Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access
titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies,
associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates
your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use.
Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use.
Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher
as copyright holder.
BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit
publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical
research.
Participatory Planning Under Scenarios of Glacier Retreat and Tourism
Growth in Southeast Iceland
Authors: Johannes Welling, Rannveig Ólafsdóttir, Þorvarður Árnason, and Snævarr
Guðmundsson
Source: Mountain Research and Development, 39(2)
Published By: International Mountain Society
URL: https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-18-00090.1
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Participatory Planning Under Scenarios of Glacier
Retreat and Tourism Growth in Southeast Iceland
Johannes Welling
1
*, Rannveig ´
Olafsd
ottir
1
,
Þ
orvarður
Arnason
2
, and Snævarr Guðmundsson
3
* Corresponding author: hwelling@hi.is
1
Department of Geography and Tourism Studies, University of Iceland, Sturlugata 7, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland
2
Hornafjordur Research Center, Litlubr
u 2, 780 Hornafj €
orður, Iceland
3
South East Iceland Nature Research Center, Litlubr
u 2, 780 Hornafj €
orður, Iceland
Ó2019 Welling et al. This open access article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please credit the authors and the full source.
Glacial mountain
environments are
changing rapidly as a
result of climate change
and the expansion of
nature-based recreation.
Anticipatory planning to
adapt to such changes is a
key management challenge. The aim of this study was to
explore how adaptation planning for recreation sites in these
areas can be supported using par ticipatory scenario planning
(PSP). For this purpose, a study area in southeast Iceland was
chosen where management is likely to be heavily impacted in
the near future. PSP involves local stakeholder workshops in
which participants generate maps reflecting plausible glacial
land cover and land use in the near future. This process takes
place in stages, including the identification of potential drivers
of land-use change, development of multiple land-use
scenarios, and examination of the potential consequences of
these scenarios and options for adapting to them. The study
demonstrates that PSP can be a valuable tool to support
recreational land-use planning in glacial landscapes, and to
improve anticipatory adaptation to potentially undesirable
future changes. PSP also has the potential to provide salient
and usable knowledge for local stakeholders, stimulate
stakeholders to elaborate on long-term changes and associated
uncertainties through scenario construction and visualization,
provide insight into the adaptive capacity of current recreational
planning systems, and reframe stakeholders’ guiding
assumptions to encourage a more future-oriented mentality.
This approach could be valuable in other glaciated mountain
areas and in recreation areas where there are multiple
significant future changes in landscape attributes, processes,
and uses at play simultaneously.
Keywords: Participatory scenario planning; glacial land-cover
mapping; land-use mapping; outdoor recreation; climate change
adaptation; local stakeholders; Vatnaj€
okull National Park;
Iceland.
Peer-reviewed: March 2019 Accepted: 15 May 2019
Introduction
Glacial mountain environments are changing rapidly as a
result of climate change (eg Vaughan et al 2013; Huss et al
2017) and the expansion of nature-based recreation
(Welling et al 2015). Numerous studies (Furunes and
Mykletun 2012; Ritter et al 2012; Purdie et al 2015) have
shown that the overlap of these 2 trends has diverse
implications for the visitors and managers of glacier
recreation sites—for example, the increased risk of visitor
accidents due to landslides and rockfall, scenic landscape
changes, and reduced accessibility to and within glacier
recreation sites.
Empirical research has been conducted to project
future demand for glacier site visits, revealing a
considerable reduction in demand as a result of the
deterioration of glacier scenery (Stewart et al 2016;
Groulx et al 2017) or complete disappearance of glaciers
(Yuan et al 2006; Scott et al 2008). Conversely, the
disappearance of glaciers is also viewed by some as a
reason to visit them in a form of ‘‘last chance tourism’’
(Dawson et al 2011; Stewart et al 2016), which
paradoxically can increase glacier shrinkage due to the
heat released by large-scale tourism activities at glacier
sites (Wang et al 2019). Despite these projected changes
in demand, empirical studies on the behavior of glacier
tourism entrepreneurs (eg Furunes and Mykletun 2012;
Wilson 2012; Espiner and Becken 2014; Wilson et al
2014) reveal that a majority do not consider the
potential further recession of the glaciers to be a
significant challenge to their business success and that
most respond reactively rather than proactively to these
environmental changes, focused on maintaining the
‘‘status quo and waiting to see what happens’’ (Wilson et
al 2014: 35).
Many of the most popular glacier recreation sites are
located in protected mountain areas (Wang and Jiao 2012;
Lemieux et al 2018). Although such areas have
management plans, management of protected areas is
often hampered by the lack of proactive climate change
Mountain Research and Development (MRD)
An international, peer-reviewed open access journal
published by the International Mountain Society (IMS)
www.mrd-journal.org
MountainDevelopment
Transformation knowledge
D1Mountain Research and Development Vol 39 No 2 May 2019: D1–D13 https://doi.o rg/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18- 00090.1
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
adaptation planning and implementation by conservation
and recreation practitioners (West et al 2009; Lemieux
and Scott 2011). Proactive, adaptive land-use planning for
glacier recreation sites is critical to address current and
future challenges in a sustainable and cost-effective
manner.
Lemieux and Scott (2011) argue that an important
reason for the current lack of anticipatory adaptation is
the high degree of uncertainty about the effects of climate
change. This uncertainty is especially relevant in glacial
landscapes, which undergo continuous and unpredictable
change, such as the erratic retreat of glacier margins, the
emergence of glacier lakes and streams, and the
continuous and often large-scale course alterations of
glacier rivers (Benn and Evans 2010; Bj€ornsson 2017).
Other researchers (eg Shaw et al 2009; Hagerman et al
2010; Mastrandrea et al 2010) assert that scientific
research for adaptation planning often falls short of
providing information that can be directly useful in
practical decision-making.
New approaches are therefore needed to more
effectively support recreational land-use planning and
management for climate change adaptation in glacial
mountain environments (McDowell et al 2014; Rannow et
al 2014). Such approaches need to address the high
uncertainty inherent in glacier recreation sites and to
produce information that can be used in practical
decision-making.
Participatory scenario planning (PSP) can support
decision-making in unpredictable environments by (1)
describing plausible future conditions with a range of
potential implications (Peterson et al 2003; Mott Lacroix
et al 2015) and (2) engaging stakeholders in the
development and application of scenarios, thus cocreating
understanding and knowledge and enhancing the
relevance, credibility, and legitimacy of the resulting
information (Bizikova et al 2015). PSP has been applied to
different issues in glacial and nonglacial mountain
environments, including tourism planning (Malek and
Boerboom 2015), management of natural parks (Daconto
and Sherpa 2010), risk management (Nussbaumer et al
2014), and development of collective local adaptive
capacity (Christmann and Aw-Hassan 2015).
