Isn’t this already being managed by Visit Levi or local tourism organisations?

Levi’s tourism organisations are doing a significant amount of work. They focus on attracting visitors, developing year-round tourism, improving infrastructure and experience, and promoting sustainability.

These are essential.

However, their role does not extend to controlling how tourism is distributed — how bookings happen, how platforms operate, or how value is captured.

That layer has grown in importance but is not clearly owned.

Are you saying tourism organisations are doing something wrong?

No.

This is not about intent or effort. It is about structure.

Tourism systems have evolved — particularly with the rise of global platforms — but the roles and responsibilities within destinations have not fully adapted to that change.

Isn’t distribution the responsibility of individual businesses?

Formally, yes. Businesses choose how they sell, price, and distribute their services.

But in practice, those choices are shaped by:

This creates a situation where businesses operate within constraints they do not control.

Can’t businesses just focus on direct booking?

Some can — and some do.

But direct booking is increasingly difficult because:

This means direct booking is not just a marketing decision. It is a structural challenge.

Are platforms like Airbnb and Booking.com a problem?

Not inherently.

They provide global reach, convenience, and access to demand.

The issue is balance.

When a large share of demand flows through a small number of platforms, those platforms begin to shape:

Is this happening in other destinations?

Yes.

Similar patterns have been observed in Iceland, Barcelona, Bali, Amsterdam, Venice, and Mallorca, among others.

In many cases, these destinations responded after the effects became visible. The aim here is to understand the pattern earlier.

The case studies page documents what happened in each, what they did about it, and what is transferable to Levi.

Is Levi already experiencing these issues?

Some early signals are visible:

These are not necessarily problems yet. But they follow known trajectories.

Is this anti-tourism or anti-growth?

No.

Tourism is essential to Levi and Lapland.

The question is not whether tourism should grow, but how it grows — and who benefits from that growth.

What does “control” actually mean in this context?

Control refers to:

At the moment, much of this sits outside the destination.

What is the Levi Tourism Model trying to do?

This project aims to:

Is this a finished model or a proposal?

Neither.

This is Version 1 of an ongoing piece of work. It is intended to be tested, challenged, and refined through real-world input.

What happens if nothing changes?

Over time, destinations on this trajectory tend to:

These shifts are gradual. But they are difficult to reverse once established.

The case studies of Iceland, Barcelona, Bali, and Amsterdam show what this looks like at different stages — and what destinations have done when they decided to act.

What happens next?

The next phase will focus on expanding the research base, developing practical applications, and testing ideas in real-world scenarios.

All updates will be shared openly.

How can I contribute?

If you have experience in Lapland tourism, insight into the system, or research and critique, get in touch.

If this work is useful, it will improve through engagement. If it is not challenged, it will stay incomplete.

See also: The Levi Tourism Model, Case Studies, Research Methodology.