Too much of a good thing: the transformation of nature-based tourism in Iceland Open Access

Mountain regions and protected areas generate special interest from the point of view of leisure and tourism (Beedie and Hudson, 2003; Chhetri et al., 2004; Sievänen et al., 2011). During 2019 in Finland, the economic impact of rural tourism in the 40 national parks was 219.3 million euros, while in the 5 hiking areas it was 13.1 million euros (Metsähallitus Organisation, 2019). These figures indicate that nature-based tourism represents an important market segment for the local economy. Furthermore, this type of tourism is contributing to economic development and increased employability in rural areas. Another study on the interest in the use of nature from a tourism point of view carried out in the Jotunheimen National Park in Norway showed that this space was visited by tourists of 47 different nationalities during the year 2010 (Higham and Inge Vistad, 2011). The high international presence explains the appeal of Jotunheimen as a destination. It also ensures that visitors will generate a significant economic impact, given the costs that can be incurred when travelling from different parts of the world.

Nature-based tourism is experiencing significant economic growth, which has led to its positioning as a strong segment within the tourism industry (Luo and Shang, 2023). Iceland has natural attractions of unquestionable value, as it brings together spectacular geological and meteorological phenomena. This, together with the proximity of the main source markets, North America and Europe, makes this island a tourist destination of great economic success. Only very recently, in the last 10 years, the number of annual visitors has surpassed the figure of 2 million (Ferðamálastofa, 2025). This is an abrupt growth, which has generated significant management and capacity problems. In addition, there is a significant concentration of tourists in the places of interest and attractions that are most accessible from the capital, causing serious problems of saturation of these areas, which is especially worrying, as it is promoted as a destination for tourists seeking nature, solitude and silence.

In this sense, the strong growth of nature-based tourism in contemporary societies can only be explained by the need to break away from the routines and urban lifestyles that predominate in today’s Western societies. In short, it stems from a desire to reconnect with nature and enjoy the benefits it provides (Vidal-González and Vidal-Matzanke, 2020).

Iceland is an interesting case study in nature tourism, being one of the most mature and developed destinations in remote and polar areas of the world (Baldacchino, 2006) or in Gösling and Alkimou (2006, p. 53) expression, “the ‘hottest’ destination in Europe in terms of relative growth in international tourist arrivals”.

Iceland is nowadays one of the most popular nature tourism destinations in the world, to the point of being the OECD country that receives the most tourists per capita (OECD, 2023), increasing from 540,824 in 2011 to more than 2.2 million in 2024 (Ferðamálastofa, 2025). From very early on, the island has been considered a place of extraordinary attractiveness due to its isolation and exoticism, its extreme climate and its exceptional nature (Greenlaw, 2011) (Figure 1).

In the 1960s and 1970s, tourist arrivals were rather timid, with under 50,000 visitors annually. Already in that period, the destination is presented as a place for nature tourism, presenting “the theme of drama in nature, ice and fire” (Gunnarsdóttir, 2011, p. 538). Since the 1970s, the bet aimed at emphasizing the image of the country as a territory of pure and untouched nature has been timidly confirmed, offering concepts such as “pristine, pure, remote, space and wilderness” (Karlsdóttir, 2013, p. 145), referring already to the new spaces of the central Highland. As Gösling and Alkimou (2006) point out, interest in Iceland on the part of tourists has been very moderate until the arrival of the 21st century. The phenomenon that caused tourism to take off on the island was, paradoxically, the 2010 eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano (Heimisdóttir et al., 2019). In the following years, the annual growth rate has been 25%, from 450,000 tourists in 2010 to 2,300,000 in 2018 (Iceland Tourist Board, 2023).

To sum up, Iceland represents one of the most specialized and pioneering environments for nature-based tourism. Therefore, research in this environment is a good predictor of where trends in nature tourism are headed. Our objective is to explore the consequences of this growth and see if it is exceeding sustainability thresholds, both from the point of view of the visitor and local stakeholders.