Scenarios can be descriptive, exploring what could
happen, or normative, exploring what ideally should
happen (Borjeson et al 2006). Descriptive scenarios are
more suitable for projecting future trends through the
exploration of diverse drivers of change based on existing
trends or stakeholders’ estimations, while normative
scenarios are more suitable for developing strategies to
reach a desirable future condition (Houet et al 2010).
Several PSP approaches use visualization techniques to
increase a topic’s understandability and relevance to local
stakeholders (eg Hoyer and Chang 2014; Malek and
Boerboom 2015; Brewington et al 2017). For example,
maps have been used effectively to visualize climate
change impacts across time and space, and to enhance
understanding of complex environmental issues, increase
stakeholder engagement, and promote behavioral change
and learning (Sheppard 2005; Becken et al 2015).
However, other studies (eg Reed et al 2013; Newell and
Canessa 2018) point out that visualization techniques pose
the risk of visual bias—by which aspects of scenarios that,
for example, are easily represented visually or evoke a
sense of place receive more attention from focus group
participants than other aspects.
This study explored ways that PSP can support
recreational land-use planning and decision-making in
glacial landscapes and how it can improve anticipatory
adaptation to potential undesirable future changes. To
this end, a PSP process was developed, grounded on a
combination of scientific expertise and local stakeholders’
engagement, and a popular glacier recreation site in
southeast Iceland was chosen as a case study.
Study area
Europe’s largest glaciers are in Iceland, where they cover
about 10% of the landmass (Bj€ornsson 2017). Since the
1990s, glaciers in Iceland have been the setting of
increasing outdoor recreation and adventure activities,
which have created a substantial niche tourist market, on
which some regions of Iceland have become economically
dependent (Welling and
Arnason 2016). The case study
area, called Þr€ong, is on the southern edge of the
Vatnaj€okull ice cap and has become a glacier recreation
site over the past decade (Figure 1). It is approximately
16.5 km
2
in area and includes the eastern snout (terminus)
of the outlet glacier Breiðamerkurj€okull, where glacier
recreation has been gradually increasing during the past 5
years. The study area borders the west side of the
proglacial lake (a moraine-dammed lake that emerges
adjacent to the frontal margin of a glacier) J€okulsarlon,
one of the most popular tourist destinations in Iceland,
which received around 800,000 visitors in 2017
(Þorhallsdottir and ´
Olafsson 2019). In July 2017, the area
became a part of Vatnaj€okull National Park, but the
management plan for this area remains to be developed.
Currently, the Þr€ong site has no visitor infrastructure
or facilities, and it can only be accessed by an unmarked
and unmaintained track, only passable by a four-wheel-
drive vehicle. Recreation activities include guided glacier
hikes during the summer and ice-cave tours during the
winter (
Arnason and Welling 2019). Around 27,000 people
visited the Þr€ong site in 2018 (Þorhallsdottir and ´
Olafsson
2019), most of them on guided tours. Nonguided visitors
are currently rare due to the site’s limited accessibility. A
recent economic impact study of Vatnaj€okull National
Park (Siltanen 2018) stressed the importance of park
visitation to the regional economy, showing that the
park’s direct economic impacts are US$88.3 million, with
D2Mountain Research and Development https://doi.or g/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18-0 0090.1
MountainDevelopment
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
an economic impact-to-cost ratio of 15:1 and the creation
of 71 full-time jobs.
The study area is characterized by a dynamic
landscape. The southeast glaciers of Vatnaj€okull are
located in the warmest and wettest area of Iceland
(Hannesdottir et al 2010) and therefore respond quickly
to changes in temperature and precipitation. The
terminus of Breiðamerkurj€okull has retreated .5 km,
losing 11.2% (114 km
2
) of its volume from the late 19th
century to 2010 (Guðmundsson et al 2017). Since the start
of this millennium, the southeast outlet glaciers of
Vatnaj€okull have retreated rapidly; according to
Hannesdottir and Baldursson (2017), their mass loss per
unit area is among the highest in the world. In line with
global climate change trends (IPCC 2013), climate
projections for southeast Iceland show an increase in
annual temperature of 2–2.48C under Representation
Concentration Pathway 4.5 and 3.4–48C under
Representation Concentration Pathway 8.5 by 2081–2100
(Icelandic Meteorological Office 2017). Glacier models
(based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Special Report on Emission Scenarios A2 and B2; IPCC
2000) indicate that southern Vatnaj€okull could lose
around 25% of its current volume within the next 50 years
(Bj€ornsson and Palsson 2008).
Applying PSP to the study area
We used PSP to explore future scenarios, their potential
social and environmental consequences, and potential
solutions to these consequences (Carlsen et al 2013). Our
initial approach was primarily based on studies by Carlsen
et al (2013), who created tailor-made scenarios engaging
local stakeholders in their design and application, and
Houet et al (2010), who combined landscape modeling and
scenario-based approaches to map future land-use
changes. These 2 studies provided a foundation for the
PSP process used in this study, which consisted of 4 basic
stages (the first carried out primarily by researchers and
the others in cooperation with local stakeholders):
preparation, system analysis, scenario construction, and
scenario evaluation. Each stage contained multiple
sequential steps, as shown in Figure 2.
Preparation
The first stage in the PSP process involved defining the
study area, selecting a time frame, and identifying and
selecting representative stakeholders. As a time frame for
this study, we chose 2016–2026. According to Purdie
(2013), this time span is short enough to encompass a
foreseeable future, which entrepreneurs and tourism
FIGURE 1 Location of Þr€
ong recreation site, showing the glacier margin as of 2010. (Map by S. Guðmundsson)
D3Mountain Research and Development https://doi.o rg/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18- 00090.1
MountainDevelopment
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
planning and management actors ideally want to
understand insofar as it pertains to changes in the
accessibility of glacier sites and risk regimes. Moreover,
management plans for recreation destinations typically
cover no more than 10 years (Thomas and Middleton
2003).
Local stakeholders were the key data source in the
development of the PSP process. However, power
inequalities within stakeholder groups and differing levels
of knowledge, worldviews, interests, and semantics can
constrain meaningful engagement (Rounsevell and
Metzger 2010; Reed et al 2013). Therefore, an important
step was to convene a local stakeholder group in which the
key interest groups concerned with recreational land use
in the case study area were represented proportionally. It
has been pointed out (eg Bizikova et al 2015) that
connecting PSP with an existing stakeholder network can
assist in identifying key stakeholders and can help to
establish trust and mutual recognition among workshop
participants. We therefore decided to connect the
research approach of this study to an existing local
stakeholder’s network, a closed regional social media
group that promotes nature-based tourism education.
This was an important aspect of the study because it
increased participants’ willingness to share information
and to speak freely during the workshops. Trust in the
participatory process was further enhanced by appointing
local workshop facilitators who were perceived by the
stakeholders as neutral actors in recreational land-use
planning.
