How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality with Respect to Nature-based Tourism

Abstract

The Icelandic highlands are one of the few places left in Europe where tourists can experience pristine wilderness. During the past decades the highlands have, however, witnessed a rapid expansion in natural resource exploitation. This study attempts to evaluate the pristine condition of Icelandic wilderness by testing different methods of identifying and analysing wilderness with respect to nature-based tourism. The wilderness areas were mapped with respect to proximity to anthropogenic structures (proximity analysis) as well as what is actually visible in the landscape in relation to topography (viewshed analysis). When analysed with respect to proximity, result maps indicate that wilderness covers a little less than 34 percent of Iceland. When assessed at a national scale, results from the viewshed analysis show similar results. However, evaluation of the two methods tested indicates that the viewshed analysis gives a more dynamic image of the Icelandic wilderness areas, whereas the proximity analysis simply highlights static buffer zones relative to the network of anthropogenic features. It is concluded that a viewshed analysis provides a more qualitative result regarding the Icelandic wilderness resource at a local scale with respect to nature-based tourism.

Full text

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[Olafsdottir, Rannveig]
On:
8 June 2011
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 938475616]
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
How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality with Respect to Nature-based
Tourism
Rannveig Ólafsdóttir
a
; Micael C. Runnström
b
a
The Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, and The Icelandic Tourism Research Centre,
University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland
b
GIS Centre, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Online publication date: 08 June 2011
To cite this Article Ólafsdóttir, Rannveig and Runnström, Micael C.(2011) 'How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality with
Respect to Nature-based Tourism', Tourism Geographies, 13: 2, 280 — 298
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2010.531043
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2010.531043
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. 13, No. 2, 280–298, May 2011
How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality
with Respect to Nature-based Tourism
RANNVEIG
´
OLAFSD
´
OTTIR
*
& MICAEL C. RUNNSTR
¨
OM
**
*
The Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, and The Icelandic Tourism Research Centre,
University of Iceland, Reykjav
´
ık, Iceland
**
GIS Centre, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Abstract The Icelandic highlands are one of the few places left in Europe where tourists
can experience pristine wilderness. During the past decades the highlands have, however,
witnessed a rapid expansion in natural resource exploitation. This study attempts to evaluate
the pristine condition of Icelandic wilderness by testing different methods of identifying and
analysing wilderness with respect to nature-based tourism. The wilderness areas were mapped
with respect to proximity to anthropogenic structures (proximity analysis) as well as what is
actually visible in the landscape in relation to topography (viewshed analysis). When analysed
with respect to proximity, result maps indicate that wilderness covers a little less than 34 percent
of Iceland. When assessed at a national scale, results from the viewshed analysis show similar
results. However, evaluation of the two methods tested indicates that the viewshed analysis
gives a more dynamic image of the Icelandic wilderness areas, whereas the proximity analysis
simply highlights static buffer zones relative to the network of anthropogenic features. It is
concluded that a viewshed analysis provides a more qualitative result regarding the Icelandic
wilderness resource at a local scale with respect to nature-based tourism.
Key Words: Wilderness assessment, nature tourism, proximity analysis, viewshed analysis,
geographical information system (GIS), Iceland
Introduction
The highlands of the Icelandic interior are often regarded as one of the last relatively
pristine environments left in Europe. Thus, a common view is expressed by Susan
De Muth (2003: 86) when she states that north of the country’s largest ice cap,
Vatnaj
¨
okull:
lies Iceland’s most fascinating and varied volcanic landscape. Ice and boiling
geothermal infernos meet at the edges of the glacier, and then the largest
remaining pristine wilderness in Western Europe begins – a vast panorama of
Correspondence Address: Rannveig
´
Olafsd
´
ottir, The Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, and The
Icelandic Tourism Research Centre, University of Iceland, The Natural Science Building, Sturlugata 7,
IS-101 Reykjav
´
ık, Iceland. Fax: +354 525 4499; Tel.: +354 5255482; Email: ranny@hi.is
ISSN 1461-6688 Print/1470-1340 Online /11/02/00280–19
C

