Planning Natur Tourism PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/249000707
Planning Nature Tourism in Iceland based on Tourist Attitudes
Article in Tourism Geographies · January 2010

DOI: 10.1080/14616680903493639
CITATIONS READS
57 770
1 author:
Anna Dóra Sæþórsdóttir

University of Iceland
30 PUBLICATIONS 305 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Sustainable Geo-Resources for Tourism and Recreation View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Anna Dóra Sæþórsdóttir on 14 November 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [annadora@hi.is]
On: 20 January 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918680142]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Tourism Geographies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713709512

Anna Dóra Sæþórsdóttir a
a
Department of Geography and Tourism Studies, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
Online publication date: 19 January 2010
To cite this Article Sæþórsdóttir, Anna Dóra(2010) 'Planning Nature Tourism in Iceland based on Tourist Attitudes',
Tourism Geographies, 12: 1, 25 — 52
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14616680903493639
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680903493639
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Tourism Geographies
Vol. 12, No. 1, 25–52, February 2010
Planning Nature Tourism in Iceland based

on Tourist Attitudes
ANNA DÓRA SÆRÓRSDÓTTIR
Department of Geography and Tourism Studies, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
Abstract This paper gives an overview of the various kinds of nature tourism practised
at five different nature destinations in Iceland: Mývatn, the national parks Skaftafell and
Downloaded By: [annadora@hi.is] At: 10:21 20 January 2010
Jökulsárgljúfur, and the Highland destinations Landmannalaugar and Lónsöræfi. The study
analyses visitors’ experiences, types of tourists visiting the different areas, their travel patterns,
wishes for infrastructure, and their satisfaction with available services. The results are put
into the context of Carrying Capacity, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), and the
Purist Scale, and suggestions are made about how to plan and manage nature tourism in
Iceland. The results show, for example, that in those parts of the Icelandic Highlands, where
few changes have been made to the natural environment, purists should be the target group.
Their satisfaction does not increase with more infrastructure and services; on the contrary, they
prefer to travel in as natural an environment as possible. Travel destinations in the lowland
areas should, on the other hand, invest further in infrastructure and services, thereby catering
better for the needs of those that visit them.
Key Words: Nature tourism, tourism carrying capacity, purist scale, Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum, land-use planning, Iceland
Résumé: Planification du tourisme de nature en Islande sur la base des attitudes

de touristes
Cet article examine différentes formes de tourisme de nature telles qu’elles sont pratiquées dans
cinq destinations en Islande : Mývatn, les parcs nationaux de Skaftafell et Jökulsárgljúfur, et
les stations en altitude de Landmannalaugar et Lónsöræfi. L’étude analyse les expériences des
visiteurs, les genres de touristes qui visitent ces lieux, leurs modes de déplacement, leurs souhaits
en infrastructure et leur niveau de satisfaction des services qui existent. Les résultats sont analysés
selon les notions de capacité d’absorption, du spectre de possibilité de récréation (ROS dans le texte)
et de l’échelle puriste et on suggère comment planifier et gérer le tourisme de nature en Islande. Les
résultats montrent, par exemple, qu’il faut attirer les puristes dans les zones en altitude où il existe
peu d’altérations du monde naturel. Leur niveau de satisfaction n’augment pas si on leur offre plus
d’infrastructure ou de services; au contraire, ils préfèrent voyager dans un environnement aussi
Correspondence Address: Anna Dóra Sæþórsdóttir, Department of Geography and Tourism Studies, Uni-
versity of Iceland, Askja, Nature Science House, Sturlugata 7, Reykjavik, 101 Iceland. Fax: 354-525 4499;
Tel.: 354-525 4287; Email: annadora@hi.is
ISSN 1461-6688 Print/1470-1340 Online /10/01/00025–28

C 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14616680903493639
26 A. D. SæRórsdóttir
naturel que possible. Les destinations en plaine, par contre, devraient investir plus en infrastructure
et en services, pour mieux répondre aux besoins de ceux qui leur rendent visite.
Mots-clés: Tourisme de nature, capacité d’absorption du tourisme, échelle puriste, spectre de possibilité
de récréation, aménagement du territoire, Islande
Zusammenfassung: Die Planung von Naturtourismus in Island auf der Grund-

lage von Einstellungen der Touristen
Dieser Artikel vermittelt einen Überblick über die verschiedenen Arten von Naturtourismus an
fünf verschiedenen Natur Destinationen in Island; in Mývatn, den Nationalparks Skaftafell und
Jökulsárgljúfur sowie den Hochland Zielgebieten Landmannalaugar und Lónsöræfi. Die Studie
analysiert die Erfahrungen der Besucher, die Art Touristen, die die verschiedenen Gebiete besuchen,
ihre Reisegepflogenheiten, ihre Wünsche hinsichtlich der Infrastruktur sowie ihre Zufrieden-
heit mit den vorhandenen Dienstleistungen. Die Ergebnisse werden im Zusammenhang mit der
Tragfähigkeit, dem Spektrum des Erholungspotentials sowie der Puristenskala diskutiert, und
Vorschläge zur Planung und zum Management von Naturtourismus auf Island werden gemacht. Die
Ergebnisse zeigen zum Beispiel, dass in den Teilen des isländischen Hochlandes, in dem nur wenige
Veränderungen des natürlichen Landschaftsbildes stattgefunden haben, die Puristen die Zielgruppe
sein sollten. Ihre Zufriedenheit steigt nicht mit der Zunahme an Infrastruktur und Dienstleistun-
gen; im Gegenteil, sie bevorzugen die Reise in einer so natürlich wie möglich belassenen Umgebung.
Reisezielgebiete in den Tiefebenen sollten hingegen weiterhin in Infrastruktur und Dienstleistungen
investieren, um die Bedürfnisse der dorthin Reisenden besser befriedigen zu können.
Stichwörter: Naturtourismus, touristische Tragfähigkeit, Puristenskala, Spektrum der Erhol-

ungsmöglichkeiten, landschaftliche Nutzungsplanung, Island
Introduction
Nature tourism is a large and growing part of the international tourism industry (Hof
et al. 1994; Buckley 2003; Pickering and Weaver 2003) and nature has become one
of the central components of tourist activities and a major attraction in its own right
(Saarinen 2004a). This is the case in Iceland where nature is by far the most important
segment of the tourist industry and attracts most foreign visitors (Icelandic Tourist
Board 2005). Due to a combination of volcanic activity, landscape formed during the
Ice Age, and late and limited industrialization, the Icelandic landscape is unique when
compared to that of the home places of most international visitors, who mainly come
from Great Britain (16.9%), the USA (14.0%), Germany (9.7%) and Scandinavia
(25.7%) (Statistics Iceland 2007). This uniqueness is among the factors that have led
to a great increase in the number of foreign visitors to the country. During the first
years after the Second World War about 4,000 visitors came to Iceland annually. The
number increased slowly until the 1960s but, after that, the number of tourists has
increased rapidly. In 1980, 66,000 foreign visitors entered the country, but in 2006 the
total had reached about 400,000 (Icelandic Tourist Board 2007), well over the total
population of Iceland of 300,000. In addition, 80 percent of the Icelandic population
visit the tourist sites each year (Icelandic Tourist Board 2003).
Planning Nature Tourism in Iceland based on Tourist Attitudes 27
The current mainstays of the Icelandic economy are renewable natural resources:
rich fishing grounds, hydro- and geothermal power and the landscape, which is the
foundation of the tourism industry. During the last few years the finance sector has
also become a substantial contributor to the Icelandic economy. The tourist industry
competes with other intensive land users for its resources, for example with hydro-
and geothermal power production (Saethorsdottir 1998; 2006a; Benediktsson 2007).
In recent years these industries have developed land-use plans that identify preferred
development locations. The tourist industry, on the other hand, has not yet made
plans with respect to preferred land uses. As the number of visitors grows, and the
activities they undertake become more diverse, this is likely to lead to a growing and
diversifying set of problems on how to provide the various recreation opportunities.
Hall (2000) points out that although planning is not a cure-all solution, it may
minimize negative impacts, maximize economic returns and contribute to positive
attitudes in the local community. Appropriate planning frameworks can help to avoid
unnecessary impacts, duplication and loss of opportunities in the future. Furthermore,

