stakeholders and man-

aging stakeholder relationships and cooperation. Some authors (for example Bornhorst et al. 2010;

Timur & Getz 2008), however, also highlight the importance of other destination stakeholders’ influ-

ence on the cooperation’s effectiveness. Beritelli et al. (2015) put emphasis on the elite networks

within a DMO. Beritelli et al. (2007) and Konu & Tuohino (2014) bring out that DMO’s role can be

different in different destinations, emphasising, therefore, the local context of destinations. An op-

posing view to DMO’s role as the main connector in a destination is suggested by Komppula (2014)

and Komppula (2016). These findings put more emphasis on destination stakeholders and key actors

when it comes to destination cooperation activities. Despite the differences among the above-men-

tioned studies, most of them seem to bring forward that a DMO does have some kind of a role in

bringing together different actors in a destination.

Table 2. Main conclusions of how different authors perceive the role of DMOs in destinations.

DMO’s perceived role in destination cooperation activities accord-

ing to previous studies

Pike & Page (2014) DMOs established to have a neutral actor to pull resources together,

and also to take care of marketing of the area, very little control over

destination management issues

Bornhorst et al. (2010) DMO has a central role in managing stakeholder relationships and

creating cooperation, however, stakeholders ultimately either allow

or inhibit successful cooperation

Byrd (2007) DMO’s role to engage stakeholders to destination development,

stakeholder involvement important

Volgger & Pechlaner (2014) Destinations success related to DMO’s success, DMO’s networking

ability very important

Franch et al. (2010) DMO holds a significant position in the success of a destination,

however, emphasis is on destination networks in destination devel-

opment

Timur & Getz (2008) DMO has a central role in destination development and cooperation,

however, other central stakeholder should take part in these activities

as well

Beritelli et al. (2015) Focus on individuals within a DMO, DMO brings together destina-

tion’s elite network, actors linked to DMO are driving destination

development

Beritelli et al. (2007) DMO’s role is complimentary in destinations with strong tourism

firms, DMO’s role is significant in destinations with less well-organ-

ised tourism firms

Konu & Tuohino (2014) DMOs’ role can vary greatly from a destination to another

Komppula (2014) Emphasis on stakeholders, DMO’s role often overvalued in destina-

tion management models

Komppula (2016) Emphasis on key actors when building cooperation, not on the DMO,

DMO not always needed

Paraphrasing: Pike & Page 2014; Bornhorst 2010; Byrd 2007; Volgger & Pechlaner 2014; Franch et

al. 2010; Timur & Getz 2008; Beritelli et al. 2015; Beritelli et al. 2007; Konu & Tuohino 2014;

Komppula 2014; Komppula 2016.

2.2 Destination cooperation

2.2.1 The benefits of destination cooperation – why collaborate?

Bregoli and Del Chiappa (2013), Komppula (2016), Pforr et al. (2014), and Komppula (2014) con-

sider that well-working stakeholder cooperation is important for tourism destinations. To promote

and develop a travel destination more effectively, Bregoli and Del Chiappa (2013) find it important

that destination stakeholders work in cooperation to achieve common goals. Komppula (2016) finds

in her study of the Finnish ski resort Ruka, that cooperation among different destination stakeholders

has been one of the key factors for the resort’s success throughout the years in becoming the second

biggest ski resort in Finland. Another positive outcome is that cooperation activities can help bring

the private and public sector closer to each other (Bregoli & Del Chiappa 2013).

Pforr et al. (2014) find it vital for a destination’s success that it is responsive to any challenges facing

it. The authors state that the quality of relationships between the stakeholders and their active partic-

ipation on common matters are essential factors in defining how well a destination is able to face

external challenges, that can be, for instance, increased competition or demographic shifts. (Pforr et

al. 2014.) Their study, therefore, also acknowledges the importance of cooperation among stakehold-

ers in order to build a more successful tourism destination. Komppula (2014) brings out that if the

entrepreneurs are incapable of collaboration, it will also affect the DMO and its ability to operate well

which, in turn, can have an effect on the overall development of a destination. Bregoli and Del

Chiappa (2013) continue that cooperation is required in order to overcome the fragmentation that

often is present in the management of tourism destinations. Their findings reveal that the investigated

destination stakeholders were, in fact, positive towards different coordination activities made by the

DMO. This was mainly because of the fragmentation and lack of coordination that the stakeholders

felt in the destination. (Bregoli and Del Chiappa 2013.) The aforementioned findings of the positive

outcomes of destination collaboration are summarised in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Benefits of stakeholder cooperation for a destination (paraphrasing Bregoli & Del Chiappa

2013; Komppula 2016; Pforr et al. 2014).

2.2.2 Cooperation as the basis for destination marketing, planning and development

After looking into the benefits that well-working cooperation can bring to a destination, this section

shortly describes what is included in stakeholder cooperation and what the issues are that ultimately

drive a destination to cooperate. Bregoli and Del Chiappa (2013) find the development of cooperation

important in order to make a destination more successful. According to Komppula (2016), there is a

consensus among researchers that destinations need to be managed. This includes, for instance, syn-

chronised planning and marketing of the area. (Komppula 2016.) Cooperation, therefore, seems to be

needed in order to market the entire destination and to plan its future.

Zehrer, Raich and Tschiderer (2014) bring out that collaboration between different stakeholders is

one of the most essential issues and an important cornerstone when developing a community-type

destination. The authors also suggest that both the management and marketing of a destination is

regarded to construct through cooperation among various destination stakeholders. (Zehrer et al.

2014.) These findings suggest that stakeholder cooperation in a community type destination is driven

by the willingness to market the area in a joint effort as well as to develop the destination. According

Benefits of destination cooperation

More effective promotion of the area

More effective development of the area

Easier to achieve common goals

Increased chances to overcome fragmentation

Increased chances for destination success

Better responsiveness to challenges

Brings private and public sector closer to each other

Easier for a DMO to operate well

to Bregoli and Del Chiappa (2013), promoting and developing a destination is more effective and

visible when destination stakeholders join forces, as compared to each focusing merely on their own

businesses.

2.2.3 Ways to enhance stakeholder involvement

Networks as a method for enhancing cooperation

Strobl and Peters (2013) suggest that in order to create the basis for strategic planning and to develop

collaboration among stakeholders, establishing tight relationships with central actors, as well as with

entrepreneurs that have high reputation in a destination, is important. The authors bring out that a

DMO should also strive for a similar reputation as the highly recognised entrepreneurs. This would

help to attain credibility regarding, for instance, strategic planning. The authors also find it important

that the entrepreneurs with high reputation are involved in the destination planning from the very

beginning as it is regarded to better assure the support of the entire destination network. (Strobl &

Peters 2013.) Timur and Getz (2008) have similar views to those of Strobl and Peters (2013). They

find it important that in order to create maintainable development, all central stakeholders should be

treated as equals and be involved in the destination planning processes. (Timur & Getz 2008.)

Techniques for involving stakeholders to cooperation

Strobl and Peters (2013) suggest that destination managers should create opportunities for the stake-

holders to take part in different kind of information and decision-making processes. This can be exe-

cuted, for instance, by setting up workshops or electronic platforms where the stakeholders have the

possibility to take part in different matters. The authors suggest that this can be used to influence

stakeholders’ perceptions of destination development. Enabling personal contact between different

stakeholders can strengthen destination network relationships. The strengthening of ties between dif-

ferent stakeholders within a destination network can lead to greater cohesiveness and cooperation

among stakeholders. (Strobl & Peters 2013.)

Bregoli and Del Chiappa (2013) suggest different practical ways in which to enhance stakeholder

involvement. However, the authors regard it as the DMO’s responsibility to develop this cooperation

and, hence, their suggestions are made from the viewpoint of how a DMO can use these mechanisms

to develop cooperation, ranging from informal to formal ones. For instance, social norms are an

informal mechanism. These norms mean the rules that are shared by the stakeholders. Another im-

portant mechanism is internal communication in which the DMO informs stakeholders on current

issues via meetings and events. The aim is to increase stakeholders’ understanding of important mat-

ters. Communication can also include promotion campaigns in which the stakeholders can take part

in. The findings in this study also reveal that in the case destination, DMO can use its website to more

effectively interact with different actors and provide them an access to different kind of information,

such as different projects. The authors conclude that there is not one mechanism that surpasses other

mechanisms. They should rather be used in conjunction to more effectively strengthen the coopera-

tion. DMO should also notice that the coordination of stakeholders is dynamic. This means that the

coordination mechanisms that are used, should be monitored over time. This enables a DMO to mod-

ify the mechanism mix in accordance to what best serves the cooperation development. (Bregoli &

Del Chiappa 2013.) Different ways in which to enhance stakeholder involvement are also illustrated

in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Ways to enhance stakeholder involvement in destination cooperation and development (par-

aphrasing Strobl & Peters 2013; Bregoli & Del Chiappa 2013).

Ways to enhance stakeholder involvement

Workshops / Electronic platforms

Social norms

Meetings and events

Promotion campaigns to take part in

Websites for interaction

2.2.4 Prerequisites for collaboration

Trust and commitment are issues that several authors have brought out in their research on destination

cooperation (Komppula 2016; Zehrer et al. 2014; Presenza and Cipollina 2010; Komppula 2014). For

instance, Komppula (2016) highlights the importance of trust and commitment on destination collab-

oration. In ski resort Ruka, commitment has been a key factor for the successful collaboration in the

area (Komppula 2016). Zehrer et al. (2014), similarly, bring out the importance of trust between

stakeholders. Common goals and commitment to common goals are also considered important in

order to lead the network into the right direction and to focus on the essential activities. (Zehrer et al.

2014.)

Komppula (2014) also shares similar views to the topic by bringing out that when it comes to forming

the basis for successful collaboration between local entrepreneurs and a DMO, trust, recognition of

interdependence, a collective vision, and commitment among stakeholders are all needed. Presenza

and Cipollina’s (2010) findings also support these ideas as they state that sustainable tourism strategy

requires collaborative practices and this collaboration is tied to trust. According to the authors, trust

in a destination is constructed by commitment, the sharing of information and expertise, and also by

uniting relationships between stakeholders. By showing trust, the stakeholders are at the same time

showing their willingness to be part of the destination network. (Presenza & Cipollina 2010.) Zehrer

et al. (2014) support the idea of involvement by stating that active participation of the destination

stakeholders could improve the distribution of different activities regarding the management and mar-

keting of a destination. Figure 4 summarises the aforementioned factors that have been regarded im-

portant in order to build destination cooperation. Based on the findings from the aforementioned au-

thors, trust and commitment seem to be tied together in a meaningful way. Both concepts are also

considered important in order to build sustainable collaboration among destination stakeholders.

Figure 4. Important issues in successful destination cooperation (paraphrasing Komppula 2014;

Presenza and Cipollina 2010; Zehrer et al. 2014; Komppula 2016).

Presenza and Cipollina (2010) investigated tourism stakeholder networks by focusing on 354 hospi-

tality businesses operating in Molise region, Italy. The authors asked about the perceived importance

to cooperate with other stakeholders in order to enhance the effectiveness of their own management

and marketing activities. According to the findings, the firms were positive towards cooperation only

if they perceived the rewards gained from the cooperation to outweigh costs and risks involved in it.

Therefore, the success of cooperation mainly depends on the views that businesses have about the

convenience of joint efforts. (Presenza & Cipollina 2010.) Komppula (2014), similarly, investigated

some of the barriers to collaboration. The findings suggest that one barrier can be geographical frag-

mentation of services within a tourism destination. In this particular case study, the destination had

four sub-regions between which the connections were considered poor and public transportation was

non-existent. From a visitor’s point of view, this kind of a situation can be quite inconvenient. (Komp-

pula 2014). Bornhorst et al. (2010) also bring out in their study that a destination’s location and ac-

cessibility are both among the determinants of destination success. Another barrier to collaboration

that arose from Komppula’s (2014) study were very small sized enterprises and part-time entrepre-

neurs. These kind of entrepreneurs were considered, for instance, to bring significantly less money

Prerequisites for

destination cooperation

Commitment

Collective vision

Recogition of interdepen-

Sharing of information

Sharing of expertise

Uniting relationships

Active participation

into the common pot. (Komppula 2014.) To summarise and present in a more illustrative form the

findings from the literature so far, Figure 5 draws together an outline of some of the main issues

regarding destination stakeholders and the cooperation among them.

Figure 5. An outline of issues included in stakeholder cooperation.

2.3 Destination leadership

2.3.1 Defining destination leadership

The concepts of destination management, governance, and leadership

According to Pechlaner et al. (2014), destination management answers to questions, such as, what the

aim of the destination is and where the destination wants to go in the future. The focus, hence, is on

setting goals, implementing them, and making sure they are achieved. (Pechlaner et al. 2014.) When

Stakeholder cooperation

Who: stakeholders

Entrepreneurs, companies,

public sector, DMO, local

residents

Why: purpose

Destination success

What/How: methods

Destination marketing,

planning, and development

Benefits

More effective promotion and development of the area, easier

to achieve common goals,

increased chances to overcome

fragmentation, increased

chances for destination

success, better responsiveness to challenges

Prerequisites

Trust, commitment,

common goals, collective

vision, sharing of information, convenience of

joint efforts, geographical

aspects, the size of the

companies (i.a. part-time

entrepreneurs)

Ways to develop

Including central

stakehoders to planning and development (workshops,

meetings etc.)

it comes to destination governance and leadership, Beritelli & Bieger (2014) suggest that destination

leadership should be regarded as a supplementary extension to destination governance research; they

both complement each other but address and answer, however, to slightly different issues. Pechlaner

et al. (2014) support this idea as they state that destination leadership complements the structural and

procedural perspectives of destination governance. The emphasis in destination governance is on pro-

cesses and structures in medium term time periods. (Pechlaner et al. 2014.) While destination gov-

ernance focuses more on destination structures and norms, destination leadership has more to do with

individual actors, their visions, capability to influence other actors, and capability to create relation-

ships (Beritelli & Bieger 2014). In comparison to destination governance, destination leadership deals

with long term goals (Pechlaner et al. 2014). Kozak, Volgger & Pechlaner (2014) summarise the

concept of destination leadership to be about proactively planning the future development of specific

regions.

Destination leadership also differs from the concept of organisational leadership. Organisational lead-

ership is often build on organisational structures and hierarchies whereas the focus in destination

leadership is rather on the community as a whole, consisting of all the different actors operating in it.

(Beritelli & Bieger 2014.)

Human factors in destination leadership

Pechlaner et al. (2014) bring out that destination leadership is about the human factors. It answers the

question of “who” decides on the goals that inspire destination stakeholders to work towards achiev-

ing them. This also means that the destination leader needs to be able to motivate and inspire other

destination stakeholders to strive for the common goals of a destination. The leader also needs to be

able to act as a role model for destination stakeholders in order to set the example of how the coop-

eration should work. (Pechlaner et al. 2014.) According to Beritelli and Bieger (2014), trust among

different stakeholders also plays an important role in destination leadership. For instance, the authors

state that trust and communication among different actors have a significant role in destination lead-

ership whereas understanding each other or even liking each other have a much lesser role. (Beritelli

& Bieger 2014.) Pechlaner et al. (2014) emphasise that understanding destination leadership is crucial

for any tourism destination.

Interdependence of destination leadership and cooperation

Destination leadership and stakeholder cooperation are intertwined with each other (Beritelli &

Bieger 2014; Hankinson 2012; Pechlaner et al. 2014). For instance, Beritelli and Bieger (2014) view

destination leadership as a multifaceted system in which many different stakeholders, such as local

community and business networks, should be taken into consideration. What is essential is that lead-

ership stems from the destination or region itself. A common object pulling all the actors together

should, therefore, be the destination and the success of the destination. (Beritelli & Bieger 2014.)

These findings seem to bring forward how destination leadership is attached to and affected by des-

tination stakeholders, thereby suggesting that there is a connection between destination leadership

and stakeholder collaboration.

Hankinson (2012) states that successful destination leadership requires the ability to build strong co-

operation among destination stakeholders. This finding supports, hence, the idea that destination lead-

ership is combined with stakeholder cooperation. Destination leadership is needed to guide and lead

the cooperation. The literature on destination leadership emphasises the role of individual actors

(Beritelli & Bieger 2014; Komppula 2016; Strobl & Peters 2013). There are different views in the

literature on who should be responsible for the destination leadership, ranging from charismatic en-

trepreneurs (Komppula 2016) to elite networks (Beritelli et al. 2015; Pforr et al. 2014) and the local

DMO (Hankinson 2012; Volgger & Pechlaner 2014), all of which will be discussed in the following

sections.