A stakeholder group of 14 participants (of whom 8
were men), all local residents, was established. Three
workshops were held, each with 8–10 participants drawn
from this group, representing the main stakeholders in
the area (Table 1). The workshops were held in H€ofn, the
only village in the municipality, in November 2016, June
2017, and October 2017. In each workshop, different
nominal group techniques (ie structured face-to-face
group session methods; Delbecq et al 1975) were
employed—such as brainstorming, problem
identification, group discussions, and solution
generation—to obtain the necessary data.
To design future land-cover maps representing
responses to future climate change in the case study area,
a 2-step glacial land-cover modeling technique was
applied, based on the work of Guðmundsson et al (2017).
In the first step, 2 digital land-cover maps of the study
area, for the years 2010 and 2016, were created using light
detection and ranging (LiDAR) digital elevation models
(DEMs) of the Vatnaj€okull ice cap (Johannesson et al 2011,
2013), Landsat 8 images, and the geographical database of
the National Land Survey of Iceland. The 2016 ice-surface
geometry was further constructed by studying the
elevation changes between 2010 and 2016 near the
terminus and its lateral margins and by using differential
FIGURE 2 Parti cipatory scenario planning process used in this study.
D4Mountain Research and Development https://doi.or g/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18-0 0090.1
MountainDevelopment
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
global positioning system elevation data collected on the
glacier in 2016, also with the LiDAR DEM.
In the second step, a predictive land-cover map of the
study area in 2026 was created by adding an extrapolation
of the terminus position and the outlet’s ice surface. The
assumption was based on a continuation of the annual
average retreat (about 96 69 m) and surface lowering
(3.5–6 m) of Breiðamerkurj€okull during 2010–2016. The
elevation contours of the assumed exposed foreland
within the 2016 boundary were based on glacier subfloor
uplift development derived from a radio-echometric
survey of Breiðamerkurj€okull in 1991 (Bj€ornsson et al
1992).
System analysis
The second stage involved analyzing the recreational land
uses of the study area as a socioecological system and
exploring how drivers of change may influence this system
through a collective cognitive mapping exercise.
Cognitive mapping is a technique that captures a
stakeholder’s view of a particular issue in a graphical
representation (Tegarden and Sheetz 2003). Through
cognitive mapping, the qualitative knowledge of expert
participants and local stakeholders is summarized to
construct a simple systems model in which nodes
represent concepts or ideas and arrows denote the
interactions or linkages between these ideas (Mendoza
and Prabhu 2006). This format gives participants the
opportunity to investigate the complex interconnections
between the elements of the system and to gain insights
into the consequential relationships and feedbacks among
different system issues, exogenous drivers, local variables,
and outcomes (Goodier and Soetanto 2013).
During the first workshop, participants were asked to
identify drivers of land-use change within the study area.
After discussions, the stakeholders selected the drivers
they considered most important and listed key local
system variables that were directly connected to them.
Based on these drivers and variables, the stakeholders
developed a cognitive map of the recreation system in the
study area.
Scenario construction
In the third stage of the first workshop, participants
designed alternative future scenarios in the form of
narratives and recreational landscape maps of the study
area. Participants were asked to imagine 2 to 3 contrasting
but plausible pathways along which each identified driver
of land-use change might develop by 2026 (their
development pathways). Then, a simple scenario matrix
(Carlsen et al 2013) was used to put together a relevant,
important, and challenging combination of different
driver development pathways and to construct and label
significantly different plausible future scenarios based on
‘‘scenario logic,’’ a simple method to structure potentially
divergent issues and statements that underpin a story line
to allow comparison and establish internal consistency
(Rounsevell and Metzger 2010). Subsequently, based on
the cognitive system map, the influence of the different
combinations of potential development pathways on key
system variables in the study area were explored, and the
development of the system variables for each scenario was
translated into 1-page descriptive story lines.
During the last step in this stage, future land-use
changes were assessed by comparing the development of
the land-use variables described in the story lines with the
spatial distribution of current land uses of the study area.
The development pathways were translated into simple
spatial rules to modify current land-use attributes based
on Carter et al (2017) to convert the scenario narratives
into spatial representations. Together with the outcomes
of the 2026 land-cover mapping, the land-use attributes
were processed using GIS (geographic information system
technology) into landscape maps that consisted of a set of
accumulated (overlaid) land-use and land-cover feature
layers.
In general, it is problematic to validate exploratory
scenario assumptions because they are derived from worlds
that might happen in the future and have never happened
in the past, which makes it impossible to test them against
empirical data (Rounsevell and Metzger 2010). We
validated all scenario story lines and maps through
discussion in the stakeholder workshops. To evaluate the
plausibility of the recreational land-use scenarios and land-
TABLE 1 Focus group participants.
Stakeholder group Details Number
Entrepreneurs Local glacier tour operators 5
National park Manager and staff of Vatnaj€
okull National Park 3
Municipality Officials from planning and tourism departments 3
Nongovernmental organization Nature conservation organization 1
Destination marketing organization Regional tourism promotion and strategy development organization 1
Scientists Experts in natural history 1
D5Mountain Research and Development https://doi.o rg/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18- 00090.1
MountainDevelopment
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
cover changes, we compared them to other scenarios of
future tourism development in Iceland (eg KPMG 2015;
Ministry of Industries and Innovation 2015) and
simulations of the retreat of Breiðamerkurj€okull glacier
(Bj€ornsson et al 2001; Nick et al 2007).
Scenario evaluation
The final stage of the process took place in subsequent
workshops. In the second workshop, the scenario story
lines and maps were presented and discussed with the
local stakeholder group to identify the most important
opportunities and threats for each scenario. In the third
and last workshop, the stakeholders identified a set of
options to adapt to the main threats and opportunities
identified earlier, and they assessed the practicality of
implementing the main options, including the availability
and sufficiency of land-use governance and management
products and services.
Results
Cognitive map of drivers of land-use change
During the first stakeholder workshop, the participants
identified several drivers of change, that is, external
variables of the Þr€ong site for the study period.
Participants discussed these drivers and selected 3 for
further discussion: (1) internal tourism development, (2)
national land-use policies and resources, and (3) social
media coverage. Next, they projected these drivers’ likely
development pathways (eg increase or decrease). During
the second part of the workshop, participants identified,
discussed, and selected 11 internal system variables on the
basis of the 3 selected drivers of change. They then
determined the connections between the variables and
whether the connected variables changed in the same and/
or opposite directions. Based on these findings, they
developed a cognitive map of the recreation system in the
study area (Figure 3).
