Biodiversity, leadership, and resilience in a national sustainable tourism program

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Biodiversity, leadership, and resilience in a national sustainable tourism program © 2024 the Authors Published version Sorakunnas, Esko; Räikkönen, Juulia; Konu, Henna; Grénman, Miia; Tyrväinen, Liisa Sorakunnas, E., Räikkönen, J., Konu, H., Grénman, M., & Tyrväinen, L. (2024). Biodiversity, leadership, and resilience in a national sustainable tourism program. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Early online. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2024.2332308 2024 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sjht20 Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/sjht20 Biodiversity, leadership, and resilience in a national sustainable tourism program Esko Sorakunnas, Juulia Räikkönen, Henna Konu, Miia Grénman & Liisa Tyrväinen To cite this article: Esko Sorakunnas, Juulia Räikkönen, Henna Konu, Miia Grénman & Liisa Tyrväinen (21 Mar 2024): Biodiversity, leadership, and resilience in a national sustainable tourism program, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/15022250.2024.2332308 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2024.2332308 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 21 Mar 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 155 View related articles View Crossmark data Biodiversity, leadership, and resilience in a national sustainable tourism program Esko Sorakunnas a , Juulia Räikkönen a , Henna Konu b , Miia Grénman c and Liisa Tyrväinen d a Biodiversity Unit, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; b Business School/Tourism Business, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland; c School of Business and Economics, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; d Bioeconomy & Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, Finland ABSTRACT This study addresses the complex relationship between biodiversity, leadership, and resilience in the tourism industry. We apply case study methodology to examine the potential of Visit Finland’s Sustainable Travel Finland program to increase the resilience of the Finnish tourism sector concerning sustainability challenges. The qualitative research data consists of interviews and secondary data analysed with content analyses. According to the results, the program offers support and proactive leadership to the Finnish tourism industry in meeting the rising sustainability demands on biodiversity protection. However, the first biodiversity steps have been small-scale and instrumental, corresponding to a narrow perception of nature’svalue.Therefore,theprogramdoesnotyet fully meet the scale and scope of current biodiversity challenges. Although it is a good start, biodiversity-respectful leadership and resilience building require a strategic approach that also recognizes intrinsic, relational, and ecosystemic biodiversity values accruing broadly to tourists, nature, and humankind. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 31 March 2023 Accepted 14 March 2024 KEYWORDS Sustainable tourism; biodiversity; resilience; leadership; certification Introduction According to the World Economic Forum (2023), the most critical long-term threats are environmental risks: climate action failure, extreme weather, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem collapse. Biodiversity is the variety of living species on Earth, including plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi (UNEP, 1992)–simply life in all its forms. Thus, biodiversity loss means the loss of life on Earth due to human actions; based on recent estimates, a million species are at risk of extinction within the next decades (IPBES, 2019). The relationship between tourism and biodiversity is multifaceted: the tourism industry depends on biodiversity (Hall, 2010), but it also contributes to biodiversity loss through, e.g. urbanization, habitat loss, and accelerating climate change (IPBES, 2019). Moreover, the tourism industry is likely among the economic sectors most impacted by such changes (Gössling & © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. CONTACT Esko Sorakunnas esko.sorakunnas@utu.fiBiodiversity Unit, University of Turku, Turku FI-20014, Finland SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2024.2332308 Hall, 2006). Fortunately, tourism can also contribute to biodiversity protection –at least locally –while retaining business opportunities and providing well-being benefits for the guests (Hall, 2010; Tolvanen et al., 2020; WTO, 2010). The tourism industry has thus far considered the relevance of biodiversity mainly from its own perspective as a direct resource for business (Christ et al., 2003; WTO, 2010); this is particularly evident in nature-based tourism, where nature functions as an attraction and arena of activities (Lundmark & Müller, 2010). This narrow perception excludes the dependence on ecosystem services providing the preconditions for all human activities. Provisioning services (e.g. providing food, water, and timber), regulating services (e.g. controlling for instance the climate, floods, and water quality), and supporting services (e.g. soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling) are vital for tourism in addition to the cultural services directly related to recreation, health, and the well-being benefits of nature (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Moreover, the tourism industry has not fully recognized the broader relational and intrinsic values of biodiversity arising from tourists’interaction with the natural