Hall (2000) points out that planning for tourism occurs in a number of forms, e.g.
development, infrastructure, land and resource use, organization, human resource,
promotion and marketing; structures and scales (international, national, local, site
and sectoral). All of these may contribute in part to reducing tensions with other land
and resource users.
Several frameworks and concepts are useful when considering target groups, use
levels and impacts of the various forms of tourism. The concept of tourism carrying
capacity plays a key role with regard to sustainable development of tourism (Saarinen
2006). The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) framework and the Purist Scale
model, discussed below, are also useful as they help to differentiate the various use
levels and the possible co-existence of the various forms of tourism and other land
users.
The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of nature tourism practised at
five different nature destinations in Iceland, to find target groups for those destinations
according to the qualities and settings each location offers, and to show how more
information and research can be useful when managing nature destinations in Iceland.
In this research no attempt is made to establish the tourism carrying capacity for the
study areas as it has been pointed out by several researchers that that would be
unrealistic (e.g. Stankey and McCool 1984; Manning 1986; Lindberg et al. 1997;
McCool and Lime 2001; Cole 2004). The research areas selected are representative
of the spectrum of nature tourist destinations in Iceland: the nature reserve at Lake
Mývatn, the national parks Skaftafell and Jökulsárgljúfur, and two Highland areas,
Landmannalaugar and Lónsöræfi. The experience of tourists is mapped, as well as
their nationality, means of travel and travel behaviour. In a manner pointed out by
Cole (2004), the information collected can then be used by managers and policy
makers when managing those destinations and when analysing and deciding how
to respond to current problems. Together with frameworks and concepts such as
the tourism carrying capacity, Purists Scale and ROS, the research presented here
is therefore useful when making decisions regarding land-use allocation and how to
develop nature tourism in Iceland. Although the decisions will always be value-laden,
they should be based on scientific data as far as possible.
Nature Tourism in Iceland

There is no agreement in the tourism literature on how to define nature tourism
(Mehmetoglo 2007). In most cases nature tourism is considered to be travel to natural
areas with the main motivation being to enjoy the scenery and appreciate nature. That
is obviously true for a large proportion of the tourists that visit Iceland and nature
tourism is an important segment of the Icelandic tourism industry. According to a
survey carried out by the Icelandic Tourist Board (2005), among a sample of 3,139
foreign visitors who came to Iceland in the summer of 2004, the majority (76%)
came to experience Icelandic nature (Figure 1). The survey was carried out at the
two main exit points from Iceland (Keflavik International Airport and Seydisfjordur,
where the ferry departs for Scandinavia and Great Britain). The survey focuses on
general behaviour as to why the visitors decided to come to Iceland, their buying
process and travel behaviour, but does not focus on specific destinations.
The Icelandic tourist industry has for a long time used nature to market the coun-
try. Marketing slogans, such as ‘Iceland naturally’, ‘Nature the Way Nature Made It’
and ‘Pure, Natural, Unspoiled’, show how important nature is in marketing Icelandic
Figure 1. Foreign visitors’ participation in recreation during their stay in Iceland.

tourism. Tourism in Iceland is characterized by the strong interest tourists show in

gazing at, playing in and enjoying nature. It involves travel to the various natural
attractions, such as mountains, glaciers, volcanoes, lava fields, geysers, sand fields,
rivers, waterfalls, a varied coastline and a vast wilderness area in the central High-
lands. Those natural attractions are not evenly distributed around the country and
destinations in south Iceland (e.g. the hot spring area at Geysir) and north-east Ice-
land (e.g. Mývatn) are the most visited, but other areas like the Western fjords and the
north-west are less visited (Statistics Iceland 2008). Approximately one third of the
foreign visitors go to the Icelandic Highlands (Icelandic Tourist Board 2005), which
cover about 40 percent of the country. The main part of the Highlands can be defined
as wilderness, that is to say relatively unspoiled areas. According to the Icelandic law
on nature protection (nr. 44/1999), the Icelandic wilderness is supposed to provide
a primitive experience without constructions or motorized traffic as well as opportu-
nities of finding solitude. These laws are therefore similar to the US Wilderness Act
(1964).
Until now, Icelandic nature destinations have been characterized mainly by very
limited infrastructure and little commercialization and can be considered underde-
veloped with regard to recreation and tourism. With the rapid increase in tourism in
the last decades this is gradually changing and investments have been made recently
into road construction, parking places, toilet facilities, designed footpaths and a few
visitor centres.
It is always debatable what is ‘an appropriate’ level of tourism development (e.g.
Saarinen 2004b). The rapid growth of tourism has caused some undesirable bio-
physical impact in some of the most popular tourism sites (Saethorsdottir 2003).
When developing Icelandic tourism it is necessary to take into account that Ice-
landic nature is sensitive in various ways. The growing season is short and the most
widespread plant communities are very vulnerable. Icelandic soils are mainly of
volcanic origin and are very susceptible to soil erosion (Gisladottir 2005). The land-
scape is also open due to lack of trees, which means that infrastructure is not easily
hidden.
The Icelandic government aims to strengthen the tourist industry and make it one of
the main economic sectors. According to forecasts, tourism in Iceland will continue
to grow for the next decade (Ministry of Communications 2005). The average growth
during the last decades has been 8 percent per year and, if growth continues at that
rate, it will be necessary to plan and manage the industry carefully. Research, such
as this study, provides planners with important information that can ensure visitor
satisfaction remains high and that the industry expands in a sustainable manner.
Tourism Carrying Capacity

The concept of tourism carrying capacity defines the maximum number of visitors
that can be in an area without unacceptable alteration in the physical environment
and without unacceptable decline in the quality of the experience gained by visi-
tors (Mathieson and Wall 1982). It deals with the ecological and social impacts of
recreational use and considers management objectives and value judgements. The
concept has been used in tourism management for a long time and, although it has
not provided a simple answer to the question of how many tourists can use a site
without destroying its quality (Hendee et al. 1990), it is useful when planning land
use.
Goldsmith (1974) identified four categories of carrying capacity: physical, eco-
logical, economic and perceptual. Getz (1983) added a fifth category, a social and
political component. The categories all have different implications. In this study the
focus will be on the visitor’s side of carrying capacity, that is the visitor’s experi-
ence. Borrie and Roggenbuck (1995: 115) have defined the visitor’s experience as
‘a complex interaction between people and their internal states, the activity they are
undertaking, and the social and natural environment in which they find discovery,
social dimensions, adventure and physical challenge, among others’.

The concept of carrying capacity as a management tool has been criticized for being
subjective and having unclear limits (Stankey and McCool 1984; Manning 1986;
Lindberg et al. 1997; McCool and Lime 2001). To obtain clear limits it is necessary to
evaluate both what are acceptable changes in the physical environment and what kind
of experience an area should provide for the visitor. But who should decide what is
acceptable? Should it be nature reserve managers, local residents, the tourist industry,
scientists, politicians, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or other interested
parties? These groups can have very different views and it can be difficult to come
to a common agreement. In addition, one can increase the tolerance of the natural
environment with investments and infrastructure, but as these changes might affect
the tourist’s experience it becomes even harder to determine the carrying capacity.
Approaches to research on carrying capacity have consequently changed consid-
erably over the last three decades (Butler 1997; McCool et al. 2007). The time has
passed when researchers calculated one ‘magic number’ that should represent the
maximum acceptable number of tourists a destination could carry (Mathieson and
Wall 1982; Washburne 1982; Butler 1997; McCool and Lime 2001). Now emphasis
is placed on designing management policies that meet the expectations and prefer-
ences of the visitors, rather than attempting to determine precise limits of use (Butler
1997). The determination of the capacity of a given system is therefore a judgemental
act rather than the production of a scientifically determined number as originally
intended. Choice has to be made when drawing the line between acceptable and un-
acceptable. This makes capacity a multidimensional and dynamic concept capable of
manipulation by the manager, consistent with administrative, budgetary and resource
constraints (Lime and Stankey 1971; Stankey 1982). Cole (2004) stresses the role
of science in providing the information and facts that the carrying capacity process
requires. The value-laden decisions that managers take have to be built on factual
basis.
Despite its previously mentioned shortcomings, the concept of tourism carrying

capacity can be useful as a framework to plan and manage tourism in a sustainable
manner. To do so it is necessary to decide what kind of tourism the area is intended
for and what kind of experience it is supposed to offer, that is one needs to have clear
management objectives for a given area in order to determine its carrying capacity
(Lime and Stankey 1971; Cole 2004; McCool et al. 2007).
The Purist Scale and ROS

