Arctic Yearbook 2014 - Page 279

279     Arctic Yearbook 2014 community level, regional level and international level simultaneously. Thus, when describing a system of local practice in tourism, it is impossible to exclude outside complications entirely. On the other hand the scope of this study is restricted to represent the perspective of the tourist hosts specifically. The components that are described are thus limited to the accounts of the tourist hosts and what they see as their system in everyday life. Due to this, the system boundaries were set on the community and these specific actors. Also, the study does not account for climate impacts of air travel. Results Norm-Adopting Individuals Why are tourist hosts in Gunnarsbyn practicing tourism in the manner that they do today? The first research question aims to describe how the tourist hosts are i) norm-adopting in sharing common pool resources and; ii) learning in developing a practice that is sustainable for their community. Common standpoints from the interviews emphasize that their practice is vulnerable because governmental and municipal policies in Sweden are centralized, and efforts in the Swedish periphery mostly serve traditional industries (forestry, mining, hydropower and agriculture). These efforts leave little attention to the tourism industry and limit the possibilities of tourist hosts to invest in their business and employ people. Work opportunities in the traditional industries are currently being substituted by technology and outsourced to foreign companies, especially forestry, thus “the effect is: fewer and fewer people that rely on the industry, which naturally leads to a demand for other industries to be reliant on” (Lorentz, participant). Six main reasons to why the interviewees think that the tourism industry is vulnerable in this area were deduced: i. Attitudes that indicate that working in tourism is not economically stable, which makes people prefer to be employed by traditional industries. ii. Employment tax is too high for small-scale tourism companies to be able to employ other people. iii. Employment policies in Sweden are centralized. iv. Services and infrastructure are centralized both on governmental and municipal levels and reaches the community with great inertia even though they are paying the same taxes. v. Despite active involvement in dialogue with politicians, influencing decision-making and policies has not been fruitful. vi. Marketing is essential for tourism, but tools for common marketing from government and municipalities are lacking. vii. Free movement through land provides freedom and opportunities, but it also creates the dilemma of sharing natural resources with larger industries, forestry, mining and agriculture. The interviewees emphasized that current subsidized industries are in decline and do not serve a purpose for EA areas, and they have difficulties in seeing result