environment (cf. IPBES, 2022). As tourism accelerates biodiversity loss through over-consumption and profit-oriented business models, it should also be involved in developing solutions (Dasgupta, 2021; Diaz et al., 2019). For a long time, climate change has dominated research on sustainable tourism with CO 2 calculations, carbon offsetting, and other climate-related actions being examined as possible solutions. Biodiversity’s importance in tourism has been acknowledged at the strategic level (https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-development/biodiversity), but operative company-level actions to sustain and promote local biodiversity are still largely lacking, even though biodiversity protection is considered at least as important as climate change mitigation in tourism (Hall, 2010). Moreover, these two phenomena are not separate but must be addressed together as they form a complex ecological bundle threatening the future of both nature and humanity (Pörtner et al., 2021). Furthermore, biodiversity concerns have increased in recent years also in other areas of business and the wider society; for example, the Global Risks Report ranks biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as the fourth biggest threat over the next decade immediately after climate change concerns (World Economic Forum, 2023). From the perspective of the tourism industry and individual companies, climate change and biodiversity loss call for resilience building –the cultivation of capacity to sustain development in the face of unexpected and surprising changes (Folke, 2016). Most research on resilience in tourism focuses on recovering destinations from shortterm natural hazards as well as health-, economic-, and security-related shocks (Amore et al., 2018; Berbés-Blázquez & Scott, 2017). More recently, however, resilience has been considered an essential factor for enhancing the overall sustainability of tourism destinations at the business and the community levels (Bertella, 2022). Resilience-building amid ecological crisis requires leadership, e.g. in the form of innovative governance approaches and management interventions (cf. IPBES, 2019). This need is emphasized in Scandinavia, where nature is vital to tourism (Fredman et al., 2021). The relevance of nature depends on the type of tourism business as some companies directly depend on high-quality nature (e.g. those offering activities in nature) while for others (e.g. hotels and restaurants), the surrounding nature is more like an addition to their service. This difference in meaning is reflected in their motivations and readiness to contribute to conservation (Mäntymaa et al., 2019). Hence, the tourism sector should identify 2E. SORAKUNNAS ET AL. different ways to expand its corporate responsibility regarding biodiversity protection and environmental values in general. This study aims to increase our understanding of the complex relationship between biodiversity, leadership, and resilience in the tourism industry. This relationship is examined in Finland, which aims to become the most sustainable tourist destination in the Nordic countries by 2028 (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland, 2022). A specific Sustainable Travel Finland program (STF) has been tailored to reach this goal and create a new, sustainable normal for the Finnish tourism industry. This program provides a voluntary roadmap, training, and a certification system for tourism firms and destinations striving to improve their sustainability. We apply a case study methodology to examine the STF program’s potential to increase the resilience of the Finnish tourism sector concerning sustainability challenges. The research data consists of interviews with Visit Finland’s sustainable tourism professionals and analysis of secondary data related to the program. Visit Finland’s biodiversity principles, guidelines, and measurement indicators are identified through qualitative content analyses. Based on them, we examine Visit Finland’s leadership role in advancing the Finnish tourism sector’s sustainability and the resilience. Literature review Resilience and tourism The term resilience, originating from engineering and ecological research, refers to the intrinsic ability of objects, places, and people to absorb and recover from external stressors (Amore et al., 2018). During the past decades, the concept has gained momentum in various disciplines and research streams aimed at understanding complex adaptive systems. Furthermore, this concept is a platform for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research emphasizing social-ecological systems (Levin et al., 2013). The wide use of resilience has resulted in several and sometimes even conflicting definitions (Amore et al., 2018; Meerow et al., 2016). The so-called “engineering”approach (Norris et al., 2008)defines resilience as an outcome or process resulting from a triggering event whereby the affected entity returns to its original state. The “ecological”or “socioecological”definitions, in turn, emphasize the constituents of resilience and their intrinsic abilities to maintain, resume, or adaptively change in the face of external disturbances (Holling & Gunderson, 2002). Indeed, the latter approach highlights that socio-ecological systems are embedded in the biosphere, i.e. the thin and fragile layer of life around planet Earth (e.g. Folke, 2016). In the context of tourism, Hall et al. (2017) identified individual or psychological resilience, organizational or business resilience, and destination or community resilience. Due to the widespread use of resilience in human health, the