As noted above, visitors have different wishes and expectations towards the nat-
ural features in the areas in which they travel. Some tourists are not sensitive to
human-induced changes, whether they are buildings, roads or information signs.
Such changes can, however, ruin the experience of nature for those who can enjoy
a natural environment only if it is completely free of human alteration. Therefore,
tourists have different opinions about what facilities and services are desirable, and
it is obviously not possible to please everyone at a single location (Buhalis 2000).
For a nature destination to be competitive it is necessary to distinguish the market
segments, that is ask what type of tourist does it attract or could it possibly attract
(Mohsin 2005) and take account of this analysis when developing an area. The ad-
vantage of distinguishing market segments in this way is that time and money is not
spent on trying to attract tourists to a place in which they have no interest, or do not
appreciate (Buhalis 2000).
Many different variables can be used to distinguish visitor segments. Tourists can,
for example, be analysed by the type of trip, characteristics such as nationality, age and
sex, or their attitudes towards various factors. Hendee et al. (1968), Stankey (1973),
Wallsten (1988), Vistad (1995), Fredman and Emmelin (2001) and Saethorsdottir
(2007) have divided tourists into groups based on what they are looking for when
visiting the wilderness and natural protected areas. In their analyses they use different
variables, e.g. how much infrastructure and services do tourists want, how much
change to the environment will they tolerate and how many tourists do they prefer at
their destinations? These variables reflect different needs, attitudes and expectations
and different tolerances towards changes to the environment. Hendee et al. (1968)
were the first to analyse the different attitudes tourists have towards the wilderness
and to consider how tourism in the wilderness could be managed, based on that
analysis. Questionnaires were sent to visitors who had visited three wilderness areas
in north-west USA. They included questions such as whether the visitors liked to
sleep outdoors, walk with a backpack or be physically active, and the importance
they placed on the absence of human-made structures in the areas in which they
travelled. Based on their answers, visitors were classified into five groups on the so-
called Wildernism–Urbanism Scale: strong wildernists, moderate wildernists, weak
wildernists, neutralists and urbanists. Hendee et al. (1968) concluded that wildernists
are more sensitive than other visitors in their perception of the wilderness and its
qualities, as those are defined in the US Wilderness Act. These qualities are, for
example, the importance of experiencing solitude and enjoying primitive facilities.
A few years later, Stankey (1973) carried out similar research in four other wilder-
ness areas in the USA. In his questionnaire he asked about many of the qualities
defined in the Wilderness Act. The visitors were divided into four groups based on
their answers to 14 items: strong purists, moderate purists, neutralists and non-purists
and located accordingly on the so-called Purist Scale. Schreyer (1976) produced yet
another scale, the Wilderness Purism Scale, where 17 items were used to group
visitors in some US national parks, based on their attitudes.
The first to use a similar method in Scandinavia was Wallsten (1988) in the
nature reserve of Rogen in Sweden. He used Stankey’s (1973) terminology but
his method differs from Stankey in how he grouped the visitors. While Stankey
set fixed limits for the groups, Wallsten used the Normal distribution to group the
visitors. Vistad (1995) used the same method as Wallsten (1988) in his doctoral thesis
when he looked at Femundsmarka in Norway. He compared his results to Wallsten’s

results as Femundsmarka and Rogen are adjacent areas, on each side of the border
between Sweden and Norway. Fredman and Emmelin (2001) used the same method
in categorizing visitors in the Swedish mountains.
The methods used by the Scandinavian and the US scientists may yield somewhat
different results. When fixed limits are used for the different categories – as the US
researchers did – it is possible to compare the composition of the visitors in different
regions, which was one of their intentions. In the Scandinavian research this was not
possible, as the limits are different between datasets, unless the results within each
dataset are normally distributed. If the datasets are normally distributed, the areas
can be compared by converting the results to the standard normal distribution. The
advantage of the Scandinavian method is that it focuses on the differences between
visitors at each location. That is useful when looking at certain locations and how to
plan them based on the requirements of different types of tourists.
The results presented in this paper are based on the US method, where the limits
between groups are fixed. That method was chosen because the main purpose of the
research was to compare user groups at different nature destinations.
That idea of the Purist Scale fits well with the ROS model. The latter involves
zoning outdoor recreational areas in order to provide a diversity of opportunities,
ranging from developed to undeveloped. The ROS model, therefore, looks at what
type of experience can be offered to the tourist in each destination, while the Purist
Scale reflects on what types of tourists are in the various destinations.
The idea behind ROS is that the visitors can decide where to go based on the settings
they seek so there will be a narrower gap between their expectations and experiences.
The categories of the ROS are based on the idea that recreational settings consist
of three types of attribute, each varying along a continuum. Biophysical attributes
indicate how natural the area is, as opposed to being fabricated (e.g. gardens and parks
in cities); the other end of the spectrum has wilderness areas. The second attribute
ROS takes into consideration is the number of encounters with other tourists. The
third is the amount of rules and regulations in the area. These attributes vary along a
continuum and are highly correlated as a very developed area is likely to have many
visitors and many rules and regulations. Accordingly, the continuum is divided into
a few classes; Clark and Stankey (1979) suggested four, but Brown et al. (1978)
recommended six. McCool et al. (2007) point out that some agencies of the Forest
Service in the USA (Table 1) use five classes.
The concept tourism carrying capacity and the models Purist Scale and ROS pro-
vide a valuable tool for managing tourism. The tourism carrying capacity structures
the information gathered, which can then be used by managers of tourist destinations
when deciding what type of tourism is suitable for each area and how to manage
tourism according to target groups and the quality of the various areas.
Research Areas
The research areas were chosen with the aim of representing a wide range of envi-
ronments and use levels and, in that sense, cover all the classes in the Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum.
Two of the areas in this study, Landmannalaugar and Lónsöræfi, are nature reserves
in the Icelandic Highlands (Figure 2). Colourful mountains characterize the landscape
in both areas and they are cut with ravines and are challenging for hikers. Marked
hiking trails are few. Lónsöræfi is 320 km2 , very remote and can be reached only
Figure 2. Study areas.

34
Table 1. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

A. D. SæRórsdóttir
Semi-primitive Semi-primitive
ROS class Primitive non-motorized motorized Roaded natural Rural
Physical Unmodified natural area Predominantly Same as Natural environment. Modified natural
setting of large size. Only unmodified natural semi-primitive Resource utilization environment.
facilities essential for environment of non-motorized which harmonizes Resource utilization
resource protection moderate size. with the environment. evident. Developed
but none for comfort Facilities provided for Rustic facilities are site with facilities for
of the user. the protection of provided for user large numbers of
resource and safety of convenience as well as users.
users. for safety.
Managerial Motorized use is not Motorized traffic is not Motorized traffic Onsite controls offer a Facilities for intensive
setting permitted. generally permitted. permitted. sense of security. motorized use.
Restrictions may be
present but are subtle.
Social Very few visitors Many visitors
setting
by crossing a deep and rapid, unbridged glacial river in four-wheel-drive vehicles.

The area itself is also characterized by a difficult hiking landscape. There are two
primitive mountain huts in the area. Around 1,000 visitors come here each year,
mostly hikers in the summer time, but some hunters in the autumn (Saethorsdottir
and Olafsdottir 2004). Landmannalaugar is 470 km2 and is one of the more accessible
Highland areas in Iceland. It is primarily a hiking area, although a primitive road goes
through it. According to the Icelandic Tourist Board (2004), one third of all foreign
visitors who come to Iceland visit Landmannalaugar, which makes it by far the most
popular tourist destination in the Highlands, with well over 100,000 visitors annually.
This can be explained partly by the fact that it lies only 200 km from Reykjavı́k. In
response to increased tourism, facilities have been built there to provide services
and comforts. Now there are at least seven buildings in the central area, including a
mountain hut, a shop, a small cafeteria in an old bus, a horse barn and recently built
toilet facilities.
The other three areas in this study are in the lowlands and lie near the main
highway in Iceland and are easily accessible by all vehicles. Two of them, Skaftafell
and Jökulsárgjúfur, are national parks and Lake Mývatn is protected by a special
nature protection law. In these areas there are many trails and many of them are
marked. Many recreational activities are available at Lake Mývatn, and some in
the national parks. The national parks have only camping facilities but there is a
variety of lodging, stores and restaurants in the vicinity. At Lake Mývatn there are
hotels, guesthouses, camp grounds, youth hostels, stores and restaurants. Mývatn
demonstrates a very special form of nature, characterized by old and recent volcanic
activities. In between the lava formations there is agricultural and some industrial
landscape, with a geothermal power plant, drill holes and pipelines.
Methods and Study Design

Data were collected by one to three interviewers who stayed at each place for a
week during the high season of tourism in the summers of 2000, 2001 and 2002. The
response rate was high, at all places over 95 percent, so the sample size reflects the
tourist traffic at each location. Questionnaires were in English, German, French and
Icelandic. A few groups did not have time to answer the questionnaire on site and,
in these instances, travel guides or bus drivers were asked to take the questionnaire
onto the bus and send them back to the researcher. Completed questionnaires were
received from 3,160 guests. Most came from the national park Jökulsárgljúfur (n =
1,111), the second most from Lake Mývatn (n = 746), followed by the national
park Skaftafell (n = 662) and the Landmannalaugar Highland area (n = 546) and
the smallest number from the Highland area Lónsöræfi (n = 95). Ideally a random
sample should have been taken dispersed evenly throughout the summer but the
economic framework of the study did not allow that. Instead the researchers stayed a
week at each place and handed out the questionnaires.
In Skaftafell, Landmannalaugar and Lónsöræfi the questionnaire contained 32

questions; that was found to be too many and the number of questions was reduced to
19 in Jökulsárgljúfur and Mývatn. The questions can be grouped into five categories:
(1) basic questions regarding age, gender and place of residence;