2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2010.531043
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality and Nature-based Tourism 281
wild rivers, waterfalls, brooding mountains and mossy highlands thick with
flowers.
This view is reflected in many tourist surveys stating pristine nature to be one of Ice-
land’s major attractions (e.g. Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir 2003; ITB 2005; J
´
ohannesson et al. 2010).
The image of pristine nature is also employed when marketing Iceland and Ice-
landic products. But how wild and pristine is Iceland, in fact? Yet, no comprehensive
assessment of pristine land has been conducted in Iceland.
Iceland is sparsely populated, with just over 300,000 inhabitants located mainly
along the coastline, leaving the interior highlands an uninhabited wilderness. During
the past decades the interior highlands have witnessed a rapid expansion of natural
resource exploitation. Previously the highlands were used only for summer grazing,
but from the early 1970s onwards changes towards multiple uses have gradually taken
place. Thus, vehicles have taken over the role traditionally played by horses in the
rounding up of the sheep in autumn, numerous hydro-electric power stations have
been constructed and tourism has grown rapidly. Consequently, increased use of the
highlands and subsequent increased demands for vehicle access to the highlands has
resulted in the continual decline of pristine lands.
Conventional definitions of wilderness, such as the US Wilderness Act from 1964,
stress the natural state of the environment, the absence of human habitation and
the lack of other human-related influences and impacts (The Wilderness Act 1964);
while more recent definitions take account of people’s perception of wilderness, since
pristine nature is virtually unknown in industrialized parts of the world (e.g. Lesslie &
Taylor 1985; Hendee et al. 1990; Hall 1992; Carver & Fritz 1998; Nash 2001; Hall &
Page 2006). Hall et al. (2009) consider wilderness as a place that principally reflects
anthropogenic values. Hence, they believe that the idea of wilderness is to be perceived
above all as a locus for the examination of questions concerned with the regulation of
appropriate land use. However, they also state that it is difficult to find any consistent
definition for the wilderness concept as the term is a contested idea and, therefore, its
definition tends to vary with time and from one country to another. Nonetheless, most
national and international legislation concerning wilderness areas correspond to the
original Wilderness Act definition. In Iceland, the one and only official definition of
the concept was formulated in 1998 by a working group appointed by the Icelandic
Minister of the Environment, following a governmental decision concerning a strategy
designation as regards preservation of pristine wilderness in Iceland. The definition
is in line with the conventional ones, defining a pristine wilderness to be an area of
land:
• where no trace of human activity is to be found and the natural landscape develops
without any pressure related to human influences;
• that is situated at a distance of at least 5 km from human structures and other
infrastructure, such as roads, houses, power lines, telecommunication masts, dams,
etc.;
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

282 R.
´
Olafsd
´
ottir & M. C. Runnstr
¨
om
Figure 1. The Environmental Agency mapping of Icelandic wilderness areas (mid-grey)
together with protected areas (dark grey). Source: The Environmental Agency of Iceland.
• that is at least 25 km
2
in size, or such that one can enjoy solitude and the natural
landscape without disturbance from human structures or traffic resulting from
mechanized vehicles.
This definition is further stated in the Icelandic law no. 44/1999 on nature con-
servation. In the period since the working group completed its work in 1998,
no further work has been undertaken concerning wilderness assessment, mapping
or data collecting. The Environment Agency of Iceland did, however, propose a
wilderness map that is to some extent based on the above definition (Figure 1).
Thus, 5 km proximity zones are calculated around major roads. On the other hand,
no account is taken of other anthropogenic structures. Moreover, protected areas are
shown as if they were completely free from roads and all other human structures.
The map thus gives a false impression of pristine wilderness within protected areas,
as well as of wild land in Iceland as a whole. This map is nonetheless used when
official representations of Icelandic wilderness are made.
Over the past decades tourism has grown rapidly in Iceland, from around 4,000
foreign visitors in 1950 up to 502,000 foreign visitors in 2008 (Figure 2) (ITB 2009).
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality and Nature-based Tourism 283
Figure 2. Foreign visitors to Iceland 1949–2008. Source: ITB (2009).
The importance of tourism as an economic sector is likewise gradually increasing,
currently accounting for nearly 20 percent of Iceland’s export earnings (Statistic Ice-
land 2009a). The Icelandic interior highlands are a large tourist attraction. According
to recent studies (e.g. Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir 2010), it is primarily the absence of anthropogenic
features which attract visitors to the Icelandic wilderness as well as the experience of
the authentic and primitive. An extensive survey carried out by the Icelandic Tourist
Board in 2004 and 2005 shows that over 90 percent of tourists visiting Iceland state
the natural landscape to be the major motivating factor behind their decision to visit
Iceland (ITB 2005). The tourism industry as a whole thus bases a major part of its
income on the country’s natural resources. The industry’s marketing slogans, such
as ‘Europe’s last wilderness’, ‘Unspoiled wilderness’, ‘Pure nature’ and ‘All natu-
ral’, underline the importance of the pristine state of the Icelandic wilderness for
the industry. During the past decades, access to the interior highlands has gradually
increased mainly following the power plant constructions that have greatly expanded
since the late 1970s, subsequently transforming the wilderness areas in Iceland into
recreational areas (Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir 2009). When such great changes in land use occur
without any planning and/or management, the risk of negative impacts inevitably
arises. However, when no comprehensive assessment of the wilderness resources
exists, conflicts between the different interest groups as well as the different types of
tourists will most likely only increase with growing complexity. In Iceland the basis
for developing and planning long-term sustainable tourism is moreover lacking.
Information regarding the wilderness resource is crucial for both stakeholders and
decision makers for the purposes of planning sustainable tourism based on pristine
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