2.3.2 Individual actors as a cornerstone for destination leadership

Destination leadership can be viewed as a complex entity in which numerous actors with diverse

interests affect each other. The focus in destination leadership is, hence, on individual actors and their

actions. Destination leadership is also concerned about how these actors influence others through

their personal ambitions. (Beritelli & Bieger 2014.) Komppula (2016) shares congruent views to the

matter as she emphasises the role of individual actors when it comes to destination leadership. Her

findings strongly suggest that destination leadership is not self-evidently possessed by organisations

but rather by charismatic individuals. The author states that destination leadership can be possessed

by local entrepreneurs, municipality actors, or politicians. In her study, in the case destination Ruka

the individual people and entrepreneurs have had a major role in developing the destination through-

out its history. (Komppula 2016.) Strobl and Peters (2013) also bring out an interesting idea as they

state that the members of the local DMO can be local entrepreneurs or business owners, which could

indicate that these people are leading entrepreneurs as well as decision-makers in a destination. Pech-

laner et al. (2014), similarly, bring out that leading entrepreneurs are regarded important when it

comes to destination leadership issues. Kozak et al. (2014) also support Pechlaner et al. (2014) and

Komppula’s (2016) views as they suggest that entrepreneurial behaviour has high value in destination

development activities.

Charismatic entrepreneurs

McCarthy (2003) focused on studying what factors are driving the strategy building in small firms.

The findings suggest that there are two different types of entrepreneurs: pragmatic entrepreneurs and

charismatic entrepreneurs. The author describes charismatic entrepreneurs to be passionate about

their businesses. Charismatic entrepreneurs are also described as not being afraid of taking risks, and

their goals are often ambitious. When it comes to making business related decisions, charismatic

entrepreneurs are often intuitive, visionary as well as creative. This finding suggest that they are able

to predict future market trends and product opportunities. (McCarthy 2003.) The qualities of a char-

ismatic entrepreneurs are summarised in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Qualities of a charismatic entrepreneur (McCarthy 2003)

Charismatic entrepreneurs

Passionate

Risk taking

Ambitious

Intuitive

Visionary

Creative

These findings relate to Komppula’s (2016) findings. As was mentioned earlier, Komppula’s (2016)

findings suggest that leadership in a destination can be possessed by individuals. The leading actors

in a destination can have many positions in different organisations simultaneously. The author sug-

gests that this leadership can be possessed by the aforementioned charismatic entrepreneurs. (Komp-

pula 2016.) Kompppula (2016) highlights that the individuals that have a leadership position in a

destination are likely to be intuitive, visionary and creative, as stated in the study by McCarthy (2003).

Entrepreneurial reputation

Strobl and Peters (2013) discuss the effects that entrepreneurial reputation can create. They find en-

trepreneurial reputation an important factor of reliability and authority in decision-making in desti-

nations. The authors state that reputation deals with trust and credibility issues. Reputation is seen to

play a central role in position taking within a destination network. The authors bring out that reputa-

tion can also result in negative outcomes, such as unequal distribution of power or blind trust on some

actors. Another matter that the authors bring out is that trust, respect, and frequency of contact be-

tween stakeholders are seen to strengthen the ties among different actors in destination networks.

Reputation is also considered to enhance the generating of new innovations. Entrepreneurs that are

considered to have a high reputation in a destination, are at the same time considered highly innova-

tive. These high reputation entrepreneurs have an important meaning for a destination network as

they are considered to maintain strong relationships to other stakeholders in a destination. This, in

turn, means that high reputation entrepreneurs are linked to the majority of different destination ac-

tors. (Strobl & Peters 2013.)

Pforr et al. (2014) bring out the concept of ‘influence reputation’ and define it as the “perceived

relative capacity of each actor to influence the operation and actions of the network” (Pforr et al.

2014). Their findings support Strobl and Peters’ (2013) findings as they bring out how a stakeholder’s

reputation can be connected to his or her ability to influence others. Their findings also acknowledge

that the higher a stakeholder is considered to position when it comes to the area’s elite network, the

stronger the stakeholder’s reputation for being able to influence things is considered to be, suggesting

that these two concepts are connected to each other. (Pforr et al. 2014.)

2.3.3 Elite networks and DMO’s relation to them

DMO as a platform for elite network to operate in

Key actors or an elite network can possess a central role in destination leadership (Beritelli et al.

2015; Komppula 2016; Pforr at al. 2014). Pforr et al. (2014) regard the most influential destination

actors as the ruling elite. In their study, it became evident that it was the ruling elite that was the most

important ally in the attempts to drive a network transformation. Pforr at al’s (2014) findings suggest

that a destination’s elite is an important source for driving the change in a destination. The elite is,

hence, considered as a “major change agent” for a destination. The findings emphasise how important

it can be that the elite network is taken into consideration in the development of a destination. (Pforr

et al. 2014.)

Beritelli et al. (2015) bring out from their study that DMOs can be regarded to support the creation

of interlocking directorships. This is facilitated by the representation of various stakeholder groups

in the DMO boards. The authors regard this to enhance the concentration of power among the small

elite group in a destination. This concentration of power, however, can also enhance the efficacy of

decision making in a destination. Hence, the authors suggest that DMO boards can offer a noteworthy

platform for destination leaders and elite network to operate in. (Beritelli et al. 2015.)

Beritelli et al. (2015) suggest that a DMO should be thought of as an organisation that brings together

destination actors, mainly the local tourist elite that has the enthusiasm to tackle different issues facing

a destination as well as developing the coordination in the area. This position also gives these actors

an influential position within a destination. Another important aspect that the study brings forward is

that the main individuals that are linked to the DMO also have an important role in linking other

actors in a destination network together. The emphasis on leadership matters is, therefore, not re-

garded to be on the DMO. It rather acts as a connector between other destination stakeholders.

(Beritelli et al. 2015.) Komppula (2016) found in her study of the ski resort Ruka that the local tourism

association was responsible for looking after the operative marketing of the resort and its future di-

rection, however, the DMO was not considered to possess a leadership position. The interviewees

considered the local DMO rather as a discussion forum for the destination stakeholders. Some of the

interviewees, according to the author, also regarded the association as an organ that seeks to develop

consensus among destination stakeholders rather than as a destination leader. (Komppula 2016.)

These findings, hence, share similarities with those of Beritelli et al. (2015).

DMO in the centre of destination leadership

Bornhorst et al. (2010) also recognise the importance of building stakeholder relationships. These

findings, however, differ to some extent from Beritelli et al. (2015), Komppula (2016), and Pforr et

al.’s (2014) findings because the authors regard it as the DMO’s responsibility to build the leadership

needed to manage these relationships. (Bornhorst et al. 2010.) The findings, therefore, put the em-

phasis on DMO managers when it comes leading destination cooperation. The leadership style of the

DMO and its attitude towards building stakeholder cooperation is regarded to have a strong influence

on how the collaboration among stakeholders turns out to be. (Bornhorst et al. 2010.)

Hankinson (2012) states that a DMO holds a central position when it comes to destination develop-

ment activities. According to the author, a DMO has a central role in managing a destination’s brand.

DMO’s senior management, and especially the CEO of the DMO, comprise the main organ in these

activities. The leadership of an area is, hence, considered to come from the DMO’s top management.

Building strong cooperation with other stakeholders as well as with local government organisations

is, however, also recognised as an important task in a successful leadership. The CEO of a DMO is,

again, considered to have a key role also in this activity. (Hankinson 2012.)

2.3.4 Allocation of power and different methods for gaining it

Beritelli et al (2007) bring out that power asymmetries and interdependence in a destination can be

clearly recognised from their case studies. They regard that the history of a destination, its long-term

development, and present environment all affect the way in which mutual trust and general mood

within a destination construct. This, again, affects the governance structures and their development.

The way that local governance is constructed defines the amount of entrepreneurial freedom and also

the DMO’s or municipality’s power to move forward with different proposals. The authors state that

culturally formed communities often look for a balanced distribution of power whereas in destinations

that have the occurrence of strong private ownership of one ruling enterprise, the power can be con-

centrated. The authors highlight that even if destinations wanted to aim for evenness of power and

more equal spreading of ownership, which often is the case in community type destinations, every

destination should seek to develop a more centrally coordinated network within a destination. It is

regarded important that destinations actively form and manage governance structures if they want to

perform more effectively and create better surroundings for success. (Beritelli et al 2007.)

Pike and Paige (2014) raise a question in their study about “who” should take the responsibility of

the planning and marketing of a destination. What makes it particularly challenging for one actor in

a community type destination to do this, is that, according to Volgger and Pechlaner (2014), there is

typically not one single organisation in a destination that has the power or the acceptance to control

other destination stakeholders. How can an individual then gain more power and personal influence

in a destination? Strobl and Peters (2013) discuss in their study what the means for influence are when

it comes to governance channels. Knowledge and information are regarded as effective means to gain

influence. Ownership of resources, such as financial or land ownership, can also be used to gain

influence on destination development issues. The authors also bring out the importance of face-to-

face conversations. In fact, this is regarded to be one of the most influential methods in gaining power

and influence in a destination. (Strobl & Peters 2013.)

Kennedy and Augustyn (2014) investigated stakeholder power in Scarborough, an English holiday

resort. One of their findings indicate that in a mature resort, regularity of attendance at meetings,

acquaintance with other members in a destination as well as local knowledge seem to have an im-

portant driving force for stakeholder power and engagement. (Kennedy & Augustyn 2014.)

2.3.5 Systemic leadership as a method to build leadership

Beritelli and Bieger (2014) use a term ‘systemic leadership’ as they suggest an approach for a desti-

nation to build its destination leadership. In this approach the members of a destination should all

work on the common goals to better ensure the success of the entire destination. (Beritelli & Bieger

2014.) The approach, hence, seems to combine stakeholder cooperation to destination leadership.

The authors note that destination stakeholders might have different interests, however, with well-

working collaboration the destination is able to tackle different challenges it might face. The authors

also bring out an idea that in this approach, different destination stakeholders can take the leadership

position on different initiatives, meaning that depending on the issue at hand, the same actor might

not always be leading the destination collaboration. (Beritelli & Bieger 2014.) The power, therefore,

is not necessarily concentrated on one individual or an organisation but rather divided among stake-

holders depending on their willingness to take the lead on different matters. This approach seems to

support the findings of Beritelli et al. (2007) where a more balanced distribution of power was found

more desired in a culturally formed community.

2.4 Locality and context dependency

Kozak et al. (2014) discuss in their paper the interaction between destination leadership and regional

development. Their findings on the literature of the topic indicate that destination leadership is

strongly impacted by local issues, as presented in Figure 7. Locality, hence, forms the basis for des-

tination leadership. When making destination leadership decisions and plans, local aspects, such as

local networks and local characteristics, need to be respected and taken into consideration. The au-

thors, therefore, suggest that destination leadership should be personalised to each destination to bet-

ter serve its purpose and to be more successful, as proposed in Figure 7. This means respecting the

local networks as well as the history of the networks. (Kozak et al. 2014.)

Figure 7. Personalised leadership based on local aspects (Kozak et al. 2014)

Similarly to Kozak et al.’s (2014) findings, Komppula (2016) brings out the issue of locality but from

a slightly different viewpoint. The author states that being local is important for successful destination

Personalised leadership based on locality

Local stakeholdersLocal stakeholders

Local knowledgeLocal knowledge

Local context/characteristics

Local networks and their history

leadership. This is because being a local actor can, according to the author, increase the sense of

identity with the destination and in that way better enable the collaboration between destination stake-

holders. By discussing about being local, the author does not necessarily mean that the actor would

need to be born in the area or permanently live there. Being local can also refer to having a business

ownership in a destination and in that way committing to the long-term development of the destina-

tion. (Komppula 2016.)

Unique characteristics affect the way in which cooperation and leadership form in a destination

(Tuohino & Konu 2014; Kozak et al. 2014, Timur & Getz 2008; Beritelli et al. 2007). Tuohino and

Konu (2014) note that unique characteristics of a destination may lead to different kind of manage-

ment and leadership structures in different destinations. For instance, in one destination a marketing

company had the most significant role as the destination leader whereas in other destinations this

power was built, for instance, on cooperative chains and the public sector. The authors also bring out

that in one destination there could be one single actor possessing the power, whereas in other desti-

nations the leadership could be divided among different stakeholders. The authors, hence, highlight

that leadership in a destination should be regarded as context-dependent. For instance, the amount of

cooperation and competition among stakeholders may vary in different destinations. What also differs

between destinations, is the degree and amount of leadership that the stakeholders possess. (Tuohino

& Konu 2014.) Kozak et al. (2014) support the view of context-dependency. Locality is considered

central in destination leadership. The focus should be on understanding the value of local knowledge

as well as entrepreneurial atmosphere. (Kozak et al. 2014.) Regardless of the fact that Timur & Getz

(2008) highlighted in their findings the DMO’s central role in destination development, they also

noticed that other stakeholders that were located centrally in destination networks, were different in

each investigated city. This finding partly supports Tuohino & Konu’s (2014) as well as Kozak et

al.’s (2014) idea of context-dependency, and takes into consideration that each destination has its own

unique characteristics.

When investigating twelve travel destinations in the Swiss Alps, Beritelli et al (2007) found that each

destination had municipalities officially representing all the destinations. Each destination also had a

DMO, some larger firms, and numerous small- and medium sized firms. Interestingly, however, each

destination had different forms of leadership and administration. For instance, in some destinations

the power was allocated to one individual, in some other destinations around a group of individuals,

and in several destinations the power was possessed by one or more institutions. (Beritelli et al. 2007.)

Their finding, therefore, also support the idea that each destination can have different ways in which

the leadership is formed and allocated.

Komppula (2016) states that the way destination leadership constructs in a destination and the differ-

ent roles that destination stakeholders have, can vary throughout a destination’s lifecycle. For in-

stance, the author suggests that municipality is a stakeholder that faces the most changes. For instance,

municipality is regarded to have the leading role in the first stages of the cycle. These early stages

include the management of land use as well as giving support to marketing issues. As the destination

becomes more developed, municipality’s role is more about maintenance related issues. For instance,

in her case study, nowadays one of the municipality’s main roles in Ruka area is to maintain cross-

country skiing and motor sledge tracks. (Komppula 2016.)

2.5 Theoretical framework

Figure 8 illustrates the theoretical framework of this study by combining together the central concepts

discussed in the theory section: destination cooperation and destination leadership. Local context of

a destination also has its effect on both of these main issues (Kozak et al. 2014; Tuohino and Konu

2014; Beritelli et al 2007; Timur & Getz 2008). In previous studies, destination cooperation and des-

tination leadership have been regarded as concepts that are intertwined and inseparable with each

other. As was brought out earlier from Hankinson’s (2012) study, destination leadership is about

building cooperation among destination stakeholders. Without the ability to construct cooperation,

effective destination leadership is not possible (Hankinson 2012). The finding brings forward that at

the very basis, destination leadership ultimately means the leadership of destination cooperation. This

thought summarises the basic idea of this study and forms the foundation for the theoretical frame-

Some prerequisites for destination cooperation seemed to have an important role for the development

of cooperation. For instance, Beritelli and Bieger (2014), Komppula (2016), Presenza and Cipollina

(2010), and Zehrer et al. (2014) brought out the importance of trust and commitment. Presenza and

Cipollina (2010) further explained that trust is built through commitment and the sharing of infor-

mation. Zehrer et al. (2014) also found common goals an important factor. Having a collective vision

was, similarly, found important in Komppula’s (2014) research. On the other hand, geographical

fragmentation of services or small companies can create a barrier to cooperation (Komppula 2014).

The literature review brought out how central role the individual actors and human factors have in

destination leadership. For instance, Beritelli and Bieger (2014) highlighted that destination leader-

ship culminates in individual actors and their ability to influence other stakeholders. Pechlaner et al.

(2014), likewise, found that destination leadership is concerned with “who” decides on the leadership

issues and inspires other actors in a destination to aim for the common goals, highlighting, hence,

individual actors and human issues. Based on these findings, the leader arises from among the desti-

nation stakeholders. Depending on the issues affecting cooperation and the local context of a desti-

nation, leadership can form in different ways (DMO, elite network or an individual actor). The role

of stakeholders being so important, stakeholders and the way in which they can form the leadership

are highlighted with a darker colour in Figure 8.

An important factor resulting from destination cooperation and leadership is ultimately the success

of a destination. The leadership of destination cooperation has in previous studies been regarded as a

key factor for a destination’s success (for instance, Komppula 2016; Hankinson 2012). These findings

suggest that if there is no one leading the cooperation, a destination is not as likely to reach the desired

success. Because destination cooperation and leadership are considered important for the success of

an entire destination, this study has its focus on them and how these concepts construct specifically

in Ylläs. In Figure 8, destination success is illustrated to form based on destination cooperation and

leadership. The concept of local context is also influencing the formation of both of these issues in

the background.

Figure 8. Theoretical framework of stakeholder cooperation and destination leadership as destina-

tion success factors.

