Economic Effects of Tourism: Analysis at the Subnational Level in Iceland

Economic effects of tourism: Analysis at the subnational level in Iceland

Lilja B. Rögnvaldsdóttir

Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences University of Iceland 2016

Economic effects of Tourism: Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland

Lilja B. Rögnvaldsdóttir

90 ECTS thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of a Magister Scientiarum degree in Tourism Studies

Advisors: Cristi Frenţ Edward H. Huijbens

Faculty Representative Anna Dóra Sæþórsdóttir

Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences School of Engineering and Natural Sciences University of Iceland Reykjavík, 1 June 2016

Economic Impacts of Tourism: Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland 90 ECTS thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of a Magister Scientiarum degree in Tourism Studies

Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences School of Engineering and Natural Sciences University of Iceland Askja Sturlugötu 7 101 Reykjavík Iceland

Telephone: 525 4000

Bibliographic information: Lilja B. Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2016, Economic Impacts of Tourism: Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland. Master’s thesis Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland, pp. 339.

Reykjavík, Iceland, 1 June 2016

Abstract

This study explores the availability of regional statistical data on the tourism industry in Iceland and analyses the economic effects of tourism in the Þingeyjarsýslur region. This was done by gathering regional data from fieldwork in situ consisting of company interviews and visitor surveys in Þingeyjarsýslur during the period of 2013-2015. The method used in this study considered the principles of the Nordic Model as well as the Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008 and its applicability at the regional level. The report demonstrates the development of visitor numbers in the area as well as the development of regional accommodation statistics. The main economic findings are the total turnover by detailed industries directly related to tourism in the region as well as internal tourism consumption and tourism employment figures. The indirect effects measured in this study are partial and represent only the first round effects of tourism in the area based on purchases and other operating expenses of tourism companies in the region. Municipal tourism revenue sources are analysed and municipal income tax from the tourism industry is also calculated. The applicability of the internationally established frameworks of tourism economic impact analysis in the Icelandic regional context are discussed in this study where it emerges that due to the limited availability of regional tourism data in Iceland, methods such as the Input-Output model, Computable General Equilibrium model and tourism multipliers could not be applied in this study.

Útdráttur

Í þessari skýrslu eru kynntar niðurstöður rannsóknar á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslum. Markmið verkefnisins var að kanna svæðisbundið framboð gagna í ferðaþjónustu sem og að meta efnahagsleg áhrif atvinnugreinarinnar með hliðsjón af alþjóðlegri forskrift ferðaþjónustureikninga og hins norræna líkans um mat á áhrifum ferðaþjónustu. Niðurstöðurnar byggja á viðtölum við ferðaþjónustuaðila í Þingeyjarsýslum sem og ferðavenjukönnunum meðal erlendra ferðamanna á svæðinu á tímabilinu 2013-2015. Helstu niðurstöður verkefnisins eru heildarvelta í ferðaþjónustutengdum atvinnugreinum á svæðinu, neysla erlendra ferðamanna, fjöldi starfsmanna í atvinnugreininni, launavelta og greining á tekjum sveitarfélaga vegna ferðaþjónustu. Þróun í fjölda ferðamanna og gistinóttum á svæðinu er einnig lýst. Tekjustofnar sveitarfélaga í ferðaþjónustu fá sérstaka umfjöllun og útsvarstekjur vegna atvinnugreinarinnar eru áætlaðar. Notagildi alþjóðlegra viðurkenndra aðferða við útreikning á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu er greint þar sem í ljós kemur að vegna svæðisbundins gagnaskorts í ferðaþjónustu er ekki hægt að byggja útreikninga á aðfanga- og afurðagreiningu, Computable General Equilibrium módelinu eða margföldurum nema að mjög takmörkuðu leyti.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... v

Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Research Aims and Objective ...... 3 1.2 Research Questions ...... 3 1.3 Thesis Outline...... 3

Literature Review ...... 5 2.1 Tourism multipliers ...... 5 2.2 Input-Output Model ...... 8 2.3 Computable general equilibrium model ...... 10 2.4 Tourism Satellite Accounts ...... 11 2.5 The Nordic Model ...... 13 2.6 Literature related to the economic impact of tourism and its connected activities in Iceland ...... 14

Research design and key findings ...... 19

Conclusions ...... 23

Discussion ...... 25

Bibliography ...... 27

Appendix A ...... 1-106

Appendix B ...... 1-65

Appendix C ...... 1-72

Appendix D ...... 1-35

List of tables

Table 1. Total tourism turnover in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013 (m. ISK) ...... 20

Table 2. Tourism employment numbers in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013 ...... 20

Table 3. Total tourism operating cost spent within regions of study (‘000 ISK) ...... 21

Table 4. Estimated inbound tourism consumption in Húsavík and in the region of Lake Mývatn in 2013 ...... 22

iii iv Acknowledgements

This study was made possible through the generous contribution of a number of individuals. Firstly, the author would like to thank all the representatives of tourism companies in Þingeyjarsýslur who gave their valuable time to participate in this research. Also, I would like to acknowledge the time and efforts of my supervisors, Dr. Cristi Frenţ and Dr. Edward H. Huijbens who guided me through this work and provided much valued assistance. Dr. Anna Dóra Sæþórsdóttir deserves special thanks for her guidance and good advice as well as Dr. Rögnvaldur Ólafsson, and Óli Halldórsson for their support and assistance. I am also especially grateful to Statistics Iceland for important regional data and their valuable service as well as the Directorate of Internal Revenue for guidance. I also thank the Northeast Iceland Development Agency for information and guidance, the Húsavík Academic Centre for providing querists and assistance and lastly I thank numerous other experts for answering my questions and giving advice. To name a few: Dr. Sigurður Jóhannesson, Dr. Vífill Karlsson, Dr. Kristinn Hermannsson, Gyða Þórhallsdóttir, Jón Þorvaldur Heiðarsson and Jón Óskar Pétursson.

vi Introduction

Tourism has experienced significant growth in Iceland during the last decades. This growth has exceeded trends registered in other countries and in 2015, the number of inbound visitors almost reached 1,3 million according to the Icelandic Tourist Board (ITB) counts. This is more than a doubling of the number of visitors since 2011 (Icelandic Tourist Board, n.d.). Tourism has therefore emerged as an important pillar of the Icelandic economy in the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008. It has generated numerous jobs and entailed positive regional development even during these times of economic recession (Ministry of Industries and Innovation & Icelandic Travel Industry Association, 2015). With the enlarged scope of tourism, the need for detailed and improved statistics of the industry has risen. Statistical data is crucial when it comes to strategic planning, decision making and implementation of tourism policies, as in any other activity or industry. The quality and interpretation of this data directly effects the efficiency of such work. With the purpose of evaluating the availability of regional statistical data in the tourism industry as well as estimating the tourism’s regional economic effects in Iceland, a study has been carried out by the Icelandic Tourism Research Centre (ITRC) in collaboration with the University of Iceland’s Research Centre in Húsavík and the Húsavík Academic Centre during the period of 2012-2015. This was done by reconciling the supply and demand data from in situ research in a set of tourism related industries retrieved from the Icelandic Classification of Economic Activities (ISAT, 2008). The results were mainly retrieved from interviews and visitor surveys in the area of research. The method used in this study considered the principles of the Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008 (TSA:RMF 2008) (United Nations, 2010b) as applicable. This framework is mostly designed for the national level and therefore inevitably includes limitations when applied on the regional level. In the cases where this method was not applicable, special consideration was paid to the Nordic Model, which has been used for the evaluation of economic impacts of tourism in Nordic peripheries (Rinne & Saastamoinen, 2005; Saarinen, 2003). This thesis details the results from this study and synthesises findings presented in four individual reports, here attached as Appendices A to D. The research methodology and results are presented in the report on the economic effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur (Appendix A) and published by the ITRC (Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2016). A report on regional tourism data availability in Iceland was published by the ITRC in 2014 (Appendix B) (Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2014a). Visitor survey results were published by the Húsavík Academic Centre in 2014 (Appendix C) (Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2014b) and a report presenting the proposed methodology of the study at the outset was published by the ITRC in 2013 (Appendix D) (Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2013). The field of study was Þingeyjarsýslur counties in the North East region of Iceland and the year 2013 was the focus of the analysis, which is also the most recent year with data compiled in the Icelandic Tourism Satellite Account (TSA). Other data, such as tourist numbers