(2) those regarding the length of stay in the area, any past visits, means of travel and
travel behaviour;
(3) open-ended questions for any remarks the guests wanted to include, for example;
‘What, if anything, stood out on the trip’;
(4) those regarding the attitudes the guests have towards nature and wilderness,
facilities, other tourists and the biophysical condition;
(5) a question in 14 sections aimed at positioning the guests on the Purist Scale,
that is questions defining whether the guest is urbanist, neutralist or purist. This
question is built on the methods of Stankey (1973). The visitors were asked
about the particular destination they were visiting at the time they answered
the questionnaire. This differs from Stankey’s (1973) approach as he asked
people what they thought about wilderness in general, not a particular destination.
This difference relates back to the main objective of this research, which is
to explore whether there is a difference from one place to another in what
visitors find acceptable. That is to compare the highlands and the lowlands
on one hand, and the different highland destinations on the other hand. The
latter question is especially relevant since tourist destinations in the interior
differ in many ways, e.g. regarding facilities, services and accessibility. The
question used to categorize the visitors was: ‘How important are the following
facilities/characteristics for you while travelling in this area?’ Fourteen items
were mentioned, for example, walking paths, picnic tables, organized camping
grounds, unspoiled nature, experiencing solitude and, finally, the importance of
seeing no traces of off-road driving. The last item was the only item which
was different from Stankey (1973), Wallstein (1988) and Vistad (1995) as they
asked about disturbance from air traffic noise. Since air traffic is not known to
be a problem for tourists in Iceland, but off-road driving is, it was considered
appropriate to make this change. The possible answers were on a five-point
Likert scale from ‘not at all important’ to ‘very important’. Answers thought
to be characteristic for urbanists gave 1 point, while answers characteristic for
purists gave 5 points. Answers from those 14 items were then summed for each
respondent to get the total points for that individual. The ‘perfect’ purist could
theoretically get 70 points (14 items multiplied by 5 points) while the ‘perfect’
urbanist could theoretically get 14 points (14 items multiplied by 1 point). Only
answers where all items had been responded to were used so the total sample
size was a little over 2,000, out of over 4,000 respondents in total. Fixed limits
were used according to Stankey (1973). The groups were strong purists with 60–
70 points; moderate purists with 50–59 points; neutralists with 40–49 points;
and non-purists with less than 40 points. This method to categorize tourists
has its weaknesses and has been criticized, for example, by Stankey (1973),
Heberlein (1973) and Vistad (1995). The biggest criticism relates to the fact that
the method is multidimensional, i.e. people are asked about different items that
do not necessarily belong together. For example, a single individual, stressing
the importance of enjoying peace, would be grouped as a purist; at the same
time, a desire for places of interest to be marked would group this individual as
an urbanist. In the final evaluation this person could possibly be categorized as a
neutralist. It is also possible that people might say it is not important to be able
to camp anywhere; this answer would not necessarily reflect their own desires,
but more their concerns for the environment.
The data are analysed with the help of the statistics software SPSS. Descriptive
statistics are used to present the data. In the questions relating to visitor attitudes
a five-point Likert scale is used and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test
and t-tests are used to test whether there is a significant difference in the various
parameters at the various destinations. Principal component analysis was performed
on the items belonging to the Purist Scale in order to simplify the dataset and to
analyse whether there are underlying patterns.
Results
Composition of Tourists based on the Purist Scale
As previously mentioned, a 14-point question was used to group the tourists into
nature-orientated and service-orientated tourists according to the Purist Scale. This
makes it possible to analyse which market segments each area attracts. The scores
of the respondents at the six destinations were normally distributed (Kolmogorov–
Smirnov test; D = 0.057, z = 2.6), with average score 42.5 and standard deviation
7.4. The lowest score on the Purist Scale was 18 points and the highest 68 points
(Table 2). Visitors in the two highland areas had, on average, the highest scores, with
the overall highest score in Lónsöræfi (50 points average) and Landmannalaugar
Table 2. Scores and division of tourists according to the Purist Scale

Average Strong Purists Neutralists Urbanists
score s purists (%) (%) (%) (%) n
Lónsöræfi 49.67 9.71 15 40 27 18 95
Landmannalaugar 45.18 7.83 3 26 47 24 546
Skaftafell 42.71 7.73 1 18 47 34 662
Mývatn 41.51 6.78 0 11 50 39 746
Jökulsárgljúfur 41.31 6.46 1 9 51 39 1111
Average 44.08 7.70 4 21 44 31 3160
(46 points average). Visitors in the lowland areas had fewer points (on average,
between 41 and 43 points).
There was a statistically significant difference between the average score in all of
these five places except when comparing Mývatn and Jökulsárgljúfur (t = −0.551,
p = 0.582, df = 1,372), which are both lowland areas in the northern part of Iceland.
This indicates that the attitudes of tourists in Mývatn and Jökulsárgljúfur are some-
what similar. The largest variation in the opinion of the visitors was in Lónsöræfi
(s = 9.7), but the lowest in the national park Jökulsárgljúfur (s = 6.46).
As mentioned before, the tourists were grouped according to Stankey’s (1973)
method. The results show that urbanists are 39 percent of the visitors both at Lake
Mývatn and in Jökulsárgljúfur national park, 34 percent in Skaftafell national park,
and a quarter of the guests in Landmannalaugar (Table 2). Urbanists are few in the
Highland area Lónsöræfi (18%) and neutralists are a little over a quarter of the guests
there. Purists are, on the other hand, over half the visitors in Lónsöræfi (purists
40% and strong purists 15%). Strong purists were hardly found in the other areas
and purists vary from 9 percent in Jökulsárgljúfur national park to 26 percent in
Landmannalaugar. There is a significant difference in the distribution of the tourists
into different groups between the destinations (χ 2 = 246.48, p < 0.0001, df = 15).
These results emphasize that tourists in Lónsöræfi are more opposed to infras-
tructure and service than tourist in other areas; they are more sensitive towards
environmental distractions and they want fewer tourists around them than the tourists
in the national parks and in Mývatn. The opinion of travellers in Landmannalaugar
is not as decisive. The only exception to this is the importance tourists in Lónsöræfi
place on walking bridges. The reason for this might well be that it would be very
difficult to get to the area if the nearby rapid glacial river did not have a bridge.
Component Analysis
Principal component analysis was performed on the items to simplify the dataset and
to analyse whether there are underlying patterns. Only eigenvalues of 1.0 or more
were used, as well as factors loading over 0.4. With this method four factors were
identified which explain altogether 60 percent of the total variance in the answers
(Table 3). The individuals who account for the first factor are of the opinion that good
infrastructure is important. They prefer marked walking routes, designed footpaths,
and that places of interest should be marked. They also prefer to stay at campsites
with facilities and to eat their lunch at picnic tables. This first factor explains about
22 percent of the total variance of the variables. The second strongest factor is the
desire of tourists to experience unspoiled nature and it explains 19 percent of the total
variance. For those tourists it is important to be able to walk around in nature without
seeing structures other than mountain huts and to have few other tourists around. The
third factor consists of a group who appreciates freedom, e.g. being able to camp
wherever they want. This factor explains 12 percent of the total variance. The fourth
Table 3. Principal component analysis

Factor 1 Factor 2 Nature Factor 3 Factor 4
Variable Infrastructure experience Freedom ‘Jeep culture’
Marked walking routes 0.676 0.189 −0.018 −0.168
Designed footpaths 0.693 0.423 −0.044 −0.161
Walkways 0.663 0.392 −0.057 −0.159
Picnic places 0.553 0.347 −0.183 0.172
Special markings on places of 0.608 0.237 −0.039 0.181
interest
Campsites with facilities 0.511 0.116 −0.208 0.38
Being able to enjoy peace −0.456 0.515 −0.257 0.423
Being able to enjoy unspoiled −0.441 0.505 −0.257 0.447
nature
Having few other tourists −0.135 0.595 0.171 0.124
around
Being able to walk without −0.272 0.705 −0.162 −0.19

seeing structures
That there is no trace of −0.355 0.361 −0.354 −0.545
off-road driving
Seeing no trace of others −0.297 0.601 −0.024 −0.318
having been there
Being able to camp wherever −0.023 0.258 0.839 0.086
you want
Being able to camp where you −0.075 0.470 0.727 −0.004
don’t see other travellers
Bold numbers represent numbers with numerical values higher than 0.5.
factor reflects attitudes characterizing those who do not get annoyed by marks from
off-road driving. They are, however, looking for qualities that are to be found in the
wilderness, such as untouched nature and peace. This can be a sign of the special
Icelandic ‘jeep-culture’, where you have nature lovers travelling into the wilderness
in huge vehicles, testing the power of the machine and trying to conquer nature.
From this analysis one can see that the Purist Scale question used to analyse the
user groups into urbanists and purists seems to do so. The first factor corresponds
to the urbanists who appreciate good hiking paths, picnic places and other facilities.
The second factor corresponds to the purists who appreciate unspoiled nature, few
other visitors and the absence of anthropogenic structures. This seems to confirm that
the Purist Scale applies in Iceland.
Tourists were further asked about which infrastructures and buildings they con-
sidered desirable or undesirable in the area (Table 4). The results clearly show that
tourists have different opinions on what facilities and constructions are desirable in
individual areas. With the exception of mountain huts and camp grounds, tourists in
the Highlands are generally more negative towards structures/buildings, than tourists
in the other areas.
Table 4. Desirable structures and importance

Mountain Camping Power Paved walking Visitor Number of
Hotels huts grounds plants paths centres visitors
Lónsöræfi 1.90 4.10 3.72 1.58 1.90 1.74 3.02
Landmannalaugar 2.18 3.07 3.29 1.68 3.10 2.49 2.66
Skaftafell 2.90 2.51 3.14 1.84 3.37 2.59 2.60
Mývatn 3.77 4.11 4.08 2.95 3.51 2.85 2.77
Jökulsárgljúfur 2.39 3.59 3.89 1.69 3.67 3.02 2.98
Average 2.63 3.48 3.62 1.95 3.11 2.54 2.81
F 79.59 53.51 28.41 52.66 27.40 32.34 23.25
P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Built on average on the 5-point Likert scale.