The growing demand for nature tourism is generating problems of saturation and overcrowding in these destinations. Very early (UNWTO, 1981), the carrying capacity (hereafter mentioned as CC) term attracted the attention of the World Tourism Organization (WTO). Shortly thereafter, Getz (1983) divided CC into six categories: physical, economic, perceptual, social, ecological and political. O’Really (1986, p. 254) stresses the importance of establishing a balance “both in the physical environment and the quality of the experience of the host country to the visitor,” while Mathieson and Wall (1982) speak of two types of factors that influence CC: the characteristics of the tourists and the characteristics of the destination area and its inhabitants. Echamendi Lorente (2001), in the same vein, relates CC to local development and resource sustainability. Coccossis (2007) insists on the negative impacts of tourism, due to the excessive presence of tourists, which affects, among other things, the natural heritage, as well as to the environmental resources and Kennell (2015) suggests measures to manage CC, such as improving information, managing visitor flows or promoting pre-bookings. Pulido-Fernández et al. (2024) consider tourism CC as crucial for tourism sustainability, along the lines of what Navarro Jurado et al. (2012) have already commented on to prevent congestion and degradation problems, establishing a sustainable balance between economic benefits and environmental conservation.

Along with this concept, we have used another one that we consider key and closely linked to the social aspects of recreation CC: visitor satisfaction. Moore et al. (2013, p. 669) define satisfaction as the “visitor’s emotional state after experiencing a destination”. Newsome et al. (2017) studied the behaviors of tourists that ensure their positive experience when visiting a nature tourism destination and ensured that it is linked to the perception of perceived environmental values. However, most of the literature focuses on specific destinations rather than a country or territory as a whole. Fortunately, there are several interesting exceptions, such as island territories as tourist destinations, like Mauritius (Naidoo et al., 2011), Santorini (Leka et al., 2025), Palau (Medel, 2020), Aruba (Peterson, 2023), Menorca (Marcos-Valls et al., 2020) or the Galapagos Islands (Burbano et al., 2022). Naidoo et al. (2011) detected how the visitor appreciated the natural resources of the island very positively, but expressed concern about the crowds and pointed out how this problem should be solved by controlling the CC with a reservation system in high season. In the case of a mature nature destination such as the Galapagos Islands, the authors point out (Burbano et al., 2022) that an unrestricted increase in tourism is seen as contradictory by local stakeholders, given the high environmental and social price to be paid. In the case of a destination known for its tourist saturation (Peterson, 2023), the strong negative impacts on its ecosystem and society are analyzed.

The negative impacts of tourism are associated with overtourism tourism saturation, a concept extensively studied in scientific literature (Santana-Jiménez and Hernández, 2011; Milano et al., 2019; Jieyao et al., 2025; Leka et al., 2025).

The research was conducted using a qualitative approach. We have used unstructured and asymmetric data sets, following a qualitative methodology, combining hermeneutics and phenomenology. The nonstructured nature of the data responds to the qualitative research methodology that governs this research. Although the interviews are semi-structured in nature, this partiality is required when dealing with complex problems such as the one analyzed in this research. As for the asymmetry of the data, it also responds to the aforementioned differentiation of the profiles interviewed, and although a priori it seems that there is a differentiation in the points of view, in reality, the virtue of the qualitative approach lies in approaching a complex problem from the different points of view that make it up.

Following Höpken et al. (2015), we believe that one of the most appropriate analysis methods to analyze qualitative content in tourism research is content analysis. This methodology, moreover, helps to categorize the information of interest and establish relationships between the various categories.

Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with different key stakeholders in Icelandic hiking and nature tourism. Initially, we made a first proposal of questions, which we adapted after the first interviews with the control group, made up of the first three participants we interviewed. We have chosen relevant participants in their different disciplines, both for their proven experience and their direct knowledge of the tourism sector in Iceland. The selection of the profiles interviewed is directly connected to the main purpose of this research, which is to determine how tourism is impacting Iceland at different levels: economic, social and environmental, both positively and negatively. Therefore, these profiles can provide a global view that affects all these aspects.