1 and overnight stays are more recent. The synthesised findings of the study detail the direct regional effects of tourism. However, special consideration was given to the indirect and induced effects with the aim of evaluating if such estimations are feasible at the regional level. Many questions have arisen about various aspects of the study during the time of research and efforts have been made towards answering them. At the first stages of the research, questions on regional tourism data availability in Iceland and on the usefulness of existing data were raised. The report on regional tourism data gathering (Appendix B) analysed and discussed this subject. The main results showed that tourism data at regional level in Iceland is seriously lacking. The sole systematic data collection by regions in Iceland is the accommodation statistics by Statistics Iceland. Visitor numbers are not counted on a sub-national level and very few regional statistics can be retrieved from the ITB inbound visitor survey. This lack of data makes statistical analysis of tourism at the regional level in Iceland difficult and expensive. Monetary tourism statistics from the supply side in Iceland are almost exclusively found at the national level and regional tourism statistics have not been retrievable from the national TSAs. The business registry in Iceland lists enterprises by headquarters, regardless of the location of business activities, risking sample biases when a company list is retrieved by regions. The same situation applies to other financial statistics such as turnover by detailed activity from Statistics Iceland and credit card turnover from the Centre for Retail Studies, as the financial numbers are registered by the headquarters regardless of their place of origin. Therefore, systematic measures of the regional economic contribution of tourism in Iceland are impossible using this secondary data. Primary data has to be obtained with costly and time consuming methods as described in Appendix B. Questions regarding the statistical territorial division and tourism resource mapping in Iceland are also discussed in Appendix B. Icelandic conditions have made the implementation of a proper statistical territorial division in the country problematic. The sparse and imbalanced population by regions encumbers statistical work and comparison between regions. There is no territorial division in Iceland on the NUTS1 and NUTS2 level. On the NUTS3 level, there are two partitions, the capital area and the rest of the country (Harðarson and Sindradóttir, 2012). Iceland is therefore a small country in a European context and has limited obligations to compute regional statistics and build regional accounts. However, in order to build up a strong and well-functioning tourism industry in this country, statistical analysis by regions is indispensable. The nature of tourism has to be understood in order to rationalise decision making and fulfil the objectives of the parliamentary resolution on tourism for 2011-2020. The total contribution of tourism activity to the region of Þingeyjarsýslur is discussed in the report on the economic effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur (Appendix A). Questions regarding the total turnover by detailed industries directly related to tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013; the total tourism turnover by detailed industries 2013 and the regional employment in the tourism industries are raised in this report. The main results from that report show that the total turnover from industries directly involved in tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur in 2013 was 8.335 m. ISK. The estimated tourism turnover thereof was 4.672 m. ISK, where accommodation services presented the largest share (33%). The total number of Annual Working Units in the tourism industry was estimated to be 313 in the year 2013. Full time equivalents during the summer months accounted for 749 whereas the same indicator during the wintertime was 151. The total salary cost in the companies directly involved in tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur was estimated to be 1.971

2 m. ISK, whereof salaries from tourism activities exclusively were 1.436 m.ISK. The average gross monthly salary in the tourism industry in 2013 in Þingeyjarsýslur was estimated to be 324 thousand ISK. Much effort was put into finding and adapting the most applicable method for calculating the regional economic effects of tourism based on the available data. The methods which were taken into consideration in the beginning of this study were the following: Tourism multipliers, Input-Output Model, Computable general equilibrium model, Tourism Satellite Accounts and the Nordic Model. These methods have been described in Appendices A and D. The main aim of this thesis however is to synthesise the literature and describe the composition of methods at each stage of this research.

1.1 Research Aims and Objective

The main objective of this thesis is to analyse the applicability of the most common internationally established frameworks measuring tourism economic impact analysis at a regional level in the Icelandic context in Þingeyjarsýslur, Northeast Iceland.

1.2 Research Questions

To fulfil the stated research purpose, two research questions were designed in order to accomplish the aim of the research: 1. How applicable are internationally established frameworks of tourism economic impact analysis in the Icelandic regional context?

2. What is the most applicable method for calculating the regional economic effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur, Northeast Iceland?

1.3 Thesis Outline

The thesis is mostly based on the four already published reports, written by Lilja B. Rögnvaldsdóttir during the period of 2013 to 2016. These reports are to be found in Appendices A to D. Each report has its own conclusion. In addition to these reports, chapter two synthesises the literature review of each appendix. Chapter three discusses the research design and methods and finally chapter 4 will address the research questions in light of key findings from the reports. Appendix A consists of the report: Economic Effects of Tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur: Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland. The report has 106 pages, published by the ITRC in March 2016. Appendix B includes the report: Tourism Data Collection: Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland. The report counts 65 pages and was published in November 2014 by the ITRC.

3 Appendix C includes the report: Þróun og staða ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík: Niðurstöður ferðavenjukannana sumrin 2013 og 2014 [Scope and Development of Tourism in Húsavík: Visitor survey results from summer surveys 2013 and 2014]. The report is in Icelandic and counts 72 pages. It was published by the Húsavík Academic Centre in December 2014. Appendix D consists of the report: Fémæti ferðaþjónustu: Rannsókn á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslu [The value of tourism: Research on the economic effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur]. The report has 35 pages and is in Icelandic. It was published by the ITRC in November 2013.

4 Literature Review

This chapter will review the literature on the economic effects of tourism and the methodologies used worldwide including also literature on tourism and regional economic development in Iceland. The terms used for searching the literature were terms connected with the various estimation methods of the economic effects of tourism regionally, such as: Economic effects of tourism, regional tourism, regional tourism multipliers, regional TSA, Input-Output model, Computable General Equilibrium Model and Nordic Model. Articles and reports were collected through scholarly databases including Web of knowledge, ScienceDirect and the ResearchGate. The economic impact of tourism has been a subject of interest to many scholars and researchers through the years, and the literature dates back more than 80 years (Frechtling & Smeral, 2010; Mathieson & Wall, 1982, p.35 as cited in Frechtling, 2006). However the year 1988 is sometimes referred to as a turning point in research on the economic effects of tourism as the number of published papers and research has grown substantially since then (Frechtling & Smeral, 2010). Economic impact analysis have been conducted using different methods. Most of the methods have been based on tourism related income and production. Initally, most estimations were based on the Keynesian multiplier and Input-Output model, but later trends head towards the General Equilibrium Model and Tourism Satellite Account method (Liu, 2006).

2.1 Tourism multipliers

Multiplier effects refer to an economic concept that came about in the nineteenth century and evolved throughout the early period of the twentieth century, but was not applied until with the work of John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s (Rusu, 2011), as introduced by Richard Kahn in the 1930s (Dimand, 1988). Keynes (1936) argued that economic growth could be prescribed from two main flows of activity: Leakages from the economic system of reference and injections into it. Economic growth was generated when the injections were greater than the leakages; an example of an injection into the economy is tourism expenditure as the spending boosts the demand for goods and services which then generates jobs and income (Ryan, 2003). The Keynesian multiplier is a macroeconomic multiplier and its size is directly related to the marginal propensity to consume which means that spending from one consumer generates income for another worker. The Keynesian multiplier applied to tourism estimates the proportion of tourist expenditure which remains in the economy when savings and imports have been filtered. It enables the calculation of the effect that an additional unit of expenditure makes in the economy of reference (Liu, 2006). This multiplier adapted to the tourism industry, involves the use of various equations to calculate the multipliers for different types of tourist expenditure, investment or alternative definitions of income (Stabler, Papatheodorou, & Sinclair, 2010). However, it has been criticized for underestimating leakages and payments of debts and it does not allow for full employment situation or non-availability of goods and services (Dwivedi, 2005). Results from multiplier calculations in tourism therefore always need to be interpreted with caution as Brian Archer describes in his book in 1977 where he states that “Tourism multipliers, however, vary widely from area to area and perhaps the only satisfactory