Stakeholder cooperation

Destination success

Purpose

Destination marketing, planning,

development

Methods

Entrepreneurs Companies

public sector

local residents

Stakeholders

More effective promotion and development of

the area

Easier to achieve common goals

Increased chances to overcome

fragmentation

Increased chances for destination

success

Better responsiveness to

challenges

Benefits

Commitment

Common goals

Collective vision

Sharing of information

Convenience of joint efforts

Geographical aspects

The size of the companies (i.a.

part-time entrepreneurs)

Prerequisites/ Barriers

Including central

stakehoders to planning

and development

Ways to develop

The leader of cooperation

DMO / Elite network / Charismatic individual

Destination leadership

Local context

Destination success

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Qualitative approach

Destination leadership and cooperation in Ylläs area are being investigated using qualitative research

methods. Qualitative studies typically seek to understand reality as socially constructed. Cultural

meanings and their interpretations have a significant role in understanding this reality, which is also

why qualitative studies are normally interested in building a holistic understanding of a phenomenon

rather than dealing with testing of hypothesis, as is often the case in quantitative studies. (Eriksson &

Kovalainen 2008, 4-5.) According to Webster and Mertova (2008, 3), quantitative practises can often

be unsuccessful in bringing out important characteristics of a phenomenon being researched or over-

look complex matters that, for instance, the participants in the study might regard important. There-

fore, the emphasis being on understanding the complexities of collaboration and destination leader-

ship in Ylläs area, qualitative methods can offer appropriate tools to embark on this particular case.

What should be noted is that qualitative research constructs of more than one philosophical root and

uses several different methods when it comes to data collection and analysis of the findings (Eriksson

& Kovalainen 2008, 3-4). In any research, the researcher needs to adapt to and decide on specific

methods that best suit the goals of that particular study (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008, 217).This study

uses intensive case study approach to tackle the topic, the data is then collected using semi-structured

theme interviews, and the findings are analysed using theory-bound content analysis.

3.2 Intensive case study method

According to Laine et al. (2009, 9-11), case study method seeks to provide a comprehensive under-

standing of a phenomenon. Case study method is considered appropriate when the goal is to increase

the understanding of a complex phenomenon and to answer questions such as ‘how’ and ‘why’ (Laine

et al. 2009, 9-11). Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008, 117) suggest consistent views on the topic as they

highlight that research questions are there to help understand a case and to learn more about it. The

ultimate goal is on understanding how it attaches to the historical, financial, technological, social, and

cultural aspects. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008, 117.) When collecting data for this study, recognising

the aforementioned factors was important in order to better comprehend Ylläs area and where the

existing situation stems from. As Laine et al. (2009, 9-11) put it, case study method must not neces-

sarily be considered as a research method but as a strategy that can consist of a variety of data sources

and different ways of collecting it. In this study, the themed interviews were the main data source,

however, other secondary data sources were also used. For instance, newspaper articles, different

kind of tourist brochures, and an autobiography were looked into to better understand the history and

surroundings of the case in focus. This material was, therefore, used in the background to help con-

struct an understanding of Ylläs.

To be more precise, this study used intensive case study method to investigate specifically Ylläs.

Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008, 307) define it as a method where “one or few cases are studied ho-

listically and intensively in their proper contexts”. The aim is on creating a comprehensive description

that brings forward the distinctive aspects of a particular case from the inside of it (Eriksson & Ko-

valainen 2008, 307). The focus is on one or few cases whereas in extensive case studies (another

form of case studies) several cases are being investigated in order to create generalizable theoretical

concepts (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008, 120). The aim in this study was on understanding Ylläs as

its own unique setting and to put the focus on revealing issues related to this particular destination.

The objective was to understand how, why and because of what issues, destination leadership and

collaboration construct the way they do in Ylläs area, therefore making the use of intensive case study

method reasonable. The purpose was not on collecting generalizable information.

3.3 Data collection

3.3.1 Selecting the informants

As the emphasis in qualitative studies is on understanding a phenomenon and the number of inform-

ants is often quite small, it is important to collect information from informants that have as much

knowledge and experience on the matter. Therefore, it should be carefully considered who would be

suitable informants and, unlike in quantitative studies, any random sample should be avoided. (Tuomi

& Sarajärvi 2002, 88.) In this study the interviewees were selected based on the first interview. The

interviewee knew the area well and, therefore, was able to provide information on who else could

have valuable knowledge and insights to the topic. This can be regarded as a form of snowball sam-

pling in which the first interviewee suggests to the researcher who could be interviewed next. This

person then provides information of the following person to be interviewed, and that way the inter-

viewer is being introduced to the informants one after another. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2009, 86.) In this

study, however, the first interviewee was the one who made the suggestions for all the following

interviews.

The interviews consisted of different actors from the public sector (local municipality representatives)

and the private sector. The private sector representation covered different fields in the destination’s

tourism field and consisted of some larger tourism companies in the area as well as local tourisms

entrepreneurs. The local destination marketing organisation was also represented.

3.3.2 The size of the data

Deciding how much data should be collected can be harder to address in qualitative studies than in

quantitative studies because of the nature of the research approach; the emphasis is not on statistical

generalisation but rather on understanding or describing a specific phenomenon. It is, therefore, com-

mon that the size of the data is remarkably smaller in qualitative studies compared to quantitative

studies. Often the number of informants used to collect qualitative data is also limited by resources,

such as money and time. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2002, 87.) Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008, 121) high-

light that in intensive case studies, the purpose is not to produce generalizable information but rather

to understand how the specific case at hand constructs.

Saturation of the interview materials was used as a way to decide on the number of the interviews.

Saturation is the situation where the researcher notices that the data is starting to repeat itself and does

not provide significant new information relevant to the study at hand. The amount of collected data,

therefore, is enough to bring forward the theoretical aspects that are possible to be collected of the

case in focus. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2009, 87.) This study ended up consisting of eight interviews.

This amount of interview data was considered adequate to help construct a comprehensive under-

standing of the case. No significant new information or new topics seemed to be surfacing after these

interviews. Therefore, this amount of data was considered appropriate for this study. It should be

brought out that in one interview there were three interviewees answering the questions, meaning that

the actual number of informants in this study was ten instead of eight.

3.3.3 Agreeing on the interviews and conducting them

The first interview had been conducted already in September 2015 by another party for another re-

search concerning Ylläs. Based on the suggestions made by the first interviewee regarding who could

offer valuable information concerning Ylläs, other interviewees were contacted. Most of the inter-

viewees were first contacted by phone earlier in the fall. Some, however, were contacted unsuccess-

fully. During the phone call, the interviewees were explained who the caller was, what the purpose

of the call and the study itself was, what the study was going to be used for in the future, and by which

parties. The interviewees were asked if they would be able to give interviews during a particular week

in November 2015. Five interviews were agreed upon in these earlier calls and two more were agreed

upon during the course of the week in Ylläs. One potential interviewee was never successfully con-

tacted either by phone or e-mail. The interviews were agreed upon and conducted in a joint effort

with the person who had conducted the first interview. The interview materials were, therefore, col-

lected and used for two separate studies.

The interviews took place in Ylläs area and Oulu, Finland. The interviews were carried out in the

premises of local businesses, some in the offices of governmental buildings and also in the premises

of a hotel. In the beginning of the interviews, the interviewees were informed again of the objectives

of the research, the anonymity of the interviewees, what the data would be used for, and by whom.

All interviews were recorded on tape with a permission from the interviewees. The interviews vary

in length from approximately 2 hours to 40 minutes, more specifically presented in Table 3. The letter

“I” stands for “interviewee”. It is used in the text to indicate the comments of each informant.

Table 3. Details of the interviews.

Code I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8

Duration 2:01:05 41:49 1:10:35 59:48 1:31:33 38:11 1:19:32 2:06:24

Date 14.9.2015 4.11.2015 5.11.2015 4.11.2015 5.11.2015 6.11.2015 4.11.2015 3.11.2015

3.3.4 Semi-structured theme interviews

The interviews were carried out as semi-structured theme interviews in which the interviewer has an

outline of the topics or themes that should be discussed during the interviews (Eriksson & Kovalainen

2008, 82). The outline of the theme interview structure used for this study can be found from the

appendices of the study (Appendix 1). The themes for the study were based on the theoretical part of

the research. A positive side of using this interview method is that the materials are to some extent

organised and wide-ranging. The interviewer, however, needs to ensure that the pre-set topics are

discussed in the course of the interviews. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008, 82.)

Although all the interviews started off as semi-structured theme interviews, some interviews (I1, I5

and I8) also had narrative aspects to them. Narrative interviews are typically considered as stories in

which there are no hypothesis to be tested or a pre-structured list of questions to be strictly followed.

The interviewees tell their own story openly from their own point of view and according to their own

experiences. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008, 216.) In this study, the narrative aspects were mostly due

to the fact that some interviewees were eager to discuss different topics in more detail. In order to

gain more detailed information, these interviewees were given the chance to more freely talk about

different topics, without forgetting to include the pre-set themes as well. As Eriksson and Kovalainen

(2008, 82) put it, if the planned structure is being followed too strictly during the interviews, theme

interviews can have a downside of preventing important topics from arising. Narrative method works

well when the aim is to gain information on complex and cultural human-focused topics (Webster &

Mertova 2008, 3). As the ultimate purpose of this study was to gather versatile and comprehensive

information of Ylläs area, including narrative aspects to complement the pre-set themes seemed to

serve the purpose of this study.

The rest of the interviews (I2, I3, I4, I6, and I7) were following the pre-set theme structures quite

accurately. Interviews I3, I4 and I7 provided detailed information, however, not to the extent of lean-

ing towards narrative aspects. In some interviews (I2 and I6) the interviewer needed to make an effort

to get the interviewees discuss the topics in more detail.

3.4 Transcription of the interviews, anonymity and content analysis

3.4.1 Transcription and anonymity

Before the research material could be analysed, it needed to be transcribed. Transcription means

transforming the interview tapes into a written form. The extent of detail to which the interviews are

being transcribed can vary greatly, depending on what kind of research method is being used. (Ruusu-

vuori & Tiittula 2009, 16.) As stated by Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008, 85), when conducting a

study from the business field, it is often enough to transcribe all the words that have been said in the

interviews, leaving out, for instance, describing gestures or facial impression. In this study, only the

words that were said were transcribed and, for instance, mumbling, stammering or different non-

verbal gestures were left out as they were not considered relevant for the purposes of the research.

The interviews were conducted in Finnish and the materials were, therefore, handled in Finnish while

conducting the content analysis. The interview materials and straight quotations that were included

to the findings of the study, were translated into English by a translator.

When the interview materials are being handled, it is important to make sure that the anonymity of

the interviewees is guaranteed, especially if the interviewees are private individuals (Ruusuvuori &

Tiittula 2009, 17). To guarantee the anonymity of the interviewees in this study, the names or any

other information that could reveal their identity, was hidden or transformed into an unrecognisable

3.4.2 The analysis process

The interviews were analysed using theme-based content analysis. According to Tuomi and Sarajärvi

(2002, 93), content analysis is a suitable method for all qualitative studies. Silverman (2006, 159)

highlights that content analysis is especially suited for textual investigation. Content analysis helps

the researcher analyse the data systematically and objectively, and the method is suitable also for the

analysis of unstructured data (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2002, 105). The focus in content analysis is on

creating themes and patterns, and it may or may not be based on a coding system (Eriksson & Ko-

valainen 2008, 187). The objective is on building a textual depiction of the case being investigated

by organising the data into compact and clear form (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2002, 110).

Tuomi and Sarajärvi (2002, 97-99) divide content analysis into three different forms: data-driven

analysis, theory-based analysis and theory-bound analysis. In data-driven analysis the theory of the

study is build based on the data. In theory-based analysis, conversely, the analysis is based on an

existing theory and normally this type of analysis is used to test previous knowledge in a new setting.

(Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2002, 98.) This study used theory-bound analysis. Theory acts as a tool that

guides and helps interpret the data in the analysis process (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2002, 98). Theory-

bound analysis has links to theoretical aspects, however, the analysis is not completely based on a

specific theory, as is normally the case in theory-based analysis (Eskola 2015, 188). In this study,

congruently, the theoretical background was used to help interpret the interview data and to help

construct the themes for the analysis.

Theory-bound analysis is often conducted following almost the same steps as in data-driven analysis.

The first step is the reduction of material in which irrelevant information is being reduced from the

data and relevant information is being highlighted in different ways. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2002, 110-

116.) In the beginning of the analysis process, the collected data was read through a couple of times

in order to construct a more comprehensive understanding of the material. The relevant information

was brought out by making notes in the text regarding what topic the text was discussing about and

highlighting essential parts. The relevant information was selected based on the theoretical frame-

After reducing the irrelevant information, the units of analysis are developed based on the research

topic (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2002, 110-116). Eskola (2015, 194-202), likewise, states that the material

needs to be organised into themes in the beginning of the analysis. In this study it ment generating

relevant themes from the material and creating a table for each of them. Each theme was given a

specific topic or a name. Based on the main themes, there were also sub-themes arising from the

material. The sub-themes were given their own name and table. This step was then followed by a

phase in which the information is being grouped. In this phase the concepts that describe similarities

or differences are looked up from the data. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2002, 110-116.) Eskola (2015, 194-

202) regards this phase as coding; the researches reorganises the data based on the themes that were

created. In this study, each main theme and sub-theme were given a specific color code which was

then used to mark the material with these codes. After that, the information regarding each theme was

pasted to the tables created for each theme. Eskola (2015, 194-202) calls this the phase where the

actual analysis takes place; the researcher seeks to group the information into themes and highlights

the information that is relevant for the study. In this study, the previously made notes and highlights

made it easier to reorganise the relevant information into themes. Each table also contained a separate

column in which the main point or a summary of what the informant thought about the topic was

included in order to make it easier to detect similarities or differences among the informants.

Eskola (2015, 194-202) brings out that after pointing out the relevant information, the material needs

to be attached to the theory and to the research questions. Tuomi and Sarajrärvi (2002, 110-116),

likewise, bring out that in the last phase of the analysis process the empirical findings are attached to

theoretical concepts. In this study, the findings are being attached and compared to the theoretical

framework in the conclusion section, after the findings from the content analysis have first been pre-

sented.

4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1 Description of the development of collaborative arrangements in Ylläs along the years

4.1.1 Overall development of tourism in Ylläs

The history of the development of Ylläs travel destination and the development of collaboration re-

lated issues are briefly introduced in the beginning of the analysis based on the interview materials.

The history explains the local circumstances and, therefore, helps to clarify the basis from which the

findings and themes in this study stem from.

Tourism in Ylläs has its roots in the 1930’s when local people started accommodating tourists in their

homes (I2). According to I3, the first actual hotel in Äkäslompolo, Hotelli Humina, was built in the

area in the 1950’s. Towards the end of the 1980’s mining industry slowed down in the area, giving

the tourism more boost to grow (I8). Tourism in Ylläsjärvi side really started to grow in the 1980’s

whereas in Äkäslompolo, there had been some sort of tourism already for 50 years by then (I1). In

the 1970’s there were not many downhill skiing slopes in Ylläs fell and the current form of tourism

started to form in the 1980’s and 1990’s (I2). During this time, the construction in the area was also

strong. The capacity to house tourist was increased by 5000 new “beds”. The accessibility of Ylläs

experienced major enhancements in the 1980’s when the airline and train connections to the area were

established. (I8.) In the beginning of the 1990’s Ylläs was strongly growing and it was ahead of Ruka

and Levi in its popularity. The recession in the 1990’s, however, slowed down all investments in

Ylläs, causing Levi and Ruka to jump ahead of Ylläs in their development and popularity. (I6.) The

beginning of the new century was, again, time of growth until the new economic downturn in 2008

put a stop to it once again. The recovery since then has been, to some extent, slow in comparison to

Levi and Ruka. (I4.)

4.1.2 Two separate ski resorts

The first ever ski lift was built on the Ylläs fell in the 1950’s by the municipality. In the turn of the

1960’s and 1970’s the first ski lift was built on the Ylläsjärvi side of the fell. Yllärjärvi residents

played a major part in building the lift. (I8.) In the beginning of 1980’s the villagers established a ski

lift company to Ylläsjärvi. (I8) In 1985 60 percent of the shares of the ski lift company in Ylläsjärvi

were bought by two private entrepreneurs and the name of the company became Ylläskeskus Oy.

Later on the name was again changed to Hiihtokeskus Iso-Ylläs Oy and the rest of the shares were

bought by these entrepreneurs, making the company 100 percent privately owned. Around this time,

Ylläsjärvi had only two ski lifts and one restaurant. The owners started investing strongly in new

slopes and ski lifts all the way until the beginning on the 1990’s. (I6.) A major development uniting

the two ski lift companies on the opposite sides of the fell was the establishment of the joint ski ticket

in 1984 (I8).

The ski resort in Äkäslompolo side experienced a bankruptcy during the 1990’s recession. The ski

resort on Ylläsjärvi side tried to buy the other company which would have created one ski resort in

the area. The offer was, however, not accepted. Ylläs Ski Resort was owned by a company called

Arsenal until it was sold to the current owner, Lapland Hotels, in the beginning of the 2000’s. (I6.)