284 R.
´
Olafsd
´
ottir & M. C. Runnstr
¨
om
wilderness as a major product. This study aims to review and analyse the pristine
condition of Icelandic wilderness by: (i) testing different methods of assessing and
identifying wilderness with respect to nature-based tourism; (ii) generating wilderness
maps showing the potential extent and location of pristine areas in Iceland. This
is achieved by analysing spatially distributed digital data, such as elevation and
anthropogenic structures in a geographical information system (GIS). In this paper,
nature-based tourism refers to tourism that uses natural areas and natural resources
in a wild or undeveloped form for enjoying nature (cf. Hall et al. 2009).
Methodology
Data
Most studies focusing on wilderness mapping assess wilderness quality in terms of
remoteness and naturalness by calculating specified distances from anthropogenic
structures (e.g. Lesslie & Taylor 1985; Hall 1992; Henry & Husby 1995; Carver &
Fritz 1998), where selected indicators are used to create maps describing:
• remoteness from mechanized access;
• remoteness from permanent settlement;
• apparent naturalness; and
• biophysical naturalness.
To assess and map wilderness in Iceland two different methods were tested: (i)
proximity analysis, where buffer zones are created from anthropogenic sources based
on similar criteria as previous studies (e.g. Lesslie & Taylor 1985; Hall 1992; Henry
& Husby 1995; Carver & Fritz 1998; Chhetri & Arrowsmith 2008); and (ii) viewshed
analysis, which takes into account what is actually visible in the landscape in relation
to topography.
Geographical digital data on a national scale from the IS50V 2.0 geodatabase
obtained from the Icelandic Geodetic Institute were used in this study. The data were
analysed and classified in a GIS. The IS50V database is processed in a Lambert
conformal projection with a central meridian at W19
◦
, latitude of origin at N65
◦
,
spheroid ISN93, and standard-parallels at N64.25
◦
and N65.75
◦
.
Proximity Analysis
Three proximity indicators were used: remoteness from mechanized access; remote-
ness from settlement; and apparent naturalness. Each indicator was categorized into
different attribute variables and appropriate disturbance distances determined for
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality and Nature-based Tourism 285
each variable. Result maps from all indicators were then integrated in a geographi-
cal model to obtain a holistic map that demonstrates the combined impact from all
attribute variables used.
Remoteness from access
Remoteness from mechanized access emphasizes an area’s isolation from accessible
routes. According to the recognized definition of Icelandic wilderness (Icelandic law
no. 44/1999), a distance of at least 5 km is required from all national roads. However,
the disturbance from a road differs greatly between road types and many roads in the
Icelandic highlands are only tracks with low traffic intensity. Roads were therefore
categorized according to road type based on the Icelandic Road Administration
classification system into major roads, collector roads, country roads and highland
roads (Icelandic Road Administration 2008). It is assumed that major roads and
collector country roads have a larger impact on wilderness experience than a track
in a highland area as such roads are constructed and paved and consequently have
a higher traffic flow than unpaved roads and tracks pursuing the landscape. In this
analysis it was decided to use 5 km distance for both major and collector country road
categories according to the Icelandic wilderness definition. For highland roads it was
considered that approximately 50 percent of the defined distance, or 3 km, to such
road categories would be sufficient to preserve a wilderness perception due to lower
traffic intensity, absence of traffic signals and signs and much less visibility from a
distance caused by the tracks blending in with the surrounding landscape (Table 1;
Figure 3).
Remoteness from settlement
Remoteness from settlement emphasizes an area’s isolation from permanent popula-
tion. Human facilities were categorized according to the type of settlement into urban
nuclei, industrial and service facilities and farms or single houses, and a relevant
distance was assigned to each category (Table 2). In the IS50V database a total of
107 urban nuclei are registered, which coincides with the number of registered urban
nuclei at Statistic Iceland (2009b). An urban nucleus is, according to Statistic Iceland
(2009c), a community, settlement or another specified area where the residents live
in houses located close to one another. When assessing wilderness, Lesslie & Malen
(1995) consider a minimum distance from an urban settlement to be a radius of 25 km,
Table 1. Categories of road type and distance of disturbance
Road type Distance (m)
Major roads 5,000
Collector country roads 5,000
Highland roads 3,000
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