5 conclusion which can be reached about the size of multipliers is that it is dangerous to generalize” (Archer, 1977, p. 61). In the 1950s and 60s, the multiplier effects of tourism were commonly thought to be very significant on both income and employment in host economies. This was reflected in papers like the Zinder report (1969) on tourism effects in the Eastern Caribbean, where little attention was paid to possible leakages (Albuquerque, 1996; Brownrigg & Greig, 1975; Singh, Timothy, & Dowling, 2003; Zinder, 1969). Since the 1970s this attitude has been tempered with more accurate analysis and improved technique (Singh, Timothy, & Dowling, 2003). The study of Archer and Owen (1971) on the regional income multiplier in North Wales is considered to be the first regional study on the economic effects of tourism (Liu, 2006; Mazumder, Al-Mamun, Al-Amin, & Mohiuddin, 2012). The authors measured and compared the indirect effects of tourist expenditure by categories in the island of Anglesey. The regional value added for each category was calculated and multiplied by the tourist spending which allowed for the measurement of the indirect effects as well as the comparison of each type of visitor spending. Four types of tourist multipliers were calculated and separate formula was provided to allow the calculation of regional leakages (Archer & Owen, 1971). This ad hoc model has been used as a base in many later researches, allowing for improvements and extensions. As an example, Milne (1987) used a modified version of the Archer tourism multiplier model to develop differential multipliers for the Cook Islands tourist industry. He argued that the conventional I-O model would generally be the most suitable method for measuring the economic effects of tourism, but in small regions such as Cook Island where necessary data and comprehensive national-accounts statistics were unavailable, his multiplier model could be a surrogate for the conventional I-O model. His results revealed that locally owned smaller establisments generated more regional revenues, more jobs and more gross government revenue than larger establishments owned and controlled from overseas. In a study on the economic impact of tourism in Kiribati, Milne (1991) also explains how the most suitable method for these calculations in a small economy such as Kiribati would be the Input-Output model, given a sufficient supply of statistical data. Due to the same constraints as in the case of Cook Islands, he introduces a more efficient and cost effective method for this Pacific island which is adapted from the Keynesian multiplier model. The model calculates the impact of visitor expenditure on income, jobs, and government revenue. With this model, differential multipliers calculate how much different sectors and enterprises can contribute to regional income and job creation. By combining the size and pattern of tourist expenditure with the capabilities of the various sectors to create jobs and revenues, Milne measures the overall tourism impacts on the economy, having considered leakages from the region. Even though the multiplier value can be calculated by various methods, they still have one thing in common. The size of the multiplier is generally linked to the size of the economy. The larger and more diverisfied the economy, the larger the multiplier. The ability of the economy to produce goods and services needed by the tourism industry the less imports and therefore less leakages (Jamal & Robinson, 2009). This was reflected in a study on tourism multipliers on the Isle of Sky where Brownrigg & Greig (1975) found a method to disaggregate the Keynesian regional multiplier to provide differential income and employment multipliers. Their results showed that most of the cash injections to the region of Isle of Sky which came either from

6 tourists or investors, leaked from the regional economy due to its high dependency on regional imports of goods and services. Sinclair & Sutcliffe (1982) developed a methodology based on the Keynesian income multiplier, to be used at sub-national level. This method was used to measure changes in tourist expenditure in Malaga. The results showed that the values differed over time and between different types of tourist expenditure. The multiplier values derived from this model were also lower than those calculated in some previous studies as this methodology takes into calculations more factors which were withdrawn from the calculations in the first round. Harris (1997), describes three types of regional economic impact multipliers in his article. These multipliers are the Economic or Export Base Multiplier, the Expenditure/Income multiplier and the Input-Output multiplier. The Economic Base Multiplier divides the economy in two sectors, the export sector and the local sector. The most common variable used for calculations in this model is employment where an increase in employment in the export sector affects employment in the local sector. This multiplier is useful when studying production in a small region where the local production is dominated by a single industry or a single export company. It is not commonly used in tourism as more focus has generally been put on visitor numbers and visitor expenditure such as in the Expenditure/income multiplier which has been used in the studies described above. The Input-Output Multiplier is then described in chapter 2.2. Eriksen & Ahmt (1999) carried out a study on the regional effects of tourism in Denmark. They incorporated visitor survey results into an interregional macroeconomic model, AIDA, which is derived from a traditional Keynesian income multiplier model. The regional effects were calculated for sixteen counties in Denmark including numbers on employment, tourist expenditure and GDP.

Lejárraga & Walkenhorst (2010) conducted a study on the secondary effects of tourism in more than 150 countries by comparing and assessing the relationship amongst the multipliers, along with other economic indicators. The results of the study show that there is no association between the degree of linkages and leakages. The multipliers for tourism linkages and leakages are therefore noncomplementary, as they are derived from different economic concepts. Regional multipliers can be useful when estimating the regional effects of tourism. However one must bear in mind that the quality of the calculations is directly linked to the quality of data used for the calculations. Generally, calculations of regional multipliers needs to be based on a clear demarkation of a region. Also, statistics on the number of different types of tourists needs to be available as well as information on their general length of stay in the region. The average daily visitor expenditure is also required as well as a categorisation of these expenses. In addition, information on how these visitors’ expenses are distributed back to businesses and employees in form of purchases and salaries, both within and outside the region. At last, information on the consumption pattern of the residential households within the region needs to be known (Archer & Owen, 1971; Jamal & Robinson, 2009). This information is lacking at the regional level in Iceland. Almost none of the factors mentioned above exist on the regional level in Iceland. Some visitor numbers can be found, but this data is provided by private businesses and not publicly available in all cases. No regional information can be found on the

7 residential household and information on regional visitor spending are scarce. Tourism multipliers could be calculated on the national level, but due to the absence of tourism data these methods cannot be applied regionally.

2.2 Input-Output Model

Input-Output models are an alternative to Keynesian models, and are considered to be more effective for deriving the multiplying effects of tourism (Liu, 2006). The model shares many similarities with the Keynesian model though they cannot substitute each other (Bess & Ambargis, 2011). The Input-Output models are simple linear models which generally represent inter-industry relationships within an economy, displaying how output from one industrial sector may become an input to another industrial sector. An inter-industry matrix is used where column entries denote inputs to an industrial sector and rows entries outputs (Giaoutzi & Nijkamp, 2006; Liu, 2006; United Nations, 2010b). The model was first developed in the late 1930s by Wassily Leontief (1966) who received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1973 for a later and modified version of the model (dynamic model) (Dwyer, Gill, & Seetaram, 2012; Leontief, 1986; Wei, Shuib, Ramachandran & Herman, 2013). The I-O model provides multipliers that enble estimation of the effect a change in an economic activity has on the economy of reference. With application to the regional level, regional I-O multipliers are derived from I-O tables which present matrices of inter-industrial flows of goods and services within the regional economy. By incorporating information about inter-industry relationships, regional I-O multipliers can highlight the impact of demand changes on particular industry sectors within a region (Bess & Ambargis, 2011). This model has been used extensively in tourism research since the 1970s (Dwyer, Gill, & Seetaram, 2012) where tourism activities are included in the transaction matrix as exports in the end demand or as an additional sector in the table (Liu, 2006). Liu (1986) studied the total contributions of visitors to the Hawaiian economy. Sector multipliers for income and employment were calculated for various types of visitors. These calculations were based on a modified Input-Output model and one of the results was that Japanese and Canadian visitors contributed proportionally more than the domestic visitors to the economy, despite the fact that domestic visitors were the largest market segment. Fletcher (1989) discusses the usefulness of the Input-Output model for economic analysis of tourism in his article from 1989. He makes and in depth examination of the methodology and suggests additional modification such as deduction of imports from the final demand in order to show the real output of each sector. Heng & Low (1990) conducted a comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of tourism development on the economy of Singapore based on the Input-Output model. Multipliers for the manufacturing industry, export industry and tourism industry were calculated and compared and the results showed that the tourism industry generated two times more jobs per million dollars compared with the manufacturing industry and three times more jobs compared with the export industry. Briassoulis (1991) argues that when using the I-O analysis on the subnational level, one must assume that the region of research is an equilibrium system. However, the presence of tourism