Having separate ski lift companies in Ylläs has along the years accentuated the situation of the desti-

nation being divided into two separate centres and villages. The separation between the villages has

caused the concept of locality to become overly emphasised in Ylläs. There has, however, also been

positive development in bringing the villages closer to each other. In 2006 a new road called Maise-

matie was built between the villages in order to make the connections better and to unite the villages

a little more (I8).

4.1.3 Joint marketing along the years

In 1987 the first joint marketing and centralised booking office (Ylläksen Matkailu Oy) was estab-

lished in Ylläs with 150 shareholders. The first ever marketing campaign of Ylläs and the first bro-

chure of the area came out in 1988. (I1.) In the 1990’s another central booking office was established

by a private entrepreneur, creating the setting of two central booking offices in the area. Later on the

joint marketing fell apart and the marketing of the area was externalised to an outside party (Lapin

Markkinointi). The situation changed again in 2003 when the new joint marketing organisation

(Ylläksen Matkailuyhdistys ry) was established in Ylläs as an effort to pull together the marketing

and event planning of the area as well as the maintenance of the ski tracks. (I8.) Before this develop-

ment, the villages, for instance, had their own separate systems for the maintenance of the tracks (I1).

As the interviews for the study were collected in 2015, the new major development in sight was the

separation of the joint marketing organisation into two separate units; the other one (Markkinointi

Oy) having its focus on the marketing of the destination and the other (Matkailuyhdistys) focusing,

for instance, on the maintenance of the skiing tracks. (I6) The local setting of being divided into two

villages also surfaces from how the joint marketing and cooperation have developed in Ylläs. Creat-

ing a joint marketing organisation and conducting effective cooperation seem to have been challeng-

ing in the area.

In the following chapters the four main concepts that arose from the data (local setting of two villages,

collaboration and joint marketing, stakeholders, and leadership of cooperation) are presented in more

detail. In the beginning of each section, there is a short overview of the findings related to that topic,

and also a table that illustrates each interviewee’s insights on different issues.

4.2 Local context of two villages

Ylläs area being geographically divided into two separate villages on opposite sides of Ylläs creates

a unique local setting to the destination. This setting has affected the development of the area signif-

icantly. Interviewees I3, I4, and I6 regard it as a strength whilst interviewees I7, I4 and I5 consider

the setting to have caused fragmentation to the cooperation and overall development of the area

throughout the years. The situation has created a competitive setting between the villages which,

again, has affected the ability to cooperate well and make decisions together. The situation has also

created a setting in which locals identify themselves with their own village rather than identifying

themselves with Ylläs (I2, I5, and I7) which could bring its own challenge to effective cooperation

and leadership. On the positive side, the development of a new road between the villages is believed

to have diminished the competition between the villages and brought them a little closer to each other.

Table 4 illustrates the insights of each interviewee on these topics.

Table 4. Findings related to the local setting of two separate villages in Ylläs.

I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8

Two villages a positive thing X X X

Two villages creating challenges/ rivalry X X X

Two villages creating an “us and them” – mind-set X X X

The new road a positive, unifying development X X X X

4.2.1 Rivalry between the villages

The insights on having two separate villages differ among interviewees; for some it is regarded as a

positive thing (I3, I4, and I6) whereas some believe it to cause competition and fragmentation to the

destination (I4, I5, and I7).

One interviewee sees two villages as a strength: “From a marketing perspective, it is clearly a

strength that there are two villages. It is definitely good to build a marketing strategy around them”

(I6) while another one regards it to bring more challenges to destination cooperation: “The mutual

attitude of the villages will probably hinder the progress of a number of projects” (I7). Another in-

terviewee further regards it to cause fragmentation: “From the point of view of organizing services,

the division of the area is naturally a problem” (I4). The lack of one clear centre is also regarded as

a negative issue by this interviewee: “In my opinion, the lack of a defined centre at Ylläs is naturally

a negative thing” (I4).

Some interviewees suggest that the villages have been in a competitive setting and that this has caused

difficulties to cooperate well and separated the villages into their own entities:

”There are two villages and one Ylläs, but the same problems are still brewing under

the surface. It seems that Äkäslompolo is a large and growing region and, somehow, it

seems that they have not realised that there is also life on the Ylläsjärvi side. Maybe

they realise that they have a ski resort, but not that there can be life down at the village.

If the villages were organising events, they didn’t plan anything together.” (I5)

The interviewee continues by bringing out that different events and projects have previously always

been focused in Äkäslompolo’s side. The interviewee feels that Ylläsjärvi has been left behind or

even been ignored by the marketing organisation when destination events have been executed:

”Most of the events were organised in Äkäslompolo. There was, for example, this inde-

pendence day candle event, where the tourism association paid for candles that the

village of Äkäslompolo could place on roadsides. However, it had not occurred to them

that a similar event could be held in Ylläsjärvi. Ylläs Jazz Blues event is also concen-

trated on Äkäslompolo alone.” (I5)

Another interviewee points out that the rival situation has caused the villages to compete also for

public sector funding and support in development matters. This, again, has fostered the polarisation

between the villages:

”We were supposed to get a school here in Ylläsjärvi, but Äkäslompolo managed to

argue that they should get a school first, and Ylläsjärvi after that, although they al-

ready have a school. In a way, the municipality has made the villages fight each other

for a small amount of money. It is understandable that because the villages are geo-

graphically distant from each other, it is really difficult for the municipality to invest

in one location.” (I7)

The rivalry between the villages still exist and effects, to some extent, the decision-making in the

cooperation. Although, it does seem like this setting is highly dependent on the person and his or her

attitude towards cooperation:

“All in all, it is difficult to say, how much the competition between the villages affects

certain decisions. But a certain kind of bickering can still be seen. Although the villages

kind of understand that it would be beneficial to work together, they still do not quite

understand it. But this, on the other hand, depends on the people. Some people under-

stand better than others, and some people seem to understand a little bit worse.” (I4)

This interviewee does, however, believe that having two villages is not necessarily a bad thing for the

area: “All in all, the two villages of the region are an asset – we should just know how to utilise it”

(I4). Another interviewee regards the rivalry between the villages as a positive thing as it forces the

villages to develop the services: “In my opinion, there is a small, healthy competition between the

villages at the moment. It has actually helped these villages to develop” (I3).

4.2.2 The “us and them” mind-set

The area being divided into two separate villages has caused some actors (I2, I5, and I7) to identify

rather with the own village than Ylläs as a whole. The mind-set of “us and them” rather than “us as

Ylläs” has caused rivalry and separation between the villages.

Having two separate villages in the area surfaces from the way that some of the interviewees talk

about different topics. For instance, when discussing about current developments of tourism in Ylläs

area, an interviewee talks about ‘us’ as the people of Äkäslompolo village instead of referring to ‘us’

as the people of Ylläs area: “But maybe in other ways the development of tourism at Ylläs has not

been what we local, native residents of Äkäslompolo want it to be” (I2). On the contrast, the same

mentality can also be detected from the interviews of people from the Ylläsjärvi village. In one of the

interviews several topics are discussed with more emphasis on the viewpoint of Ylläsjärvi village

rather than the entire Ylläs area. The own village is also compared to Äkäslompolo from different

aspects. For instance: “I think that, somehow, we have a better community spirit here in Ylläsjärvi

(than in Äkäslompolo). Whenever you try to organise an event in Ylläsjärvi, everyone works together

towards the same goal” (I7).

One interviewee brings out that nowadays the other village has also started to brand itself as its own

destination, separating itself from the idea of Ylläs as one destination: “They now have a number of

companies in Äkäslompolo that are building the Äkäslompolo's brand. Those companies have clearly

started to increase Äkäslompolo's visibility” (I5). Another interviewee would have initially also

wanted to market Äkäslompolo village as its own destination, however, the interviewee thinks that

there is really no point in starting to do it now: “If it had been my choice, I wouldn’t have tried to sell

Ylläs to the world, because Ylläs is just the name of a fell. I would have tried to sell Äkäslompolo. But

now, at this stage and after so many years, there is no point in changing or breaking this concept.”

4.2.3 A new road as an effort to unify the villages

A major developmental advancement in Ylläs seems to have been the new road that was built between

the two villages in 2006. It has been regarded to have unified the villages and diminished the rivalry

between them (I1, I4, I6 and I8). Although the road has enhanced cooperation, I4 believes the rivalry

still persistently exists.

According to one of the interviewees, the road has had a great impact on the cooperation in the area:

“Improving the connections between these villages has been an essential prerequisite for improving

their cooperation. Back in 2006, the “Maisematie” road between the villages was completed. It made

strengthening cooperation much easier.” (I1) Another interviewee continues with similar insights:

“The new road (Maisematie) benefits everyone. It was included in the late 90s development plan. It

(the new road) was considered important, because it connects and unifies Ylläs. It has been a good

solution.” (I8) The road is regarded to bring the villages closer to each other. Tighter connection

between the villages is, again, seen to better unify the area and the services that are offered:

“The new road clearly improved the unity of the area. It brought the villages and ser-

vices closer to each other. Earlier, it was rare to visit the other side of the fell. There

has been a joint ski pass all the time, meaning that people have been able to ski on the

entire fell, but the new road was crucial for the unification of Ylläs, because services

became easily available on both sides of the fell.” (I6)

Another interviewee believes that the new road has, indeed, had a positive effect the destination co-

operation, however, some rivalry between the villages still persistently exist:

“Before the new road, there was great rivalry between the villages. Now that we meet

more often, the amount of rivalry has begun to decrease little by little. But it is still

there, beneath the surface. I don’t know if the generation will change and if the situa-

tion will improve much even then, but were are heading in a better direction at the

moment.” (I4)

4.3 Collaboration and joint marketing

There has been no collective vision among destination stakeholders when it comes to the cooperation

and joint marketing of the area. The marketing organisation has tried to please the desires and interests

of all of its members, causing the effectiveness of marketing practises to suffer and the development

to become slower. This has also had a negative effect on the trust among stakeholders. Pleasing eve-

ryone has led to a situation where there is no focus on what should be the target customers. Along the

years, there has also been dichotomy between cross-country and downhill skiing, causing fragmenta-

tion to the marketing practises. However, nature as the focus of marketing has nowadays gained con-

sensus among the stakeholders.

Marketing budgets not being sufficient enough has caused concern and differing views among the

stakeholders. Different changes that have been made to the membership fees by the joint marketing

organisation have also created dissatisfaction among the stakeholders and diminished trust towards

the organisation. The amount of the membership fees in correlation to the effectiveness of joint mar-

keting has also brought out the question of the convenience and benefits of joint efforts. The findings

are presented in more detail in table 5.

Table 5. Findings regarding different cooperation and joint marketing related issues.

I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8

Joint marketing organisation pleasing everyone X X X X

No consensus of target customers X X X X

Cross-country skiing / downhill skiing causing frag-

mentation

X X X X

No focus in the marketing message X X X X

Nature in the focus of marketing X X X X

Marketing budgets not sufficient X X X X

Changes to membership fees causing dissatisfaction

/ diminishing trust

Joint marketing not effective enough in relation to

the amount of membership fees

4.3.1 Pleasing everyone

Trying to fulfil the requests and desires of all the member as equally as possible has made the joint

marketing not as effective as it should be. According to an interviewee: “I’m sure that one of the

problems is that we have tried to maintain a balance and to please all parties and companies involved

in co-marketing in the region.” (I1) Another interviewee describes joint marketing almost as a con-

stant struggle: “For years, co-marketing has been difficult and has resulted in arguments.” (I2) Try-

ing to make all members equally pleased has had its effect on the development and marketing of the

area: “It is curious that we are still dwelling on these issues. We just haven't really decided that we

don't have to please everyone all the time. I feel that trying to take the wishes of all parties into

account just hinders co-marketing.” (I5) The reason for this way of conducting marketing is, accord-

ing to an interviewee, the result of having numerous smaller companies in the area but only a few

larger firms: “We have so few big operators here in Ylläs. We have so many small operators here,

that in a way we have had to be excessively democratic.” (I4) This way of operating has also had a

harmful effect on trust among stakeholders: “When the association (Ylläs travel association) was

established in 2003, we had a good community spirit. However, because all kinds of minor decisions

have been made there, we have lost trust in the process. Now that trust should be rebuilt. It would

benefit the entire region.” (I8)

Target customers

As a result of the marketing organisation trying to please everyone, there has been no consensus on

what customer groups should be targeted in the joint marketing. The matter has caused disagreements

among stakeholders. The stakeholders have not been able to agree about this issue and the marketing

organisation has not succeeded to choose a specific target group. As an interviewee brings out:

“We have never decided to choose certain groups and target our marketing to them.

Choosing a target group might have been quite a mess when we have tried to take eve-

ryone’s wishes into account. And we might still be doing that. I hope that would change

a little. So far it has felt like every action has caused some kind of controversy. Every-

one's attitude seems to be that if we give money to someone, it is out of one’s own

pocket.” (I5)

Another interviewee also supports this view by stating that this topic has raised opposing views

throughout the years in joint marketing: “We have not reached a consensus on our target market. We

have argued about it for ages.” (I4) There is similarly no consensus between the two villages when

it comes to the target customers, creating, therefore, its own challenge to the marketing of the area:

“If you think about the whole customer base of Ylläs, Äkäslompolo has more cross-country skiers and

Ylläsjärvi draws more downhill skiers.” (I6) Another interviewee also brings out similar insights:

“In a way, the two sides of the fell are different. Ylläsjärvi is for the younger crowd and

families with children. Äkäslompolo draws quieter crowds. Äkäslompolo has cross-

country skiers and people who have come there for decades. In Äkäslompolo, nature

and tranquillity are emphasised. On the Ylläsjärvi side, there is more action.” (I8)

Cross-country skiing and downhill skiing

Linked to the topics of trying to please everyone and choosing the target customers, is the dichotomy

between cross country skiing and downhill skiing. There has not been a clear focus on which sport

should be the focal point in marketing, causing disagreement among stakeholders, consuming time

and resources, and even diminishing trust. According to an interviewee: “We have also had a juxta-

position of downhill and cross-country skiing. These are the kind of strange and irrelevant things on

which we have wasted an unbelievable amount of time and resources.” (I5) Another interviewee also

highlights the dichotomy that has been present between the two sports in the past:

“The most clichéd juxtaposition has been the one between cross-country and downhill

skiing. People have been worried that one of them will gain more exposure through co-

marketing than the other. Primarily, advocates of cross-country skiing, which are

smaller companies, have been afraid that the large lift companies will push downhill

skiing too forcefully, because they have a strong role in co-marketing. Small companies

have thought that co-marketing cannot be led by downhill skiing alone.” (I1)

According to the interviewee, the two ski resots of Ylläs area have been active in the joint marketing

activities, however, they have tried to equally focus on both sports. And again, this has led to the

point where everyone’s desires have been pleased too broadly:

“Even though people from these lift companies have participated in achieving the com-

mon goals, they have not just advanced their own interests. Of course, they have also

expressed their interests, but they have also taken the interests of other parties into

account in a very balanced way. You could say that perhaps these interests have been

taken into account in a way that is too balanced, and as a result, marketing has lacked

a clear direction. It might have been the biggest mistake we’ve made in co-marketing.”

The discussion of which sport should be the focus of the area’s marketing has even created distrust

among entrepreneurs: “We’ve always had these discussions about what area of strength should lead

the marketing. When we have carried out the marketing efforts, there has been distrust and discussion

about what are our strengths: do they include the ski slopes or the skiing trails of the region.” (I8)

Some companies, especially the smaller, local ones, are regarded to be in favour of cross-country

skiing: “Small, local companies think that we should emphasise our skiing tracks and cross-country

skiing more than downhill skiing in our co-marketing efforts. We have been going back and forth

about it during our co-marketing efforts.” (I8) On the contrary, some actors are regarded to believe

that too much money is spend on the up keeping of the skiing tracks: “We are continuously discussing

that we invest too much money in these cross-country skiing trails.” (I8)

One interviewee does not think that there is a contradiction between the two sports:

“I don't think there is any kind of rivalry between downhill skiing and cross-country

skiing. Naturally, when a marketing budget is being planned for co-marketing, we think

about how much we should invest in each thing, what will be mentioned in brochures

and what is the key focus in marketing. However, I don’t think that there is any kind of

conflict between downhill and cross-country skiing.” (I3)

Another interviewee states that previously the contradiction has been quite strong between the sports:

“Back in the 90s, the rivalry between downhill and cross-country skiing became pretty ridiculous at

times- when we were making travel brochures. A reason for an argument could be that because there

are four images of downhill skiing in the brochure, there should also be four images of cross-country

skiing.” (I4) However, the interviewee highlights that things have changed since then: “Now I’m

talking about history. I can say that in recent years, things have improved.” (I4)

The marketing message

Not being successful in deciding what exact target groups to pursue has also effected the focus of the

marketing message. Deciding on the message has been challenging, and the focus has been missing.

