Iceland review - 2016, Qupperneq 50

48 ICELAND REVIEW
justifies part of that income being allo-
cated towards the Tourism Development
Fund (revenue increased from ISK 15
billion to 25 billion between 2014 and
2015).
PLAN OF ACTION
In October last year, a five-year Road
Map for Tourism in Iceland was pub-
lished and a Tourism Task Force has
been set up to tackle tasks to “lay the
solid foundations that are needed in the
Icelandic tourism industry.” The work
plan priorities for 2016-2017 include
increasing the safety of tourists by, among
other things, harmonizing information
and signposting throughout the country
to reduce travel-related accidents and
expenses. In late March, 66 projects
around the country received grants from
the Tourism Development Fund; 37 of
which focus on improving safety.
A diverse set of measures is being sug-
gested, Ólöf explains. “We have various
tools in our toolbox—information such
as signs, human contact, wardens. We
could of course ensure safety in a major,
dramatic way. We could put up Plexiglas
at Gullfoss for people to look through;
we can restrict accessibility but we are
reluctant to place so severe restrictions
on our visitors’ experiences. We need
to define the appropriate tools for our
natural attractions and use them together
in a strategic way.” One idea is to limit
the number of people who can visit
certain places, like popular hiking areas.
Jónas points to the Inca Trail in Peru
and the Milford Track in New Zealand,
where limits are placed on the number
of visitors at any one time to protect the
environment, the experience of hikers
and their security. Thus, people have
to book in advance. This is something
which has been suggested for the pop-
ular Laugavegur walking trail in the
south-central highlands.
Some have questioned why it took so
long to come up with a plan but, as Ólöf
explains, a strategy was devised in 2010.
It was, however, never put into action
and no agency was given the mandate
to follow up on it. It has since needed to
be fully revised, given the skyrocketing
tourist numbers and the change in tourist
behavior. “The expectations and behav-
iors of visitors to Iceland have developed
in past years. People wish to have a
reciprocal experience, they want to take
control of their own experience. They
are more independent—more rent their
own cars—there is also a generational
shift towards outdoor activities but they
don’t necessarily know the realities of
Iceland,” she explains.
TRAVELING RESPONSIBLY
Ólöf argues that while much work
remains to be done concerning the
responsibilities of Iceland as a destina-
tion for visitors, ultimately, tourists are
responsible for themselves. “Tourism is
a human endeavor; accidents do hap-
pen. It’s unfortunate that they do but
that’s just what happens … The nature
in Iceland, specifically, has some risks
attached. You have to be careful in a
different sort of way than in other coun-
tries. We have a responsibility to provide
as safe conditions as possible. We won’t
ever be able to cordon off all places
where accidents might happen. At the
end of the day, tourists are responsible
for themselves and their actions—we
can’t take that away from them. There
will always be people who want to take
risks. It is our responsibility to give peo-
ple the opportunity to plan and prepare
for a safe journey without diminish-
ing their experience.” Ragnheiður Elín
agrees. “We all have a responsibility ...
Reynisfjara, February 6, 2016. The beach is notorious for so-called sneaker waves,
characterized by being greater in force and height than the ones preceding.
TRAVEL
PHOTOS THIS PAGE BY MAGNÚS H. JÓHANNSSON/MUDSHARK TOURS.