In doing so, we have sought to represent the different groups directly involved. Perspectives of both male and female stakeholders were sought. Diverse viewpoints were sought and included entrepreneurs, independent mountain guides, researchers, members of mountain rescue teams, environmental managers and tourism managers. The interviews were conducted in the summer of 2023, between June and August. All the interviews, except the last one, were conducted in person, with an average duration of one hour. For this purpose, a quiet place was sought that allowed for a calm and unhurried conversation. In all but one case, the interviews were conducted individually, to avoid overlapping content, as recommended in the scientific literature (Jennings, 2005). After explaining the purpose of the research to be carried out and of the interview, informed consent was requested in all cases. No personal data was required, so the ethics committee did not consider it necessary to obtain their authorization. The interviews were conducted in English except for two interviews in Spanish with Spanish mountain guides. Each interview was recorded and later transcribed verbatim. The transcription was made available shortly after the interview was conducted, to capture as accurately as possible, the spirit of the conversation and thus be able to complement it with what was collected in the field notebook. To collect the data, after preparing the texts, a pre-processing of the content was carried out, to obtain a better performance of the subsequent text analysis. After this, a series of steps was carried out, such as the elimination of stop words and relative pruning. Once the documents were prepared in PDF format, they were loaded into the ATLAS.ti software for coding and analysis. The categories of information to be analyzed were determined by the research objective. For this purpose, different categories were determined, from which different codes were derived. For the establishment and analysis of the categories, we followed the Grounded Theory method in a process in which we first identified patterns of meaning in the data, then deductively formulated a hypothesis and finally searched for data that confirmed the hypotheses (Matteucci and Gnoth, 2017).

Among the advantages of applying a qualitative research methodology is, following Miles and Huberman (1994), that this enriches the information obtained, favoring a closer approach to the specific realities under study.

In addition to the recording, a field notebook was used to make notes on the impressions gathered. Likewise, on the points on which the participants placed greater emphasis. The interviewee participant was able to comment on the questions at any time, although the interviewer maintained the thread of the conversation to adapt it to the previously established script. They were then classified by categories for later analysis. The anonymized profiles of the interviewees are shown in Table 1.

Along with this, participant observation was conducted in the summers of 2022 and 2023, visiting the main nature tourism destinations in the country, hiking the Laugavegur trekking route in four days and residing during the high season months in the country’s capital city. Impressions and perceptions were recorded in the field notebook to enrich and enhance the context of what was received in the expert interviews. Participant observation has allowed us to design interview questions in a much more precise and documented way, as well as to identify potential interview subjects.

• (1)

  Nature as main attraction

Scientific literature identifies nature tourism as the island’s main attraction. Here, we will analyze the key aspects of its appeal. As can be seen from the model obtained from the analysis carried out in ATLAS.ti, to highlight the most attractive aspects related to the nature of the island (Figure 2).

The stakeholders interviewed provide different reasons why they consider Iceland an attractive country for tourism, although they all agree on one: nature.

For participant 1 (P1), the main motivation for visiting is for its “pristine, untouched nature.” It is an idea similar to that expressed by respondent 5, who speaks of an “isolated and remote place, unusual, ideal for adventures.” P8 also speaks of the attraction of “its pure and clean natural spaces.” Similar arguments are used by P9, which emphasizes the “unique landscapes,” or P11, which refers to “a unique nature” or the “nature, silence and peace” mentioned by P12. “A different nature” for P14. This idea of exceptionality is associated with the combination of different geological and natural phenomena, such as glaciers, volcanoes, geysers, waterfalls, northern lights and hot springs, making this place a real “open laboratory,” in the expression used by P1, and offering the visitor a space “unique for its landscape and nature,” as mentioned by P16. P10 emphasizes this idea, adding the mythological component of “the spirits of nature, glaciers and rivers” as part of the attraction. P3 adds a new adjective, pointing out the “exciting and dangerous” character of its nature.

• (2)

  Looking for solitude

Another key element of the destination’s appeal is its association with solitude and silence. This concept is frequently repeated by informants. Another key element of the destination’s appeal is its association with solitude and silence. This concept is frequently repeated by informants, probably in association with the idea of remoteness, as well as an isolated and sparsely populated place.

For P1, “tourists are attracted to solitude; you don’t see anything man-made, we all seek solitude, the unique experience of finding ourselves again.” R8 points out that what the tourist is looking for is solitude, “that he was going to be alone in contact with nature.” P10 insists on the idea that “you can be in nature and not encounter anything built,” “it is perceived as wild,” for P6. P8 uses the adjective “pure and clean” to refer to its landscape. P12 underlines the relationship between nature with “silence and peace,” with “areas barely touched by humans, which is increasingly difficult to find,” as P16 points out, as a distinctive element of nature tourism on the island. However, this idea is contrasted with another of the motivations mentioned by the interviewees, which is connectiveness. P2, P10 and P11 point to accessibility and P3 to proximity to the main tourism centers. P9 emphasizes that “there is Internet everywhere” and sums it up by saying that “it is an adventure park at your doorstep.” P2 emphasizes “that they can visit the glaciers without having to drive too far.”