An interviewee regards the lack of marketing focus to result from trying to please everyone’s needs:

“We have tried to please every member and company in the region, and because of that our marketing

communication has lacked focus. Because of that, it has not really reached customers either.” (I1)

Another interviewee also brings out that the focus is missing and that the variety of the area’s offer-

ings make it even harder to find consensus:

“We have not succeeded in marketing communication. We don't really know what we

want to communicate about this region. We ourselves have been confused about

whether we should tell customers that we are a ski resort or a nature resort. Naturally,

we should first clarify what we want to communicate about this region. But Ylläs is

unbelievably versatile. How can you choose one focus area?” (I5)

One interviewee brings out the disorderliness when it comes to the marketing of the area. According

to the interviewee, the joint marketing is not focusing enough on what the customers want: “What

Ylläs markets is in contradiction with what customers want. I often find it funny that Ylläs advertises

this and that, and when you read customer feedback, the customers just want to come and ski in the

nature, or hike in the autumn and snowshoe in winter.” (I2) Another interviewee also brings out the

frustration regarding how incapable the joint marketing has been in trying to find different methods

to conduct marketing: “I think that Ylläs has been marketed in the same way for as long as I remem-

ber. Trade shows, a brochure, Skimbaaja and some other magazine – that's it.” (I3)

Focusing on nature seems to have gained some consensus among different actors (I2, I3, I6, and I8).

The focus seems to have shifted from the competition between cross-country skiing and downhill

skiing more towards valuing what the nature has to offer in Ylläs region: “I think the positive thing

about that development is that a lot of new things have also been introduced in recent years. Other

things, in addition to cross-country and downhill skiing, have been advertised. We have specified that

nature as a whole is important and one of our strengths.” (I8) Another interviewee further supports

this vision: “In the long term, Ylläs has always put nature first, and it is a location for people who

are interested in nature. I think that this is what our future looks like, and these values will become

more important – even more so over the following years.” (I6) Another interviewee continues: “We

have one thing that we do not have to build and that others (other resorts) cannot build. It is nature.

It is the one thing that we have and that must always be considered first, before doing anything else.”

4.3.2 Financing and budgeting of joint marketing

An issue causing concern, and somewhat differing views among local stakeholders, seems to be the

financing and budgeting of joint marketing. The budgets are not considered big enough (I1, I3, I4 and

I6). I2 and I3 would also put more emphasis on other marketing related issues, not merely on the size

of the budgets. According to an interviewee: “We have had tough times here financially, and Ylläs’

marketing budget should, for example, be on an entirely different level.” (I3) This statement was

supported by I1, I4, and I6, all sharing the same opinion of the marketing budgets not being big

enough. According to an interviewee the underlying reason for the lack of marketing money is due to

the fact that there are no larger chain companies in the area that would bring more money in the

common pot: “In my opinion, this is the most important reason why our marketing budgets are so

much smaller. This region has so many small companies and we do not have those huge chain busi-

nesses.” (I1)

One interviewee had a differing insight to the issue of marketing budgets, suggesting that the area

should first focus on fixing the product offer before making any plans for new, bigger budgets: “I

have been very critical of the new marketing budget that is being planned. They are talking about an

investment of one million euros, and I have told them that it does not make sense, in so far as the

products that we are offering are not good.” (I2) One interviewee also highlighted that it is not just

about money when it comes to marketing. More attention should have been paid to other ways in

which to market the area:

“I think that not everything should depend on money. There are a lot of other ways to

market and sell Ylläs. The association should just hire people, who have a clear job

description and know what they are supposed to do. For example, someone could have

looked for sponsorship deals.” (I3)

4.3.3 Membership fees

Membership fee issues have had an effect on the trust among stakeholders. They have also caused

disagreement, dissatisfaction, negative atmosphere, and brought out the question of convenience of

joint efforts.

Changes to membership fees for large companies

Changing the amount of membership fees for larger companies has created dissatisfaction, diminished

trust, and caused negative atmosphere and dichotomy among stakeholders. The underlying reason for

changing the membership fees was the amount of the payments getting too big for the largest com-

panies to pay:

“Our membership fees are mainly specified according to the turnover of each company.

The principle is that the larger the company, the more they will pay. Eventually Com-

pany X would say that they cannot pay more than they already do. This means that even

though their turnover increases, they cannot increase their financial input in co-mar-

keting as much.” (I1)

In order to keep the largest companies involved, the joint marketing organisation created a payment

limit to the membership fees: “There was even a marketing fund cap, which was the maximum amount

that large companies must pay for co-marketing. The membership fee of small companies was tied to

revenue and for large companies it was related to revenue up to a certain point. The maximum for

large companies was 50,000 euros.” (I5) The organisation justified the change by the importance of

having the large companies involved in order to be competent: “The reasoning for enforcing the pay-

ment cap arrangement was that without it, the large companies would not get involved in co-market-

ing, and it will not be effective without their financial input.” (I1)

Some actors understand the need for this change, however, it has caused dissatisfaction among some

entrepreneurs: “I never considered the payment cap to be a problem, but a few companies were really

upset about it. It has caused a rift between entrepreneurs too. For some it has been OK and for others

it hasn't. And we keep talking about it year after year.” (I5) The dissatisfaction has resulted in some

companies leaving the organisation: “The payment cap irritates people enormously. It has been one

of the reasons why a number of smaller companies have quit co-marketing.” (I1) The payment

changes have also had an effect on the mutual trust: “This change in the membership fees undermines

trust. You know, there is no trust.” (I8) Another interviewee continues: “The payment cap just creates

distrust and negative feelings against Company X, and, thus, against the whole co-marketing system,

in some of the companies.” (I1)

Other membership fee issues

Insincere actions of some members regarding membership fees, and the way the marketing organisa-

tion has handled the situation, have diminished the trust towards the marketing organisation. At one

point it turned out that not all companies had revealed their real turnovers to the organisation in order

to get by with a smaller membership fee: “And at that point, it had already turned out that the turn-

over of a few companies was larger than they had reported, meaning that they had not paid their

membership fees in full.” (I1) This finding had its effect on the trust towards the organisation: “The

interpretation was that the travel association had allowed this knowingly and had given discounts to

these companies. This was not the case, however.” (I1) The organisation decided to start checking

the turnovers more carefully in the future, but it did not require the companies to pay back the missing

amounts from the past: “The board of the travel association decided that it will not collect the unpaid

amounts retroactively. After this, we began to review turnovers, when possible.” (I1)

This new protocol turned out to be challenging for some companies, and resulted in the organisation

requiring smaller fees from these companies: “Then there were a few companies, although not many,

that just couldn't pay the amount based on their turnover. The board of the travel association has

taken the stance that in these cases, these companies have been allowed to pay a smaller amount.”

(I1) This decisions was, however, too much for some companies to accept: “For that reason, Com-

pany X, for example, has quit the travel association. They think that this is completely unfair and they

do not want to participate in such unfair activities.” (I1)

Criticism regarding the marketing efficacy in comparison to the membership fees

Joint marketing’s effectiveness compared to the membership fees that the stakeholders are paying,

has led to question the convenience of joint efforts. Some local companies feel that the joint market-

ing is not effective enough and that besides having to pay remarkable membership fees, they have to

do most of the marketing themselves: “Sometimes Company X gives really harsh criticism. Some-

times the criticism has been really, really harsh. They have said that we should market more, and that

they have to do a lot of marketing themselves and still pay a large membership fee.” (I1) Another

interviewee continues from the standpoint of small companies: “For many small companies, the mar-

keting association membership fees are a substantial investment.” (I7)

An interviewee criticises the joint marketing for focusing too much on the up keeping of skiing and

snowmobile tracks with the money collected from the local companies: “Here, the marketing asso-

ciation does not sell anything. It just collects money from companies to create a skiing trail network

and snowmobile trails. (I7) The marketing organisation is not regarded effective enough in its mar-

keting activities from this company’s stance: “We bring at least as many customers into the area as

co-marketing brings us. Yet, the money flows from us to the travel association, so that they can create

the skiing trails and other things. I understand that because they have no other income, they have to

collect membership fees.” (I7)

4.4 Stakeholders

DMO has previously not been efficient in its marketing activities (I3) or been able to match with the

actual customer needs (I2). However, the expectations towards the new form of marketing organisa-

tion (Markkinointi Oy) are mostly hopeful and positive. The role of the municipality in the joint

marketing of Ylläs has so far been insignificant. Municipality’s focus has been more on town planning

related issues. Previously the attitude towards tourism has been sceptical, and the mining industry has

been seen as a better source of income. However, there are expectations that municipality’s input on

tourism is going to become stronger and that the importance of tourism is now better understood.

Table 6 summarises these findings in more detail.

When discussing the role of entrepreneurs and companies, a major issue seems to be that the focus is

solely on the own company rather than on the development of the entire area. Disagreements among

entrepreneurs (I3, I4, I7, and I8), together with actors with strong opposing views (I1, I4, and I5), are

also making it problematic to find a collective vision, resulting as a difficulty to cooperate and con-

duct joint marketing decisions together. Disagreements have also been one reason for the municipality

not being eager to put more effort on the joint marketing (I5). Having two ski lift companies in the

area instead of one, has made the development of the area not as effective as it could have been (I6

and I8), and also caused unnecessary competition and fragmentation to the area (I8, I7 and I4). The

findings regarding stakeholders are gathered in more detail in Table 6.

Table 6. Findings regarding destination stakeholder related issues.

I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8

DMO has not been effective enough X X

Positive expectations towards the new form of DMO X X X X X

Municipality’s role insignificant in the past X X X X X

Municipality’s attitude towards tourism sceptical in the

past, with mining industry more in focus

X X X X

Municipality’s role expected to become stronger X X X

Entrepreneurs’ focus merely on their own companies X X X

Disagreements and strong opposing opinions a problem X X X X X X

Two ski lift companies creating challenges X X X X

4.4.1 The new marketing organisation (Ylläksen Markkinointi Oy)

The joint marketing organisation’s role in the past

The association that was established back in 2003 in order to pull together, among other things, the

marketing activities of Ylläs, was considered to have had a significant role in the area according to

one of the interviewees: “I’m sure that Ylläs travel association has a great role in the region. It has

been quite a step to start marketing the region together, instead of everyone trying to gain visibility

and get by in the world with their own small investments.” (I4) The interviewee was also pleased with

the people within the association and their efforts on joint marketing: “Now that marketing commu-

nications are being handled by the marketing company, they have people there who have been trained

to do it and who have a vision. In my opinion, marketing communication has been absolutely better

now.” (I4) Another interviewee, on the contrary, had previously found it problematic that it has al-

ways been the same people in charge of the decisions making, and it would be crucial to hire new

people to take care of the joint marketing:

“If the old geezers would step down from the travel association a little sooner, it might

benefit this village. But the same people remain there, and they want to continue work-

ing there and have their meetings. We should hire people there to do that work and then

everyone could concentrate on running their own businesses. And we would all pay to

the travel association the amount it requires to have the kind of people there who can

take care of these things. Last year, once again, we tried really hard to hire new people,

but it didn’t work out.” (I3)

The same interviewee also criticised that in the past the joint marketing has not been organised well:

“We have had no systematic marketing here.” (I3) This interviewee highlighted especially the lack

of inner marketing in the area:

“We do not do have any kind of internal marketing here. I mean, every company does

it individually, but Ylläs does not. We have suggested two or three things that could be

done to improve that, but no one understands it. No one does anything to ensure that

the customers would also book their next vacations from Ylläs. Each company does as

much individually as they can, but no one works together.” (I3)

One reason for the dissatisfaction of some members seems to come from the feeling of the joint

marketing organisation not doing enough marketing on these companies’ main customer groups:

“For a long time, one problem has been that we do not do enough marketing abroad together.” (I1)

Another reason also seems to be that the joint marketing and the current development of tourism in

the area are not congruent to some members’ visions: “The development of tourism at Ylläs has not

been what we local, native residents of Äkäslompolo want it to be.” (I2) Dissatisfaction with the joint

marketing organisation has made some members consider breaking away from the organisation alto-

gether: “I am starting to think that perhaps we will participate in this official marketing of Ylläs for

a year or two and then quit.” (I2)

Attitudes toward the new organisation

The planned establishment of a new form of joint marketing organisation had support from several

interviewees (I1, I3, I4, I5, and I6). As an interviewee puts it: “We have tried to create this kind of

marketing organisation for a long time.” (I5) Another interviewee was also optimistic of the current

developments: “The actions we have taken lately are taking us in a good direction. There are some

threats, of course, but I think that the new organisation is a step in the right direction.” (I4) Another

interviewee, likewise, had optimistic expectations towards the new organisation, and also found it

positive that the municipality should now start putting more emphasis on the marketing of the area:

“We have now done an alright job, and the result was also good when we were able to

establish Ylläksen Markkinointi Oy as a stronger actor and now that we invest in co-

marketing. The travel association can now concentrate on maintaining the cross-coun-

try ski tracks. I think that this is a good thing. The municipality will also invest in mar-

keting.” (I6)

One interviewee had strong believe that the joint marketing has now found consensus among its

members: “We have now worked on a strategy for a year. We have organised different kinds of events,

of which most have been open to everyone. We have discussed and used different methods, and now

we can say that we have found a common line that all parties agree with.” (I1) The interviewee

continues: “Now all we have to do is act according to the agreed strategy.” (I1) Another interviewee,

likewise, believed that the new organisation will be a good development for the area: “It must be

good that marketing is carried out by a separate organisation. I’m hoping that when the organisations

are separated, we will accomplish something new.” (I3) Previously this interviewee had not been

pleased with the way the joint marketing has been conducted and also thought that it has been in

conflict with this company’s objectives: “We have presented many small wishes and thoughts over

the years. Some things have been implemented, but many haven't. We are a private company, and the

final decisions about the way Ylläs is marketed contradict with the wishes of our company.” (I3)

One interviewee did not regard the new organisation as a positive development. The previous expe-

riences of this interviewee have been that the joint marketing is not congruent to the real needs of the

customers: “Markkinointi Oy does not meet the needs and feedback we get from our customers. Read-

ing customer feedback and reading all the grand things people say at Ylläs’ official seminars are two

different things.” (I2) The interviewee believes that the underlying reason for creating a new organi-

sation is that some of the larger companies can gain authority over the marketing operations, and by

doing so, more effectively drive their own ambitions:

“When the few large companies in the region realised that in the association they can-

not follow the rules of associations, they decided to ask the municipality for support to

establish Markkinointi Oy. These companies now have control in the company, allowing

them to influence things, according to their own strategies.” (I2)

4.4.2 Municipality

Municipality’s role in tourism in the past

Municipality’s role in the joint marketing and cooperation has been insignificant in the past. The

focus has rather been on mining industry and town planning related issues. The interviewees had

consistent views on how the municipality of Kolari has related to tourism in Ylläs area in the past:

“The municipality's investments have been modest, compared to Ylläs’ largest Finnish competitors.”

(I4) As another interviewee puts it: “Previous municipal managers may not have quite realised how

important tourism is. Or maybe they did in their speeches, but, in practice, the municipality's invest-

ment has left a great deal to be desired. The municipality's investments have been quite modest.” (I1)

Another interviewee amplifies: “It might be that the municipality has not had sufficient competence

for investing in tourism. The municipality has not dared to take a step towards significantly increasing

investments in tourism. Previously, the role of the municipality has been small.” (I5) Another inter-

viewee also agrees that the municipality has been lacking vision for tourism: “Unfortunately, people

who have not valued or understood tourism have occupied positions in the municipality's decision-

making organs. If the municipality would have participated more efficiently from the beginning, I

believe that Ylläs would have gained more visibility.” (I3)

According to one interviewee, municipality’s input on tourism has not been congruent with the

amount of income that tourism has brought to it:

“The input of the municipality of Kolari, compared to how much tax income the munic-

ipality has gained, has been extremely small. To be honest, the input of the municipality

has been insignificant, if I think about the 80s. If you think about how much tax income

alone tourism brings to the municipality, the amounts that the municipality has invested

back have been small.” (I3)

Another interviewee believes that partly because of the lack of municipality’s financial input, the

destination has fallen behind some other major travel destinations when it comes to marketing: “I

think that the municipality should have invested more. In marketing, we have lost to Levi and Ruka,

because they have had larger marketing budgets all the time.” (I6)

One interviewee brings out that many local people did not regard it as the municipality’s task to get

immersed in the development of tourism in the area. Tourism was not regarded as something that

could have been taken for a serious business: “Because everyone was used to physical work, they

thought that tourism was not “real” work. It wasn’t appreciated as work. The attitude towards tour-

ism was like that in those times. It wasn’t appreciated.” (I8) For instance, the mining industry in the

area diminished tourism’s role and importance (I1, I3, I4, and I8). In the past, the mind-set in the

municipality was that tourism was not regarded important as long as the mining companies were

bringing money and jobs to the area: “When Rautaruukki and Partek were operating, we didn't need

tourism. People then thought that we will get by with the industrial plants we have here.” (I8)

Mining industry still causes confrontation as some actors still regard it to bring more money and jobs

to the area than tourism:

“We still have the mining industry in the background here. The mining industry is al-

ways advertised with the amount of jobs it creates and the money it brings to the region.