Scenario matrix, story lines, and maps
The scenario matrix construction resulted in 3 plausible
and challenging scenarios of recreational land use in the
study area in 2026: business as usual, hot spot, and green
tourism (Table 2). These scenarios differed in terms of
development direction and the intensity of the local
system variables, such as number of tourists and tour
operators, demand for nonguided recreation, marketing,
visitor regulation, and infrastructure development. The
scenario maps are shown in Figure 4, and a summary of
the corresponding story lines is given in Table 3. The
comparison between the land-cover maps of 2016 and
2026 suggested glacier retreat of almost 1 km and surface
lowering near the 2016 terminus of approximately 33–58
m. The estimated shrinkage of the Breiðamerkurj€okull
snout by 2026 also was expected to lead to the emergence
of approximately 2.6 km
2
of deglaciated moraine,
FIGURE 3 Cognitive map of the recreational system in the study area.
D6Mountain Research and Development https://doi.or g/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18-0 0090.1
MountainDevelopment
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
including 2 rivers, and to a shift of the glacier margin to
an elevation 20 m higher.
Scenario evaluation
The story lines and maps of the 3 scenarios were validated
through discussion with the local stakeholder group
during the second workshop. Workshop participants
identified 14 threats and 12 opportunities (Table 4). One
opportunity and 2 threats were selected from each
scenario to address in a third stakeholder workshop,
where participants identified, discussed, and defined
adaptation options to address the selected opportunities
TABLE 2 Scenario ma trix.
Driver of change
Scenario
Business as usual Hot spot Green tourism
National land management policy No change—limited regulation of recreation
in protected areas
Slow extension Fast extension
Tourism Slow increase Fast increase Slow increase
Social media coverage No change—low coverage Fast increase Fast increase
FIGURE 4 Three scenarios for recreational land use in the study area in 2026.
D7Mountain Research and Development https://doi.o rg/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18- 00090.1
MountainDevelopment
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
and threats. The options identified by workshop
participants can be summarized as improving regulation/
enforcement and planning/maintenance processes,
stimulating research and education, promoting tourism,
communication, and cooperation.
Due to the limited amount of time that was available
during the workshop and maximum amount of time
participants can be asked to devote to a focus group
session, the workshop participants were asked to select 1–
2 of the main adaptation options for addressing each
threat selected in the previous workshop. After selecting
adaptation options, participants assessed how each could
be implemented in practice under current management
TABLE 3 Story lines for the 3 scenarios.
Variables
Scenario
Business as usual Hot spot Green tourism
Visitors per year Around 50,000 Around 250,000 Around 50,000
Number of tour
operators
Only a few companies
offer guided hiking
tours
About 25 companies offer transport
to the area for sightseeing, and 10
companies offer special hiking or
ice-climbing tours
No more than 5 companies receive
a license to operate tours each year
Visitors pursuing
nonguided recreation
Very few Most About half
Marketing The site is not promoted
as a tourist destination
The site is promoted as a tourist
destination
The site is promoted as an
ecotourism destination
Land-use
restrictions
None for visitors or tour
operators
None for tour operators Nonrecreational and nonmotorized
zones; ban on fossil-fuel-driven
vehicles; restrictions on type and
number of tour operators
Infrastructure A single dirt road; no
visitor facilities
Gravel road suitable for regular cars,
parking area, toilet facilities, food
shop, picnic tables, marked
sight-seeing paths, hotel at the
entrance
Small mountain hut and small
campground with minimal services,
marked geo-heritage educational
walking trails, and connection to
southern Iceland’s network of
hiking and biking routes
TABLE 4 Threats and opportunities identified for each scenario.
Scenario
Business as usual Hot spot Green tourism
Threats
a)
Opportunities
a)
Threats
a)
Opportunities
a)
Threats
a)
Opportunities
a)
Conflict and chaos Research Increased pressure on
nature and society
Economic growth;
increased income
Wishful thinking Holistic
planning
Poor access Passive nature
conservation
Diminished wilderness
experience
Increased business
opportunities
Conflicts due
to changes
Ecotourism
Lack of planning Tour diversity and
availability
Risk of accidents Increased
accessibility
Excessive
management
Wilderness
experience
Risk of accidents Experiencing
untouched
nature
Increase in conflicts Educating the
public
Limited market Research
Lack of visitor
planning or policy
Short-lived situation
followed by a rapid
socioeconomic and
environmental downfall
a)
The threats and opportunities in bold were selected to be addressed in the third workshop.
D8Mountain Research and Development https://doi.or g/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18-0 0090.1
MountainDevelopment
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
and governance conditions, guided by the following
questions:
What kind of governance or management products and
services are required to implement the particular
adaptation option?
Are those required products and services currently
available?
If the required products and services exist, are they
available in sufficient quantity and quality?
If the required products and services do not exist or are
insufficient, are they easy to acquire, increase, or
improve to allow implementation of the particular
adaptation option?
Of the 7 selected adaptation options, 4 were
considered difficult or impossible to implement under
current decision-making and governance conditions,
because at least 1 of the products and services required to
implement the option was absent or insufficient (Table 5).
Not one of the selected adaptation options was considered
sufficiently available by the stakeholders. However, the
options—repair and extend the current track, extend a
network of walking paths in Þr€ong, and establish a
cooperation platform between companies and park—
required actions or products that were not all currently
available but would be, according to workshop
participants, relatively easy to acquire or increase or
improve.
Discussion
The value of PSP in glacial recreation sites
Outdoor recreation is an interconnected activity that
depends on the interplay of natural and socioeconomic
services and goods. Glacier mountain environments have
complex dynamics in which biological, geophysical, and
socioeconomic trends and actors interact and are
affected by climate change. An important strength of the
TABLE 5 Assessment of adaptation options.
Threat Adaptation option
Products and
services needed Available? Sufficient?
a)
Easy to
acquire or
change?
a)
Possible to
implement?
Poor access Track repair and
extension
Financing for infrastructure
by tour operators
Yes No Yes Yes
Permits for commercial use Yes Yes n/a
Visitor management plan No n/a Yes
Risk of
accidents
Requirement to travel
with guide
Specific regulation No n/a No No
Enforcement of regulation Yes No n/a
Pressure on
nature
Network of walking
paths
Infrastructure fund financed
by users (tour companies)
No n/a Yes Yes
Expert knowledge (eg
concerning hiking trails)
Yes No Yes
Stakeholder
conflict
Proactive master
planning and local
planning
Holistic vision No n/a No No
Stakeholders willing to
cooperate
Yes No Yes
Restrictive
management
Cooperation platform
between companies
and park
Facilitation and maintenance
of cooperation platform
Yes No Yes Yes
Promotion of changed
attitudes to nature
Education, training,
knowledge
Yes No No No
Limited
market
Promotion of tourism
products
Marketing to increase
awareness of the value
of the area
Yes No Yes No
Grants for environmentally
friendly tourism innovation
and development
No n/a No
a)
n/a, not applicable.