1 = undesirable ↔ 5 = desirable.
Number of visitors 1 = far too many ↔ 5 = not too many.
Tourists in Landmannalaugar are significantly more tolerant towards structures,

other than huts and camp grounds, than tourists in Lónsöræfi (p < 0.001). The main
opposition is to power plants, except at Lake Mývatn, where the tourists feel they are
acceptable. Tourists at Mývatn are generally more tolerant of buildings than tourists
elsewhere (p < 0.037). This high tolerance of the visitors at Lake Mývatn is most
likely due to the fact that the area already contains both a geothermal power plant
and industrial buildings. It appears that the industrial landscape of Mývatn, with its
geothermal plants, drill holes and pipelines, does not hinder tourists experiencing
the unique natural phenomena in the area. The question of how far nature can be
transformed without losing its attraction as a tourist area will not be answered here,
but will have to await further research.
It is worth noting that tourists in Jökulsárgljúfur national park are significantly more
opposed to structures/buildings, other than huts and camp grounds, than tourists in
Skaftafell national park (p < 0.013).
It can be assumed that accessibility, natural facilities and availability of goods
and services are the factors that decide who will visit each area and that these
factors account for the different composition of the visitors. There are differences
in accessibility of the individual areas; whereas Lónsöræfi and Landmannalaugar
are in the Highlands, National Highway Number 1 runs through Mývatn and the
two national parks. Very different service and facilities are offered in each area. In
Lónsöræfi the quality of the services was deemed low, but significantly higher in
Landmannalaugar and even higher service points were awarded in the national parks
and at Lake Mývatn.
The most satisfied visitors are found in the two Highland areas Landmannalaugar
and Lónsöræfi, but the visitors in the national park in Skaftafell are the least satisfied
(Table 5). The biggest variance in visitor satisfaction is in Lónsöræfi (s = 1.38).
In an open-ended question the respondents mentioned the weather – it was bad
Table 5. Perceptions of day visitors versus overnight guests (tourists)

Expectation towards Perceptions of the environment
Number
Satisfaction natural environment service of visitors artificial-natural loud-quiet unspoiled-spoiled dirty-clean
Lónsöræfi
Day visitors 4.61 4.55 3.11 2.75 3.88 4.39 1.56 4.50
Tourists 4.19 4.67 3.82 2.64 4.23 4.67 1.51 4.69
Landmannalaugar
Day visitors 4.31 4.49 3.00 2.45 3.62 4.19 1.93 4.34
Tourists 4.33 4.61 3.37 2.62 3.66 3.92 1.83 4.40
Skaftafell
Day visitors 4.13 4.42 3.10 2.49 3.54 3.90 2.00 4.50
Tourists 3.91 3.87 3.05 2.36 3.39 3.62 2.23 4.09
Mývatn
Day visitors 2.86 4.33 4.39 2.41 4.48
Tourists 2.74 4.06 4.33 2.41 4.47
Jökulsárgljúfur
Day visitors 2.96 4.32 4.54 2.00 4.73
Touristst 3.01 4.35 4.34 2.07 4.65
∗ Builton average on the 5-point Likert scale.
Satisfaction: 1 = very unsatisfied ↔ 5 = very satisfied.
Expectations: 1 = not at all ↔ 5 = perfectly.
Number of visitors 1 = too crowded ↔ 3 = suitable ↔ 5 = not too crowded.
Perceptions on the environment: first word =↔ second word = 5.
Bold numbers represent a statistical significance between day visitors and tourists, p < 0.005.
41
at the time – as a reason for their disappointment, as well as the primitive toilet
hole. Negative comments also came from people who got frightened in the steep
and slippery mountains and canyons. The disappointed tourists of Landmannalaugar
complained first and foremost about the crowds of tourists in the area. Visitors in
Skaftafell complained over the lack of facilities even though the national park has a
wider range of facilities than the Highland areas.
Landmannalaugar and Lónsöræfi also fulfil expectations, both with regard to the
natural environment and to service, significantly better than Skaftafell national park
(p = 0.002). Expectations of service were also met significantly better in Lónsöræfi
than in Landmannalaugar (p = 0.009), even though both service and infrastructure
are much better in Landmannalaugar.
Over 80 percent of the visitors in Lónsöræfi and the national park Jökulsárgljúfur
considered the number of visitors appropriate and there was a statistically significant
difference compared to the other areas. The highest percentage of people that ex-
perience crowding (25%) is in Skaftafell national park and there was a statistically
significant difference compared to the other areas. It is also noticeable that visitors
in Landmannalaugar are more likely to experience crowding than visitors at Lake
Mývatn (t = –2.050, p = 0.041) even though far more visitors visit the Mývatn area.
This can probably be explained by different conditions, as the visitors at Mývatn are
spread over a large area in a landscape that easily hides people, while in Landman-
nalaugar everyone starts their visit to the area in the same spot, where the mountain
hut is.
When the data are analysed further and day visitors and tourists that stay the
night are compared, it is apparent that the two groups have different opinions on
some factors and it is also apparent that this difference depends on the area. The
expectations of those who stay overnight in Landmannalaugar and Lónsöræfi are
satisfied more than those of day visitors. In Skaftafell, on the other hand, day visitors
are more satisfied with their stay and their expectations of the natural environment are
more likely to be fulfilled than are the expectations of those who stay overnight. Day
visitors in Mývatn, Jökulsárgljúfur and Landmannalaugar experience more noise than
those who stay the night. In Jökulsárgljúfur, day visitors consider the area clean, which
is not the case for those who stay longer. They also experience more tranquillity. Only
at Lake Mývatn is there a significant difference between the experience of crowding:
day visitors experience more crowdedness than those who stay the night.
Most tourists had previously visited the two national parks but few had previously
been to Mývatn and Landmannalaugar. These are also the areas where Icelanders are
relatively few, which partially explains the low proportion of visitors who had been
there previously. Visitors of the Highland areas are more interested in returning than
those visiting the lowland areas.
When the five research areas are compared it is seen that there is a statistically
significant difference in: the length of stay of the day tourist; how many nights visitors
stay; and how much time visitors spend hiking (Table 6). The length of stay of day
Table 6. Travel behaviour and interest in returning

Previously visited Interest in a Day visitors Overnight Day visitor time Average Average hiking
the area (%) return trip (%) (%) guests (%) visited (hours) overnights time (hours)
Lónsöræfi 23 88 22 78 7.15 3.74 18.04
Landmannalaugar 20 83 34 66 3.85 2.08 7.61
Skaftafell 30 74 51 49 3.22 2.49 6.05
Mývatn 19 72 36 64 5.87 2.41 4.72
Jökulsárgljúfur 29 76 66 34 3.75 2.02 3.69
Average 24 79 42 58 4.77 2.55 8.02
F 29.285 7.267 63.399
P 0.000 0.000 0.000
43
Table 7. Means of travel (%)

Group tour Personal car Rented car Hiking & bus Other
Lónsöræfi 14 14 0 72 0
Landmannalaugar 50 14 11 20 5
Skaftafell 40 31 19 5 5
Mývatn 46 21 26 4 3
Jökulsárgljúfur 44 32 20 2 2
Average 39 22 15 21 3
visitors is shortest in the two national parks. Some visitors stop only at the visitor
centre while others take an hour-long hike to the main attractions of the parks. Over
half of the respondents in the two national parks are day visitors. In the two Highland
areas and Mývatn it is more common for tourists to stay overnight. Of the tourists that
stay overnight, the tourists in Jökulsárgljúfur national park and in Landmannalaugar

stay the fewest nights, but the tourists in Lónsöræfi stay the longest. Visitors spend
most time in Lónsöræfi; this applies both to day visitors and those who stay the
night. Visitors in Lónsöræfi also spend most time hiking. Landmannalaugar and
the national park in Skaftafell are also popular hiking areas, but it is remarkable that
the average time visitors spend hiking is lowest in the national park in Jökulsárgljúfur,
in spite of the variety of the nature and well-marked and comfortable hiking trails.
The reason for this is mostly due to tight scheduling of the organized tourist groups
that are a considerable portion of the visitors there.
Landmannalaugar is clearly the place where many people prefer to go on an
organized group tour, as half of the visitors there are on a bus tour (Table 7). The
area is on the schedule of many of the organized tours that travel around the country
and there are daily scheduled tours to there from Reykjavı́k. The national parks and
Lake Mývatn are also on the schedule of many of the organized tours. Lónsöræfi, on
the other hand, is not a place where organized group tours stop since the area is very
inaccessible, as mentioned before. Lónsöræfi is clearly a hiking area that people get
to by bus but then hike in the area to see it. People driving on their own, either in their
own or in rented cars, are mostly found at Mývatn and in the two national parks.
There is a great variation in the nationality of the visitors in the five areas
(Table 8). In Lónsöræfi, Icelanders comprise over half of the visitors and Germans
and British 13 percent each. As noted above, the area is very remote and inaccessible
and the terrain is difficult for hikers. In addition, the area has not been marketed
internationally except in a limited way in Britain and Germany. The French are the
largest group in Landmannalaugar, together with many other central Europeans. It is
noticeable that Icelanders are only 14 percent of the visitors. They are, on the other
hand, the largest group in the two national parks in Skaftafell and in Jökulsárgljúfur.
The parks are popular for families and young people who want to get in contact
with nature, often for a weekend trip or as a part of a longer summer holiday. In the
Table 8. Nationality of participants (%)