8 in a region inevitably implies interaction between the region and the rest of the world, which renders this assumption impossible. The fact that the tourist industry is vulnerable to exogenous influences such as political changes also makes an equilibrium state impossible. Archer (1995) studied the importance of tourism for the economy of Bermuda where he compared the results of three separate Input-Output studies of tourism industry in Bermuda with the impacts from other major export sectors. In 1996 he published the results of a study on the economic impact of tourism in the Seychelles, based on the I-O model (Archer & Fletcher, 1996). Archer (1996) stressed the importance of the quality of data used for Input-Output tables and expresses his concern for the genereal lack of regional tourism data in many countries. Frechtling & Horváth (1999) carried out a study on the economic effects of tourism in Washington D.C. using the regional Input-Output Modelling System (RIMS II). Total output, employment and earnings generated by tourism expenditure was estimated. The results showed that tourism multipliers for the city of Washington were relatively low in comparison to other parts of the world. The internal inter-industry linkages in the city are quite weak, and a large portion of tourism inputs are imported from outside the city. Ryan (2003) discussed the economic impacts of tourism and economic impact models. He pointed out that while Input-Output analysis further refined the basic multiplier processes, the transference to service (in particular, tourism sectors) Lee & Taylor (2005) estimated the economic effects of FIFA 2002 World Cup in South Korea by using the Input-Output analysis. Data was collected through expenditure surveys amongst World Cup tourists in South Korea which was used in an I-O table consisting of three major sectors: intermediate, primary input and final demand sectors. A study on the economic effects of visitors to the Pallas-Ounastunturi National Park in Finland was carried out in 2007. The number of visitors, their average spending, and the multipliers derived from the local Input-Output table were used for calculations. The results showed that National park visitor spending is noteworthy on a local scale. It is mostly in the accommodation sector where it generates employment (Huhtala, 2007). Dwyer, Gill, & Seetaram (2012) criticize the I-O model in their handbook of research methods, stating that the model is not suitable in smaller regions due to the fact that there is generally no I-O table available, secondly, the recorded tourist expenditure may not reflect the amount truly spent in the area and thirdly, small areas are usually very open with substantial leakages which can be hard to estimate. Kim & Kim (2015) used the Input-Output model to analyse output, labour income and employment in the accommodation industry in Texas and compared it with the top ten industries in the country. They divided the accommodation industry in two, the hotel industry and other accommodation industry. The results showed that the hotel industry generated more labour income than the other accommodation sector. It also had a strong inter dependent relationship with the finance and insurance industry in the country. Chang, Park, Liu, & Roh (2015) used this method to estimate various aspects of the cruise industry’s economic impact in the Port of Incheon, South Korea. The results highlight the

9 effects on both the national and regional economies as well as the interaction between the two in terms of production, employment, and value added. The I-O models are very useful for demonstrating industry linkages within an economy. They are also useful for showing possible supply constraints and for identifying the most beneficial nature of tourist expenditure. They do however have limitations such as the assumptions of fixed price and wages (Gül, 2015; Jamal & Robinson, 2009). Although the I-O method could be useful for estimating the economic effects of tourism on the national level in Iceland it cannot be applied at the regional level due to lack of statistical data and the fact that no Input-Output tables exists neither at the national level nor the regional level (Frenţ, 2013). I-O models demand an economic categorisation and a transaction matrix which shows the internal transactions between industries of an economy (Murphy, 2013). It also demands a table of interdependency coefficients which is not available at the regional level in Iceland. Due to these constraints, this model never got through the filtering of methods in the study.

2.3 Computable general equilibrium model

Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models are used to estimate economic impacts of policy initiatives and changes across most industry sectors of an economy (Dwyer, 2015; Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, 2004, 2005). The models are derived from the Input-Output models with the aim of relaxing some of the constraints such as the price variation in the I-O tables. The economic impact estimates from I-O model are generally higher than those from the CGE models as I-O models do not take into account the crowding out effects that occur when prices rise (Blake, Gillham, & Sinclair, 2006; United Nations, 2010b). The supply and use table represents a situation of equilibrium between the diverse variables of the system in the CGE model. It is used to estimate how the economy reacts to changes of variables generated by tourism. Unlike Input-Output models the CGE models vary in data, assumptions and structure and are less fit for international comparison (Burnett, Cutler, & Thresher, 2007; Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, 2004; United Nations, 2010b). The CGE model has been widely used for analysing the effects of tourism. Adams & Parmenter (1995) used the CGE model to estimate the effects of tourism on the industrial and regional structures of the Australian economy. Dwyer, Forsyth, Spurr, & Vanho (2003) used measured the effects of increased tourism on New South Wales, Australia. Zhou, Yanagida, Chakravorty & Leung (1997) evaluated the economic impacts of tourism on the Hawaiian economy. Sugiyarto, Blake & Sinclair (2003) analysed the effects of globalization via tariff reductions, as a stand-alone policy and combined with tourism growth in Indonesia. Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, (2004) assert that I-O models ignore key aspects of the economy such as the effects of resource limitations, flexible labour, and interaction between the economy and the rest of the world. In 2005, they studied the economic effects of the Qantas Australian Grand Prix 2000 using both CGE and I-O modelling. The results were compared, showing that the standard technique of I-O analysis resulted in greater impact on real output than when using the CGE model (Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, 2005). Burnett, Cutler, & Thresher (2007) used the CGE model to estimate the impact of a tourism expansion at a city level. The main results show that it is not the export and import sectors that

10 are most adversely affected by a tourism growth, but the sectors that depend the most on low- wage workers. This is due to the low volume of in-migration of households, resulting in the tourism sector attracting low wage workers from other industrial sectors. The CGE model has also been used for measuring the effects of tourism crisis, such as in the case of the SARS epidemic in Taiwan where Yang & Chen (2009) constructed a CGE model in order to investigate the tourism implications of the SARS epidemic. Other tourism crisis studied were e.g. the effects of the Bali bombing on the Indonesian economy in 2002. These effects were estimated by Pambudi, McCaughey & Smyth (2009), using the CGE model which showed positive effect on export oriented industries such as textiles and electronics whereas tourism exports were badly affected by the incident. The effects of the September 11, 2001 crisis were measured using a CGE model of the US economy where main focus was on evaluating the effects of actual policy responses to the downturn in tourism demand. The main results of the study showed that supporting the sector that was most seriously affected by the crisis was the most efficient policy reaction in terms of both GDP and employment. However, policymakers need to be cautious when choosing which sectors to assist, as the subsidies donation for those relatively unaffected can even be counter- productive (Blake & Sinclair, 2003). Gül (2015) analysed the economic effects of a 10% increase in inbound tourism demand in Turkey by using the CGE model. The model was based on data from an I-O table and a social accounting matrix. A specific tourism industry sector was made, based on TSA data, resulting in a CGE model consisting of 19 sectors. The results from this study showed that an increase in inbound tourism demand resulted in an increase in domestic production along with an increase in prices at the same time as there was a reduction in exports. As discussed above, this model has gained increased acceptance due to its flexibility and the ability to examine miscellaneous scenarios such as the economic impacts of changes in inbound tourism, of tourism crises, of special events as well as to evaluate the impacts of an economic tourism policy such as taxation. The main drawbacks of this model are that it may vary in data, assumptions and structure from one study to another and is therefore less suitable for international comparison. This model is descended from the I-O model and as discussed in chapter 2.2, no I-O tables exist in Iceland which excludes the use of a CGE model on the subnational level. It could however be useful on the national level, for example to estimate the economic effects of tourism crisis such as the volcanic eruptions in Iceland in 2010 and 2011, or to estimate changes of the VAT system, but again it cannot be applied due to lack of I-O tables for the time being.

2.4 Tourism Satellite Accounts

Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) is a distinctive method of measuring the direct economic effects of tourism to a national economy by employing the principles of the System of National Accounts (Frechtling, 2011). The TSA has gained increased acceptance by its users because of its direct link to national accounting, which allows for the incorporation of generally accepted statistical sources (Ryan, 2003). The UNWTO has published numerous guidelines on the implementation of the principles (United Nations, 2010a-b; UNWTO, 2001, 2006, 2008, 2013)

11 but other articles have also been published on how to link the principles to other methods in order to expand the measurement (Dwyer, 2015; Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, 2005; Frechtling, 2011; Smeral, 2006; UNWTO, 2015). The history of the TSA methodology dates back to 1982 when World Tourism Organisation (WTO) started working on the development of a uniform and comprehensive means of measurement and comparison for tourism in accordance with the recommendations of the System of National Accounts (Spurr, 2006; United Nations, 2010b). Today, more than 70 countries in the world have constructed TSA as a mean of measuring the direct effects of tourism on the national economy (Frechtling, 2013; United Nations, 2010b). The principles of the Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008 were published in 2010 by the United Nations. Its development relates to the International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics (United Nations, 2010b). The TSA implementation by countries is dependent on the degree of implementation of the System of National Accounts 2008. In Europe, 22 EU countries, 3 EFTA countries and 2 candidate countries transmitted Tourism Satellite Accounts data in the period of 2012-2013 (Eurostat, 2013). Iceland has constructed Tourism Satellite Accounts for the period of 2000- 2013 with four publications (Statistics Iceland, 2008; 2010; 2011; 2015). Numerous approaches have been used worldwide to construct TSAs on the regional level. The methods and concepts used have been very heterogeneous which encumbers comparison between regions and nations. Rough outlines for a regional TSA have been published as a guideline but there is no comprehensive system for measuring the economic dimension of tourism at the subnational level available today (Cañada, 2013). Jones, Munday, & Roberts (2003) developed a TSA based on Input-Output tables in Wales. They discuss some of the methodological complications in constructing a regional TSA and the need for a development of an effective tourism policy. They argue that Input-Output model is the most inclusive method for tourism impact studies. This is also the opinion of Teigero (2009) who states in his paper on regional TSA in Andalusia that the use of regional I-O tables is a necessary base along with an accurate expenditure survey to build a regional TSA on. According to (Laimer, 2012) the development of a regional TSA can be complicated due to the fact that some of the economic measures on the national level cannot be applied to the regional level such a transport and central government services. Also, the region of tourism production is not always the same as the region of tourism consumption such as in the case of a tour operator, offering an all-inclusive package. The tour would be produced in the home region of the tour operator but the consumption would most likely take place elsewhere. Smeral (2006) discusses the limited use of TSA without adjustment for indirect effects. According to Smeral, the TSA cannot capture sufficiently the value added by the tourism industry in relation to GDP and the results would be a conceptual underestimation of the industry in a macroeconomic context. He recommends the use of an Input-Output analysis for describing the direct and indirect impacts of tourism demand. Ahlert (2008), used TSA results to estimate the effects of an increase in inbound tourism on the German economy. The article introduces the INFORGE model which was used to estimate the