But those are also estimates, and no one can know what the reality will be. Now we

have tried to make the figures related to the financial significance of tourism for this

municipality concrete, in order to open their eyes to the reality.” (I1)

The municipality’s role in Ylläs has been more on the town planning related issues (I1, I3, I4, I5, and

I8). As an interviewee puts it: “People have criticised the fact that the municipality has mainly con-

centrated on planning cottage plots. Entrepreneurs think that the municipality has forgotten to de-

velop its services and other things.” (I4) There is criticism towards the municipality’s eagerness to

continuously plan new cottage areas: “People feel that there are enough cottages and that the region

would need plots for commercial accommodation. But, because the cottages sell well, the municipal-

ity offers them. And this has been criticised quite a lot.” (I5)

Another issue related to town planning is that the municipality did not seek to attain land from the

centre of Äkäslompolo village when it had the change: “It was also quite short-sighted to draw up

shore plans in the tourism centre. The idea was that the municipality would outsource those areas,

as a shore plan belongs to private landowners. The municipality didn't want to buy those land areas

itself.” (I8) Nowadays private actors own land from the centre, making it difficult to make develop-

ment plans to it. This has caused the centre to become somewhat fragmented: “In Äkäslompolo, for

example, the problem is that private landowners own the village centre. It is not possible to make

reasonable deals with them. It is one of the reasons why the structure of the region has spread out.”

(I8) In Levi the situation is the opposite: “In Levi, they have solved the problem magnificently. There,

the municipal officials, and probably elected officials as well, were wise enough to acquire land, so

that it was owned by the municipality.” (I1)

The expectations towards the municipality in the future

Municipality’s input on tourism is regarded to be getting better now (I1, I3, and I6). According to an

interviewee, the municipality is now starting to realise the benefits that tourism can create: “Now we

have been able to open some sort of dialogical connection with the municipality, and we hope that

the municipality would begin to see the importance of tourism and understand that the municipality

should also participate in tourism more than before.” (I3) Another interviewee thinks that the attitude

towards tourism has had positive changes in the resent years: “For a few years now, I have felt that

the situation has improved among the municipality’s officials.” (I1)

So far the municipality’s financial support in joint marketing has been, according to an interviewee,

quite small: “The municipality has used only a few thousand euros per year to market Ylläs.” (I1)

The situation is, however, now expected to experience positive changes:

“But, if the municipality’s promises were to come true, the municipality would invest

approximately 100,000 euros per year in the travel association, which maintains the

skiing trails, and approximately 200,000 per year in marketing. That would be a signif-

icant increase in the municipality’s monetary investment.” (I1)

Another interviewee is also optimistic towards the municipality’s monetary input in the future: “The

municipality will start to invest in marketing. It now seems that the municipality's investment will

increase.” (I6) The interviewee believes that with better financial support from the municipality,

Ylläs is going to become stronger as a travel destination: “If the municipality, as it would now seem,

starts to invest in marketing, I believe that Ylläs will rise again.” (I6)

One of the objectives in the new marketing strategy of the joint marketing is to get the municipality

more devoted to the tourism activities. As an effort to make this happen, the joint marketing organi-

sation has organised educational events for the municipal actors to take part in:

“The municipality's investments have now been significantly increased in the coopera-

tion and marketing strategy. For this reason, a tourism “night school” has been orga-

nized with the municipal government and the entire municipal council. The idea is to

convince them that it is worthwhile for the municipality to invest in tourism. The growth

of and success of tourism will benefit the entire municipality.” (I1)

4.4.3 Entrepreneurs and companies

The efforts of entrepreneurs

Findings suggest that putting enough emphasis on developing the entire area in a joint effort seems

to be challenging for some entrepreneurs and companies. The focus is merely on the success of the

own company (I3, I5, and I8).

An interviewee emphasises the role that entrepreneurs have had when it comes to the development of

Ylläs area: “Tourism has developed a great deal, due to the work of the entrepreneurs.” (I2) When

being asked about the actors who have been most enthusiastically and actively participating in the

cooperation and joint marketing activities, another interviewee emphasised the role of larger compa-

nies: ”The largest companies have had the strongest input in co-marketing, but, luckily, some smaller

companies have also participated and co-marketing has not been left entirely to the largest compa-

nies. However, the largest companies have been the most active.” (I1) Another interviewee, however,

has an opposing view to this. The interviewee states that currently there are a couple larger companies

that for the most part only focus on their own goals without paying enough attention on the entire

area’s development: “The situation is that a couple of large companies have decided to act on their

own. Large companies do what is best for themselves, instead of looking at the full picture or thinking

about the region.” (I8)

Other interviewees also find it problematic that not all companies and entrepreneurs seem to be able

to see the bigger picture and to put enough attention on joint marketing and cooperation efforts, re-

gardless of the desire to develop the area: “Because everyone wants this village to develop, these

people should also be able to think about other things than merely their companies.” (I3) Some en-

trepreneurs are also regarded to be merely focused on their own company, without much emphasis

on cooperation: “Entrepreneur X does business the way that benefits that business alone and is not

willing to cooperate. We have tried to negotiate different solutions with that entrepreneur. When a

person only looks at things from their own point of view, it is difficult to cooperate with them in a

mutually beneficial way.” (I5) Another interviewee states that for some entrepreneurs, tourism is

rather a second occupation, or even a hobby, rather than a full-time job or commitment. This, again,

has its effect on the area’s development: “The situation is improving every year, but there are still a

lot of people for whom tourism is just another job or even a hobby. And because my livelihood has

always depended on this, I have always had to think about my own product and ways to develop it

further.” (I3)

Disagreements among entrepreneurs

Disagreements among entrepreneurs, together with actors with strong opposing views, were regarded

to be noteworthy factors causing difficulties to cooperate and conduct joint marketing decisions to-

gether (I1, I3, I4, I5, I7, and I8). Finding consensus on common goals was regarded challenging in

the area:

“When we are sitting in meetings or when we should decide together what resources

we are investing, how much of a said resource we are investing and where we are in-

vesting that resource, one person talks about trees and another about forests. What I’m

saying is that it is difficult to find a common vision, which is what Ylläs would need.”

According to another interviewee: “In my experience, co-marketing always involves bickering. Every

time I feel that we’ve managed to decide something, the next meeting turns into a warzone. We are

really bad at arriving at a mutual understanding.” (I8) Another interviewee, likewise, brings out the

challenge of finding consensus:

“But people in Äkäslompolo are not particularly united, either. Not even on that side.

Someone once said that it is easier to get the municipality to lay a kilometre of snow-

mobile trail in Ylläsjärvi than it is to get a metre in Äkäslompolo. In Äkäslompolo, you

really have to fight against all the other opinions before a decision can be made.” (I7)

Not being able to find consensus and continuous disagreements have been making it challenging for

the area to move forward with its development and marketing activities:

“The problem is that the disagreements take up the time of our operative staff. When

we should take action to attract customers to the region, we are wasting an enormous

amount of energy on managing internal affairs. When making a decision, all parties

should agree with it. This has not worked out very well. Instead, there has always been

a very loud opposition.” (I4)

There seems to be some visible and strong personalities that often have an opposing approach when

trying to make decisions together: “There are three very strong personalities participating in co-

marketing. These people have hindered a lot of decisions here. That is why we make no progress.

They are willing to complain so much that people get tired of fighting.” (I5) One interviewee regards

oneself as one of these strong opponents: “I have a great deal of opinions about this co-marketing

business. Everybody knows that.” (I2) Another interviewee states that it is often the same entrepre-

neurs that do not agree on the common goals:

“The same entrepreneurs who always oppose everything participate in the meetings.

Every time we decide on something, they start to undermine the decision in the field,

and it takes up a lot of time. It has been very frustrating for us, who have participated

in co-marketing. And since we are following the rules of democracy in co-marketing,

the majority is standing behind the decisions we have made anyway. But those couple

of companies always oppose everything so strongly.” (I4)

One problem, according to an interviewee, is the way that some companies regard other companies

that put effort and time on joint marketing. The attitude seems to be that these companies ultimately

only have their own interests in mind:

“These same people invest a great deal of their working time taking care of common

things. The so-called “complainers” do not notice this. They assume that whenever

someone invests his/her own working time or money in common things, they have some-

thing to gain from it or they are just looking out for their own interests. That is not the

case.” (I1)

Disagreements among entrepreneurs are also regarded to have affected municipality’s role and effort

in joint marketing:

“The role of the municipality has been really small. The municipality has heard about

our internal conflicts, and do not trust us to take care of co-marketing in the region.

Sometimes they come to our meetings, and they only remember what the holdouts say.

Many municipal decision-makers have said that this kind of crowd (who just shouts)

cannot accomplish anything.” (I5)

Unless the entrepreneurs and companies start putting more effort on making the joint marketing more

effective, the municipality has not been willing to put more effort into it either:

“The municipality officials have set a condition that if the entrepreneurs have invested,

then the municipality will invest, as well. But the entrepreneurs at Ylläs have not been

able to become invested in the development. When we have tried to start a new project,

we haven't been able to collect money from companies because of our arguments. And

this has meant that the municipality has not made any investments, either.” (I5)

Two ski lift companies

Having two ski resorts in Ylläs is regarded to have caused unnecessary competition and hindered the

development of the area (I4, I6, I7, and I8). Some interviewees (I1 and I2), however, do not see any

problems in having two competing ski lift companies: “I don't think that these lift companies are

problematic for Ylläs’ development. It sounds like Soviet thinking that there must be one booking

office and one lift company.” (I2) According to another interviewee, the two companies are cooper-

ating well: “I feel that lift companies co-operate in a lot of things. They both clearly understand that

they have a great deal of mutual interest, such as Ylläs as a region and its development. I don’t see

the lift companies as rivals.” (I1)

One interviewee thinks that having only one ski lift company would be better for the area: “Naturally,

it would be better a better situation (if there were only one lift company), but that will not happen.”

(I4) Another interviewee regards that it would have been beneficiary if the two companies would

have been merged together: “It would have been good, if that acquisition had been made back then.

Things would probably look quite different here.” (I6) Some interviewees (I7 and I8) think that hav-

ing two ski resorts has caused unnecessary competition to the area, and that this energy could have

been spend on other issues: “Probably quite a few people working at or with the lift companies have

wondered how things would change if both companies were owned by the same business. The entire

fell would cooperate and people would not waste time fighting with each other.” (I7) Another inter-

viewee continues: “If there would have been only one lift company in Ylläs, the situation would be

better, as there would be no local rivalry.” (I8) The interviewee believes that having only one ski lift

company would have made the development of the area more effective throughout the years:

“You could say that we have wasted resources. Both lift companies have developed

their side of the fell and people have kind of thought that their competitor is on the other

side of the fell. It has led to a sort of arms race and even unnecessary investments. That

money could have been spent on something else that would have developed the area.”

Having only one ski lift company might have had a positive effect on the customer experience, effi-

cacy and expenses, which could have also had an effect on the entire destination’s development:

“Alone, the lift companies are sort of mid-sized, but together, they would become a

larger actor. And most of all, if they cooperated, it would be possible to streamline the

cost structure and customer service. At times, we have way too many options here. And

when there are a large number of customers, we cannot provide them with the best

possible experience, because both lift companies try to keep the customers on their

side.” (I4)

4.5 The leader of cooperation

Ylläs area is considered to lack strong personalities that would be leading the cooperation and devel-

opment of the entire area. Local entrepreneurs have also not been eager to take a leadership position

(I6 and I7). Some interviewees do not regard it essential to have a leader in Ylläs in the first place.

Only one interviewee considered that the DMO could be the actor to take the responsibility of the

area’s leadership. Some interviewees considered that the leadership should be found from among

entrepreneurs or one of the larger companies. I3 and I8 also saw the elite network as a way to carry

out the leadership in the area. The findings are presented in more detail in Table 7.

Table 7. Findings regarding destination leadership related issues.

4.5.1 The lack of strong, visible personalities

Ylläs area seems to be lacking strong and visible personalities that would have the motivation and

drive to lead the cooperation in order to more effectively develop the entire area. For some (I2 and

I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8

Lack of strong, visible personalities X X X X

Locals not willing to take a leadership position X X

Having a leader not important X X X

DMO as the destination leader X

A local entrepreneur or a company as a leader X X X

Elite network as the form of leadership X X

I3), having a leader is not considered important in the first place. I6 considers cooperation important,

but does not find it significant to have someone leading the cooperation.

According to an interviewee, there may be strong personalities in the area, however, the focus is

merely on the own business, not on leading the cooperation: “We might lack strong personalities.

Especially the kind of strong personalities, who would be willing to work to improve services as a

whole. We have a few strong personalities, who work to achieve their own goals, but not for the

greater good.” (I1) Congruently, another interviewee states that Ylläs has no clear leader: “What is

clear at Ylläs, and what separates us from, for example, the neighbouring fell (Levi), is that we do

not have a leader.” (I4) What the interviewee also finds problematic, is that there are not really any

family members of some of the larger firms involved in the development and cooperation of Ylläs:

“Members of the families who own the large businesses are not participating in our cooperation, and

that is a difference that will show when compared to Ruka and maybe even Levi. Well, Levi is not

necessary owned by a family, but is a small and strong group who leads cooperation. We don't have

that.” (I4)

An interviewee highlights the essentiality of leadership and emphasises the lack of it in Ylläs area:

“We lack leadership. I still think so. Even though people sometimes say that it does not matter any-

more, I think that someone has to take the lead in every matter.” (I8) In line with this statement,

another interviewee brings out how much Levi has grown due to the local leaders: “We do not have

the “Päivikkis” that Levi has, who have been able to grow the resort quite well.” (I7)

One interviewee brings out that the local entrepreneurs do not really wish to take a visible leadership

position: “It might be that here people have not wanted to advertise themselves, and have chosen to

maintain a low profile while cooperating.” (I6) On top of this, the entrepreneurs are regarded to be

too busy with their own businesses to really put emphasis on leading a destination: “There are so

many entrepreneurs here. During the winter season, entrepreneurs work long days. And, naturally,

they have families and children and everything. It feels like here we have more of the type of people

who like to work and less of the kind who want to get attention and do PR work. All of the entrepre-

neurs are so tied up with their work.” (I7) This interviewee believes that it would be beneficiary for

Ylläs to have a leader representing the area as a visible character. Although it seems that there are no

strong personalities in the area right now, the interviewee believes that this figure will arise from the

younger generation: “We do not have a strong, innovative realiser or creator here. It is likely that

one will rise from this young crowd of people, but it has not happened yet. At least the general attitude

seems to be changing little by little.” (I7)

Some interviewees (I2, I3, and I6) do not regard it important to have a leader guiding the area’s

cooperation and direction. The emphasis should rather be on other issues: “It is kind of old thinking

that there should be one “King of the hill”, who then gives a face to the area. Quality and the cus-

tomer experience matter more to people. It is more important to develop that customer experience,

little by little every year.” (I2) The focus should be on offering quality to the customers, all entrepre-

neurs in a joint effort: “I don't think that we need a leader, but, naturally, we want our service to have

good quality. All of us entrepreneurs have, after all, participated in all kinds of quality projects, etc.

It would be good, if everyone proceeded as a unified front.” (I6) Another interviewee also puts the

emphasis on each entrepreneur and their effort in bringing forward the area’s strengths in their busi-

ness operations: “I think that we do not need a leader. We don’t have to address anyone here as

emperor or empress. I think that each company should try to be as original as possible and, at the

same time, highlight the strengths of our region.” (I3)

4.5.2 The ways to carry out the leadership in the area

Three different ways in which to carry out the leadership surfaced from the interviews: DMO as the

cooperation leader (I1), an entrepreneur or a company as a leader (I1, I5, and I8), and elite network

as a form to lead the cooperation (I3 and I8).