D9Mountain Research and Development https://doi.o rg/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18- 00090.1
MountainDevelopment
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
process developed in this study is the successful
integration of socioeconomic and natural environmental
changes into future scenarios. This is supported by
Bonzanigo et al (2016), who concluded that such
integration is a much more effective and realistic way to
analyze the impacts of climate change on and responses
to recreational land uses than examining these in
isolation. The process furthermore enables the
cocreation of future land-use scenarios by combining
science-based knowledge in the form of land-cover
dynamic modeling with local knowledge of land-use
practices. Such approaches have been shown to provide
effective ways to produce usable knowledge in support of
adaptation-related decision-making (Dilling and Lemos
2011; Meadow et al 2015).
For the effective implementation of PSP, it is
important that the process stimulates understanding and
trust among stakeholders by using an existing regional
network as the basis for stakeholder workshops, selecting
workshop participants who represent a balanced mixture
of local interest groups, and appointing as workshop
mediators local residents who are perceived as neutral
(in this study, the headmaster of a secondary school and
director of a research center). Furthermore, the
effectiveness of the stakeholder workshops is enhanced
by developing tailor-made scenarios on the basis of the
stakeholders’ concerns and perceptions (ie their
identification and prioritization of drivers of change of
recreational land uses and their development pathways),
developing and addressing cocreated knowledge at
relevant spatial and temporal scales, and visualizing this
knowledge in the form of maps to add a spatial
dimension to the process. These last 2 aspects are
supported by Purdie (2013), who stressed that the
mismatch between glacier-based science and
practitioners of glacier tourism can partly be addressed
by focusing on short-term processes and site-specific
studies.
In addition, the use of GIS techniques makes it
possible to integrate plausible future recreational land-
use attributes—such as roads, hiking trails, and restriction
zones—into the land-cover maps, thus making the
scenarios more in tune with stakeholders’ immediate
concerns and interests. Maps can also provide practical
insights regarding the accessibility of a glacier site, such as
in our case the nonemergence of a previously anticipated
proglacial lake in front of the glacier terminus and the
elevation of exposed moraine in the future, both of which
were mentioned by entrepreneurs as important obstacles
to business operations. Moreover, the maps’ spatial and
temporal scales make the derived information easier to
integrate into the existing planning process.
To assess the future recession of the
Breiðamerkurj€okull glacier located at the Þr€ong site, this
study used recession rate data from previous years to
produce a map of projected future land cover. This
approach provided accurate and robust results for the
study area but did not generate varying plausible future
outlooks other than the continuation of the current rate
of glacier retreat. Regarding biophysical changes, the
scenarios presented only limited changes from the
current land-cover situation, resulting in the
entrepreneurs’ identification and selection of adaptation
measures that did not differ from current practices. In
addition, the glacier land-cover map may have confirmed
many stakeholders’ perception that the glacier is
receding in an erratic but gradual way, without taking
into consideration the crossing of possible natural
thresholds that would force major transformations of
business operations and site management. Therefore, an
important future improvement of landscape maps for
thePSPprocesswouldbetoundertakemoreexploratory
land-cover scenario development with varying landscape
attributes.
Workshop participants were empowered by their
contributions to the creation and application of the
different scenarios. First, the cocreation of the scenarios
ensured that all participants had a stake in the final
outcome; they all contributed their own knowledge and
expertise to the development of the scenarios, and they
reached a consensus. According to Reed (2008), such an
increase of participants’ ownership of the scenario-
planning process strengthens their sense of responsibility
to act on what they have learned. During the scenario
development process, greater mutual understanding is
further attained within a diverse group, whose members
would otherwise be less likely to have the opportunity to
meet and discuss these issues. Individually, the
participants tended to be caught up in their own
immediate concerns, but when given a task to solve
together, these private concerns faded into the
background. Second, the future-oriented aspect of the
exercise reduced latent tensions within the stakeholder
group, as the problems and solutions did not affect the
present-day situation, with its immediate conflicts and
competition.
The construction and evaluation of the scenarios also
provided insights into stakeholders’ values, concerns, and
interests. For example, workshop participants focused on
short-term issues, such as the current rapid growth of
tourism to protected areas in Iceland and the governance
of public lands, both of which are debated and have a
major impact on local conditions (Petursson et al 2016;
Tverijonaite et al 2018). Such issues were prioritized above
incremental and long-term changes, such as glacier
recession, as important drivers of land-use change. This in
line with findings, for example, by Evans et al (2013),
which indicated that stakeholders in the Great Barrier
Reef in Australia perceived future climate change
scenarios that induce biophysical changes to the reef as
being relative and only one of many challenges with which
reef managers and industries needed to deal. Such
D10Mountain Research and Development https://doi.or g/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18-0 0090.1
MountainDevelopment
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
findings indicate that climate change implications cannot
be understood as isolated factors; rather, they should be
viewed as constituting interconnected and cumulative
effects on the socioeconomic and natural environments.
An improvement of our process would be to bring
together experts (eg climate change scientists) with local
stakeholders for the evaluation of the scenarios in order
to address issues that transcend prevailing regional
rationales and perceptions regarding incremental and
long-term changes such as climate change.
General perceptions among stakeholders of the risk of
glacier retreat also seem to have an impact on their level
of concern about the physical changes to glacier
landscapes. The framing of climate change as a global
phenomenon that manifests itself in local impacts, such as
glacier recession, could generate greater interest or action
among those that experience such local impacts on a
personal level (Shaw et al 2009). However, in cases where
such manifestation is perceived as entailing limited risk or
being controllable, this may actually lead to reduced
concern. This is in line with findings from studies focusing
on stakeholder perceptions of natural environments
affected by climate change (eg Behringer et al 2000;
Traw€oger 2014; Lupp et al 2016). These studies show that
due to climate change skepticism or due to personal
experiences of limited impact severity or successful
adaptation, climate change is not regarded as a significant
risk. Such perceptions often result in a wait-and-see
strategy for coping with future climate-induced changes
(Berkhout 2012), and they can easily lead to
maladaptation when natural or managerial thresholds (eg
the situation when the margin of a glacier becomes
impossible to reach on foot or by car) are crossed. In
addition, it can be counterproductive to continue a
business-as-usual strategy of increasing infrastructure and
the number of transport vehicles in order to adapt to
reduced accessibility of glacier sites; indeed, many visitors
see these measures as a disturbance of wilderness and a
degradation of the scenery, which in turn can lead to
reduced visitation (Groulx et al 2017).
Anticipatory adaptation to climate-change-related
challenges
PSP also provides insight into the capacity of the
recreation planning system to adapt to potential future
changes, such as glacier recession. The results of the
scenario evaluation indicated that different factors can
enhance the capacity of recreational land-use
management to properly respond to potential future
threats. One such factor is the presence of an informal
network of major stakeholders, which can be mobilized to
meet specific targets or to offer support for adaptation
decision-making. Furthermore, the results show that the
inclusion of local knowledge of the natural environment
and recreational possibilities contributes to an awareness
of the implications of climate change, which is an
important requirement to increase adaptation action
planning (Naess 2013).