individual level is likely to be the most studied resilience in general but the least explored by tourism scholars. On an organizational level, most studies have focused on crisis management –a popular topic in business management. The destination-level resilience, in turn, suffers from the inexplicit definitions of tourism destinations. However, according to Amore et al. (2018), a destination is resilient when stakeholders (i) are aware of the vulnerabilities and impacts of potential hazards; (ii) embark on redevelopment paths that benefit the SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 3 local community at large; (iii) engage in networked and collaborative forms of destination planning; (iv) reframe the meta-governance of destinations; (v) operate predominantly at a regional and local scale; and (vi) are reflexively and willing to learn from previous crises to reduce destination vulnerability in the future. Biodiversity and tourism Tourism’s adverse environmental impacts have mainly been scrutinized from the perspectives of general environmental protection and global climate change. However, the relevance of biodiversity loss is increasing (Christ et al., 2003; WTO, 2010). The Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019) reviewed over 15,000 scientific publications and identified four key messages. First, nature and its contributions to people are deteriorating due to human actions. Second, drivers of change have accelerated over the past 50 years, and biodiversity is declining faster than ever. Third, current trajectories, meaning business as usual, cannot meet conservation goals and foster sustainable use of nature; therefore, a transformative change is urgently needed. Fourth, nature can be conserved, restored, and used sustainably through promoting transformative change –a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic, and social factors, including paradigms, goals, and values (Diaz et al., 2019; IPBES, 2019). Due to the growing concerns about biodiversity loss, arguments for a broader valuation have been raised (IPBES, 2022). Biodiversity should also be acknowledged for its own sake and the benefit of humankind as intangible human–nature relationships and instrumental but non-commercial ecosystem services, such as providing oxygen and drinking water and pollinating cultivated plants. This view recognizes the full spectrum of biodiversity values and stipulates their inclusion in all decision-making to secure the long-term resilience and sustainability of not only one sector of industry but life on Earth in general –including the well-being of humans. This transformative change is metaphorically depicted as living in, with, and as nature instead of merely living from it (IPBES, 2022, p. 12). IPBES (2019) identifies tourism as a focal human activity affecting biodiversity loss while also acknowledging its contributions to biodiversity conservation. Tourism affects all the main drivers of biodiversity loss: changes in land and sea use that cause habitat degradation and loss, direct exploitation of species, acceleration of climate change and pollution, and introduction of invasive alien species (ibid.). The last-mentioned driver also comprises biosecurity issues concerning the spread of disease agents and pathogens (FAO, 2008; Hinchliffe & Bingham, 2008). While IPBES considers the impacts of invasive alien species on native species and ecosystems via predation and ecological competition (IPBES, 2023), the biosecurity of tourism also comprises disease, pests and alien species that harm farming, livestock, and human health. Moreover, the biosecurity and the management of alien species in tourism are exacerbated by the efficiency and rapidity of air travel in transmitting diseases globally (Hall, 2011) as evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was caused by a specific coronavirus. Thus, tourism needs changes and requires management interventions on various levels. A need exists to create incentives for environmental responsibility and increase cross-sectoral cooperation. Tourism institutions and businesses should take pre4E. SORAKUNNAS ET AL. emptive actions to stop nature’s deterioration, make effective decisions regarding resilience and uncertainty, and enact stronger environmental laws and policies (Diaz et al., 2019; IPBES, 2019). The IPBES management interventions target eight keys to transformative change that directly or indirectly impact biodiversity maintenance or enhancement. The first four are related to consumption: lowering total consumption and waste, creating a good life not based on material consumption, relinquishing outdated values, adopting new social norms for sustainability, understanding that the current consumption level has significant impacts, and reducing inequalities that undermine individuals’abilities for sustainability. Fifth, inclusive and fair decision-making and benefit-sharing in biodiversity conservation is needed. The sixth key –internalizing externalities and telecouplings – means bearing global responsibility as consumption and production harm nature near and far. Finally, supporting technological and social innovations and investments that facilitate the transformation and promote education and knowledge regarding nature, conservation, and sustainable use (IPBES, 2019). Towards biodiversity-respectful leadership in sustainable tourism development Until recently, business research has kept its distance from the natural environment and rarely discussed the biodiversity crisis, although the environmental awareness of clients has steadily risen. The media’s attention to the IPBES (2019) report reviewing the state, causes, and implications of biodiversity loss and Dasgupta’s review (2021) outlining the economics of biodiversity awakened researchers and businesses. Biodiversity loss is also considered “one of the fastest deteriorating global risks over the next decade”and ranked 4th on the list of long-term global risks immediately after climate change concerns (World Economic Forum, 2023, pp. 6–7). Tourism experts increasingly share an imperative need to improve the sustainability and responsibility of products and services (Haukeland et al., 2023), and many public stakeholders have already addressed the issue; e.g. Parks and Wildlife Finland has established the Principles of Sustainable Tourism in Finnish national parks. 