DMO as a leader

An interviewee (I1) brings out that so far the local DMO has not been able to take a leadership posi-

tion, partly due to trying to please all the local actors equally: “The DMO should take more concrete

and visible action. I think that so far, DMO has implemented the government’s plans and tried to

work humbly to make things better for everyone. But, perhaps, the DMO should take more initiative,

so that we would have that leadership.” (I1) The same interviewee further continues that since there

are currently no visible, strong leaders in Ylläs, the DMO should probably try to take this role: “Be-

cause there are no other leader figures, the DMO should at least try to take that role.” (I1) The

interviewee regards that although the DMO has not been able to take a leadership position, so far the

most active actors in the development of the area have been the board members of the marketing

organisation: “In practice, the members of the association's board are the region's most active devel-

opers.” (I1)

Entrepreneurs or companies as a leader

Some interviewees (I1, I5, and I8) state that the leader of the cooperation in Ylläs should come from

among the local entrepreneurs or a large company: “We now need to find leaders from the business

side. I think that the situation is that the municipality is on board, but the leadership should come

from the business side.” (I8) Another interviewee cannot name any actors that would have a leader-

ship status in the area but congruently believes that Ylläs needs more entrepreneurs that are enthusi-

astic and persistent when it comes to working on common goals:

“Entrepreneur X has participated in the cooperation very actively and has always acted

as a mediator. I don’t know, if that person can be called a driver, but Entrepreneur X

has always participated in common issues. Entrepreneur X has not been discouraged

by or become tired of all the arguments we have here. I am not calling Entrepreneur X

a leader at all, but if we had more people like that, Ylläs would be better off.” (I5)

One interviewee states that the smaller companies in the area have been expecting one of the larger

companies to take more responsibility over the leadership issues: “What you hear around the village

and from small companies is that everyone would want Company X to act as a driver and a visible

actor in the region, because it is so big. People now feel that Company X is quite invisible.” (I1)

Elite network as a leader

Some interviewees (I3 and I8) suggest that the best way to carry out the leadership in Ylläs would be

through a small group of actors, therefore, referring to the concept of elite networks. I2 regards the

area to already have this kind of structure, but does not see it as a positive thing.

An interviewee suggests that having 10 qualified people driving the development would be a much

better option than having one or two entrepreneurs leading from the top:

“It is much better that we have 10 decent people in this village, who promote Ylläs’

image, than to have one or two actors decide everything. I'm sure that people have

different opinions about this, as well. Someone thinks that we should have one visible

leader. A person from one company cannot represent the entire region. We need many

people with personalities.” (I3)

Another interviewee shares somewhat congruent ideas by suggesting that there should be a couple of

actors making decisions. However, it would be crucial to have the support and trust from the entire

destination:

“We should create a situation where a few people make the common decisions, but they

have the trust and support of the entire region. And that means that those decisions are

the kind that can be generally approved. However, having no trust results in the situa-

tion we have at Ylläs now. A few key people are the key to everything.” (I8)

One of the interviewees who disagreed about the need for Ylläs to have a destination leader, further

states that so far there have already been a couple larger companies that use their power and influence

in the marketing organisation. According to the interviewee, these companies, however, are leading

the development in a way that suits their own business goals and strategies the best:

“Co-marketing has been led by a few companies. But when those companies realised

that they cannot operate if they follow the rules of the association, they decided to ask

the municipality for support to establish Markkinointi Oy. These companies now have

control in the company, allowing them to influence things related to everyone, accord-

ing to their strategies.” (I2)

5 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Main findings and theoretical implications

Konu and Tuohino (2014), Kozak et al. (2014), Timur and Getz (2008), and Beritelli et al. (2007) all

find in their studies that different local aspects and settings can have a strong impact on how cooper-

ation and destination leadership form in a destination. In Ylläs, the unique setting of the area being

divided into two separate centres has over the years overemphasised the topic of local context and

affected the way cooperation and leadership have formed in the area. Having two separate villages

comes as given and is something that no one has control over. This geographical situation has, how-

ever, had a major effect on how tourism has developed in Ylläs over the years. It has been in the

background dictating some major developments, such as the area ending up having two separate ski

lift companies or the locals identifying themselves strongly as either Äkäslompolo or Ylläsjärvi resi-

dents. Identifying oneself strongly with the own village can also be detected from the way that some

interviewees discuss different topics: they consider different issues from the viewpoint of their own

village or seem more keen on bringing forward things in their village, instead of taking into focus the

entire area.

The local setting has also caused rivalry between the villages and, therefore, made it more challenging

to develop the entire area in a joint effort. Although some interviewees regard the setting of two

villages as a positive thing, it still causes challenges to cooperation and destination leadership. For

instance, the findings bring out that having two ski lift companies has been undermining the devel-

opment and created unnecessary competition between the villages. Komppula’s (2014) findings bring

out that geographical fragmentation of services can create a barrier to effective cooperation. In Ylläs,

this issue seems to have affected cooperation throughout the years of joint marketing.

The joint marketing organisation has not been able to pursue a strong role in Ylläs. Trying to please

the desires and requests of all joint marketing members has created significant problems to effective

joint marketing of the area. This has led to a situation where the collective vision has been missing.

Komppula (2014), however, finds collective vision to be an important prerequisite for destination

cooperation. Finding focus on what target groups to pursue has been challenging in Ylläs, and in the

past the contradiction between cross-country and downhill skiing has fragmented the effectiveness of

joint marketing even further. The findings also reveal that membership fees and different changes

that have been made to them, have caused significant problems to cooperation and joint marketing.

It has even made some members question the convenience of joint efforts altogether. Presenza and

Cipollina (2010) emphasise that the success of cooperation depends on how the businesses relate to

the convenience of joint efforts, suggesting that firms are positive towards cooperation only if the

rewards gained from it outweigh the costs and risks involved in it. The findings in this study also

suggest that the joint marketing organisation’s ineffectiveness is partly due to the small budgets since

there is a lack of larger companies in the area that would bring more money to the common pot.

The findings in this study suggest that the aforementioned issues related to joint marketing have di-

minished stakeholders’ trust towards the joint marketing organisation as well as among stakeholders.

In previous studies, nonetheless, trust among stakeholders has been found to be an important factor

both in destination cooperation (Presenza & Cipollina 2010; Komppula 2014; Zehrer et al. 2014;

Komppula 2016) as well as destination leadership (Beritelli & Bieger 2014; Strobl & Peters 2013).

In community type destinations, such as Ylläs, trust plays a major role within stakeholder networks

(Beritelli et al. 2007). Trust, collective vision, commitment, and convenience of joint efforts were all

brought out in the theoretical framework (Figure 8) as prerequisites of successful cooperation. In

Ylläs, all these concepts are, however, not functioning as well as they should be.

Some previous findings suggest that DMO can act as a connector that brings stakeholders together

and drives cooperation (Byrd 2007; Bornhorst et al. 2010; Timur & Getz 2008; Franch et al. 2010) or

as a platform on which key stakeholders can effect on cooperation and joint development issues

(Beritelli et al. 2015). In Ylläs, the marketing organisation has not been very successful in either one

of these activities. Nonetheless, Bornhorst et al. (2010), Byrd (2007), Franch et al. (2010), and Timur

and Getz (2008) all find that DMO’s success is related to the entire destination’s success. The main

problems in Ylläs are the DMO’s willingness to please all members’ desires equally and not being

able to take a clear focus on different development issues. Also, the continuous disagreements and

strong opposing opinions among the members of the organisation are a major issue of concern. An

encouraging finding, however, is that the expectations towards the new joint marketing organisation

are mainly optimistic.

Findings from Komppula (2014), Franch et al. (2010) and Presenza and Cipollina (2010) bring out

that the public sector has a significant role in tourism and destination development related issues. The

findings in this study, however, reveal that the municipality’s role has been insignificant in the joint

marketing of Ylläs. Previously the municipality has mainly focused on town planning related issues

with short term plans or considered mining industry a more profitable business for the area. For ex-

ample in Levi, as was brought out in the findings, the municipality has played an active part in devel-

oping the destination with long term goals by actively acquiring land from the centre of the town and

then using it to create centralised services. Komppula’s (2014) findings bring out that municipalities’

should offer financial support to the joint marketing activities. In Ylläs, the financial support has

previously been of little worth. On the positive side, the municipality’s financial support was expected

to grow substantially in the near future. The expectations regarding the municipality’s overall input

on tourism in the future were, likewise, optimistic.

Findings in Komppula’s (2016) study bring out that in Ruka the well-working cooperation among the

key entrepreneurs has been an important factor for the destination’s success. In Ylläs, however, con-

tinuous disagreements among entrepreneurs together with entrepreneurs that have strong opposing

views on joint marketing related issues, are causing significant problems to build cooperation. It has

also made it difficult to find a collective vision in the joint marketing and development of the area. It

seems that it is, however, only a few entrepreneurs that cause these disagreements and difficulties to

go forward with new ideas. These actors do not, however, seem to have the support from most of the

other stakeholders in the area. In fact, the findings suggest that the majority of joint marketing mem-

bers would not have problems in finding consensus on common matters. Regardless, the voices of

the opposition being so strong, these entrepreneurs seem to have enough power and visibility to com-

plicate the overall development of the area.

Findings also suggest that entrepreneurs have their focus merely on their own businesses, suggesting

that it is challenging to fully commit to the joint development of the area. Zehrer et al. (2014) and

Komppula (2016), however, find the commitment to common goals to be among the prerequisites for

effective cooperation. Bregoli and Del Chiappa (2013), likewise, suggest that the development of a

destination is more effective when destination stakeholders join forces, as compared to each focusing

merely on their own businesses. Cooperation can also be used to overcome the fragmentation of tour-

ism destinations (Bregoli & Del Chiappa 2013). One interviewee also brought out that the area has

entrepreneurs that take tourism as a hobby or as a part time job, which undermines the commitment

to develop the area. Similarly, Komppula (2014) brings out that small companies or part-time entre-

preneurs can create a barrier to effective cooperation. In Ylläs, the malfunctioning cooperation has

also had the downside of making the municipality reluctant to increase its input on the tourism devel-

opment.

Findings in previous studies suggest that destination leadership is needed to guide destination coop-

eration (i.a. Pechlaner et al. 2014; Hankinson 2012). Findings in this study, however, suggest that

Ylläs has not had, nor currently has, a leader guiding the cooperation and overall development of the

area. The interviewees were not able to name any leaders. There is also a lack of strong personalities

that would have the eagerness to attain a leadership position. The findings, likewise, brought out that

Levi, in comparison, has a visible leader and also a small and strong group leading the cooperation.

Komppula (2016) highlights the significance of a destination to have a charismatic actor as a leader.

Other studies have also shown the importance of individuals as destination leaders (i.a. Beritelli &

Bieger 2014; Pechlaner et al. 2014).

In previous studies elite networks have also been considered as an effective way to carry out destina-

tion leadership (i.a. Pforr et al. 2014; Beritelli et al. 2015). Only one interviewee in this study regards

Ylläs to already have an elite network within the marketing organisation. Consequently, two inter-

viewees suggest that the leadership should be executed in the area through an elite network. Some

interviewees in this study did not find having a destination leader important in the first place. Beritelli

et al. (2007), however, emphasise that even if community type destinations normally want to aim for

more equal distribution of power, they should still seek to develop a centrally coordinated network to

better develop and manage a destination.

Bornhorst et al. (2010) and Hankinson (2012) both find the DMO to be the actor that should be in

charge of destination leadership. Findings in this study, conversely, strongly suggest that the local

DMO has not been successful in attaining this position and, accordingly, only one interviewee sug-

gests that the DMO should strive for this position.

To conclude, the findings bring out that Ylläs has experienced difficulties in building well-function-

ing cooperation among its stakeholders. Finding a leader to guide the cooperation has, likewise, been

challenging and raised controversial insights. Hankinson (2010) and Komppula (2016), however,

both regard these concepts as significant cornerstones for a destination’s success. Bearing in mind

that community type destinations are often build on networks in which a variety of stakeholders in-

teract with each other and affect each other (Franch et al. 2010; Beritelli et al. 2007), stakeholder

cooperation and the leadership of this cooperation rise to an even more important role. These con-

cepts also form the base for the theoretical framework and the research questions of this study. The

main findings presented here can also be found from Appendix 2 where they are attached to the

research questions.

5.2 Managerial conclusions

The development of the new road (Maisematie) is, according to several interviewees, considered as

a positive development that has brought the villages closer to each other. Ylläs area should put em-

phasis on creating similar projects or developmental plans also in the future as an effort to unify the

villages even further and to diminish the fragmentation between them. Some interviewees also regard

that different events and projects executed by the joint marketing organisation have been concentrated

more in the other village which has created feelings of unfairness and, therefore, emphasised the

fragmentation between the villages even further. The joint marketing should put emphasis on taking

both sides of the Ylläs fell equally into consideration when planning events to the area. This might

also have a positive effect on the stakeholder cooperation. In order to overcome the fragmentation

and the competitive setting between the villages, more actors with collective vision and commitment

to the development of the entire destination are needed.

The cooperation in the area is not working effectively. Many prerequisites for cooperation that are

brought out in the theoretical framework (Figure 8), are not functioning properly in Ylläs (collective

vision, commitment, common goals, trust, and convenience of joint efforts). Emphasis should be put

on finding the right tools to fix these issues. Well-working cooperation creates the basis for effective

destination leadership which, in turn, can be used to direct the destination cooperation more effec-

tively towards the development of the entire area. Community type destinations are built on different

kind of ties among stakeholders and their interactions are emphasised (Franch et al. 2010; Beritelli et

al. 2007), suggesting that well-working cooperation is vital for a destination like Ylläs.

The joint marketing organisation has established a “tourism night school” for the municipality actors

in order to get the municipality more involved to the development of tourism in Ylläs. More initiatives

and projects similar to this one should be established in order to enhance the cooperative atmosphere

among different stakeholders. As Bornhorst et al. (2010) suggest, DMO’s capability to create coop-

erative atmosphere and interact successfully with destination stakeholders is essential for a destina-

tion’s success. The theoretical framework also brings out several different ways in which stakeholder

cooperation can be enhanced, such as involving the key entrepreneurs or actors with high reputation

to destination planning (Strobl & Peters 2013; Timur & Getz 2008) or, for instance, by creating rules

of operation that are shared by all stakeholders (Bregoli & Del Chiappa 2013). The different methods

brought out in theory section could be used in Ylläs to improve the current cooperative atmosphere.

As long as the disagreements and the resistance against many development plans among some of the

members of the joint marketing organisation continue, the cooperation is unlikely to work well. This,

again, will effect several other things, such as trust and commitment. Therefore, it is vital to make an

extra effort to find ways to enhance the situation. The current situation also brings out the importance

of leadership in cooperation. With effective leadership, it is easier to find the direction for the com-

mon goals and development of the area. In Ruka, for example, the cooperation is working well and

this is mostly the result of the area’s key entrepreneurs’ willingness to work together in a joint effort

(Komppula 2016). As Russell and Faulkner (2004) put it, entrepreneurs should be supported and

encouraged by the community to carry out their ambitions and ideas as it will eventually benefit the

entire destination’s development. Perhaps the entrepreneurs in Ylläs would be more motivated to find

consensus on common issues if they felt the support from the entire community and from the joint

marketing organisation.

The benefits that effective destination leadership can create do not seem to be regarded important by

some stakeholders, or not enough motivation is found among stakeholders to strive for destination

leadership. The current situation, however, signals that cooperation is not functioning well and im-

plementing development plans is difficult, indicating that things need to change. The situation calls

for a change in the attitude towards destination leadership. The most negative opinions regard lead-

ership to bring inequality to the area and provide an individual with an autarchy over others. Hence,

different methods should be thought of that could provide the stakeholders with a more comprehen-

sive understanding of the benefits and importance of destination leadership. Beritelli and Bieger

(2014), for instance, bring out the concept of systemic leadership in which stakeholders work together

on common goals and everything is based on well-working cooperation. The approach supports the

idea that different stakeholders could take the lead on different initiatives. (Beritelli & Bieger 2014.)

Perhaps this type of approach could be used in Ylläs as it is a community type destination. In these

kind if destinations, more equally distributed power is often desired (Beritelli et al 2007). However,

it would require the cooperation to work much better than it currently does.

The leadership could also stem from among the local entrepreneurs or companies, as is suggested by

some of the interviewees. In community type destinations it is, however, very unlikely for one organ-

isation to possess the power to manage an entire destination (Komppula 2016). The leadership could,

hence, be built around some key actors in Ylläs area in order to create and maintain effective coop-

eration. Strobl and Peters (2013) and Pforr et al.’s (2014) studies, for instance, suggest that entrepre-

neurs who possess high reputation in a destination can have more power to influence other stakehold-

ers. In Ylläs, entrepreneurs that enjoy similar reputation could be encouraged and supported to strive

for the leadership positions. This could create an elite network leadership structure, as suggested by

Pforr et al. (2014) and Beritelli et al. (2015). Pechlaner et al. (2014) further suggest that a leader needs

to be someone with the ability to motivate and inspire people, and also to act as a role model by

setting the example on how to cooperate properly. Similarly, possessing qualities of charismatic en-

trepreneurs, as suggested by McCarthy (2003), can help a person to attain a leadership position. Ylläs

area would need key actors who are able to operate as suggested by Pechlaner et al. (2014) and inspire

other people to follow their example. Possessing some of the qualities of charismatic entrepreneurs

could be a major advantage, as well.

The joint marketing organisation has not been able to take a strong role in its marketing activities.