However, the results also reveal barriers to
implementing adaptive actions that reduce management’s
adaptive capacity. For example, the institutional planning
and policy processes are inadequate and difficult to
modify due to their rigidity and lack of transparency, both
of which result from insufficient communication between
policymakers and the people who are affected by the
policies. The results further indicate that lack of funding
for infrastructure, education, and maintenance may limit
the adaptive capacity of recreational land-use managers.
These results are in line with findings of other studies,
which showed that limited financial resources and
complex and rigid institutional structures significantly
hinder anticipatory adaptation planning for protected
areas (eg Jantarasami et al 2010; Lonsdale et al 2017).
Another crucial limitation to building adaptive
capacity in protected area management in Iceland is the
absence of policy for adaptation planning in general, a
constraint that has been identified in other studies as well
(eg Lemieux et al 2013).
Conclusion
The PSP process developed and applied in this study
involves the identification of potential drivers of
recreational land-use change in the context of climate
change, the development of multiple scenarios for future
recreational land use, and the examination of the
potential consequences of these scenarios and adaptation
measures to lessen or counter these consequences. The
study results demonstrate that PSP is a valuable tool to
support recreational land-use planning and decision-
making in glacial landscapes, as well as to improve
anticipatory adaptation to potentially undesirable future
changes.
A similar process could be used in glacier regions
worldwide and in other recreational areas where multiple
simultaneous changes in landscape attributes, processes,
and uses are anticipated. Glacier sites in mountain
environments will continue to be impacted by climate
change in future decades, resulting in multiple
dimensions of dynamism (ie the interaction of
biophysical, land-use, and governance changes in glacier
sites at multiple temporal and spatial scales). Anticipatory
management planning will thus need to address a
constantly moving target, including the cumulative
impacts of both natural and anthropogenic dynamics, and
take into account both direct impacts (through tourism
development) and indirect impacts (through climate
change). Developing such an approach in Iceland is likely
to involve a steep learning curve, as there has been only
limited dialogue among the fields of outdoor recreation
management, nature conservation, and climate change
D11Mountain Research and Development https://doi.o rg/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18- 00090.1
MountainDevelopment
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
adaptation. The process outlined in this paper could
provide a prototype for more anticipatory and climate-
conscious management of recreation in glacial mountain
environments.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is a part of a larger project supported by the European Union
Interreg Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme (Interreg-npa.eu), titled
BuSK (Building shared knowledge capital to support natural resource
governance in the northern periphery). It also received financial support from
Kv
ıskerjasj
oður research fund. We would further like to thank all workshop
participants for their enthusiastic and productive cooperation. Thanks are
also to our anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and
suggestions, which led to significant improvement of this paper.
REFERENCES
Arnason T, Welling JT. 2019. Winter tourism and seasonality in Iceland. In:
Pr€
obstl-Haider U, Richins H, T€
urk S, editors. Winter Tourism. Wallington, United
Kingdom: CABI Publications, pp 442–460.
Becken S, Zammit C, Hendrikx J. 2015. Developing climate chang e maps for
tourism: Essential information or awareness raising? Journal of Travel Research
54(4):430–441.
Behringer J, Buerki R, Fuhrer J. 2000. Participatory integrated assessment of
adaptation to climate change in alpine tourism and mountain agriculture.
Integrated Assessment 1(4):331–338.
Benn ID, Evans, DJA. 2010. Glacier and Glaciation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Berkhout F. 2012. Adaptation to climate change by organizations. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3(1):91–106.
Bizikova L, Rothman DS, Boardley S, Mead S, Kuriakos AT. 2015. Participator y
Scenario Development and Future Visioning in Adaptation Planning: Lessons from
Experience. Ottawa, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable
Development.
Bj€
ornsson H. 2017. The Glaciers of Iceland. Paris, France: Atlantis Press.
Bj€
ornsson H, P
alsson F. 2008. Icelandic glaciers. J€
okull 58:365–386.
Bj€
ornsson H, P
alsson F, Guðmundsson MT. 1992. Breiðamerkurj €
okull.
Niðurst€
oður
ıı
ssj
armælinga 1991 [Breiðamerkurj€
okull. Radio echo sounding of
ice thickness 1991; in Icelandic]. Reykjavik, Iceland: University of Iceland.
Bj€
ornsson H, P
alsson F, Guðmundsson S. 2001 J€
okuls
al
on at
Breidamerkursander, Vatnaj€
okull, Iceland: 20th century changes and future
outlook. J€
okull 50:1–18.
Bonzanigo L, Giupponi C, Balbi S. 2016. Sustainable tourism planning and
climate change adaptation in the Alps: A case study of winter tourism in
mountain communities in the Dolomites. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
24(4):637–652.
Borjeson L, Hojer M, Dreborg KH, Ekvall T, Finnveden G. 2006. Scenario types
and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739.
Brewington L, Keener V, Finucane M, Eaton P. 2017. Participatory scenario
planning for climate change adaptation using remote sensing and GIS. In:
Liang S, editor. Comprehensive Remote Sensing. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Elsevier, pp 236–252.
Carlsen H, Dreborg KH, Wikman-Svahn P. 2013. Tailor-made scenario planning
for local adaptation to climate change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change 18(8):1239–1255.
Carter O, Mitchell MS, Porfririo LL, Hugh S, Lockwood M, Gilfedder LA, Lefroy
EC. 2017. Mapping scenario narratives: A technique to enhance landscape-
scale biodiversity planning. Conservation and Society 15(2):179–188.
Christmann S, Aw-Hassan AA. 2015. A participatory method to enhance the
collective ability to adapt to rapid glacier loss: The case of mountain
communities in Tajikistan. Climatic Change 133(2):267–282.
Daconto G, Sherpa LN. 2010. Applying scenario planning to park and tourism
management in Sagarmatha National Park, Khumbu, Nepal. Mountain
Research and Development 30(2):103–113.
Dawson J, Johnston MJ, Stewart EJ, Lemieux CJ, Lemelin RH, Maher PT,
Grimwood BS. 2011. Ethical considerations of last chance tourism. Journal of
Ecotourism 10:250–265.
Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH. 1975. Group Techniques for
Program Planners. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
Dilling L, Lemos MC. 2011. Creating usable science: Opportunities and
constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science
policy. Global Environmental Change 21(2):680–689.
Espiner S, Becken S. 2014. Tourist towns on the edge: Conceptualising
vulnerability and resilience in a protected area tourism system. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 22(4):646–665.