1 Previous research argues that transformative change requires innovative governance approaches (Diaz et al., 2019) to reform global economic systems, steering away from the prevailing paradigm of economic growth and over-consumption to penalize actions that deteriorate biodiversity and reward sustainability (Dasgupta, 2021). Nevertheless, despite such calls, these innovative governance approaches have rarely been discussed concerning the biodiversity crisis (Hallinger & Suriyankietkaew, 2018). While there is knowledge of “what”to do to pursue transformative change, no clear understanding exists of “how”to lead the change toward mainstreaming biodiversity-respectful activities. In the current study, the term biodiversity-respectful refers to living in harmony with nature, which Dasgupta (2021) described as balancing nature’s supply and humanity’s needs, respecting biodiversity, and safeguarding the well-being and viability of ecosystems and socio-ecological systems. In recent decades, tourism destination research has advanced from destination management to governance and leadership (Volgger et al., 2021). Destination management asserts the need for coordinating tourism destinations to optimize outcomes for everyone involved in providing tourism services; therefore, destination management focuses mainly on operative hands-on activities. Destination governance takes a more strategic SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 5 approach that better recognizes the diversity of actors and the complexity of actor relations in tourism destinations (Baggio et al., 2010). Thus, it also encompasses biodiversity on the local and regional levels and calls for the tourism sector’s involvement in discussions with local stakeholders regarding the management and sustainable use of natural resources (Kurttila et al., 2019). Finally, destination leadership directs attention toward influencing collective behavior to achieve coordination without hierarchical processes and solidified command and control structures (Pechlaner et al., 2014). This leadership approach coincides with Visit Finland’s role in promoting the sustainability of the entire Finnish tourism sector through a voluntary sustainability program and certification system offered to companies and destinations. Sustainability has become a central issue in tourism management (e.g. Gössling et al., 2012) and governance (e.g. Saarinen & Gill, 2018), but according to the authors’knowledge, the leadership approach has more rarely been addressed (e.g. Kaefer, 2022). Thus, we utilize the strategic leadership-enhanced organizational resilience framework (Ho et al., 2022) to examine Visit Finland’s actions related to biodiversity loss and its leadership role in making sustainability the new norm in the Finnish tourism sector (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland, 2022). The framework builds on strategic leadership as the key driver and pre-eminent factor in the entire resilience procedure. The functions crucial for organizational resilience include (i) creating a vision, (ii) strategic decision-making, (iii) stakeholder engagement, (iv) resource management, (v) information management, (vi) empowerment, (vii) motivating and influencing, and (viii) social and ethical issue management (Samimi et al., 2022). Besides strategic leadership, the framework includes factors prerequisite for a series of resilience actions, including prior knowledge base, resource availability, social resources, and power and responsibility (Ho et al., 2022). As an organizational resilience framework, it applies to individual companies and destinations and the entire Finnish tourism sector, the community resilience of which rests on its members’resilience (cf. Hall et al., 2017). Case study description –Visit Finland’s Sustainable Travel Finland program Sustainability aspects are recognized as a competitive advantage in tourism marketing. Therefore, Visit Finland –the national tourism promotion organization –has taken an active leadership role in enhancing the sustainability, and thereby the competitiveness, of tourism in Finland: “Taking sustainable development into account is increasingly important, even essential, for the continued growth of our tourism and for maintaining our competitiveness.”(Visit Finland, 2023). The ambitious goal is to transform Finland into the most sustainable tourist destination in the Nordic countries by 2028 (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland, 2022). Thus, in 2019, Visit Finland launched a national sustainability program, Sustainable Travel Finland (STF). This program comprises information materials, online tools, and training to promote the sustainability of tourism companies and destinations. This case study examines STF’s biodiversity-respectful leadership role and resilience-building potential. Particular focus is on biodiversity’s role as a new dimension of ecological sustainability alongside the well-established climate change and general environmental protection issues. 