• (3)

  Safety

One of the key elements when choosing a tourist destination is its association with security and safety (Fuchs and Pizam, 2011). Several respondents alluded to Iceland as a country with high levels of safety and very low crime. Thus, P4 speaks of “safe destination” and P 6 of “its reputation for being a safe destination, compared to other destinations.” P9 rather underlines the possibility of “seeking nature nearby, without any danger” as well as “the safety of traveling alone, especially for women,” “also in the city.” He also agrees with the same idea because “the glaciers and high mountains are accessible and without risk, with all the comforts of Europe.” P12 also insists that it is “a safe country.”

• (4)

  Attracted by social networks

Social media has become an important marketing tool when it comes to promoting a tourist destination. Several interviewees agree that one of the reasons for its success is its popularity on social networks. Thus, P2 indicates that “it is due to the fact that there are American directors and American celebrities who have visited the island,” which makes “tourists want to follow in their footsteps.” The same informant stresses that “the country is an excellent location for filming movies,” as evidenced by the numerous successful films shot in its landscapes. P4 points out that “they’ve heard about it or read about positive experiences.” For P6, “people have heard a lot about the country.” For P7, “the attractions are the nature, but especially the visuals, the photography.” Here there are some impressive nature photos and in social networks it has a strong impact” and insists that “now it is a fashionable destination, we are in a boom.” For P8, “before coming, they see the images.” Many tourists come dragged by advertising and because it is fashionable, an idea in which P9 agrees, as he considers that “social networks and word of mouth have attracted.” Many visitors are looking for photos for social networks, rather than enjoying the unique landscapes. Visibility on social media has been one of the factors that has generated huge interest and popularity for Iceland as a nature-based tourist destination.

• (5)

  Increasing number of visitors

All the people interviewed point out the strong tourism growth that the country has experienced and their impact on the island. As P1 points out, in the 60s of the last century, they received 5,000 tourists a year and now more than 2 million. It has gone from 200,000 visitors to more than two million in just 10 years. To put this figure in context, it is worth remembering that in 2023 the population of the country was 387,000 inhabitants (Statistics Iceland, 2023), i.e. the country is receiving 8 times more tourists than it has inhabitants.

While for some this is a cause for concern, for others it is seen as a business opportunity. P1 states that “for us it is a novelty and something we have no previous experience with.” P3 stresses that “we have to take care of nature and we cannot exceed the limits,” and then concludes that now there are “many tourists.” P7 considers that “saturation is beginning to be perceived,” pointing out the appearance of an incipient tourist-phobia, although “tourism has saved them from the great crisis.” Further on, he points out that “in some areas, tourism is overcrowded.” P8 clearly concludes that “now everything is full of people.” He points out that “we have seen an exponential growth of tourists, which is no longer of quality.” P10 considers “the number of visitors we receive is frightening,” and later affirms that “we feel invaded.” P12 is concerned about the growth of tourism, indicating that “there are too many people” and that “we are losing control.” Later on, he confirms that, in his opinion, “there is an onset of tourist-phobia, which is increasing.” P14 notes his “concern about the number of visitors, their impact on nature and the lack of infrastructure.” Further on, he confirms that “there are some people against tourism, although I don’t think that tourist-phobia is a problem.” For P16, “we are close to reaching the limits in certain places.” P17 speaks of “destination saturation.”

Only three informants saw the increase in tourists as something positive. Thus, P2 considers that “we do not have too many tourists” and P7 notes that there are “two visions in the country” about the tourism phenomenon. For P13, this year, “they expect 2.1 million tourists, but if we end up with 3 million in the next few years, so much the better.” This dichotomy between concern and opportunity seems to confirm P7, who speaks of “two different visions in the country,” clearly opposed, between those who “have a clear environmental conscience” and those who consider that “the more people the better.”