286 R.
´
Olafsd
´
ottir & M. C. Runnstr
¨
om
Figure 3. The distance of disturbance from roads according to the categories in Table 1.
as it represents the distance an individual can reasonably walk in a day over a rough
terrain. In Iceland most urban nuclei are small and many also relatively remote. The
country’s largest city, Reykjav
´
ık, numbers a total of 118,665 inhabitants (Statistic
Iceland 2009b). Four urban nuclei number between 10,000 and 30,000 inhabitants,
of which three are located in the environs of Reykjav
´
ık. A total of 93 percent number
less than 5,000 inhabitants, and there are 56 percent with less than 500 inhabitants
(Statistic Iceland 2009b). It was, therefore, decided to distinguish Reykjav
´
ık from the
smaller urban nuclei and use a distance of 25 km around urban nuclei with a popu-
lation greater than 100,000 inhabitants in accordance with Lesslie & Malen (1995),
but a distance of 5 km around urban nuclei with a smaller population, consistent with
the Icelandic wilderness definition. Equally, it was decided to assign a 5 km distance
Table 2. Categories of settlement and distance of disturbance
Settlement type Distance (m)
Urban nuclei >100,000 inhabitants 25,000
Urban nuclei <100,000 inhabitants 5,000
Industrial and service facilities 5,000
Farms, single houses 5,000
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality and Nature-based Tourism 287
Figure 4. Distance of disturbance from settlements according to the categorization in Table 2.
around the two other settlement categories, namely industrial- and service facilities as
well as farms and single houses (Figure 4). Hotels and guesthouses, together with har-
bour structures, were categorized as service facilities. Several hotels and guesthouses
open during the summer months are located in the highlands. In recent decades har-
bours have also been constructed in some remote uninhabited areas that are popular
with tourists. This is the rationale behind our mapping of disturbance from settlement
in places were there is, in fact, no permanent settlement (cf. Figure 4).
Apparent naturalness
Apparent naturalness refers to the degree to which the landscape is free from the
presence of permanent anthropogenic structures of the modern era, such as power
lines, power stations, pipelines, telecommunication masts, etc., as well as roads and
permanent settlement constructions. The IS50V database contains spatial data for
power lines obtained from the various power corporations in Iceland. These data are,
however, not up to date and some power lines are missing, both old and new ones.
All lines connected to the most recent and largest hydro-electrical power station
in Iceland, located just north of the Vatnaj
¨
okull ice cap, for example, are missing
in the database. According to Eyd
´
ıs L. Finnbogad
´
ottir, director of the geographical
information department of the Icelandic Geodetic Institute (personal communicaton
29 June 2009), these data are being updated. Nonetheless, data relating to spatial
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

288 R.
´
Olafsd
´
ottir & M. C. Runnstr
¨
om
distribution of power lines in Iceland have for a long time been treated as information
to which the power corporations alone are granted access. In this project a 5 km
distance zone was assigned around all power lines presented in the database. Under the
category of apparent naturalness, power stations, telecommunication constructions,
water and drainage system facilities, mountain huts and ruins were further categorized
according to Table 3. In Iceland, a mountain hut may be defined as a hut located in the
highlands in relative distance from settlement areas. Mountains huts are numerous in
Iceland and have a long tradition and function as secure shelter for those travelling
in the highlands. Many were originally built by farmers as an overnight shelter when
rounding up the sheep in autumn that often took several days. Others were built as
rescue shelters most often located in the middle of a long and laborious mountain
route. With increased tourism and progressively improving vehicle technology, such
as larger engines, four-wheel drive and improved GPS technology, many of these
mountain huts have developed to become booming service centres for tourists and, as
such, attract a large volume of traffic. It was, therefore, considered critical to take their
impact into consideration. However, the huts vary a great deal both in appearance and
function, from old small turf huts that blend in with landscape and are relatively little-
used, to large striking houses offering various services during the summer months.
As an average distance at this stage of the project, 3 km was considered suitable
for all mountains huts, in accordance with the proximity of highland roads. In the
IS50V database, mountains huts are classified as holiday cottages together with all
other holiday cottages in the country. As most holiday cottages in Iceland are located
close to both roads and permanent settlement areas, they most likely do not have any
significant effect on the wilderness assessment as a whole, as most of the cottages
will accrue under other GIS layers containing buffers around roads and settlement.
Thus, by calculating a 3 km distance zone around all holiday cottages, an acceptable
distance zone around all listed mountains huts was obtained (Table 3; Figure 5).
Viewshed Analysis
Topography plays a large role in people’s experience of wilderness and may, thus,
be a more important variable in wilderness assessment than relative proximity to
anthropogenic structures, particularly in a landscape like the Icelandic highlands
where elevation varies greatly, creating a mountainous and undulating landscape,
Table 3. Categories of apparent naturalness and calculated distances
Type of human construction Distance (m)
Power lines 5,000
Power and telecommunications constructions,
water and drainage system facilities
5,000
Mountain huts 3,000
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality and Nature-based Tourism 289
Figure 5. Apparent naturalness according to the categorization in Table 3.
making features invisible from certain angles and locations. If line-of-sight is ob-
structed by a hill, a road or a power line may not be visible for the viewer even though
the distance is short. In such a landscape a ‘truer’ assessment and mapping of potential
wilderness is possibly to consider what is actually visible based on the topography.
This assessment is possible through a GIS analysis that can determine from which
locations certain features are visible and is referred to as a viewshed analysis. This
analysis requires having the anthropogenic features in a digital geographical format
as well as a digital elevation model (DEM) of the study area at an acceptable spatial
resolution. The DEM is an image containing numerous raster cells or pixels, and each
cell contains an attribute value equal to the elevation above sea level normally valid
for the centre point of the cell. A DEM can thus be visualized in a 3D view where
the attribute value (elevation) represents the third axis (z-axis) in a GIS (Figure 6).
The accuracy of the viewshed analysis is consequently critical to the cell resolution.
In this analysis a DEM of 93 m spatial resolution covering the whole of Iceland,
obtained from the IS50V database, is used.
The algorithm underpinning a viewshed analysis calculates a vertical angle for
each cell in the DEM based on the relative difference in elevation between the cell
and the cell containing the object and their horizontal distance. After the vertical
angles have been calculated, the program compares each cell’s angle value stepwise
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