6E. SORAKUNNAS ET AL. The Finnish STF program provides a practical roadmap for tourism firms and destinations toward sustainability, consisting of general sustainability principles and criteria, concrete indicators, training, and evaluation that help tourism providers identify and adopt sustainable practices for their everyday business. After completing the program, applicants are recognized with the Sustainable Travel Finland label as well as granted incentives and marketing support by Visit Finland (Business Finland, 2022). During the investigation (October 2023), 359 companies had completed the STF program, and 1081 were working towards acceptance. These pioneering 1440 companies represent 5% of all Finnish tourism companies. 2 Finland’s focus on sustainability is concordant with the neighboring Scandinavian countries; Sweden has launched the Nature’s Best eco-certificate for accommodations and tourist experiences (https://www. naturesbestsweden.com/en/), Norway has the Sustainable Destination scheme (https:// www.visitnorway.com/), and responsible tourism in Iceland is distinguished by the Vakinn certificate (https://www.vakinn.is/en). Furthermore, Denmark, although lacking a specific label, stresses sustainability in its destination marketing (https://www. visitdenmark.com). The STF program is based on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and international criteria for sustainable tourism (ETIS, 2023; GSTC, 2023) but it is tailored to national needs. The process, depicted as the STF Trail, includes self-study materials and training organized by the Visit Finland Academy to support the application processes of individual businesses and destinations (Business Finland, 2022). The STF Trail begins with the principles that outline the philosophy of sustainable travel and function as a pledge (Figure 1). Thus, by signing the principles, the applying company or destination commits itself to sustainable development. The sustainability criteria and indicators offer concrete measures for different dimensions of sustainability. The self-study materials, online tools, and education and training events support the applicants throughout the process, culminating in the final evaluation and approval (or rejection). Participation in the program is voluntary. Methodology This study aims to provide a holistic understanding of a specific phenomenon, thus taking an intensive single-case study approach (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016) to examine Visit Finland’s role in enhancing the resilience, sustainability, and biodiversity-respectful activities of the Finnish tourism sector. The case study is based on two sources of information: Figure 1. The main elements of the Sustainable Travel Finland program. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 7 model (Ho et al., 2022), the prevailing guidelines for tourism and biodiversity (WTO, 2004,2010), and the principles of sustainable tourism (ETIS, 2023;GSTC,2023;World Economic Forum, 2022) that all represent the human perspective. For example, sustainable tourism is defined as “Tourism which meets the needs of tourists, the tourism industry, and host communities today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”(ETC, 2023,Toolkit2A,p.3).Also,therelationship between biodiversity and tourism is instrumentally portrayed from the business perspective: “Because ecosystem services and biodiversity are vital for tourism, it makes sense for destinations and the tourism sector to protect them as valuable assets that contribute to the long-term success of tourism”(WTO, 2010,p.2).Hence,theprimary concernistosatisfythetourists’needs and ensure the industry’s success despite growing environmental uncertainty. This resilience logic is based on anticipating, coping with and adapting to changes in the operating environment (Ho et al., 2022). It represents a narrow anthropocentric worldview that regards biodiversity and ecosystem services as useful resources (Christ et al., 2003;WTO,2004). A more holistic, ecocentric approach recognizes the broad spectrum of biodiversity-related values, both instrumental and intrinsic. Its baseline is respectful cooperation with nature that regards humankind as an integral part of it rather than an external and unattached utilizerofMotherNature’sofferings (cf. IPBES, 2022). Furhermore, the consumer perspective emphasizes a broader outlook that acknowledges the multidimensionality of biodiversity-dependent values. Tourism represents experiential consumption, the perceived consumer value of which is mainly emotional (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Tourist experiences are multidimensional, encompassing also aesthetic, hedonic, eudaemonic, ethical, and spiritual dimensions in addition to instrumentality (cf. Holbrook, 1999). Moreover, the health and well-being benefits of nature are increasingly acknowledged as nature’s key contributions to people (Tyrväinen et al., 2023). Sustained biodiversity is necessary for these intrinsic value types –as their direct source or indirectly by contributing to the overall experience. Using separate operative measures to target biodiversity loss represents an instrumental problem-solving approach, the effectiveness of which is limited to the predetermined activities and their measurement. The resulting resilience –on the company and destination levels –is superficial, transient, and ineffective in dealing with new challenges. Moreover, determining a standard set of indicators for the entire