One of the consequences of this significant increase is the strong pressure on the infrastructure that supports tourism, mainly roads, parking lots, toilets and hotel infrastructure. For P1, these are “pending challenges,” as he considers that “our infrastructure is not adapted and that we are lagging behind demand.” For P6, “in some places there is hardly any hotel and restaurant capacity”. Likewise, roads have “many narrow bridges that should be widened.” For P7, strong changes are already being observed in the capital and throughout the country, “with new restaurants and hotels that have displaced the local.” P9 mentions that “accommodations and parking lots are already saturated” and recalls that “this year (2023), accommodations have been full since March.” P10 agrees that “we don’t have the right infrastructure for it” and points to a growing concern in Icelandic society about “the lack of accommodation for locals” caused by the increase in tourist apartments. P11 calls for “better infrastructure and better control. Too many cars driving on bad roads.” P12 agrees on the importance of advancing “much faster in infrastructure.” P13 presents a positive view on infrastructure, although he admits that “there are still things to improve.” P14 also speaks of the “lack of infrastructure,” to advance that the number of tourists must be “in balance with the infrastructure.” He refers that “we have bad roads, lack of manpower, as well as scarce health services or police.” P16 speaks of “serious traffic problems in certain places.” In this aspect, the two mentalities of the country are glimpsed. On the one hand, there are those who seek to increase the number of visitors by improving infrastructure, such as P5 “I hope that in 30 years the country’s tourism will have room for everyone” or P12 “we could welcome that number of tourists, but we should make much more progress than we do in infrastructure.” On the other hand, are those who believe that the critical threshold has been exceeded, such as P9 “there are areas that cannot support so many visitors,” P14 “I am concerned about the increase in the number of visitors, their impact on nature and the lack of infrastructure” or P1 with a more profound reflection by pointing out that “politicians do not understand the importance of preserving the environment.”

In fact, the informants wonder if we are reaching a limit point of overexploitation of tourist resources. Two facts confirm this impression. As of March 2023, it was impossible to find available accommodation for the high season, as reported by P7 and P8. Similarly, the managers of the Laugavegur huts (remote cabins) stated on their webpage in March 2023 that all the places in the huts were full and that hikers should refrain from trying to book. As P1 points out, “there is no way to find a car or accommodation” and anticipates that “this summer (by summer 2023) there will be saturation.” For P17, the number of tourists has increased a lot, concentrating on the most popular places, to the point of concluding that the country is saturated.

A new element of discussion here is environmental sustainability. Icelanders are very proud of the nature they have and express concern about possible negative impacts. For P3, “we have to take care of nature and we cannot exceed the limits,” so, he adds, “we must develop more sustainable tourism.” P8 complains about “the lack of environmental sensitivity of many tourists.” P9 insists with concern that “there are areas that cannot support so many visitors.” P10 is concerned about the “saturation of natural areas” and seriously considers that “the number of tourists should be limited.” P12 considers that “access to certain sites should be limited.” P14 also expresses concern about “the negative impact on nature” of this high number of visitors. P16 concludes that “we are close to the limits at several sites.”

• (6)

  New challenges

The respondents show their concern about the tourist concentration in the months of visitation, as well as in the destinations within the island, so they propose to promote new places, as well as to promote deseasonalization. Thus, P2 points out that “tourists all want to go to the same place,” underlining the idea also referred to by P1 “there are many places in Iceland that tourists “have” to visit. They all go to the same places.” This concentration manifests a paradox that P1 underlines “Icelanders go to places that tourists don’t know. There are two worlds. The official Iceland for tourists and the other Iceland that foreigners don’t visit.” P3 shows how these saturated destinations “are damaging the balance of nature.” P9 doubts that “nature can absorb so much visitation.” For P10, “we should insist more on the protection of nature and teach tourists how fragile our nature is so that they respect it.” P11 reiterates that “our country is fragile, it needs care,” so he believes that “bringing a lot of people will be a step backward for nature.” P12 also notes that “my main concern is to protect nature, which is our main value.” He points out as a challenge that “our country should be as attractive as it was before.”

For the people interviewed, a growing concern is to ensure that the visitor experience is positive and that it does not suffer from the increase in the number of global visitors to the country. The ideal would be for each visitor to think that they are “just enjoying themselves,” as P6 suggests. But it seems difficult to ensure such a unique experience. P12 expresses his strong concern as he is convinced that “visitors will leave with a bad experience because of too many tourists.” P6 confirms that “in the main tourist destinations of the island, the tourist perceives an ugly experience, as they are saturated.” P16 stresses that “we noticed the increase in visitors, compared to previous years.” This is a challenge, especially if we want to maintain the nature experience without impacting conservation.

P3 presents the dichotomy facing the country, concluding that “we should not damage nature in those areas with high tourist stress. At the same time, we must respond to the expectations of tourists.” For P14, “the increase in visitors can lead to tourist crowding and a negative experience. We should work on how to improve the experience,” but P1 points out that “this summer (by 2023) there will be saturation and a clash between local culture and tourists. We will have to set rules and put an end to the culture of the more the merrier.”