12 overall effects on income and employment. A description on how TSA provides the optimal linkages to Input-Output models is also presented. Frechtling (2010) provides an overview of the TSA in his article where he discusses the concepts, definitions and structure of the method with special focus on the five macroeconomic variables that it produces. His article gives a graphical overview of the linkage between the TSA tables and the data required for estimating the macroeconomic aggregates. In a later paper, Frechtling (2013) discusses how additional macroeconomic analysis tools such as Input-Output Models and Computable General Equilibrium Models can be used to expand people’s understanding of the economic impacts of tourism. Frenţ (2016), agrees with Frechtling and adds that one should avoid considering TSA as a modelling instrument for economic impact analysis, but rather as a statistical tool for recording the macroeconomic importance of the tourism industry for a given period of time. As discussed above, Tourism Satellite Accounts are based on an internationally approved methodology and have been used increasingly worldwide for assessing of the scope and value of the tourism industry. Basing this research to the greatest possible extent on the TSA:2008 principles was therefore one of the initial aims of the study. Applying this method to the regional level is complicated however and many obstacles were in the way. It was used in this study to identify the classification of products and tourism industries from the Icelandic TSA. Tourism ratio was used in the calculations, but data for calculations of the total regional output, Gross Regional Product and Gross Regional Value Added was non-existent and these aggregates therefore not computed. Data gathering from the demand side was based on the TSA methodology where visitor surveys were conducted, including expenditure surveys which classify expenditures in accordance with the TSA industry categorisation.

2.5 The Nordic Model

The Nordic Model is a method to assess the regional economic impacts of tourism in the Nordic countries which was developed in the early 1980s (Nordisk Projectgrupp, 1980; Paajanen, 1993, as cited in Huhtala, 2007). This work was an initiative of the Nordic Council of Ministers stipulated in 1978. Iceland did not participate directly in this work, but was kept informed during the process (Nordisk Projectgrupp, 1980). Iceland did not participate directly in this work, but was kept informed during the process (Nordisk Projectgrupp, 1980). The Nordic Model suits well for tourism researches in rural regions such as those of the Nordic periphery where lack of data is persistent. The Nordic Model consists of two main parts, the income model and the expenditure model. The income model studies the supply side of tourism whereas the expenditure model is used for the demand side (Kauppila & Karjalainen, 2012; Saarinen, 2003). The first one uses questionnaires or interviews for local companies in order to examine their annual turnover and to measure the proportion of this turnover deriving from tourism. In addition, employment numbers are examined, salary cost, and companies’ purchases. When measuring the direct effects of tourism on incomes, the contributions from the local demand were subtracted from the turnover whereas the indirect effects were calculated from the companies’ purchases in the region. The latter approach uses tourist expenditure survey, requiring an assessment made on the total extent of tourism in the region (Kauppila & Karjalainen, 2012; Saarinen, 2003).

13 This model has been used for economic analysis of tourism by numerous Finnish scholars, including Kauppila & Karjalainen (2012), Paajanen (1998), Rinne & Saastamoinen (2005), Saarinen (2003) and Vuoristo & Arajärvi (1990). Saarinen (2003) conducted a study on the regional economics of tourism in Northern Finland, based on the method. Saarinen argued that even though the model has proved to be one of the most reliable tourism data source in the regional economy of Finland, it can be problematic in use as it requires much evaluation. The companies interviewed must evaluate the tourism ratio of the company’s income and the researcher needs to evaluate the total number of visitors which can be challenging at times. Saarinen also mentions in his article that due to the low level of indirect effects of tourism in the Nordic peripheries they are often ignored in studies using the Nordic Model. Kauppila & Karjalainen (2012) used the expenditure method of the Nordic Model to measure the regional economic impact of fishing tourism in northern Finland. The direct tourism income of a certain area was defined but the direct employment, direct wage and tax incomes could not be measured due to limitations in the data gathering. Rinne & Saastamoinen (2005) carried out a study on the economic role of nature based tourism on a municipality level in Kuhmo municipality in Eastern Finland. The Nordic Model was used to estimate direct, indirect and induced income and employment impacts. Further developments were made on the model in order to catch the income leakage. The results showed that nature‐ based tourism is an important factor for maintaining population in peripheral, rural areas in Eastern Finland as it brings valuable new jobs to regions with serious structural unemployment. Despite the name of the model and area of research, the Nordic Model shares many similarities with other models used in previous researches such as Archer and Owen (1971) and Milne (1987) which are conducted in regions where tourism data is scarce (Kauppila & Karjalainen, 2012). When regional tourism impacts in Iceland could not be estimated from the TSA methodology due to lack of data, the Nordic Model suited best for continuation. The reason is the type of data requested for calculating the economic effects of tourism. This data was e.g. total turnover, employment numbers and operation cost which was reachable in the region through company interviews and visitor surveys including an expenditure survey. The results from the Nordic Model were therefore the total turnover of the tourism industry in the region, total Annual Working Units and Full Time Equivalents summer and winter. Tourism expenditure was also measured as this model requests. The expenditure surveys were however based on the TSA industry categorisation.

2.6 Literature related to the economic impact of tourism and its connected activities in Iceland

Studies on the economic impact of tourism in Iceland have been identified as an important issue (Jónsson, Friðbertsson, & Ásbjörnsson, 2006; Huijbens & Jóhannesson, 2013; Icelandic Tourist Board, 2011; 2013; Jóhannesson, 2012; Jónsdóttir, 2013; Icelandic Travel Industry Association, 2012). The need for regional enterprise statistics has also been pointed out in order to assess the regional development of tourism and profitability (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2013). Timely, reliable and internationally comparable data on tourism in Iceland is scarce and one of the main

14 tasks of the Tourism Task Force (TTF) is to compile reliable tourism statistics to serve as a basis for decision making and targeting in the industry. The TTF was set up through an agreement between the Icelandic government, the Icelandic Travel Industry Association and the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities to work on coordination and more solid foundation in the tourism industry (Ministry of Industries and Innovation & Icelandic Travel Industry Association, 2015). Statistics Iceland compiled and published its first Tourism Satellite Account in 2009 and has published three since, covering the period of 2000-2013 (Statistics Iceland, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2015). The last publication was made through the collaborative efforts between Statistics Iceland and ITRC, modifying hitherto used the TSA methodology in accordance with the UNWTO TSA methodology (Frenţ, 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2015). Statistics Iceland also publishes regularly statistics on overnight stays and short term indicators in tourism such as number of employees and VAT turnover in activities related to tourism (Statistics Iceland, n.d.). Tourism credit card expenditure is monitored by the Centre for Retail Studies in Bifröst which classifies and publishes the expenditures monthly by tourism categories (Centre for Retail Studies, n.d.). Since 2009, the Icelandic Tourist Board has summarised and published annually key tourism figures, such as total visitor numbers, overnight stays, foreign card turnover etc in their brochure Tourism in Iceland in Figures (Óladóttir, 2016), based largely on the aforementioned sources. Analysis on some key economic issues in the tourism industry have been made by the Icelandic banks (Arion banki, 2013, 2014, 2015; Íslandsbanki, 2015, 2016; Landsbanki Íslands, 2013, 2014, 2015) and by Gekon Consulting (Jónsdóttir, 2013). These reports discuss topics such as investment, leverage, employment and revenues in the industry. They also forecast future developments based on their own analysis. These analysts base their assessments on data sources such as visitor numbers, foreign credit card expenditures, tourism employment numbers, external trade, overnight stays, investment numbers, as well as with interviews with tourism stakeholders and business statistics of tourism companies in their portfolio. The secondary data is available at the national level from Statistics Iceland, Centre for Retail Studies, Icelandic Tourist Board and the banks themselves. International consulting companies have made comprehensive analysis on the Icelandic economy and the tourism industry with forecast on future developments (Boston Consulting Group, 2013; McKinsey & Company, 2012). These reports reflect the growth in the industry and provide advice on future development with focus on environmental preservation, infrastructure development and sustainability. The PKF (2013) made a capsule situation analysis on the tourism industry in Iceland and suggested a long-term strategy for the Icelandic tourism industry with the aim of maximising tourism‘s economic contribution. The focus in PKF’s report was on the shift away from emphasising on the growth in visitor numbers and tourism receipts to the creation of a sustainable future destination where environmental and cultural preservation are observed (PKF, 2013). The Boston Consulting Group (2013) in a report published around the same time as the PKF (2013) report estimated the economic impact of tourism by projecting visitor numbers the next ten years and by calculating visitor numbers into GDP impact. That was done by estimating the total visitor expenditure and necessary investments for servicing them for the next ten years. Also, the GDP impact was computed for