Evans LS, Hicks CC, Fidelman P, Tobin RC, Perry AL. 2013. Future scenarios
as a research tool: Investigating climate change impacts, adaptation options
and outcomes for the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Human Ecology 41(6):841–
857.
Furunes T, Mykletun RJ. 2012. Frozen adventure at risk? A 7-year follow-up
study of Norwegian glacier tourism. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism 12(4):324–348.
Goodier CI, Soetanto R. 2013. Building future scenarios using cognitive
mapping. Journal of Maps 9(2):203–217.
Groulx M, Lemieux CJ, Lewis JL, Brown S. 2017. Understanding consumer
behaviour and adaptation planning responses to climate-driven environmental
change in Canada’s parks and protected areas: A climate futurescapes
approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60(6):1016–
1035.
Guðmundsson S, Bj€
ornsson H, P
alsson F. 2017. Changes of
Breiðamerkurj€
okull glacier, SE-Iceland, from its late nineteenth century
maximum to the present. Geografiska Annaler:Series A, Physical Geography
99(4):338–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/04353676.2017.1355216.
Hagerman S, Dowlatabadi H, Satterfield T, McDaniels T. 2010. Expert views
on biodiversity conservation in an era of climate change. Global Environmental
Change 20(1):192–207.
Hannesd
ottir H, Baldursson S. 2017. H€
orfandi J€
oklar Melting Glaciers, a Natural
Laboratory to Study Climate Change. Reykjavik, Iceland: Vatnajokulstjod gardur.
Hannesd
ottir H, Z €
ohrer A, Davids H, Sigurgeirsd
ottir SI, Sk
ıı
rnisd
ottir H,
Arnason Þ.2010. Vatnaj€
okull National Park: Geology and Geodynamics. Northern
Environmental Education Development. University of Iceland. Hornafjordur,
Iceland: Hornafjordur Regional Research Centre.
Houet T, Loveland TR, Hubert-Moy L, Gaucherel C, Napton D, Barnes CA,
Sayler K. 2010. Exploring subtle land use and land cover changes: A
framework for future landscape studies. Landscape Ecology 25(2):249–266.
Hoyer RW, Chang H. 2014. Development of future land cover change
scenarios in the metropolitan fringe, Oregon, US, with stakeholder
involvement. Land 3(1):322–341.
Huss M, Bookhagen B, Huggel C, Jacobsen D, Bradley RS, Clague JJ, Vuille M,
Buytaert W, Cayan DR, Greenwood G, Mark BG. 2017. Toward mountains
without permanent snow and ice. Earth’s Future 5(5):418–435.
Icelandic Meteorological Office. 2017. CORDEX Climate Trends for Iceland in
the 21st Century. Report V
I 2017-009. Reykjavik, Iceland: Icelandic
Meteorological Office.
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. 2000. Special Report on
Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group III of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. 2013. Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Jantarasami LC, Lawler JJ, Thomas CW. 2010. Institutional barriers to climate
change adaptation in US national parks and forests. Ecology and Society
15(4):33. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art33.
J
ohannesson T, Bj €
ornsson H, Magn
usson E, Guðmundsson S, P
alsson F,
Sigurðsson O, Thorsteinsson Th, Berthier E. 2013. Ice-volume changes, bias
estimation of mass-balance measurements and changes in subglacial lakes
derived by lidar mapping of the surface of Icelandic glaciers. Annals of
Glaciology 54(63):63–74.
J
ohannesson T, Bj €
ornsson H, P
alsson F, Sigurðsson O, Thorsteinsson TH.
2011. LiDAR mapping of the Snæfellsj€
okull ice cap, western Iceland. J€
okull
61:19–32.
KPMG [Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler]. 2015. Framt
ıı
ðferðaþj
onustunnar
a
Islandi
arið2030 [The future of tourism in Iceland in 2030; in Icelandic].
Reykjavik, Iceland: KPMG. https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/is/
pdf/2016/09/KPMG-Framtid-ferdathjonustunnar-a-Islandi-arid-2030-utgafa.
pdf.
D12Mountain Research and Development https://doi.or g/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18-0 0090.1
MountainDevelopment
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Lemieux CJ, Groulx M, Halpenny E, Stager H, Dawson J, Stewart EJ,
Hvenegaard GT. 2018. ‘‘The end of the Ice Age?’’: Disappear ing world heritage
and the climate change communication imperative. Environmental
Communication 12(5):653–671.
Lemieux CJ, Scott DJ. 2011. Changing climate, challenging choices:
Identifying and evaluating climate change adaptation options for protected
areas management in Ontario, Canada. Environmental Management
48(4):675–690.
Lemieux CJ, Thompson JL, Dawson J, Schuster RM. 2013. Natural re source
manager perceptions of agency performance on climate change. Journal of
Environmental Management 114:178–189.
Lonsdale WR, Kretser HE, Chetkiewicz CL, Cross MS. 2017. Similarities and
differences in barriers and opportunities affecting climate change adaptation
action in four North American landscapes. Environmental Management
60(6):1076–1089.
Lupp G, Heuchele L, Renner C, Syrbe RU, Konold W, Siegrist D. 2016.
Motivations and attitudes to (not) take action for climate change adaptation
in protected areas. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and
Management 8(3):356–374.
Malek ˇ
Z, Boerboom L. 2015. Participatory scenario development to address
potential impacts of land use change: An example from the Italian Alps.
Mountain Research and Development 35(2):126–138.
Mastrandrea MD, Heller NE, Root TL, Schneider SH. 2010. Bridging the gap:
Linking climate-impacts research with adaptation planning and management.
Climatic Change 100(1):87–101.
McDowell G, Stephenson E, Ford J. 2014. Adaptation to climate change in
glaciated mountain regions. Climatic Change 126(1–2):77–91.
Meadow AM, Ferguson DB, Guido Z, Horangic A, Owen G, Wall T. 2015.
Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge.
Weather, Climate, and Society 7(2):179–191.
Mendoza GA, Prabhu R. 2006. Participatory modeling and analysis for
sustainable forest management: Overview of soft system dynamics models
and applications. Forest Policy and Economics 9(2):179–196.
Ministry of Industries and Innovation. 2015. Road Map for Tourism in Iceland.
Reykjavik, Iceland: Ministry of Industries and Innovation. https://www .
stjornarradid.is/media/atvinnuvegaraduneyti-media/media/Acrobat/Road-
Map-for-Tourism-in-Iceland.pdf.
Mott Lacroix K, Hullinger A, Apel M, Brandau W, Megdal SB. 2015. Using
scenario planning to prepare for uncertainty in rural watersheds. The University
of Arizona, Cooperative Extension az1688:1–10. https://wrrc.arizona.edu/
sites/wrrc.arizona.edu/files/Lacroix2016.pdf.
Naess LO. 2013. The role of local knowledge in adaptation to climate change.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4(2):99–10 6.