P7 stresses that tourism is very concentrated in some areas, with high overcrowding,” as at the Golden Circle or Landmannalaugar and goes on to say that “the problem is not the number of tourists, but where they go.” P8 also confirms that “everything is concentrated in certain points.” P2 insists on this paradox of concentration, as he considers that the country “does not have too many tourists, as it is the size of the state of Kentucky and the state of Maine receives many more tourists,” although the latter has 1.4 million inhabitants. As an obvious solution, P2 suggests “managing people better, diversifying.”

P12 confirms that the percentage of people satisfied with the tourist experience “has dropped slightly, mainly because of the growing number of people.” P16 indicates that “people who are looking to find the solitude of nature are dissatisfied, although mass tourism visiting the more touristy areas is less so.” P17 reiterates his dissatisfaction, finding “saturated roads, especially in the south, and restaurants staffed by foreigners.” P8 indicates that “tourists have the perception that they are going to be alone in contact with nature,” although, as P9 notes, “there are areas that do not support so many visitors.” P10 laments that today “we sell solitude, nature, environment; experience the silence, but there is a queue of 300 people at each site to take a photo for Instagram.” In this sense, he says that “tourists express their concern about the strong growth in the number of visitors.”

Perhaps one of the most important concerns is that the visitor, hiker or tourist, focuses his/her experience on discovering the landscape and nature of the island, but without knowing anything about the local culture, its people, history and gastronomy. For P1, this is a real danger, increased if the guide is not local and does not have the basic training to be able to transmit these aspects, as P2 points out. In fact, there is a profile of a tourist-hiker who arrives directly at the airport and from there goes, perhaps after sleeping only one night in Reykjavík, to the bus station, where he can rent the mountain equipment he needs, and from there, get on the bus that will take him to the start of his hiking route. After several days in the wilderness, eating the prepared food you have brought with you and sleeping in a tent or in one of the shelters, you will return by bus to the city, and from there, perhaps hopefully after spending a day in the capital, you will head to the airport. As P7 points out, this tourist will not get the experience the country deserves. This same informant recognizes that there is a serious problem as he barely connects with the local population to learn about their history. “The landscape is fine, but how do the people live there?” he points out. P13 confirms that many “are not interested in culture, but only in nature.” If to this we add, as P10 refers, that the foreign guide does not introduce you to “history and traditions,” we are facing a problem. The same problem is encountered by the tourist, who will most likely only meet foreign workers during his stay, as P1 points out. This same informant wonders, “What would happen if on a trip to Italy I did not meet any Italians?”

Finally, it should be noted that, in view of the seriousness of the problems raised, many informants openly propose a limitation on the number of visitors. Thus, P3 speaks of “not exceeding the limits”, P11 indicates that “bringing a lot of people will be a step backward for nature” and proposes a system of payment of fees as in the US National Parks and P12 openly advocates “limiting the number of tourists entering the country.”

There is a clear unanimity in pointing out that the untamed nature is the main attraction of Iceland, as pointed out by our informants, but also by numerous authors (Sæþórsdóttir, 2010; Jóhannesson et al., 2010; Neijmann, 2011; Sæþórsdóttir et al., 2011; Ólafsdóttir and Runnström, 2013; Ólafsdóttir et al., 2021). For Alkimou (2004, p. 56) “fire, lava, volcanoes, glaciers and ice, geysers, geothermal sources, waterfalls, northern lights or weather-related aspects (cold, rainy)” are the main attractions of the country’s nature.

Closely linked to this aspect, following the results of Kou et al. (2023), we find another one, which is the search for solitude, silence, pure spaces, places not inhabited or with traces of civilization, as a clear reaction to the noise and stress of urban environments where most visitors come from. Other examples of this phenomenon are Greenland or Patagonia. “To enjoy solitude, silence, peace and space and thereby experience a connection with nature,” in the words of Karlsdóttir (2013, p. 150). However, our informants point out that along with this, the attraction lies in the easy connections with the main outbound markets, the United States and Canada, as well as Europe, with a growing offer of flights by low-cost companies, as well as easy access from cities to the main attractions, and the fact that practically the whole country has a cell phone network, among other advantages. We would therefore be facing an interesting paradox, which we could define as connected solitude, accessible isolation or even, as we have heard from P9 of “an adventure park at your doorstep,” in line with the conclusions of Haukeland et al. (2023).