15 employment numbers and tax receipts. The main guidline in the BCG report was to attract the most valuable tourists (the segment) to the country instead of focusing on total tourist numbers (Boston Consulting Group, 2013). An analysis of McKinsey & Company Scandinavia of the Icelandic economy as a whole, showed the proportional increase of tourism in exports and measured the value of each industry in the Icelandic economy. A special focus was on productivity in the report where it emerged that labour productivity was low in tourism compared to the metal and fishing industry when these numbers were compared with the Scandinavian countries. As in the case of PKF and BCG, McKinsey stresses the importance of focusing on a growing value instead of growing volume in the tourism industry (McKinsey & Company, 2012). The main tourism data sources in these reports are similar to those of the banks; visitor numbers, tourist accommodation statistics, ITB visitor surveys, GDP, investment data and trade balance as well as interviews with tourist industry stakeholders. The University of Iceland Institute of Economic Studies has carried out studies on the tourism industry. A report on the economic effects of lower airport charges at the Keflavík International Airport (KEF) was published in 2004. The study used output multipliers to estimate the effects of these price changes based on tourism expenditure in Iceland. The multipliers were used to calculate the expenditures by categories as presented in the Icelandic Tourist Board visitor survey (Institute of Economic Studies, 2004a). The institute also measured the effects of an intended increase of value added tax in the accommodation sector on the industry as well as the effects of a strong real exchange rate of the Icelandic krona on the tourism industry (Institute of Economic Studies, 2006, 2012). It also measured the effects of the new Harpa Concert hall on inbound visitor arrivals to the country (Institute of Economic Studies, 2011). The key data sources in these reports were the ITB visitor surveys and visitor numbers, Annual Working Units in tourism, overnight stays, taxes from the tourism industry. Hafsteinsson & Steinsson (2014) studied the tax environment in the tourism industry in Iceland with special focus on tax evasion. According to the study, the tax environment in the industry is complicated and the state misses important tax revenues due to the lack of registration in the accommodation sector. More studies identify this lack in the tax environment such as a recent report on the Airbnb industry in Iceland. According to that report, the sharing economy in Iceland has answered the increased need for tourism accommodation, but adjustments need to be done in the regulation environment in order to better control this sector of the industry (Ólafsson, et al., 2015). Others have discussed how the rapid growth of the tourism industry in Iceland along with increased used of social media can create new opportunities in the industry for people by sharing underused assets (Jónsson & Huijbens, 2014). Some specific sectors of the tourism industry in Iceland have also been studied especially. The economic effects of the whale watching industry in Iceland was examined in 2003, based on whale watchers’ expenditure (Guðmundsson, 2003; Oddsson, 2003). Whale watching in Iceland was also studied in an international study carried out by Economists at large (2009) where the direct and indirect expenditure was estimated. A study on the whale watching industry and its effects on the economic and social structure of fishing villages in Iceland was made in 2009. It discusses the conflict between fishermen and the whale watching industry, which in many cases compete for scarce resources. The viability and resilience in small resource-dependent sea villages is also discussed in the article (Einarsson, 2009).

16 A study on the cruise industry in Iceland was made in 2013-2014 where direct public revenues of the industry as well as visitor consumption were amongst the subjects of research (Huijbens & Gunnarsson, 2014). The economy of the equine industry in Iceland has been studied with focus on the new economic, cultural and social roles of the Icelandic horse where tourism plays an important role (Helgadóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2008; Sigurðardóttir & Helgadóttir, 2015a; 2015b). A study on the economic effects of sport fishing was carried out in 2004 where the direct, indirect and induced effects were studied based on revenues from lease holders and landowners as well as fishers’‘ expenditures in the area (Institute of Economic Studies, 2004b). The above mentioned reports all present the effect of tourism on the national level. However, little has been written about the subject on the regional level. Jónsson, Friðbertsson, & Ásbjörnsson (2006) studied the economic effects of tourism regionally in Iceland. Their study was based on questionnaires amongst the customers of tourism companies in Akureyri as well as secondary data on overnight stays and foreign exchange revenues. The productivity in the tourism industry was estimated and the methodology of the study was presented as guidelines for future tourism studies on that subject (Jónsson, 2004). Jóhannesson (2009) made an analysis of tourism in the West of Iceland with focus on labour, capital and natural resources, using Porter’s diamond model. His results showed strong foundation and positive development in the industry in all sectors. However concerns were made of the foreign currency leverage by tourism companies. The Icelandic Tourism Research Centre carried out a visitor survey amongst all departing passengers from Akureyri International airport during the summers of 2009, 2010 and 2012. The aim of the study was to get a clearer picture of visitor composition, travel habits and tourism consumption at the destination. The expenditure part of the survey took into account the principles of the TSA in order to enable comparison of the results with these of the tourism satellite accounts (Bjarnadóttir & Helgason, 2010; Bjarnadóttir & Huijbens, 2011; Huijbens & Helgason, 2012). A study on the economic effects of tourism in Húsavík was carried out in 2008 and 2010 based on expenditure surveys in Húsavík. Special consideration was given to whale watching (Guðmundsdóttir & Ívarsson, 2008; Ívarsson & Halldórsson, 2011). This research was repeated in years 2013-2014 as part of this project (Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2014). A study on the economic effects of reindeer hunting in the East was conducted in 2011. Keynesian multiplier was used to estimate the multiplier effects based on hunters’ expenditure (Heiðarsson & Sigurðsson, 2010; Sigurðsson, 2012). The effects of glacier river rafting on employment in the Skagafjörður municipality were studied in year 2003. This study compared employment numbers by industry sectors in 25 regions and estimated the multiplier effects of the industry in the region (Institute of Economic Studies, 2003). The effects of Vatnajökull National Park were estimated in a study made by Tourism Research & Consulting Ltd. The effects of the establishment of the National Park were estimated and the number of visitors and tourism revenues (Guðmundsson, 2012). A study with the purpose of measuring the willingness of visitors to pay entrance fees to natural attractions was carried out

17 in Skaftafell national Park and by Gullfoss waterfall in 2008. The results showed that the majority of the respondents were willing to pay entrance fee which could help relieve the financial deficiency faced by many natural attractions. Modest fees would not have much impact on the visitor demand for the sites (Reynisdóttir, Song, & Agrusa, 2008). As can be seen from the above, there is some literature connected to the economic effects of tourism in Iceland. However, the only reports on the economic effects of tourism based on the TSA methodology are those of Statistics Iceland and Dr. Cristi Frenţ (Frenţ, 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2015). Nothing has been written yet on the regional economic effects of tourism based on that methodology which stresses the importance of this particular study. The methods that have been used for estimating the economic effects of tourism in Iceland are divergent. Definition and demarcation of the tourism concept are often unclear which affects the results. Due to little supply of tourism data and researches, obvious gap remains in the literature. As an example, studies have been conducted on sport fishing, river rafting, reindeer hunting and whale watching whereas nothing was found on the economic effects of other recreational services such as winter tourism, northern light tours, glacier tours, hiking tours etc. A general absence of data is on the regional economic effects of tourism which encumbers strategic planning and implementation. Even though the studies mentioned above are many based on somewhat limited supply of tourism data in Iceland in comparison with other countries, one must bear in mind the different situation when conducting a study on the national level in Iceland compared to the one on the regional level. I-O tables, tourist numbers, total turnover in the industry, tourist expenditure and employment numbers are all available for the national level, whereas they are very scarce if any for the regional level. The immense growth in tourism in Iceland has inevitably raised challenges for management and infrastructure. The need for sound strategic planning of a broad group of stakeholders increases the importance of synchronized economic measurements and tourism data gathering.