tourism sector with the participants’varying local circumstances, knowledge, ambitions, and resources is impossible. Alternatively, tailor-made indicators for different circumstances are laborious. In contrast, applying a strategic approach that embeds respect for biodiversity as a cross-cutting guideline to all business operations evades the problems of universal one-size-fits-all measures or case-by-case customization. Mainstreaming respect for biodiversity in the business model as a norm allows anchoring individual activities to this foundation and identifying the most urgent local needs. This endeavor promotes more systematic and goal-oriented measures, increases relevance and credibility, and builds resilience that adapts to upcoming challenges. Especially when considering STF’s role as an activator, supporter, and catalyst of the participants’own voluntary actions, a holistic biodiversity strategy holds more potential than standard detached activities. It also contributes to the natural environment and humanity’s well-being more effectively than individual 14 E. SORAKUNNAS ET AL. actions. This broader effectiveness also facilitates credible external communication as discrete measures often fail to compensate for the scale of adverse impacts, commonly causing greenwash accusations. Conclusions Biodiversity loss poses a growing threat to life, ecosystems, and, ultimately, human wellbeing. This decline is human-induced, and the tourism industry is not innocent either. We examined the complex and often controversial tourism-biodiversity relationship by applying a biodiversity-respectful leadership approach to the Sustainable Travel Finland program (STF). Ho and colleagues’(2022) organizational resilience framework was used to assess the program’s potential to promote biodiversity in Finnish tourism in order to contribute to the industry’s resilience. STF represents a good start for increasing biodiversity-respectfulness among Finnish tourism companies and destinations. However, due to its instrumental approach, the small scale of most biodiversity activities, and lack of their quantification, the program’s resilience-building capacity is still limited to the local level. However, the construction of tourism infrastructure and traveling to and from the destination have considerable negative impacts on biodiversity; the combined effects of habitat destruction, pollution, resource consumption, introduction of alien species, and acceleration of climate change often exceed that of local operative actions. Therefore, proceeding from small-scale local instrumentality to embedding respect for biodiversity as a cross-cutting strategy in all tourism business would provide greater resilience for the industry, effectiveness in biodiversity protection, and increase the trustworthiness of marketing communication. This could advance transforming tourism in Finland by supplementing the present anthropocentric stance with greater ecocentricity and a broader valuation of nature and biodiversity, thus operating in, with, and as nature instead of shortsightedly profiting from it (cf. IPBES, 2022). STF has the required leadership to determine how seriously biodiversityrespectfulness is incorporated in the Finnish tourism sector, how its resilience develops, and whether the goal of developing Finland into the most sustainable travel destination in the Nordic countries is achieved. Limitations and future research This case study investigated a single country, Finland, characterized by close human– nature relationships, respect for nature in the business world, and up-to-date environmental legislation. The findings have, however, been generalized to allow their transferability to other tourism contexts. Despite our limited focus, it seems likely that the same challenges and pitfalls concerning the scale and scope of biodiversity actions in tourism are common. Therefore, further research on the tourism-biodiversity relationship in other contexts and the industry’s possibilities for promoting biodiversity are welcomed. Given the seriousness of the ongoing biodiversity decline, its consequences on tourism, and the overall well-being of humankind, this should be a priority area of sustainable tourism research. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 15 Notes 1. https://www.metsa.fi/en/responsible-business/nature-tourism-and-sustainability/principlesof-sustainable-tourism/ 2. Approx. 29 000 companies (https://www.businessfinland.fi/suomalaisille-asiakkaille/palvelut/ matkailun-edistaminen/tutkimukset-ja-tilastot/tutkimukset-ja-tilastot-lyhyesti) 3. https://www.businessfinland.fi/en/for-finnish-customers/services/travel/vastuullisuus/ sustainable-travel-finland Disclosure Statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding This research was conducted as part of the BIODIFUL project funded by the Strategic Research Council within the Academy of Finland. ORCID Esko Sorakunnas http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2164-4932 Juulia Räikkönen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2551-9162 Henna Konu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7886-0268 Miia Grénman http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3599-3121 Liisa Tyrväinen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5144-7150 References Amore, A., Prayag, G., & Hall, C. M. (2018). Conceptualizing destination resilience from a multilevel perspective. Tourism Review International,22(3–4), 235–2250. https://doi.org/10.3727/ 154427218X15369305779010 Baggio, R., Scott, N., & Cooper, C. (2010). Improving tourism destination governance: A complexity science approach. Tourism Review,65(4), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/16605371011093863 Berbés-Blázquez, M., & Scott, D. (2017). The development of resilience thinking. In Tourism and resilience (pp. 9–22). Cabi. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780648330.0009 Bertella, G. (2022). Discussing tourism during a crisis: Resilient reactions and learning paths towards sustainable futures. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism,22(2), 144–160. https://doi. org/10.1080/15022250.2022.2034527 Business Finland. (2022). Sustainable travel Finland - Towards responsible travel industry. Retrieved April 4, 2023, https://www.businessfinland.fi/en/do-business-with-finland/visit-finland/ sustainable-travel-finland-label Christ, C., Hillel, O., Matus, S., & Sweeting, J. (2003). Tourism and biodiversity –mapping tourism’s global footprint. Conservation International and UNEP 2003. ISBN: 1-881173-71-2. Dasgupta, P. (2021). The economics of biodiversity: The Dasgupta review. Hm Treasury. Diaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E. S., Ngo, H. T., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Chan, K. M. A., Garibaldi, L. A., Ichii, K., Liu, J., Subramanian, S. M., Midgley, G. F., Miloslavich, P., Molnár, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., …Zayas, C. N. (2019). Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science,366(6471), 1–10, 1327. Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2016). Qualitative methods in business research (2nd ed.). SAGE. ETC. (2023). European Travel Commission on Sustainability.Retrieved February 1, 2023, https://etccorporate.org/advocacy-sustainability/ 16 E. SORAKUNNAS ET AL. ETIS. (2023). European tourism indicators system for sustainable destination management. Retrieved January 15, 2023, https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/tourism/offer/sustainable/ indicators_en FAO. (2008). Biosecurity for highly pathogenic avian influenza: Issues and options (FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 165). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Folke, C. (2016). Resilience (republished). Ecology and Society,21(4), https://doi.org/10.5751/ES09088-210444 Fredman, P., Haukeland, J.-V., Stensland, S., Tyrväinen, L., & Wall-Reinius, S. (2021). Nature-based tourism in a Nordic context. In P. Fredman & J.-V. Haukeland (Eds.), Nordic perspectives on nature-based tourism: From place-based resources to value-added experiences (pp. 2–15). Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978 1 78990 403 1, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789904031 Gössling, S., Hall, C. M., Ekström, F., Engeset, A. B., & Aall, C. (2012). Transition management: A tool for implementing sustainable tourism scenarios? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,20(6), 899–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.699062 Gössling, S., & Hall, M. C. (2006). Tourism and global environmental change. Taylor & Francis. GSTC. (2023). Global Sustainable Tourism Council –criteria overview. Retrieved March 21, 2023, https://www.gstcouncil.org/gstc-criteria/ Hall, C. M. (2010). Tourism and biodiversity: More significant than climate change? Journal of Heritage Tourism,5(4), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2010.517843 Hall, C. M. (2011). Biosecurity, tourism and mobility: Institutional arrangements for managing tourism-related biological invasions. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events,3 (3), 256–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2011.576868 Hall, C. M., Prayag, G., & Amore, A. (2017). Tourism and resilience: Individual, organisational and destination perspectives. Channel View. Hallinger, P., & Suriyankietkaew, S. (2018). Science mapping of the knowledge base on sustainable leadership, 1990–2018. Sustainability,10(12), 4846. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124846 Haukeland, J.-V., Fredman, P., Tyrväinen, L., Siegrist, D., & Lindberg, K. (2023). Prospects for naturebased tourism: Identifying trends with commercial potential. Journal of Ecotourism,1–18. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2023.2178444 Hinchliffe, S., & Bingham, N. (2008). Securing life: The emerging practices of biosecurity. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,40(7), 1534–1551. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4054 Ho, G. K., Lam, C., & Law, R. (2022). Conceptual framework of strategic leadership and organizational resilience for the hospitality and tourism industry for coping with environmental uncertainty. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights,6(2), 835–852. Holbrook, B., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research,9(2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1086/208906 Holbrook, M. (1999). Introduction to consumer value. In M. Holbrook (Ed.), Consumer value –A framework for analysis and research (pp. 1–28). Routledge. Holling, C. S., & Gunderson, L. H. (2002). Resilience and adaptive cycles. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems,25–62. Innovation Norway. (2022). Sustainable destination standard / Criteria and indicators. Version, 3.0, 1 Jan 2022. IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, & H. T. Ngo, Eds.). IPBES secretariat. 1148 s. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673 IPBES. (2022). Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (U. Pascual, P. Balvanera, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, D. González-Jiménez, C. B. Anderson, S. Athayde, D. N. Barton, R. Chaplin-Kramer, S. Jacobs, E. Kelemen, R. Kumar, E. Lazos, A. Martin, T. H. Mwampamba, B. Nakangu, P. O’Farrell, C. M. Raymond, S. M. Subramanian …A. Vatn, Eds.). IPBES secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522392 IPBES. (2023). Thematic assessment report on invasive alien species and their control of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (H. E. Roy, A. Pauchard, P. Stoett, & T. Renard Truong, Eds.). IPBES secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7430731 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 17 Kaefer, F. (2022). Sustainability leadership in tourism: Interviews, insights, and knowledge from practice. Springer Nature. Kurttila, M., Mäntymaa, E., Juutinen, A., Hujala, T., & Tyrväinen, L. (2019). Multi-criteria analysis process for creation and evaluation of PES alternatives in the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,63(10), 1857–1879.https://www. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.108009640568.2019.1689933 Kvale, S., & Brinkman, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). SAGE. Levin, S., Xepapadeas, T., Crépin, A. S., Norberg, J., De Zeeuw, A., Folke, C., Hughes, T., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Kautsky, N., Mäler, K.-G., Polasky, S., Troell, M., Vincent, J. R., & Walker, B. (2013). Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: Modeling and policy implications. Environment and Development Economics,18(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1355770X12000460 Lundmark, L., & Müller, D. K. (2010). The supply of nature-based tourism activities in Sweden. Tourism,58(4), 379–393. Mäntymaa, E., Tyrväinen, L., Juutinen, A., & Kurttila, M. (2019). Importance of forest landscape quality for companies operating in nature tourism areas. Land Use Policy,107, 104095. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.landusepol.2019.104095 Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning,147,38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011 Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland. (2022). Finland’s tourism strategy for 2022– 2028 and action plan for 2022–2028. Publications of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland, 2022:51. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-327-772-4 Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology,41(1), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6 Pantsar, M. (2023). Business sector and biodiversity –Where are we now and what is needed? Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:6. ISBN PDF 978-952-361-235-8 (In Finnish). Pechlaner, H., Kozak, M., & Volgger, M. (2014). Destination leadership: A new paradigm for tourist destinations? Tourism Review,69(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-09-2013-0053 Pörtner, H. O., Scholes, R. J., Agard, J., Archer, E., Arneth, A., Bai, X., Barnes, D., Burrows, M., Chan, L., Cheung, W. L., Diamond, S., Donatti, C., Duarte, C., Eisenhauer, N., Foden, W., Gasalla, M. A., Handa, C., Hickler, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., …Ngo, H. (2021). Scientific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change. IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.4659158 Saarinen, J., & Gill, A. M. (Eds.). (2018). Resilient destinations and tourism: Governance strategies in the transition towards sustainability in tourism. Routledge. Samimi, M., Cortes, A. F., Anderson, M. H., & Herrmann, P. (2022). What is strategic leadership? Developing a framework for future research. The Leadership Quarterly,33(3), 1–10, 101353. Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170–183). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243 Tolvanen, A., Kangas, K., Tarvainen, O., Huhta, E., Jäkäläniemi, A., Kyttä, M., Nikula, A., Nivala, V., Tuulentie, S., & Tyrväinen, L. (2020). The relationship between people’s activities and values with the protection level and biodiversity. Tourism Management,81, 104141. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tourman.2020.104141 Tyrväinen, L., Konijnendijk, C., Bauer, N., Dyamba, D. S., Morand, S., Payyappallimana, U., Remans, R., Schackleton, C., Shanley, P., Bugni, V., & Laird, S. (2023). Forests for human health - understanding the contexts, characteristics, links to other benefits and drivers of change. In C. Konijnendijk, D. Devkota, S. Mansourian, & C. Wildburger (Eds.), Forests and trees for human health: Pathways, impacts, challenges and response options - a global assessment report (pp.125–162). International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO). World Series Vol. 41. Vienna. 232 p. UNEP. (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/8340 Visit Finland. (2023). State of Sustainable Tourism 2022. Report published 25 April 2023. 18 E. SORAKUNNAS ET AL. Volgger, M., Erschbamer, G., & Pechlaner, H. (2021). Destination design: New perspectives for tourism destination development. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management,19, 100561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100561 World Economic Forum. (2022). Travel & tourism development index 2021 –rebuilding for a sustainable and resilient future. Insight Report May 2022. World Economic Forum. (2023). Global risks report 2023 (18th Ed.). Retrieved October 10, 2023, https://www.weforum.org/reports/globalrisks-report-2023/ WTO. (2004). Indicators of sustainable development for tourism destinations: A guidebook. World Tourism Organization. ISBN 92-844-0726-5. WTO. (2010). Tourism and biodiversity –achieving common goals towards sustainability. World Tourism Organization. ISBN 978-92-844-1371-3 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 19