Icel. Germ. French Dutch N-Am. Brit. Scandinav. Swiss Other
Lónsöræfi 51 13 8 9 1 13 0 2 3
Landmannalaugar 14 17 28 1 1 2 10 8 13
Skaftafell 28 22 7 9 7 8 5 3 11
Mývatn 17 19 12 6 10 5 5 7 19
Jökulsárgljúfur 30 24 9 6 5 4 2 4 16
Average 28 19 13 7 5 6 4 5 16
national parks, Germans are the second largest group. They are often on an organized
bus tour, although are quite commonly found to have used other means of travel.
The Mývatn area attracts more Americans than the other areas as they can hardly be
found in the two Highland areas. Lake Mývatn has the most diversified division of
nationalities.
Discussion
Tourism Carrying Capacity and Tourist Attitudes
If a tourist destination is to be competitive, it needs to be properly planned and
developed, but planning nature tourism to provide recreation opportunities that satisfy
diverse target groups is a complex issue. As tourists have different tolerances towards
what facilities and developments are acceptable it is not possible to please everyone
everywhere (Buhalis 2000). Therefore, it is necessary to analyse what kinds of tourists
are attracted to that specific place, or can possibly be attracted to it in the future
(Mohsin 2005). The future development of that particular destination should then be
based on those findings.
The results presented here show that there is considerable variation in tourism in
the nature destinations studied, and they also show that the opinions of the tourists
who visit these destinations vary considerably regarding the qualities a particular
destination should possess, in terms of nature and infrastructure. Tourists have dif-
ferent wishes and needs with regard to the environment and services at the places
they visit and these depend on where they go and what they want to do. Visitors at
Lake Mývatn and the two national parks enjoy viewing diverse landscapes as they
travel through the countryside (mostly in a motorized vehicle) and they want good
service and facilities where they stay. In the Highlands, on the other hand, a large
portion of the visitors seek to experience solitude and relatively unspoiled nature and
they prefer primitive facilities at the places they visit. At Lake Mývatn tourists accept
significant changes to the environment, while similar changes to the environment at
the other four places would completely ruin the experience of the visitors.
It is often claimed that satisfaction in a nature destination experience is reduced with
the perception of increased crowding (e.g. Patterson and Hammitt 1990; Williams
et al. 1991; Manning 1999; Lawson and Manning 2001). Stankey and McCool (1984)
have emphasized that if a site is perceived as a place with few tourists and the number
of tourists turns out to be higher than expected, the visitor is likely to be dissatisfied.
People can also perceive crowding if they notice environmental damage or if conflicts
occur between users. Perceived crowding can reduce the quality of the tourists’
experience and cause some tourists to change their travel pattern, e.g. go to less
crowded areas, or alternatively the quality of their experience is reduced (Kuss et al.
1990).
At all five destinations the tourists are satisfied with their stay. How tourists
experience the company of other tourists in the same destination area, and how they
experience crowdedness, do not seem to coincide with the actual number of people
in the area. The national park in Jökulsárgljúfur is a good example of this. There are
many tourists in the area but they do not experience a sense of crowdedness. Two
explanations come to mind. First, the landscape and the vegetation. The national park
is one of the few destinations in Iceland where big trees grow and they, in addition to
large cliff formations, help to hide the large number of visitors that come to Ásbyrgi,
one of the main attractions in the park. The second reason can be understood with
the help of the Purist Scale, as visitors with urbanistic views are common among
visitors in the national park. The research showed that conflicts arise between people
staying in the camp grounds. This is mainly because of the different sleeping patterns
of Icelanders and foreigners. Icelanders for the most part visit the national parks to
have a good time, drink, sing and stay up late. Foreigners, on the other hand, want
to sleep well and start the day early. The staff try to separate the groups by directing
foreigners to camp in areas away from the main camping area that the Icelanders use,
but so far not with complete success (Saethorsdottir 2006b).
The Purist Scale used in this study confirms that tourists with puristic attitude
form the majority of the visitors in the Highlands and urbanistic views are most
common among visitors in the lowlands. Guests in the Highlands generally want less
development and service than do the guests in the lowlands and they are satisfied
with the primitive conditions there. The Highland areas are gaining in popularity
and it is safe to conclude that the composition of guests will change (Saethorsdottir
2007). Tourists will make more demands on goods and services. This is already
happening in Landmannalaugar, which is one of the more popular tourist destinations
in the Highlands. Over time, the physical carrying capacity at Landmannalaugar has
been extended several times with new infrastructure; some of it has increased the
environmental tolerance, but at the same time affected the tourist experience. An
example of this is the wooden bridge from the main hut to the warm spring. Before
it was built visitors had to walk through sensitive wetland covered with cotton grass.
Every year the trampling degraded the vegetation and, finally, the resilience and
tolerance of the plants were exceeded. The wooden bridge raised the carrying capacity
of the vegetation but now tourists cannot feel and sense the plants in the same way
as before. The study showed that the developments at Landmannalaugar have done
away with the appeal the area formerly had to the most puristic tourists, so strong
purists are hardly found there any more (only 3%). A quotation from an Icelandic
tourist in another less popular Highland destination possibly explains this: ‘One does
not bother to go to Landmannalaugar any more, as it is far too crowded with foreign
tourists’. The carrying capacity of this visitor and the target group he belongs to has
therefore been exceeded and they are no longer to be found at Landmannalaugar. At
the same time many visitors are very satisfied with Landmannalaugar. The place is a
symbol of wilderness in many people’s minds and they value it and use it to gain a
wilderness experience. This indicates that the social carrying capacity has not been
reached by those with less puristic view (Saethorsdottir 2004).
When a destination exceeds its carrying capacity it is possible to let it recover
and appeal to strong purists again. In Landmannalaugar it would be possible to take
the bold decision to remove all the buildings from the area where the hot springs
are. Then mismatching structures would no longer be a part of the appearance of
the area and would not spoil the colourful and beautifully shaped mountains. About
two kilometres away there is a good site for a new service centre that could offer
basic service to the tourists. It would also be possible to reduce motor traffic in
Landmannalaugar by providing a shuttle service and banning private driving. Then
motorized traffic would not disturb the stillness and tranquillity. This would also lead
to a better distribution of guests in the area and visitors would probably be more
satisfied with their visit to Landmannalaugar. With these alterations, more tourists
could experience wilderness in Landmannalaugar and the area would again appeal to
purists (Saethorsdottir 2004).
Most of those that visit the Lónsöræfi Highland area like the primitive facilities
the area offers, which is reflected in that 55 percent of the visitors are purists. Their
satisfaction with the nature and limited service and infrastructure in the area is very
high. The rough landscape and the limited service available keep most urbanists away.
However, those urbanists who do come here complain about how difficult it is to hike
in the area and about the limited service available. The physical landscape with steep
mountains and canyons and continuously moving slopes means that little or nothing
can be done to improve the hiking paths. An increase in service and any changes in
the appearance of the natural environment would take away the uniqueness that the
area has as a tourist attraction and could change the type of tourism in the area from
what it is today (Saethorsdottir 2003).
Planning Nature Tourism with Reference to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

As the Icelandic tourism industry grows and the number of tourists in Iceland in-
creases, the importance of looking at Icelandic nature destinations in the framework
of a planning framework like the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum will increase.
ROS helps to understand how important it is to provide diversity in recreational
opportunities and to decide how much infrastructure and development should be