Newell R, Canessa R. 2018. From sense of place to visualization of place:
Examining people-place relationships for insight on developing
geovisualizations. Heliyon 4(2):e00547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.
2018.e00547.
Nick FM, Van der Kwast J, Oerlemans J. 2007. Simulation of the evolution of
Breidamerkurj€
okull in the late Holocene. Journal of Geophysical Research
112:B01103. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004358.
Nussbaumer S, Schaub Y, Huggel C, Walz A. 2014. Risk estimation for future
glacier lake outburst floods based on local land-use changes. Natural Hazards
and Earth System Sciences 14(6):1611–1624.
Peterson GD, Cumming GS, Carpenter SR. 2003. Scenario planning: A tool for
conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17(2):358–366.
Petursson JG, Thorvardardottir G, Crofts R. 2016. Developing Iceland’s
protected areas: Taking stock and looking ahead. Parks 22(1):13–24.
https://doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2016.parks-22-1.en.
Purdie H. 2013. Glacier retreat and tourism: Insights from New Zealand.
Mountain Research and Development 33(4):463–472.
Purdie H, Gomez C, Espiner S. 2015. Glacier recession and the changing
rockfall hazard: Implications for glacier tourism. New Zealand Geographer
71(3):189–202.
Rannow S, Macgregor NA, Albrecht J, Crick HQ, F €
orster M, Heiland S, Janauer
G, Morecroft MD, Neubert M, Sarbu A, Sienkiewicz J. 2014. Managing
protected areas under climate change: Challenges and priorities.
Environmental Management 54(4):732–743.
Reed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A
literature review. Biological Conservation 141:2417–2431.
Reed MS, Kenter J, Bonn A, Broad K, Burt TP, Fazey IR, Fraser ED, Hubacek K,
Nainggolan D, Quinn CH, Stringer LC. 2013. Participatory scenario
development for environmental management: A methodological framework
illustrated with experience from the UK uplands. Journal of Environmental
Management 128:345–362.
Ritter F, Fiebig M, Muhar A. 2012. Impacts of global warming on
mountaineering: A classification of phenomena affecting the alpine trail
network. Mountain Research and Development 32(1):4–15.
Rounsevell MD, Metzger MJ. 2010. Developing qualitative scenario storylines
for environmental change assessment. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change 1(4):606–619.
Scott D, Jones B, Konopek J. 2008. Exploring potential visitor response to
climate-induced environmental changes in Canada’s Rocky Mountain national
parks. Tourism Review International 12:43–56.
Shaw A, Sheppard S, Burch S, Flanders D, Wiek A, Carmichael J, Robinson J,
Cohen S. 2009. Making local futures tangible—Synthesizing, downscaling,
and visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity build ing.
Global Environmental Change 19(4):447–463.
Sheppard SR. 2005. Landscape visualisation and climate change: The
potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour. Environmental Science &
Policy 8(6):637–654.
Siltanen J. 2018. Economic Impact of Iceland’s Protected Areas and Nature-
Based Tourism Sites. Report for the Ministry for the Environment and Natural
Resources. Reykjavik, Iceland: Institute of Economic Studies. http://hhi.hi.
is/sites/hhi.hi.is/files/sjz/ahrif_fridlystra_svaeda_5.pdf.
Stewart EJ, Wilson J, Espiner S, Purdie H, Lemieux C, Dawson J. 2016.
Implications of climate change for glacier tourism. Tourism Geographies
18(4):377–398.
Tegarden DP, Sheetz SD. 2003. Group cognitive mapping: A methodology and
system for capturing and evaluating managerial and organizational cognition.
Omega 31(2):113–125.
Thomas L, Middleton J. 2003. Management Planning of Protected Areas. Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom: IUCN [International Union for
Conservation of Nature].
Traw€
oger L. 2014. Convinced, ambivalent or annoyed: Tyrolean ski tourism
stakeholders and their perceptions of climate change. Tourism Management
40:338–351.
Tverijonaite E, ´
Olafsd
ottir R, Thorsteinsson T. 2018. Accessibility of protec ted
areas and visitor behaviour: A case study from Iceland. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism 24:1–10.
Vaughan DG, Comiso CJ, Allison J, Carrasco J, Kaser G, Kwok R, Mote P,
Murray T, Paul F, Ren J, Rignot E, Solomina O, Steffen K, Zhang T. 2013.
Observations: Cryosphere. Climate change 2013. In: Stocker TF, et al.,
editors. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp 317–382.
Wang S, Du J, Li S, He H, Xu W. 2019. Impact of tourism activities on glacial
changes based on the tourism heat footprint (THF) method. Journal of Cleaner
Production 215:845–853.
Wang S, Jiao S. 2012. Adaptation models of mountain glacier tourism to
climate change: A case study of Mt. Yulong Snow scenic area. Sciences in
Cold and Arid Regions 4(5):401–407.
Welling J,
Arnason T. 2016. External and internal challenges of glacier
tourism development in Iceland. In: Richins H, Hull JS, editors. Mountain
Tourism: Experiences, Communities, Environments and Sustainable Futures.
Wallingford, United Kingdom: CABI Publishing, pp 174–183.
Welling JT,
Arnason Þ,´
Olafsdott
ıı
rR.2015. Glacier tourism: A scoping review.
Tourism Geographies 17(5):635–662.
West JM, Julius SH, Kareiva P, Enquist C, Lawler JJ, Petersen B, Johnson AE,
Shaw MR. 2009. US natural resources and climate change: Concepts and
approaches for management adaptation. Environmental Management
44(6):1001–1021.
Wilson J. 2012. The Impact of Climate Variability on Tourism Businesses and
Tourism Infrastructure Providers in Glacier Country. Research Paper No. 4.
Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln University.
Wilson J, Stewart EJ, Espiner S, Purdie, H. 2014. Last Chance Tourism at the
Franz Josef and Fox Glaciers, Westland Tai Poutini National Park: Stakeholder
Perspectives. Report No. 34. Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln University.
http://hdl.handle.net/10182/6509.
Yuan L, Lu A, Ning B, He Y. 2006. Impacts of Yulong mounta in glacier on
tourism in Lijiang. Journal of Mountain Science 3:71–80.
Þ
orhallsd
ottir G, ´
Olafsson R. 2019. Fj€
oldi gesta
ıı
Vatnaj€
okulsþj
oðgarðifr
a
upphafi talninga
ut
arið2018. [Number of visitors of Vatnaj€
okull National Park
from the beginning of counting to the end of 2018; in Icelandic]. Reykjavik,
Iceland: Vatnaj€
okulsþj
oðgarður.
D13Mountain Research and Development https://doi.o rg/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-18- 00090.1
MountainDevelopment
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Mountain-Research-and-Development on 18 Oct 2019
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
