The area under investigation roughly coincides with the Western Arctic Tourism Zone and the claims settlement areas of the Inuvialuit (Eskimos/Inuit of Canadas western Arctic) and Gwichin (Athapaskan Indians). It is an area of great scenic beauty and diversity, encompassing such diverse features as the immense delta of the Mackenzie River, the spectacular Richardson Mountains, and endless tundra. It is home to virtually all species of marine and terrestrial arctic wildlife, including the worlds largest concentration of muskoxen on Banks Island, the Porcupine and Bluenose caribou herds, and healthy populations of polar bear and tundra grizzly.

Nature and culture set the region apart from the central and eastern Arctic. It is one of the few areas on the continent which has remained unglaciated for over 100,000 years, resulting in unique landscapes and lifeforms. With the Mackenzie River, the treeline almost reaches the Arctic Ocean, giving rise to a unique cultural ecology, where two indigenous peoples—the Inuvialuit of the Arctic coast and the Gwichin of the northern forests—have traditionally shared the resources and space of the Mackenzie Delta. The third element of todays cultural and ethnic mosaic, the Europeans, entered the stage in the 19th century with the establishment of the whaling industry along the coast and the fur trade inland, both of which have left their mark on the people and the land. Furthermore, the western Arctic is distinguished by the fact that its northern part looks back on a decade of land claim settlement implementation, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) of 1984, whereas the Gwichin Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement to the south was signed in 1992. The land is thus subject to innovative resource co-management régimes, which in the Inuvialuit case, has somewhat matured over a decade, whereas the Gwichin régime is just being established. Not surprisingly, this has implications for the tourism industry. The western Arctic is the only part of Canadas Arctic accessible by road (namely, the famous Dempster Highway). This is another factor giving rise to a somewhat different pattern of tourism than in other parts of the Canadian Far North.

The town of Inuvik constitutes the end of the Dempster and serves as the major transportation hub and staging point for the entire western Arctic region. While the Gwichin communities Tetlit Zheh (Fort McPherson) and Tsiigehtchic (Arctic Red River) are located on the Dempster Highway, the tourism potential of the other five communities within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Aklavik, Tuktoyaktuk, Paulatuk, Holman, and Sachs Harbour) is at least partially determined by their distance from and connection with Inuvik. A scheduled air service to Holman only runs from Yellowknife. For the time being, Paulatuk has only limited tourism interest, due to its distance from markets, underdeveloped tourism infrastructure, and lack of tourism products. Of the remaining three communities, Tuktoyaktuk, Aklavik, and Sachs Harbour, the former easily receives the lions share of tourist visitation (over 80%). According to the Northwest Territories Exit Survey from July–September 1994, over 6,300 people visited Inuvik (mostly via the Dempster Highway). This constitutes approximately 19% of visitors to the Northwest Territories (NWT), compared to almost 24,000 visitors or 70% to the South Mackenzie and over 3,500 travellers or 11% to the Eastern Arctic. In all three survey areas, domestic Canadian tourists accounted by far for the largest proportion of visitors—representing 76% and 88% in the South Mackenzie and Eastern Arctic, respectively.

However, in the Dempster/Inuvik Area, the proportion of Canadians was much lower, at 54%, with 25% originating from the United States and 21% from outside North America. The larger American proportion must be attributed to the proximity of Alaska. The 1992 Western Arctic Visitor Survey discusses the primary tourism interests: While wildlife viewing ranked first (as has been recorded in most of North America) with 99% of visitors choosing it as one of their main interests, native culture follows as a close second with 96%. Therefore, one may conclude that virtually all northern tourists would value an aboriginal tourism experience. While aboriginal tourism in Canadas western Arctic has not previously attracted the attention of researchers, there is an interesting though limited body of literature addressing tourism issues among northern aboriginal peoples in other northern areas, particularly the eastern Arctic. Smiths seminal work on Eskimo in Northwest Alaska explores such key issues as tourism as an agent of culture change and the phenomenon of marginal men in tourism. This is rendered unique by the fact that Smith is in a position to report and analyze her observations over four decades. More recently she expanded her northern tourism studies to Nunavut, suggesting community self-assessment based on habitat, heritage, history, and handicrafts as a means of establishing community individuality and cultural uniqueness in the tourism marketplace. Anderson (1991) provides an analysis of problems with tourism development in Canadas Eastern Arctic, discussing government policy, regional and community competition, and the importance of realistic planning. Wolfe-Keddies (1993) study in Baffin and Keewatin deserves particular attention for her insightful comments on the costs of tourism to communities, and the dilemmas of involuntary hosts trying to cope with dangerous children (tourists).