provided in different areas. A few examples of this will now be mentioned.
Neither of the Highland areas is ‘untouched wilderness’ according to the strictest
definition of the concept. Lónsöræfi is, however, an untouched wilderness according
to the Icelandic nature protection law (Law nr. 44/1999). The rough physical landscape
in the area, the small-scale infrastructure and the limited number of visitors mean
that the area fits well in the second category of ROS – Semi-primitive non-motorized.
The adjacent areas to the east and west of Lónsöræfi would qualify as wilderness
(primitive) and the area is one of the most exiting hiking areas in Iceland, where
people can hike for days without seeing any infrastructure other than mountain huts
and some cairns that are a couple of hundred years old. It might be advisable to keep
Lónsöræfi as a hiking area for those who are looking for heavy physical exercise
and do not wish to see infrastructure and services other than very primitive mountain
huts. It has been discussed several times whether the area should be opened up by
improving roads and building bridges and other infrastructure (Saethorsdottir 2003).
Increased accessibility might mean more overnights for some of the accommodation
providers in the nearby lowland and more business. But it could also mean that the
area would not appeal to the strong purists anymore and other wilderness areas would
take its place. Some of the outfitters who sell guided hiking tours in the area would
probable be out of business or they would have to find a new target group.
Landmannalaugar, on the other hand, is difficult to locate on the ROS spectrum
as it could be argued to be anywhere between roaded natural and semi-primitive
non-motorized. It is permitted to drive through parts of the nature reserve, while
other areas are only accessible by foot. There are not many areas in the Highlands as
accessible from Reykjavik as Landmannalaugar. It is therefore tempting to sacrifice
a part of the wilderness quality of the area and develop it for urbanists (mass tourism)
who want to experience wilderness. The safety of visitors also has to be considered.
To open up a wilderness area is risky and quite irresponsible to do without providing
the necessary safety measures. In the high mountains the weather can get very bad in
no time at all and tourists have lost their lives by being insufficiently prepared.
The two national parks can be considered to be in the fourth category of the
ROS spectrum and Mývatn in the fifth category. All are accessible nature areas that
many tourists visit. The diverse tourists groups in those areas are looking for different
experiences and make many demands. It is, therefore, necessary to build infrastructure
and offer various services for the various target groups.
The ROS framework emphasizes how important it is to recognize the uniqueness
of each area and fulfil the wishes of those tourists who subscribe to the kind of
tourism and experience that can be found within the area. It is not possible to please
every tourist with the organization of each area. One can assume from the results
of this research that it would be advisable to reserve certain wilderness areas of the
Highlands for purists. Their satisfaction does not increase with more infrastructure
and service; exactly the opposite – they wish to keep the area as natural as possible.
In Lónsöræfi, simple infrastructures like mountain huts and camping grounds are
highly appreciated but visitors do not like to see hotels, paved walking paths or
visitor centres there. At Mývatn, on the other hand, those kinds of infrastructure are
highly appreciated by visitors and partly in the two national parks (Table 4). If the
aim is to keep the current target group of visitors in the Highland areas one should
not invest in undesired infrastructure.
Conclusions
Nature tourism utilizes unspoiled nature as a resource. Unspoiled nature is a limited
resource that decreases constantly with increased human activity throughout the world
(Sandell 1992; Williams et al. 1998). In order to keep nature tourism sustainable (Hof
et al. 1994; Buckley 2003; Pickering and Weaver 2003) the need for environmental
management will increase (Ahn et al. 2002).
For nature tourism that is built on unique nature and an image of unspoiled wilder-
ness, as has been done in Iceland, it is important to organize nature destinations with
respect to the carrying capacity of each area. Forecasts say that tourism in Iceland
will continue to increase for the next decade (Ministry of Communications 2005).
For this development to be sustainable, it is necessary to base future expansion of
nature tourism in Iceland on detailed knowledge of the different target groups at the
various locations. In order to strengthen the competitive position of nature tourism
in Iceland it is therefore important to understand what attracts visitors to each place.
That will afford the best opportunity to reach the target audience.
The work presented here and similar surveys are important steps in that direction.
The Purist Scale approach makes it possible to plan each location on the ROS spectrum
with the needs of a special target group in mind, as opposed to trying to satisfy the
needs of every target group at every location. In the long run that will make the
tourism industry more sustainable and marketing campaigns more effective.
This research indicates that in the Icelandic Highlands purists are the market seg-
ment that offers the best possibilities as a target group. Their satisfaction does not
increase with more infrastructure and services. They prefer the absence of human
structures that more or less characterizes the Highlands in Iceland and they wish to
keep the places as natural as possible. Urbanists, in contrast, prefer better infrastruc-
ture, so it can be assumed that destinations in the lowlands should be developed even
further to meet their wishes.
Land-use allocation issues have not been resolved in Iceland. That has caused
highly sensitive areas to be transformed randomly into recreation areas. This happens,
for example, when accessibility suddenly increases as roads are built for hydroelectric
power plants. This kind of change should not be allowed to occur randomly. When
work starts in forming a land-use plan for tourism in Iceland it is important to
determine where on the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum the various areas are
located and where their strength lies. In that way it is possible to find out to which
target group each destination appeals and ensure that the experience of the target
group is positive. The destination can then be developed without exceeding the
tourism carrying capacity. If these principles are adhered to it is possible to welcome