Iceland’s recent success as a nature tourism destination is closely linked to the prominence it has acquired on Social Networks. For Sorrell and Plante (2021, p. 2), “images posted on Instagram, Facebook, and other similar platforms are essentially unpaid advertisements for the tourism industry in Iceland.” The landscape and nature of the country are photogenic and exotic, which fits with the search for the perfect photograph or video for Social Networks, in view of the need to share experiences, to show the trophy obtained, in order to seek social recognition from friends and acquaintances, from followers, even if this sometimes means dying of success, as P8 reminded us, not without some irony, when he pointed out that “before coming they see the images and when they come there are queues to take the picture and it is raining.”

Saturation problems on the island are a reality that researchers have been warning about since Einarsson (1996, p. 228) pointed out that “the problem of overcrowding is a major tourism policy issue” almost 30 years ago. Later Karlsdóttir (2013, p. 148) warned of the tourist saturation of certain places, “where there are too many visitors, vehicles, noise and activity”. In the same way, other researchers have also highlighted this problem (Jóhannesson et al., 2010; Jóhannesson and Huijbens, 2010; Tverijonaite et al., 2023). At present this is a major concern for an important part of the inhabitants of the country, as recognized by a local travel agency of nature tourism, on its website “Victim of its success, Iceland is invaded (it is our point of view) by the tourist crowd mainly on the circular road n ° 1 but also in some remarkable places of the interior easy of access” (Filippusdóttir Patay, n.d.). On this same point, the OECD reports (2023, p. 18), where it is suggested that “capacity limits (in the country) become more apparent” or when, in 2024, they indicate that “foreign tourism will hardly grow due to capacity constraints” (OECD, 2024, p. 121).

The scientific literature has not yet echoed this sentiment, but this increase in the number of visitors is likely causing important social changes in the country, with an increase in the immigrant population that comes to cover the strong demand for labor in the tourism sector, with an increase in the demand for accommodation for both workers and tourists, as well as a strong increase in services (hotels and restaurants) in the country, which is radically changing the economic ecosystem. All this is generating an incipient tourist-phobia, as in other European cities with strong tourist growth, such as Barcelona, Paris or Venice (Casaldelrrey et al., 2018; Bertocchi and Visentin, 2019; Christofoletti, 2025), as our informants have pointed out and as can be read in the local press.

Given the magnitude of the problem, the need to take measures to limit the number of visitors, especially in certain places, is evident (Øian et al., 2018). Coccossis (2007) pointed out that CC should be a priority concern for tourism managers, especially in destinations with similar characteristics to Iceland. This is especially relevant for nature tourists, since they have a higher level of sensitivity to destinations with a high concentration of tourists (Pulido-Fernández et al., 2024). Their dissatisfaction should be a cause for concern, as they will stop recommending the destination to others (Naidoo et al., 2011).

Along with the concern expressed by the informants, as we have described, we again find different researchers advocating for these restrictions, especially demanded in the Central Highland, a particularly sensitive area due to its ecological conditions (Karlsdóttir, 2013; Bishop et al., 2022; Sæþórsdóttir et al., 2022), which are also expressed in the local press (Sæþórsdóttir and Theodórsdóttir, 2023) and advocating the creation of a large National Park in the Central Highland.

With a fairly accurate analysis of the reality of nature tourism in Iceland, it is considered appropriate to analyses different similar scenarios where the management of this problem has been able to provide tangible and measurable solutions to tourist overcrowding and the impact it entails. In this sense, the implementation of strategies to manage overcrowding can be very interesting to ensure sustainable and quality tourism in the long term. According to Leka et al. (2025), in their analysis of the destination of Santorini, a place-based approach can help to combine data on tourism supply and demand with other environmental, social, economic and/or spatial data, which can be a driver for change. Medel (2020) proposes an approach based on environmental awareness and climate emergency in order to involve visitors in the correct use of the territory and resources of the island of Palau. Along the same lines, Burbano et al. (2022) give the example of the management that has been carried out in the idyllic space of the Galapagos Islands, which, like Iceland, suffered an exponential increase in visitors as a result of greater visibility.