290 R.
´
Olafsd
´
ottir & M. C. Runnstr
¨
om
Figure 6. A 3D visualization of a digital elevation model (DEM). Source: Harrie (2008).
starting from the cell containing the object. If the vertical angle of a cell is found to
be less than an earlier raster cell closer to the object the cell will be coded not visible,
and consequently the object, in our case the anthropogenic feature, is not visible
or in sight from that cell (Figure 7). Thus, a viewshed analysis provides a method
for determining from where (namely which raster cells) in the Icelandic landscape
given anthropogenic objects are invisible based on topography. What is visible is
additionally affected and limited by weather conditions and by the maximum sight
distance, which is limited by the curvature of the Earth. The maximum sight distance
(d) can be calculated using Pythagoras’ theorem (equation (1)), showing that a person
standing on flat ground with eyes 1.8 m above the surface has a 4.8 km distance to
the horizon:
d =

2Rh +
h
2
(1)
where R is the Earth’s radius (6,371,000 m) and h is the height of the viewer’s eyes
above the ground.
However, if the person stands on a hill the distance to the horizon is further away;
in addition the object may be tall, e.g. a power-line tower. In the analysis a 10 km
maximum sight distance was used, which was considered a reasonable distance to
use except in the environs of the larger settlements, where a 25 km sight distance
was used since tall buildings are visible at a greater proximity. The viewshed analysis
was run for each of the anthropogenic features used in the distance analysis model in
order to compare the outcome of the wilderness analysis between the two.
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality and Nature-based Tourism 291
Figure 7. The principle for a viewshed operation. A represents the original DEM; B the
mid-result where vertical angles are calculated; and C the re-classified and coded viewshed
result.
Mapping Results
Proximity Analysis
According to the categorization of road types, settlements and apparent naturalness
and the calculated proximity for each category, mechanized access covers 64,199 km
2
(∼63%) of the country’s area (cf. Figure 3), permanent settlement covers 43,639 km
2
(cf. Figure 4) and other anthropogenic structures cover 42,128 km
2
(cf. Figure 5).
When these areas are combined, there remains an area of wilderness equal to 34,695
km
2
or 34 percent of the surface of Iceland (Figure 8), of which the country’s ice caps
cover 26 percent.
According to the definition of Icelandic wilderness, a pristine wilderness is an area
that is at least 25 km
2
in size, or of such size that one can enjoy solitude and nature
without disturbance from human structures or traffic resulting from mechanized
vehicles (Icelandic law no. 44/1999). A total of 59 classified wilderness areas are
larger than 25 km
2
(Figure 9) and cover 34,161 km
2
. A large majority of those areas,
or 49, are larger than 50 km
2
(33,783 km
2
), and 36 wilderness areas are larger than
100 km
2
(32,830 km
2
) (cf. Figure 9).
Viewshed Analysis
The map result obtained from the viewshed analysis using topography to determine
visible or invisible anthropogenic objects in view shows a similar wilderness pattern
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