many tourists with different wishes and still use sustainably the resources on which
nature tourism is built.
References
Ahn, B.Y., Lee, B. & Shafer, C.S. (2002) Operationalizing sustainability in regional tourism planning: an
application of the limits of acceptable change framework, Tourism Management, 23(1) pp. 1–15.
Benediktsson, K. (2007) “Scenophobia”, geography and the aesthetic politics of landscape, Geografiska
Annaler, 89B(3), pp. 203–217.
Borrie, W.T. & Roggenbuck, J.W. (1995) Community-based research of an urban recreation application
of benefits-based management, in: D.J. Chavez (tech. coord.) Proceedings, second symposium on
social aspects of recreation research, Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156 (Riverside, CA: US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station).
Brown, P.J., Driver, B.L. & McConnell, C. (1978) The opportunity spectrum concept and behavioral
information in outdoor recreation resource supply inventories: background and application, in: G.H.
Lund, V.J. LaBau, P.F. Ffolliott & D.W. Robinson (tech. cords) Integrated inventories of renewable
natural resources: Proceedings of the workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-55, pp. 73–84 (Fort Collins,
CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station).
Buckley, R. (2003) The practice and politics of tourism and land management, in: R. Buckley, C. Pickering
& D.B. Weaver (Eds) Nature-based Tourism, Environment and Land Management, pp. 1–6 (Oxon:
CABI Publishing).
Buhalis D. (2000) Marketing the competitive destination of the future, Tourism Management, 21(1),
pp. 97–116.
Butler, R.W. (1997) The concept of carrying capacity for tourism destinations: Dead or merely buried?,
in: C. Cooper & S. Wanhill (Eds) Tourism Development: Environmental and community issues,
pp. 11–21 (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons).
Clark, R.N. & Stankey, G. (1979) The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for planning, man-
agement and research. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-98 (Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station).
Cole, D.N. (2004) Carrying capacity and visitor management: Facts, values, and the role of science,
in: David Harmon, Bruce M. Kilgore & Gay E. Vietzke (Eds) Protecting Our Diverse Heritage:
The Role of Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites. Proceedings of the 2003 George Wright
Society/National Park Service Joint Conference (Hancock, Michigan: The George Wright Society).
Fredman, P. & Emmelin, L. (2001) Wilderness purism, willingness to pay and management preferences –
A study of Swedish mountain tourists, Tourism Economics, 7(1), pp. 5–20.
Getz, D. (1983) Capacity to absorb tourism: Concepts and implications for strategic planning, Annals of
Tourism Research, 10, pp. 239–263.
Gisladottir, G. (2005) The impact of tourist trampling on Icelandic Andosols, Zeitschrift für Geomor-
phologie (Suppl.), 143, pp. 55–73.
Goldsmith, F.B. (1974) Ecological effects of visitors in the countryside, in: A. Warren, & F.B. Goldsmith
(Eds) Conservation in Practice, pp. 217–231 (London: Wiley).
Hall, C.M. (2000) Tourism Planning. Policies, Processes and Relationships (Singapore: Prentice Hall).
Heberlein, T.A. (1973). Social psychological assumptions of user attitudes surveys: The case of the
Wildernism Scale, Journal of Leisure Research, 5(3), pp. 18–33.
Hendee, J.C., Catton, W.R., Marlow, L.D. & Brockman, C.F. (1968) Wilderness Users in the Pacific
Northwest – Their Characteristics, Values and Management Preferences, Research Paper PNW-61
(Portland: USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest & Range Experiment Station).
Hendee, J.C., Stankey G.H. & Lucas, R.C. (1990) Wilderness Management (Portland: North American
Press).
Hof, M., Hammett, J., Rees, M., Belnap, J., Poe, N., Lime, D. & Manning, R. (1994) Getting a handle on
visitor carrying capacity – A pilot project at Arches National Park. Park Sciences, 14(1), pp. 11–13.
Icelandic Tourist Board (2003) Domestic travel behavior in 2003. Available at: http://www.
ferdamalastofa.is/upload/files/ferdavenjurinnanalnds2003.pdf. Ferðavenjur innanlands árið 2003
(accessed 19 September 2007).
Icelandic Tourist Board (2004) Survey among foreign visitors. Available at: http://www.ferdamalastofa.
is/konn vetur0405 vefur/index.html (accessed 21 August 2007).
Icelandic Tourist Board (2007) Tourism Statistics. Available at: http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/
displayer.asp?cat id=503 (accessed 21 August 2007).
Kuss, F.R., Graefe, A.R. & Vaske, J.J. (1990) Visitor Impact Management: A Review of Research
(Washington D.C: National Parks and Conservation Association).
Lawson, S. & Manning, R. (2001) Solitude versus access: A study of tradeoffs in outdoor recreation using
indifference curve analysis, Leisure Science, 23(3), pp. 179–191.
Lime, D.W. & Stankey, G.H. (1971) Carrying capacity: Maintaining carrying capacity: Maintaining out-
door recreation quality, in: Forest Recreation Symposium Proceedings, pp. 174–184 (Pennsylvania,
Northeast Forest Experiment Station Upper Darby).
Lindberg, K., McCool, S.F. & Stankey, G.H. (1997) Rethinking carrying capacity, Annals of Tourism
Research, 24, pp. 461–465.
Manning, R.E. (1986) Studies in Outdoor Recreation (Corvallis: Oregon State University Press).
Manning, R.E. (1999) Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction (Corvallis:
Oregon State University Press).
Mathieson, A. & Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts (New York: Longman).
McCool, S.F., Clark, R.N. & Stankey, G.H. (2007) An assessment of frameworks useful for public land
recreation planning. Gen. Tech Rep. PNW-GTR-705 (Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station).
McCool, S.F. & Lime, D.W. (2001) Tourism carrying capacity: Tempting fantasy or useful reality? Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 9(5), pp. 372–388.
Mehmetoglu, M. (2007) Typologising nature-based tourists by activity – Theoretical and practical impli-
cations, Tourism Management, 28(3), pp. 651–660.
Ministry of Communications (2005) Tourism Strategy 2006–2015. Available at http://www.
samgonguraduneyti.is/media/Skyrsla/Ferdamalaaathin 2006–2015 Loka 11 2005.pdf (accessed 23
December 2009).
Mohsin, A. (2005) Tourist attitudes and destination marketing – the case of Australia’s Northern Territory
and Malaysia, Tourism Management, 26(5), pp. 723–732.
Patterson, M.E. & Hammitt, W.E. (1990) Backcountry encounter norms, actual reported encounters, and
their relationship to wilderness solitude, Journal of Leisure Research, 22, pp. 259–275.
Pickering, C. & Weaver, D.B. (2003) Nature-based tourism and sustainability: Issues and approaches,
in: R. Buckley, C. Pickering & D.B. Weaver (Eds) Nature-based Tourism, Environment and Land
Management, pp. 7–10 (Oxon: CABI Publishing).
Saarinen, J. (2004a) Tourism and touristic representations of nature, in: A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall & A.M.
Williams (Eds) A Companion to Tourism, pp. 438–449 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing).
Saarinen, J. (2004b) Destinations in change: The transformation process of tourist destinations, Tourist
Studies, 4, pp. 161–179.
Saarinen, J. (2006) Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies, Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4),
pp. 1121–1140.
Sæþórsdóttir, A.D. (1998) Áhrif virkjana norðan Vatnajökuls á ferðamennsku. Reykjavik, Landsvirkjun
og iðnaðar-og viðskiptaráðuneytið, 118 pp. [The effect of Power Plants on Tourism in the Northern
Highlands of Iceland – in Icelandic].
Sæþórsdóttir, A.D. (Ed.) (2003) Rolmörk ferðamennsku ı́ friðlandi á Lónsöræfum [Tourism Carrying Ca-
pacity in Lónsöræfi Nature Reserve] (Akureyri: Ferðamálaráð Íslands, Háskóli Íslands & Háskólinn
á Akureyri) [in Icelandic].
Saethorsdottir, A.D. (2004) Adapting to change: Maintaining a wilderness experience in a popular tourist
destination, Tourism Today, 4, pp. 52–65.
Sæþórsdóttir, A.D. (2006a) Sambúðarvandi á Suðurhálendinu, in: I. Hannibalsson (Ed.) Rannsóknir ı́
félagsvı́sindum VII [Coexistence Problems in the Southern Highlands], pp. 11–23 (Reykjavik: Hasko-
lautgafan) [in Icelandic].
Sæþórsdóttir, A.D. (2006b) Skipulag náttúruferðamennsku með hliðsjón af viðhorfum ferðamanna [Plan-
ning nature tourism in Iceland based on tourist attitudes]. Landabréfið, 22(1), pp. 3–20 [in Icelandic].
Saethorsdottir, A.D. (2007) Planning nature tourism using the Purist Scale, in: Ingjaldur Hannibalsson and
Helgi Gestsson (Eds) The 14th Nordic Symposium in Tourism and Hospitality Research (Akureyri,
Iceland: The Icelandic Tourism Research Centre).
Saethorsdottir, A.D. & Olafsdottir R. (2004) Sustainable tourism management: application and appraisal of
the tourism carrying capacity and the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum dynamics, in: Tuija Hilding-
Rydevik and Ásdı́s Hlökk Theodórsdóttir (Eds) Planning for Sustainable Development – the practice
and potential of environmental assessment, Nordregio R2004:2, pp. 307–317 (Stockholm, Sweden:
Nordregio).
Sandell, K. (1992) Perceptions of landscapes – Perspectives on nature, in: L.J. Lundgren (Ed.) Views of
Nature, pp. 46–61 (Stockholm: Forskningsrådsnämnden & Naturvårdsverket).
Schreyer, R. (1976) Sociological and political factors in carrying capacity decision-making, in: Proceed-
ings, Third Resources Management Conference, April 29–30, Fort Worth, TX, pp. 228–258 (Santa
FE, NM: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southwest Region).
Stankey, G.H. (1973) Visitor Perception of Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity, Research Paper
INT-142 (Ogden: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station).
Stankey, G.H. (1982) Carrying capacity, impact management, and the recreation opportunity spectrum,
Australian Parks & Recreation, May, pp. 24–30.
Stankey, G.H. & McCool, S.F. (1984) Carrying capacity in recreational settings: Evolution, appraisal, and
application, Leisure Sciences, 6(3), pp. 453–473.
Statistics Iceland (2007) Accommodation Statistics. Available at http://www.statice.is/Statistics/Tourism,-
transport-and-informati/Accommodation (accessed 17 April 2008).
Vistad, O.I. (1995) I skogen og i skolten. Ein analyse av friluftsliv, miljöoppleving, påverknad og forvaltning
i Fremundsmarka, med jamföringar til Rogen og Långfjället, Dr. Polit. Avhandling (Trondheim:
Geografisk Institutt, Universitetet i Trondheim). [in Norwegian].
Wallsten, P. (1988) Rekreation i Rogen – tillämpning av en planeringsmetod för friluftsliv, KOMMIT-
rapport 2, AVH (Trondheim: Universitetet i Trondheim).
Washburne, R.F. (1982) Wilderness recreation carrying capacity: Are numbers necessary?, Journal of
Forestry, 80, pp. 726–728.
Wilderness Act (1964) 16. U.S. C. 1121 (note), pp. 1131–1136.
Williams, P.W. & Gill, A. (1991) Carrying capacity management in tourism settings: A tourism growth
management process. Centre for Tourism Policy and Research, Simon Fraser University.
Williams, P.W., Penrose, R.W. & Hawkes, S. (1998) Shared decision-making in tourism land use planning,
Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4) pp. 860–889.
Note on Contributor
Anna Dóra SæRórsdóttir is a Geographer and Associate Professor at the Faculty of
Life and Environmental Sciences, the School of Engineering and Natural Sciences,
University of Iceland, 101 Reykjavı́k, Iceland.
View publication stats

Planning Natur Tourism PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planning Natur Tourism PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Planning Nature Tourism in Iceland based on Tourist Attitudes

Article in Tourism Geographies · January 2010

Anna Dóra Sæþórsdóttir

Sustainable Geo-Resources for Tourism and Recreation View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Planning Nature Tourism in Iceland based on Tourist Attitudes

Online publication date: 19 January 2010

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Planning Nature Tourism in Iceland based

Résumé: Planification du tourisme de nature en Islande sur la base des attitudes

ISSN 1461-6688 Print/1470-1340 Online /10/01/00025–28

Zusammenfassung: Die Planung von Naturtourismus in Island auf der Grund-

Stichwörter: Naturtourismus, touristische Tragfähigkeit, Puristenskala, Spektrum der Erhol-

unnecessary impacts, duplication and loss of opportunities in the future. Furthermore,

Nature Tourism in Iceland

Figure 1. Foreign visitors’ participation in recreation during their stay in Iceland.

tourism. Tourism in Iceland is characterized by the strong interest tourists show in

Tourism Carrying Capacity

social dimensions, adventure and physical challenge, among others’.

Despite its previously mentioned shortcomings, the concept of tourism carrying

The Purist Scale and ROS

when he looked at Femundsmarka in Norway. He compared his results to Wallsten’s

Figure 2. Study areas.

Table 1. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

by crossing a deep and rapid, unbridged glacial river in four-wheel-drive vehicles.

Methods and Study Design

In Skaftafell, Landmannalaugar and Lónsöræfi the questionnaire contained 32

(1) basic questions regarding age, gender and place of residence;

Table 2. Scores and division of tourists according to the Purist Scale

Table 3. Principal component analysis

Being able to walk without −0.272 0.705 −0.162 −0.19

Table 4. Desirable structures and importance

Built on average on the 5-point Likert scale.

Tourists in Landmannalaugar are significantly more tolerant towards structures,

Table 5. Perceptions of day visitors versus overnight guests (tourists)

Table 6. Travel behaviour and interest in returning

Table 7. Means of travel (%)

stay overnight, the tourists in Jökulsárgljúfur national park and in Landmannalaugar

Table 8. Nationality of participants (%)

Planning Nature Tourism with Reference to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

opportunities and to decide how much infrastructure and development should be

tourism carrying capacity. If these principles are adhered to it is possible to welcome

View publication stats

You might also like