18 Research design and key findings

This study on the economic effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur is based on a methodology derived from more than one internationally recognized method. The methods that were taken into consideration in the beginning of the study are described in the literature review as well as in Appendix A (p. 5-12 and 71-78). These methods all have in common that their main purpose is to define and assess the scope and value of the tourism industry by categories. In this study, an attempt was made to base the calculations of the regional direct effects of tourism to the greatest possible extent on the TSA:2008 principles. The list of tourism enterprises in the study was based entirely on that methodology as well as the assessment of the regional tourism employment. Some complications concerning the regional origin of the tourism revenues and consumption came up during this work and were dealt with as explained in Appendix A (p. 24-25). When it came to the economic estimations of tourism, it emerged that necessary data to calculate the total regional output, Gross Regional Product (GRP) and Gross Value Added (GVA) were lacking. Therefore much effort was put into the search for regional enterprise data in public databases but it turned out that the only acceptable enterprise data for the region had to be gathered first hand. That resulted in comprehensive company interviews and visitor surveys. A pilot test of six companies was implemented before the main interviewing period which revealed that the most reliable and reachable economic enterprise data was direct annual account aggregates such as total turnover, total operating cost, employment numbers and salary payments. The tourism ratio was then estimated by the companies from these aggregates. Information on investments and financing was insufficient from the interviews and were therefore excluded from the calculations. The methodology that fitted best for the economic assessment at that point was the Nordic Model which estimates the scope of the tourism industry from the enterprise annual turnover focusing on the proportion of the turnover which is derived from tourism. In addition, the model examines employment numbers as well as salary costs, and companies’ purchases. This method relies on the estimations of the tourism companies themselves of how much of their production is consumed by tourists and how much by the locals. The direct effects of tourism on income is found by subtracting the estimated contributions from the local demand from the total turnover. The total turnover from industries in Þingeyjarsýslur which were directly involved in tourism was 8.335 m. ISK. Thereof, the estimated tourism turnover was 4.672 m. ISK, where accommodation services presented the largest share. The results are demonstrated in table 1.

Table 1. Total tourism turnover in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013 (m. ISK) Source: The author’s elaboration based on interview data.

Total Tourism Number of turnover turnover companies Accommodation services 1.655 1.549 33 F&B serving services 393 319 7 Travel agencies and other 836 802 17 reservation services Cultural services & Sport and recreational 1.290 488 14 services & Transportation Goods purchased from trade 2.963 800 18 activities Other services 1.197 714 37 Total 8.335 4.672 126

Each company was asked to provide information on the number of employees and Full Time Equivalent (FTE) depending on the season as well as the total Annual Work Units (AWU). This number was then multiplied with the tourism ratio provided by the companies. The results from the interviews showed that the total number of AWU in tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur was 313 in 2013 (table 2). The total number of FTEs during the summer of 2013 was 749 and 151 during the winter. The total salary cost in the study was 1.971 m. ISK, whereof salaries directly related to tourism were 1.436 m. ISK. The average monthly salary in 2013 was estimated to be 324 thousand ISK.

Table 2. Tourism employment numbers in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013 Source: The author’s elaboration based on interview data.

Employees Employees Annual summer winter Work Units (FTE) (FTE) (AWU)

Accommodation services 343 45 131 F&B serving services & 115 27 50 Transportation Travel agencies and other 105 27 46 reservation services Cultural services & 27 2 5 Sport and recreational services Goods purchased from trade 53 31 37 activities Other services 106 18 42 Total 749 151 313

20 The indirect effects were found by assessing the enterprise purchases in the region from the interviews. This approach in the Nordic Model is called the income model. It also has another approach from the demand side, the expenditure model, which bases its calculations on a visitor survey where tourist expenditures are assessed and results multiplied by the number of visitor arrivals. Both these models were used in this study. The total operating cost of companies directly involved in tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur was 4.819 m. ISK, whereof tourism related operation cost was 2.495 m. ISK in year 2013. This includes all expenses directly related to tourism except salary cost and depreciation. The companies were asked to estimate the ratio of the total operating cost which was generated within the region, i.e. goods and services bought from local companies. This ratio was then used to compute the partial indirect effects of tourism in the region (first round effects). The share of the expenses that were derived from within Þingeyjarsýslur and the North East Iceland represents the linkages within the regional economy and the remaining share represents the leakages from the region. Table 3 demonstrates the results by tourism categories. The highest linkages ratio in Þingeyjarsýslur was within the travel agencies and other reservation sector whereas the highest leakages ratio was within the sector of goods purchased from trade activities.

Table 3. Total tourism operating cost spent within regions of study (‘000 ISK) Source: The author’s elaboration based on interview data.

Þingeyjarsýslur North East Total Linkages Leakages Total Linkages Leakages

Accommodation services 267.130 35,6% 64,4% 529.604 70,6% 29,4%

F&B serving services 70.001 40,9% 59,1% 91.912 53,7% 46,3% Travel agencies & other reservation services 243.034 54,9% 45,1% 296.329 66,9% 33,1% Cultural services & Sport and recreational services & Transportation 85.308 32,2% 67,8% 123.973 46,7% 53,3% Goods purchased from trade activities 90.715 18,0% 82,0% 198.017 39,4% 60,6%

Other services 147.754 40,8% 59,2% 225.707 62,3% 37,7%

Total 903.943 36,2% 63,8% 1.465.543 58,7% 41,3%

The questionnaire in the visitor survey consisted to a large extent of structured questions where respondents chose an answer from a list of pre-determined options. The questions were restricted to those who stayed in Húsavík or around Lake Mývatn for a period of 24 hours in the summer of 2013. Participants in the survey were asked to provide certain basic information about themselves, such as age, gender, residence, education and income (demographic variables). These data were used to shed light on the composition and background of the visitors at the same time as it enabled comparison with the inbound visitor survey on the national level commissioned by the Icelandic Tourist Board. The main expenditure categories were based on

21 the classification provided by the UNWTO International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics and the Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008 (United Nations, 2010a; 2010b; UNWTO, 1999). A total of 920 visitor answered the expenditure survey and 102 tourism companies were interviewed. The average expenditure numbers were multiplied by the number of visitor’s arrivals in the region in order to assess the economic impacts of tourism from the demand side (table 4).

Table 4. Estimated inbound tourism consumption in Húsavík and in the region of Lake Mývatn in 2013 Source: Rögnvaldsdóttir, (2014) and the author‘s elaboration based on visitor survey results in the region of Lake Mývatn in 2013 (unpublished). Total inbound Average 24h Visitor numbers in consumption in expenditure 2013 2013 (‘000 ISK) The Mývatn region 10.678 190.000 2.028.820 Húsavík 15.785 124.848 1.970.726 Total: 3.999.546

For the assessment of the indirect and induced effects of tourism on the regional level, the literature on tourism multipliers, the Input-Output model and the Computable General Equilibrium Model was reviewed. As discussed in the literature review these methods demand important statistical data and framework, such as I-O tables in the case of the I-O model and CGE model, as well as extensive information on the number, background and behaviour of the regional visitors in order to produce tourism multipliers. The majority of the necessary regional information for tourism multipliers could be gathered through regional visitor surveys, but what eliminates the application of these methods is that no information was reachable on the local propensity to consume. This information can be reached on the national level, allowing for national multiplier tourism calculations, but for the regional level, none of these methods on the indirect effects of tourism were applicable.