292 R.
´
Olafsd
´
ottir & M. C. Runnstr
¨
om
Figure 8. Icelandic wilderness areas according to given criteria used in the proximity analysis
model.
and areal cover on a national scale (34,161 km
2
or 33 percent of the country’s area)
to the one obtained from the proximity analysis. However, at a local scale a much
more dynamic pattern is obtained that is closely interrelated to landscape topography
(Figure 10).
Evaluation and Concluding Remarks
Evaluation of the two methods tested indicates that the viewshed analysis gives a
more dynamic and ‘true’ topographic image of the Icelandic wilderness areas, while
the proximity analysis only highlights static buffer zones relative to the network
of anthropogenic features. On a national scale the two methods give similar areal
results. Nonetheless, at a local scale the dynamic obtained by the viewshed anal-
ysis becomes obvious presenting one’s view from a location. It may, therefore, be
concluded here that viewshed analysis gives a more qualitative result regarding the
Icelandic wilderness resources with respect to nature-based tourism.
Proximity analysis requires extensive data as well as classification of data, but is,
on the other hand, easily applicable. Viewshed analysis is both time consuming and
CPU intensive, and requires massive calculations when operated on a national scale.
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality and Nature-based Tourism 293
Figure 9. Areas of wilderness that cover an area of at least 25 km
2
are marked in light grey;
mid-grey areas represent those that are larger than 50 km
2
; and dark grey areas those larger
than 100 km
2
.
Analysis of a large landscape area, such as the whole of Iceland, required several
weeks with constant computer calculations.
The modelled wilderness in this study is based on readily available digital data
obtained from the IS50V geographical database. Due to shortcomings in the actuality
and precision of the data it may be assumed that the actual wilderness area is in
reality even smaller than the results from this study show. Further classification for
the purposes of wilderness assessment in Iceland requires more detailed data than can
be found in the IS50V 2.0 database at present, as well as intensive field data collection
regarding traffic intensity, condition and use of mountains huts, tourist patterns, etc.
Discussion
The Icelandic highlands are characterized as extremely fragile ecosystems and the
impact of unsuitable tourism can easily trigger severe land degradation, empha-
sizing the importance of tourism management in the highlands (e.g.
´
Olafsd
´
ottir &
Guðmundsson 2002;
´
Olafsd
´
ottir & Runnstr
¨
om 2009). Wilderness mapping is a cru-
cial step in such management, as the Icelandic tourist industry bases a major part of
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

294 R.
´
Olafsd
´
ottir & M. C. Runnstr
¨
om
Figure 10. Icelandic wilderness areas according to given criteria used in the viewshed analysis
model.
its income on the country’s natural resources as well as the image of an unspoiled
wilderness.
Coincident with better access and the availability of more powerful vehicles,
the numbers of tourists visiting the Icelandic highlands have gradually increased.
Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir et al. (2009) point out that progressively more – and bigger – facilities,
together with improved infrastructure, have gradually followed in the wake of the
increased tourism in the highlands. They further point out that many tourists consider
this development to be a threat to the Icelandic wilderness. This is in line with research
into tourist experiences in Landmannalaugar, the most popular tourist destination in
the Icelandic highlands, which concludes that the major attractions of the highlands
are the low number of tourists as well as the remoteness from anthropogenic con-
structions (Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir 2003). The ‘back to nature’ feeling is thus very attractive
for an increasing number of tourists. Increased infrastructure and service facilities
are likely to bring in new target groups with new expectations and, in that way, may
change the nature of tourism in a given area. This alternate pattern has already begun
to manifest itself in the Icelandic highlands. Thus, a Dutch cyclist states, in a recent
article in one of the Icelandic newspapers (Fr
´
ettablaðið, 20 July 2008), that he misses
the tranquility and remoteness in the highlands and that he regards the country’s
adventure experience as having declined due to increased tourism. The former editor
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality and Nature-based Tourism 295
of the journal Environmentalists, John F. Potter (1999), is of the same opinion in one
of his editorials where he traces the development of tourism in Iceland:
The landscape is no longer that of the Iceland of yester-year, and I find the
country far less attractive and appealing. I personally prefer camping and not
washing to high rise hotels, and will probably never return to the country I once
found so environmentally rewarding.
Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir (2009) reveals that due to the present popularity of the highlands, its
infrastructure has been improved repeatedly, both to provide services and creature
comforts and to protect the vegetation. This highlights the contradiction between
wilderness, based on the image of ‘unspoiled’ nature, and the fact that visitors in-
evitably disturb the wilderness. It is a difficult task to maintain the image of wilderness
in a popular tourist destination as tourism is dependent on a viable infrastructure and
only a limited number of visitors can visit an area simultaneously if it is to provide the
experience of solitude. Potential repercussions from increased tourism in the Icelandic
highlands are likely to result in decreased wilderness. This conclusion is supported by
Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir &
´
Olafsd
´
ottir (2004), who stress that most communities’ development
results in the promotion of change to facilitate tourism. This rapid change in tourism
motivation and preferences in Iceland emphasize the changed position of Icelandic
tourism, which for a long time has belonged to the exploration stage, according to
Butler’s (1980) tourism area life cycle. Today Icelandic tourism seems to have taken
a high-speed race up the cycle’s developmental stage.
There are not many places left in Europe that can offer tourists the full variety
of the whole recreational opportunity spectrum, i.e. from primitive and pristine to
luxury urban experiences. Iceland still can. However, the very pristine end of the
spectrum seems to be rapidly decreasing, unfortunately greatly affecting the quality
of Icelandic wilderness. Hall’s (1992) model on the wilderness continuum (Figure 11)
reflects how wilderness quality declines in correlation with decreased remoteness and
naturalness. It may thus be concluded here that progressively increased access and
infrastructure in the Icelandic highlands have gradually deteriorated the quality of
Icelandic wilderness.
In order to maintain the heterogeneous tourism Iceland currently offers, it is of
vital importance to be acquainted with the valuable resources that the wilderness
holds and base one’s planning and management strategies on reliable and qualified
sources. The Icelandic highlands’ sustainability suffers from a lack of clear goals
in environmental planning. Stakeholders interested in the highlands’ potential for
land use are gradually increasing in number. Wilderness assessment and mapping is
a necessary tool for stakeholders and decision makers and a step forward towards
sustainable planning on a national and local scale. Pristine wilderness that disappears
is a resource that will not be restored.
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