In their treatment of hospitality and tourism training and education in the NWT, Haywood, Reide and Wolfe (1993) provide some interesting comments on the community-based approach to tourism development. The reality of community-based development is also the focus of a case study from Pangnirtung. This study illustrates that the NWT governments approach to its own policy of community-based development does not imply community control, but merely involvement. In Pangnirtung, the major accomplishment of the approach has been the empowerment of the local community to create its own unique mix of formal and non-formal cash-related activities in tourism, which best meets the needs of the local families and the community as a whole. This study also reveals cultural conflicts as people struggle over whether or not to act competitively. The sociocultural, economic, and environmental dimensions of tourism is also explored in comprehensive treatment of aboriginal people in the NWTs tourism economy. He highlights the importance of tourism education for both hosts and guests. The McGill Tourism Research Group (MTRG) focuses its work on Baffin Island communities as exemplified by two excellent studies. Milne, Ward and Wenzel (1995) discuss the relationship between tourism and art in Cape Dorset. They also present an interesting overview of the changing face of tourism and the changing community economies in the Baffin region. Grekin and Milne (1996) explore various issues pertaining to sustainable tourism development in Pond Inlet. They note that literature in general has tended to downplay the role that local people can play in influencing tourisms development path. These authors provide an interesting discussion of the delicate relationship between tourism and Inuit hunting activities, and the adoption of an unwritten policy to conceal hunting from tourists. They also perceive a desire on the part of both Inuit and visitors to see a greater degree of intercultural communication and interaction. Other important points addressed by their work include the necessity to educate visitors, missed economic opportunities for communities due to a lack of local communication and coordination between various community actors, and problems associated with marketing and packaging. Still there are a number of contributions in the literature addressing tourism implications of the relationship between protected areas and neighbouring communities. These include studies by Usher (1993) on Polar Bear Park, Ontario, and Downie (1993) and Moss (1994) on Katannilik Territorial Park. The last contains an interesting discussion of the difference between adventure tourism and ecotourism—two categories that too often are lumped together—and the difference in their impact on local communities. The purpose of this paper is a partial investigation of current issues in aboriginal tourism development in Canadas western Arctic with particular focus on the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Host and guest perspectives are explored. The former focuses on the system of checks and balances created by the claims settlement process, and its employment for the control of tourism development.

The role of tourism in local mixed economies is also explored. Further, the study looks at the visitors perspective: their expectations, perceptions, and degree of satisfaction, as they are exposed to an aboriginal tourism experience. Particular attention is paid to the educational role of tourism. The research methodology used in this study of the western Arctic consisted in participant observation, interviews, and questionnaires distributed to tourists. In July 1995 the author spent three weeks in Inuvik. It was this researchers third visit to the area after previous trips in 1988 and 1992, first as a tourist and then as a fieldworker. Participant observation was engaged in at Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk watching the mingling of tourists and local people, spending much time at the offices of the two local tour companies with both visitors and employees (and translating for European visitors), participating in selected tours, mingling with people at the local campground, visiting the Western Arctic Regional Visitor Center, and taking advantage of local B and B accommodation with a constant turnover of visitors. The author conducted semi-structured interviews with a large number of stakeholders in the regional tourism industry: local operators and guides, and numerous individuals representing tour companies, industry organizations, territorial and federal government departments, community organizations, and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. A questionnaire survey was conducted among tourists at Inuvik. For practical reasons (lack of appropriate sampling frame; the fact that the author was the only fieldworker) the sample was an opportunistic rather than random one. The survey, containing 30 questions, was completed by the respondents themselves. Various distribution methods were used. Part of the questionnaires were handed out by the author herself on selected tours, at the tour company offices, and on the campground. Others were left for pick-up by tourists at the campground office, with the tour companies and at local hotels.

All questionnaires came with an explanatory letter and a self-addressed envelope to be returned to the author at the University of Lethbridge. Approximately 200 questionnaires were handed out or made available for pick-up. Seventy tourists responded by returning completed questionnaires. All of these respondents were thorough and went to great length in responding to open-ended questions, sharing their experiences and impressions. The results of this survey appear valid (though not with a statistically known degree of confidence) for several reasons, despite the non-random nature of the sample. In terms of demographics and general socioeconomic characteristics, the sample shares most features that have previously been reported by other studies conducted by or on behalf of the government of the NWT. Furthermore, the evaluation of the mostly qualitative data is supplemented by extensive ethnographic observation and a thorough knowledge of the context by the researcher.