The new organisation should seek to change the current way of operation. For instance, it should take

a clear focus in its marketing instead of trying to please all the different desires of its members. Nature

as the focus of marketing, for example, gained consensus among the interviewees. As the joint mar-

keting is expected to have a significantly stronger financial support from the municipality in the fu-

ture, it has even more reason to take a clearer and stronger stance in order to make the most out of the

bigger marketing budgets for the benefit of the entire destination. Even if the new DMO would not

pursue a leadership position in the future, it could try to offer the basis and support from which to

construct destination leadership, whether it would be through an elite network, an individual, or a

company. For instance, Beritelli et al. (2015) suggest that a DMO can act as a platform and connector

on which to build leadership among the elite network.

The municipality has already started to change its outlook on tourism and the expectations are positive

when it comes to the municipality’s support on tourism in Ylläs in the future. Perhaps emphasis

should be put on continuing the current development and finding ways to maintain the positive atti-

tude in the future as well. Finding ways to reduce the arguments and disagreements among entrepre-

neurs in joint marketing could also have a positive influence on the municipality’s involvement.

5.3 Evaluation of the study, research ethics and future research suggestions

As Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008, 290) emphasise, the evaluation of a study takes place throughout

the research process. Implementing evaluation criteria enhances the transparency of the study and

offers a researcher the tools to bring forward the strengths and limitations of the study (Eriksson &

Kovalainen 2008, 290). The trustworthiness of a qualitative study can be assessed by its dependabil-

ity, transferability, credibility, and conformability (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008, 294).

Transferability deals with the researcher’s accountability to bring forward the degree of similarity to

other research in order to create a connection between the study at hand and previous research find-

ings (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008, 294). Findings connected to issues that contribute to destination

cooperation and leadership seemed to create strong links to previous findings. For instance, trust re-

lated issues and their effect on destination cooperation and leadership seemed to create links to several

previous research findings. Previous findings related to local aspects and context dependency were

also identified in this study. The similarities between this study and previous studies were discussed

when the research findings were presented and compared to the theoretical framework in the conclu-

sions of the study.

Credibility is concerned with the researcher’s familiarity with the research topic and also how suffi-

ciently the collected data supports the claims made by the researcher. It is also concerned with

whether other researchers could draw similar conclusions based on the research materials being used.

(Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008, 294). The theory section of the study was built on variety of previous

research findings. Consistencies and differences were looked up as an effort to build a more complete

comprehension of the topic. The researcher did not have much experience of the case destination

Ylläs in advance, however, supportive materials, such as newspaper articles, websites, comparisons

to other ski destinations, an image survey, and a biography were looked into to build a more compre-

hensive idea of the area. Graneheim and Lundman (2004) suggest that by including interviewees with

varying experiences from differing ages and genders, the credibility is likely to be enhanced. The

interviewees in this study came from different backgrounds and fields of business. Both women and

men from different age groups were included. Their experiences and viewpoints also had variation.

Including representative quotations to support the findings also adds to the credibility of a research

(Graneheim & Lundman 2004). The claims in this study were supported by adding direct quotations

from the data to the analysis and also by illustrating the viewpoints of different interviewees in sum-

marising tables. Although comparisons were made and quotations were used, it should be noted that

there is always a chance that another researcher might draw differing conclusions based on the data.

Although the interviews started to show signs of saturation, they only still covered viewpoints of

altogether 10 people in Ylläs area. If different interviewees were chosen for the study, the results

could have had different issues or opinions arising. Also, if the number of informants was different,

it might have had an effect on the results. However, time, resources and the size of the study brought

its limitation to the data collection. The main stakeholder groups discussed in the theory (entrepre-

neurs, DMO, and municipality) were represented in the interviews. However, interviews, for instance,

from local residents that were not part of any of these main groups were not included.

Dependability deals with the researcher’s ability to indicate to the reader that the process of the study

is systematic, traceable and well documented (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008, 294). The study fol-

lowed the structural guidelines given to this type of studies in order to make the structure more logical

to the reader. The methodology was explained in more detail in methodology chapter to provide the

reader with as comprehensive information regarding the used methods as possible. Attention was paid

to correct referencing and citations to enhance traceability of the study. The data was transcribed in

as detailed form as necessary for the purposes of this study in order to have the documentation exe-

cuted correctly.

Conformability deals with the researcher’s ability to tie the findings and interpretations that have been

made to the research data (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008, 294). The findings and interpretations made

in this study were linked to the data in the analysis section with direct quotations and illustrative

tables highlighting each interviewee’s views on different topics, as mentioned when discussing the

credibility.

It should be noted that the data for this study was collected in fall 2015. Since then Ylläs area might

have experienced different kind of changes. The findings, however, rely on the data and, hence, any

new developments in the area have not been taken into consideration in this study. Another issue to

bring forward is that the focus of the study experienced some changes along the research process and

data collection. For instance, the concept of image was left out along the research process as the focus

became clearer. Its inclusion would have made it somewhat a detached concept from the other central

concepts and the purpose of the study. Also, since this research was conducted as a case study focus-

ing on specific factors influencing Ylläs area, the findings might not be directly adaptable to other

travel destinations. Another noteworthy issue to consider is that the interviews were conducted and

transcribed in Finnish. The parts from the data that were included to the findings, were translated into

English by a translator. Having the material translated into another language can have the downside

of creating some slight changes to the original material, regardless of the translation being conducted

by a professional.

Research ethics need to be taken into consideration throughout the research process. Research ethics

have to do with how the study is conducted and also how it is reported. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008,

63.) Things to consider are the voluntary participation of the informants, informed consent (objective

of the research, other beneficiaries, and use of the data), not harming the participants, and protecting

the anonymity, privacy and confidentiality of the informants. Other important issues are the use of

correct referencing, avoiding plagiarism, and not silencing other researchers. (Eriksson & Kovalainen

2008, 70-76.) The aim in this study has been on taking the ethical aspects into consideration through-

out the research process. For instance, whilst conducting any written material for the study, the em-

phasis has been put on correct referencing and citing in order to avoid any form of plagiarism. The

methodology chapter, on the other hand, discusses in more detail the issues related to the informants.

The informants took part to the study voluntarily and they were informed of the objectives and future

use of it. Their anonymity and privacy were also taken into consideration and discussed in more detail.

According to Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008, 74), silencing is an important part of research ethics. Not

silencing means that other researcher’s research results are referred to properly or their contribution

to a joint research project is brought out correctly (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008, 74). As was brought

out earlier, the data for this study was collected in a joint effort with another researcher. The inter-

views were conducted in a joint effort and the data was, hence, also used for another study. The

informants were also informed of these issues.

A future research topic could be to investigate different aspects of destination cooperation in more

detail. For instance, how it constructs or how different challenges and difficulties could be solved.

This study had two major concepts (destination cooperation and leadership) in focus and it brought

its own limitation to how deeply these concepts could be investigated. Cooperation, however, entails

many different aspects and, for example, in Ylläs there are many challenges facing effective cooper-

ation, suggesting that cooperation could offer interesting research topics. Trust related issues seemed

to arise from the theory as well as the interview data. Trust seems to have a significant role in a

tourism destination’s success, stakeholder cooperation, and destination leadership. It could, hence,

form an interesting research topic. In Ylläs it seemed to raise attention among informants, indicating

that this destination could offer a fruitful setting for this type of research. Municipalities’ role in

different destinations can vary greatly. The role that they take in the development of a tourism desti-

nation can, however, have a noteworthy influence on a destination’s overall development and success.

Hence, municipality could be an interesting destination stakeholder to investigate in more detail.

Likewise, DMO’s role in destinations raise controversial insights among researchers. In this study,

the DMO’s role was similarly, to some extent, controversial. A research focusing specifically on the

DMO could, hence, offer an interesting research setting.

REFERENCES

Primary references

Beritelli, P. & Bieger, T. 2014. From destination governance to destination leadership – defining and

exploring the significance with the help of a systemic perspective. Tourism Review 69(1), 25 - 46.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-07-2013-0043

Beritelli, P., Buffa, F. & Martini, U. 2015. The coordinating DMO or coordinators in the DMO? – an

alternative perspective with the help of network analysis. Tourism Review 70(1), 24 – 42. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-04-2014-0018

Beritelli, P., Bieger, T. & Laesser, C. 2007. Destination governance: using corporate governance the-

ories as a foundation for effective destination management. Journal of Travel Research 46, 96-107.

DOI: 10.1177/0047287507302385

Bornhorst, T., Ritchie, B.J.R. & Sheehan, L. 2010. Determinants of tourism success for DMO’s &

destinations: an empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspectives. Tourism Management 31, 572–

Bregoli, I. & Del Chiappa, G. 2013. Coordinating relationships among destination stakeholders: evi-

dence from Edinburgh (UK). Tourism Analysis 18, 145–155. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/108354213X13645733247657

Byrd, E. 2007. Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying stakeholder

theory to sustainable tourism development. Tourism Review 62(2), 6 - 13. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/16605370780000309

Eriksson, A. & Kovalainen, P. 2008. Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London: Sage.

Eskola, J. (2015). Laadullisen tutkimuksen juhannustaiat: Laadullisen aineiston analyysi vaihe vai-

heelta. In book Aaltola, J. & Valli, R. (editors) Ikkunoita tutkimusmetodeihin 2: Näkökulmia aloitte-

levalle tutkijalle tutkimuksen teoreettisiin lähtökohtiin ja analyysimenetelmiin. 4 ed. Jyväskylä: PS-

Kustannus.

Franch, M., Martini, U. & Buffa, F. 2010. Roles and opinions of primary and secondary stakeholders

within community-type destinations. Tourism Review 65(4), 74 - 85. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/16605371011093881

Graneheim, U.H. & Lundman, B. 2004. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts,

procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today 24, 105-112. DOI:

10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

Hankinson, G. 2012. The measurement of brand orientation, its performance impact, and the role of

leadership in the context of destination branding: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Man-

agement 28(7–8), 974–999.

Kennedy, V. & Augustyn, M. 2014. Stakeholder power and engagement in an English seaside con-

text: implications for destination leadership. Tourism Review 69(3), 187 – 201. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2013-0030

Komppula, R. 2014. The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for

a rural tourism destination: A case study. Tourism Management 40 (2014), 361-371. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.007

Komppula, R. 2016. The role of different stakeholders in destination development. Tourism Review

71 (1), 67-76. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2015-0030

Kotter, J.P. 1990. What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review 68(3), 103-111.

Kozak M., Volgger M. & Pechlaner, H. 2014. Destination leadership: leadership for territorial de-

velopment. Tourism review 69 (3), 169-172. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-05-2014-0021

Laine, M., Bamberg, J. & Jokinen, P. 2007. Tapaustutkimuksen taito. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

McCarthy, B. 2003. Strategy is personality-driven, strategy is crisis-driven: insights from entrepre-

neurial firms. Management Decision 41(4), 327 – 339. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740310468081

Pechlaner, H., Kozak, M. & Volgger, M. 2014. Destination leadership: a new paradigm for tourist

destinations? Tourism Review 69 (1), 1-9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-09-2013-0053

Pesonen, J. & Komppula, R. 2015. Ylläksen matkailukeskuksen imago- ja markkina-asematutki-

mus. An unpublished research.

Pforr, C., Pechlaner, H., Volgger, M. & Thompson, G. 2014. Overcoming the limits to change and

adapting to future challenges: governing the transformation of destination networks in Western Aus-

tralia. Journal of Travel Research 53(6), 760 –777. DOI: 10.1177/0047287514538837

Pike, S. & Paige, S. J. 2014. Destination marketing organizations and destination marketing: a narra-

tive analysis of the literature. Tourism Management 41(1), 202-227. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

tourman.2013.09.009

Presenza, A. & Cipollina, M. 2010. Analysing tourism stakeholder networks. Tourism Review 65 (4),

17–30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/16605371011093845

Russell, R. & Faulkner, B. 2004. Entrepreneurship, chaos and the tourism area lifecycle. Annals of

Tourism Research 31(3), 556-579. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals2004.01.008

Russell, R. & Faulkner, B. 1999. Movers and shakers: chaos makers in tourism development. Tourism

Management 20, 411–423.

Ruusuvuori, J. & Tiittula, L. 2009. Haastattelu: tutkimus, tilanteet ja vuorovaikutus. 2ed. Jyväskylä:

Vastapaino.

Saraniemi, S. & Kylänen, M. 2011. Problematizing the Concept of Tourism Destination: An Analysis

of Different Theoretical Approaches. Journal of Travel Research 50(2), 133-143. DOI:

10.1177/0047287510362775

Sheehan, L. & Ritchie, B. 2005. Destination stakeholders: exploring identity and salience. Annals of

Tourism Research, 32(3), 711–734. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2004.10.013

Silverman, D. 2006. Interpreting qualitative data. 3ed. London: Sage.

Strobl, A. & Peters, M. 2013. Entrepreneurial reputation in destination networks. Annals of Tourism

Research 40, 59–82. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.08.005

Timur, S. & Getz, D. 2008. A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sustainable urban

tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20(4), 445 - 461. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110810873543

Tuohino, A. & Konu, H. 2014. Local stakeholders’ views about destination management: who are

leading tourism development? Tourism Review 69 (3), 202 - 215. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-

06-2013-0033

Tuomi, J. & Sarajärvi, A. 2002. Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. Jyväskylä: Tammi.

Tuomi, J. & Sarajärvi, A. 2009. Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. 10 ed. Helsinki: Tammi

Volgger, M. & Pechlaner, H. 2014. Requirements for destination management organizations in des-

tination governance: Understanding DMO success. Tourism Management 41(1), 64-75. DMO:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.001

Webster, L. & Mertova, P. 2008. Using narrative inquiry as a research method: introduction to using

critical event narrative analysis in research on learning and teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.

Zehrer, A., Raich, F., Siller, H. & Tschiderer, F. 2014. Leadership networks in destinations. Tourism

Review 69(1), .59 - 73.

Electronical references

Luontoon.fi 2017. Pallas-Yllästunturi. [Metsähallitus webpages] Referred 13.3.2017.

http://www.luontoon.fi/pallas-yllastunturi

Ski.fi 2017. Keskukset: Ylläs. [Ski.fi webpages] Referred 28.2.2017.

https://www.ski.fi/keskukset/yllas/

Ylläs 2016. Tekemistä. [Ylläs webpages] Referred 14.10.2016. http://www.yllas.fi/tekemista.html

Ylläs 2017a. Tietoa alueesta: Ylläksen kylät ja historia. [Ylläs webpages] Referred 28.2.2017.

http://www.yllas.fi/tietoa-alueesta/yllaksen-kylat-ja-historia.html

Ylläs 2017b. Tietoa alueesta. [Ylläs webpages] Referred 28.2.2017. http://www.yllas.fi/tietoa-alu-

eesta.html

Secondary references

Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. London: Pitman. See Franch

et al. 2010.

THEME INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK APPENDIX 1 (1/1)

1. How did you enter the tourism business in Ylläs, and in what kind of work/tasks have you

been involved in?

2. How well do you think the work on Ylläs’ tourism strategy / co-marketing has been carried

out over the years?

- Who have been involved in it?

- Who have been in charge at different times?

- Who has influence?

3. What kind of image of Ylläs have you wanted to project to the outside world?

- How unanimous have people been about this image?

- What kind of customers have you targeted?

- What kind of marketing have you done?

4. How do you think Ylläs’ image has developed?

5. Who do you think are the key persons and/or organisations in terms of the general develop-

ment of Ylläs (not just marketing)?

6. What kind of roles do you think the different municipal actors (officials, elected officials),

partner organisations, individual entrepreneurs and local residents have had?

7. What do you think explains the fact that although Ylläs has top resources, the number of vis-

itors at Ylläs and Ylläs’ reputation have not grown to match those of Levi or Ruka?

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND MAIN FINDINGS APPENDIX 2 (1/1)

As destination success factors, how do destination cooperation and leadership con-

struct in Ylläs area?

How does cooper-

ation con-

struct/work among

stakeholders in or-

der to make devel-

opment and strate-

gic decisions to-

gether?

entrepreneurs: continuous disagreements, strong opposing

views, difficulties in committing to joint efforts, questioning

the convenience of joint efforts, lack of collective vision

DMO’s ineffectiveness: pleasing everyone, membership fee is-

sues, small budgets, no clear focus in marketing, no collective

vision in joint marketing

municipality’s weak role in tourism development: town plan-

ning and mining industry taken the focus, little financial sup-

port in the past but positive changes are expected

lack of trust towards DMO and among stakeholders

How is leadership

constructed in the

no leader guiding the cooperation

no one seems to be eager to attain a leadership position

How do the local

characteristics of

Ylläs area affect

cooperation and

leadership?

unique setting of two villages/ centres: rivalry between villages,

rivalry effecting overall development, residents’ strong identity

with either one of the villages effecting cooperation and devel-

opment

two separate ski lift companies: rivalry, undermined overall de-

velopment of the area

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies -...

Documents