In this sense, a series of priorities were established based on involving the local population in tourism management through training and raising awareness of the role of tourism, which has led to better management of the carrying capacity of the areas and the curbing of low-cost tourism to the detriment of quality. In short, there are several real cases of island territories where tourism management through a well-defined strategy has been successful in maintaining sustainable tourism flows over time, combining economic, human, environmental and spatial interests.

Iceland is currently at an optimal moment to decide how it wants to address the issue of tourism. On the one hand, let the issues flow, risking the viability and sustainability of an economic model that can bring wealth to the country. On the other hand, adopt a holistic and long-term vision, where tourism represents a productive tool sustained over time. There are examples of island territories that have made a strong commitment to creating a multidisciplinary management strategy, which ensures a balance between the economy, the environment, territorial management and the management of the local population. In this sense, transformative tourism is positioned as an avant-garde vision where visitors become totally immersed in the place they are visiting, becoming part of the day-to-day life of the territory. Nature tourism, in particular, can be a cohesive element between the visitor and the visited area.

An excess in the carrying capacity will have impacts that will affect tourists, which will decrease their level of satisfaction and therefore their willingness to revisit the destination or recommend it to others. But it will also have a negative effect on local citizens. In places with a fragile balance, such as Iceland, acceptable levels of saturation are lower and more sensitive than elsewhere.

Iceland is a huge island with many natural attractions that are frequented by tourists to varying degrees. A more balanced distribution of visitors will allow the country to grow in a more sustainable way, ensuring the conservation of Iceland’s fragile natural areas.

It is necessary to rethink the tourism model, accelerating efforts to deseasonalize the arrival of visitors, who arrive mainly in July and August, by promoting the attractive winter tourism associated with the northern lights and visits to ice caves. Initiatives such as increasing the number of flights to Akureyri airport go in the right direction and should be increased. Similarly, efforts should be multiplied to promote the rich local cultural heritage, gastronomy and traditions. This would give the visitor a more complete idea of the island’s heritage, which is not only based on its fascinating nature.

In any case, free access to certain places, especially to the fragile ecosystems of the Central Highland, should be reconsidered, generating load limits associated with a previous appointment until the available reserves are exhausted, as is done, for example, in the National Parks of Canada or the United States. Of particular concern is the case of Landmannalaugar, a paradigmatic scenic lava field nature reserve of the Central Highland, but which is clearly under stress (Vidal-González et al., 2025).

We consider that this is a good example of how an excessive exploitation of tourist resources, saturating the destination, can have the opposite effect to that desired. An increase in tourist-phobia and a decrease in visitor satisfaction levels. This will cause, in the medium term, a drop in demand for the destination and even the identification of the destination as a place that is not recommended for a subsequent visit or a recommendation.

To sum up, there are different areas of management that can form part of an overall strategy to ensure sustainable nature tourism in Iceland. Some of these strategies include tourism capacity management, wilderness protection, transport and accommodation regulation, tourism diversification, local community involvement, and visitor and local education and awareness.

As a limitation, it should be noted that the research has focused on the diverse points of view of different stakeholders related to nature tourism. Knowing the perspective of tourists will be the next step in future research. Another important limitation is that interviews were only conducted during two summers. It would be worthwhile to repeat the study in five years to better understand whether the trend is toward a reformulation or toward an unsustainable increase.

It has been concluded that the only way to ensure sustainable tourism in Iceland is to draw a strategic line on tourism management. A number of measures that have already been successful in other island areas are set out below as recommendations.

In the area of visitor management, daily quotas should be established in sensitive tourist areas, as well as the implementation of a booking system to control access. It is considered that this could add value to the site.

In terms of environmental protection, it would be interesting to improve existing infrastructures to minimize the impact on nature, while educational campaigns on the importance of following official trails should be established.

In terms of infrastructures and their management, private car rental could be limited, and the public transport infrastructure network could be improved, leading to a lower impact of fossil fuels on natural areas.

In terms of tourist attractions, more sites other than the Golden Circle and the Laugavegur trail should be promoted, which would improve tourist flows and the load of people in these sites.

Finally, the involvement of the local community is key. Supporting the development of tourism projects by locals can represent a competitive advantage for the maintenance of sustainable tourism. In addition to the above, rules and regulations must be established to ensure the control of tourism flows.

The study did not use personal data. The interviews were conducted with prior informed consent. The study has preserved anonymity, preventing the interviewees from being identified.

The authors would like to express their special gratitude to Professor Sæþórsdóttir for her hospitality during their stay at the University of Iceland.