296 R.
´
Olafsd
´
ottir & M. C. Runnstr
¨
om
Figure 11. The wilderness quality changes along the wilderness continuum. Source: Hall
(1992).
Acknowledgements
The study was supported by the University of Iceland Research Fund. The IS50V
geographical database, as well as newer data regarding power lines, was kindly
provided by the Icelandic Geodedic Institute. The authors would like to thank the
three anonymous referees for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this
paper. Further thanks go to Hugh Atkinson for language correction.
References
Butler, R. W. (1980) The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of
resources, The Canadian Geographer, 24(1), pp. 5–12.
Carver, S. & Fritz, S. (1998) Mapping the Wilderness Continuum. Available at http://www.geog.leeds.ac.
uk/papers/98-8/ (accessed 14 August 2008).
Chhetri, P. & Arrowsmith, C. (2008) GIS-based modelling of recreational potential of nature-based tourist
destinations, Tourism Geographies, 10(2), pp. 233–257.
De Muth, S. (2003) Power driven, The Guardian, November 29, p. 86.
Fr
´
ettablaðið (2008) Saknar f
´
amennisins
´
ah
´
alendi landsins [Misses the remoteness in the highlands], July
20, p. 6.
Hall, C. M. (1992) Wasteland to World Heritage: Preserving Australia’s Wilderness (Melbourne: University
Press).
Hall, C. M., Muller, D. K. & Saarinen, J. (2009) Nordic Tourism. Issues and Cases (Bristol: Channel View
Publications).
Hall, C. M. & Page, S. J. (2006) The Geography of Tourism & Recreation. Environment, Place and Space,
3rd ed. (London: Routledge).
Harrie, L. (2008) (ed.) Geografisk informationsbehandling – Teori, metoder och till
¨
ampningar [Geograph-
ical Information Processing: Theories, Methods and Applications] (Stockholm: Formas).
Hendee, J. C., Stankey, G. H. & Lucas, R. C. (1990) Wilderness Management (Colorado: Fulcrum
Publishing).
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

How Wild is Iceland? Wilderness Quality and Nature-based Tourism 297
Henry, D. & Husby, E. (1995) Wilderness Quality Mapping in the Euro-Arctic Barents Region: A Po-
tential Management Tool. Available at http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc95/to150/p113.html
(accessed 14 August 2008).
Icelandic law no. 44/1999 (3rd paragraph) on nature conservation in Iceland.
Icelandic Road Administration (2008) Vegflokkar [Road types]. Available at http://www.vegagerdin.is/
vegakerfid/skipting-i-vegflokka/ (accessed 15 August 2008).
Icelandic Tourist Board (ITB) (2005) K
¨
onnun meðal erlendra ferðamanna veturinn 2004–2005 heil-
darniðurst
¨
oður [Survey among foreign visitors during the winter of 2004–2005]. Available at
http://www.ferdamalastofa.is (accessed 14 August 2008).
Icelandic Tourist Board (ITB) (2009) Heildarfj
¨
oldi erlendra gesta 1949–2008 [Total number of foreign
visitors 1949–2008]. Available at http://www.ferdamalastofa.is (accessed 14 May 2009).
J
´
ohannesson, G. T., Huijbens, E. H. & Sharpley, R. (2010) Icelandic tourism: Past directions – future
challenges, Tourism Geographies, 12(2) pp. 278–301.
Lesslie, R. G. & Maslen, M. (1995) National Wilderness Inventory, Australia. Handbook of Procedures,
Content and Usage, 2nd ed. (Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printer).
Lesslie, R. G. & Taylor, S. G. (1985) The wilderness continuum concept and its implication for Australian
wilderness preservation policy, Biological Conservation, 32, pp. 309–333.
Nash, R. F. (2001) Wilderness and the American Mind, 4th ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press).
´
Olafsd
´
ottir, R. & Guðmundsson, H. J. (2002) Holocene land degradation and climatic change in NE
Iceland, The Holocene, 12(2), pp.159–167.
´
Olafsd
´
ottir, R. & Runnstr
¨
om, M. C. (2009) A GIS approach to evaluating ecological sensitivity for
tourism development in fragile environments. A case study from SE Iceland, Scandinavian Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism, 9(1), pp. 22–38.
Potter, J. F. (1999) The dilemmas of tourism, The Environmentalist, 19, pp. 187–188.
Statistic Iceland (2009a) Ferðaþj
´
onusta [The tourism industry]. Available at http://www.hagstofa.is/
Hagtolur/Ferdamal,-samgongur-og-upplysing/Ferdathjonusta (accessed 14 May 2009).
Statistic Iceland (2009b) Mannfj
¨
oldi eftir byggðarkj
¨
ornum, kyni og aldri 1. jan
´
uar 1998–2008 [Population
according to urban nuclei, gender and age 1998–2008]. Available at http://www.hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/
Mannfjoldi/ (accessed 15 August 2009).
Statistic Iceland (2009c) L
´
ysig
¨
ogn [Metadata]. Available at http://www.hagstofa.is/pages/1538/?src=../../
vorulysingar/v
transporter.asp?filename=V00111.htm (accessed 15 August 2009).
Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir, A. D. (2003) Upplifun ferðamanna
´
ı Landmannalaugum [Tourism experiences in Landman-
nalaugar], in: B. Arad
´
ottir, A. D. Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir, G. G
´
ıslad
´
ottir & A. M.
´
Olafsson (Eds) Þolm
¨
ork
ferðamennsku
´
ı Landmannalaugum [Tourism Carrying Capacity in Landmannalaugar], pp. 51–72
(Ferðam
´
alar
´
að
´
Islands, H
´
ask
´
oli
´
Islands, H
´
ask
´
olinn
´
a Akureyri, Ferðam
´
alasetur
´
Islands).
Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir, A. D. (2009) Wilderness tourism in Iceland: Threats and opportunities, in: M. C. Hall, D. K.
M
¨
uller & J. Saarinen (Eds) Nordic Tourism. Issues and Cases, pp. 139–143 (Bristol: Channel View
Publications).
Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir, A. D. (2010) Planning nature tourism in Iceland based on tourist attitudes, Tourism Geogra-
phies, 12(1), pp. 25–52.
Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir, A. D. &
´
Olafsd
´
ottir, R. (2004) Sustainable tourism management. Application and appraisal
of the tourism carrying capacity and the recreation opportunity spectrum dynamics, in: T. Hilding-
Rydevik & A. H. Theodorsdottir (Eds) Planning for Sustainable Development – the Practice and
Potential of Environmental Assessment. Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Environmental Assessment
Conference, Reykjav
´
ık, Iceland, pp. 307–317.
Sæþ
´
orsd
´
ottir, A. D.,
´
Olafsd
´
ottir, R. &
´
Olafsson, R. (2009) H
´
alendi
´
Islands, auðlind
´
utivistar og
ferðamennsku [The Icelandic Highlands – Resource for recreation and tourism]. N
´
att
´
urufræ-
ð
ingurinn, 78(1-2), pp. 33–46.
The Wilderness Act (1964). Section 2. (c) Definition of wilderness. Public Law 88–577 (16 U.S. C.
1131–1136). 88th Congress, Second Session, September 3.
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011

298 R.
´
Olafsd
´
ottir & M. C. Runnstr
¨
om
Notes on Contributors
Rannveig
´
Olafsd
´
ottir is an Associate Professor at the Department of Tourism and
Geography at the University of Iceland and a researcher at the Icelandic Tourism
Research Centre. Rannveig completed a PhD in Physical Geography from Lund
University, Sweden, in 2001. Her main research interests are tourism and GIS, envi-
ronmental planning and management.
Micael C. Runnstr
¨
om is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Physical
Geography and Ecosystems Analysis at Lund University in Sweden. He completed a
PhD in Physical Geography from Lund University in 2003. His specialisms are GIS
and remote sensing applications and GIS educational development.
Downloaded By: [Olafsdottir, Rannveig] At: 21:46 8 June 2011