22 Conclusions

This study is the result of a three year work on the assessment of the regional tourism industry in Þingeyjarsýslur and its economic impact in the region. This study has covered a wide range of features, all from analysing the basic supply of regional tourism data to an assessment of the regional economic impacts of the tourism industry. One of the main challenges of this study was to overcome the lack of regional tourism data and gather primary data in the field. A total of 102 companies in the region were interviewed and 920 visitors participated in a visitor survey. Finding the appropriate methodology to feed this data into was another task as very few studies on the regional economic effects of tourism had been conducted in Iceland. Internationally established frameworks of the tourism economic impact analysis were reviewed and their applicability in the Icelandic regional context analysed. For the direct effects of tourism in the region, the principles of Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008 were used to the greatest possible extent. As this method is designed for the national level, some adjustments were inevitable. In the instances where this method was not applicable, the Nordic Model, which has been used for the evaluation of economic impacts of tourism in Nordic peripheries, was used instead. For the indirect effects, special consideration was paid to the Input-Output model, the Computable General Equilibrium model and tourism multipliers. Due to the lack of statistical tourism data and framework on the regional level these methods could not be applied in the study. Again, the measurement of the indirect effects was based on the Nordic Model and presents only first round indirect effects. The answers to the research questions in this study are therefore that the applicability of internationally established frameworks of tourism economic analysis is limited. These methods can generally be applied at the national level, but due to the shortage of regional tourism data in the country, these cannot be applied at the regional level. As to the most suitable method for calculating the regional economic effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur, the answer is a combination of the Nordic Model and the TSA methodology. The principles of the TSA methodology suit best for identifying the classification of products and tourism industries from the Icelandic TSA as well as for an assessment of the tourism employment. The Nordic Model is more relevant for the economic assessment as it is developed for regions such as the Nordic peripheries where tourism data supply is scarce and primary data is requested. This model bases its calculations on the enterprise turnover, employment numbers and operation cost which can all be derived from company interviews. Systematic measures of regional economic contribution of tourism in Iceland are impossible with the sole use of secondary data. Instead, primary data has to be obtained, often with cost and time consuming methods such as those employed in this study.

24 Discussion

During the last decades, many rural areas in Iceland have experienced economic downturn and decline in population. At the same time however, tourism in some of these areas has grown and had an important impact on the development of the regional economy. Þingeyjarsýslur is no exception thereof. Hotels and restaurants have risen, sometimes even in empty properties formerly belonging to other industries. The increase in tourism employment in the region during the period of 2007-2014 was 50% at the same time as the overall decrease in employment numbers in the region was 2,7%. If the tourism industry is excluded from these employment numbers, the decrease in employment would have been 7,1% for the same period of time. It is important to pay attention to this development and to determine whether the growth potential of the tourism industry could be harnessed as a strategy for the regional development. Also to study how the growth in the tourism industry harmonises with the development of other sectors such as the heavy industry which has long been in the spotlight in Þingeyjarsýslur. The local industries depend in many cases on the same resources which emphasises the importance of developing linkages across them. No matter what policies are made in the region, the discussion has to be based on reliable data in order to secure sound decision making. In the case of regional tourism in Iceland, statistical data availability is scarce. Information on basic factors such as visitor numbers, consumer behaviour and expenditure pattern are generally not available on the regional level. Neither is information on regional tourism employment or the regional turnover in the tourism industry. What this thesis contributes to the industry is statistical data on these aspects which were not available before. It also contributes an application of internationally recognised methods which have not been used on the regional level in Iceland before. A good sense for the scope of the industry is necessary for policy makers when planning the economic future of the region. Linkages across regional industries are a significant factor for a prosperous regional economy. According to the results, 64% of the income resulting from tourism companies’ purchases leaks from the region. Another issue is that 18% of all AWUs in the tourism industry have registered domicile outside the region, which results in a 30 m.ISK leakage from the region in terms of municipal tax revenues in 2013. These ratios depend not only on the willingness of the local companies to by local products, but also on the size of the economy and its ability to serve the needs of the regional industries. Regional tourism infrastructure enables tourists to stay and use the services and attractions provided in the region. Understanding the background and behaviour of the visitors is essential when building up this infrastructure and the tourism industry in general. Information on the visitor characteristics and their main incentive for visiting the region are helpful factors in this matter. What is their experience of the visit and what can be done better to meet their demands without disturbing the locals? It has emerged from this study that the regional composition of the visitors’ country of residence is different to the composition on the national level. Also the interest and behaviour. These factors need to be studied before investing in expensive tourism projects and infrastructure.

25 As already stated, statistical data is essential when it comes to strategic planning, decision making and implementation of tourism policies. This thesis contributes important data for these factors on the regional level which will hopefully be of use for policy makers. The scope of tourism in the region is substantial according to the results. It would have been preferable to compare the results with the regional turnover in other industries in the region, but due to lack of data, this comparison was impossible. It is the hope of the author that more statistical data will be produced on the regional level in the future enabling better practices in data analysis and decision making for all industries.

26 Bibliography

Adams, P. D., & Parmenter, B. R. (1995). An applied general equilibrium analysis of the economic effects of tourism in a quite small, quite open economy. Applied Economics, 27(10), 985-994.

Ahlert, G. (2008). Estimating the Economic impact of an Increase in Inbound Tourism on the German Economy Using TSA Results. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2), 224-234.

Albuquerque, K. d. (1996). The economic impact of the cruise industry: a new Zinder Report. Bulletin of Eastern Caribbean Affairs, 21(1), 1-8.

Archer, B. (1977). Tourism multipliers: the state of the art: Volume 11 of Bangor occasional papers in economics. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Archer, B. (1995). Importance of the Tourism for the economy of Bermuda. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 918-930.

Archer, B. (1996). Economic Impact Analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 704-707.

Archer, B. H., & Owen, C. B. (1971). Towards a tourist regional multiplier. Regional Studies, 5(4), 289-294.

Archer, B., & Fletcher, J. (1996). The economic impact of tourism in the Seychelles. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 32-47.

Arion banki. (2013). Ferðaþjónustan: Atvinnugrein á unglingsaldri [Tourism: An industry of adolescent]. Reykjavík: Arion banki.

Arion banki. (2014). Flýtum okkur hægt, en gerum það í snatri [Be quick, but don’t hurry] Reykjavík: Arion banki.

Arion banki. (2015). Við erum öll í ferðaþjónustu: Úttekt greiningardeildar Arion banka [We are all in the tourism industry: Analysis by Arionbanki]. Reykjavík: Arion banki.

Bess, R., & Ambargis, Z. O. (2011). Input-Output Models for Impact Analysis: Suggestions for Practitioners Using RIMS II Multipliers. 50th Southern Regional Science Association Conference (p. 1-28). New Orleans: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Retreaved 12. March 2016 from http://www.bea.gov/papers/ pdf/wp_iomia_rimsii_020612.pdf

Bjarnadóttir, E. J., & Helgason, J. G. (2010). Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll: Könnun meðal brottfararfarþega Iceland Express sumarið 2009. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Bjarnadóttir, E. J., & Huijbens, E. H. (2011). Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll: Könnun meðal brottfararfarþega Iceland Express sumerið 2010 [International flights through

27 Akureyri airport: A survey of departing passengers Iceland Express summer 2010]. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Blake, A., & Sinclair, M. T. (2003). Tourism Crisis Management: US Response to September 11. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(4), 813-832.

Blake, A., Gillham, J., & Sinclair, M. T. (2006). CGE tourism analysis and policy modelling. In L. Dwyer, & P. Forsyth (Eds.), International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism (bls. 301-3015). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Boston Consulting Group. (2013). Northern Sights: The future of tourism in Iceland. Boston: The Boston Consulting Group.

Briassoulis, H. (1991). Methodological Issues: Tourism Input-Output Analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 18, 485-495.

Brownrigg, M., & Greig, M. A. (1975). Differential multipliers for tourism. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 22(3), 261-175.

Burnett, P., Cutler, H., & Thresher, R. (2007). The impact of tourism for a small city: A CGE approach. The Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 37(3), 233-242.

Cañada, A. (2013). Regional Tourism Satellite Account. Madrid: UNWTO.

Centre for Retail Studies. (n.d.). Mánaðarleg kortavelta erlendra ferðamanna eftir útgjaldaliðum. Retreaved 15. November 2015 from http://px.rsv.is/PXWeb/ pxweb/is/Kortavelta%20fer%C3%B0amanna/-/tourist_shopping_foreign.px/

Chang, Y., Park, H., Liu, S.-M., & Roh, Y. (2015). Economic impact of cruise industry using regional input–output analysis: a case study of Incheon. Maritime Policy & Management, 43(1), bls. 1-18.

Dimand, R. W. (1988). The Origins of the Keynesian Revolution: The Development of Keynes' Theory of Employment and Output. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Dwivedi, D. N. (2005). Macroeconomics: Theory and Policy. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

Dwyer, L. (2015). Computable General Equilibrium Modelling for Tourism Policy: Inputs and Outputs. Madrid: UNWTO.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2004). Evaluating tourism's economic effects: new and old approaches. Tourism Management, 25(3), 307-317.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2005). Estimating the Impacts of Special Events on an Economy. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 351-359.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Spurr, R., & Vanho, T. (2003). Tourism’s contribution to a state economy: a multi-regional general equilibrium analysis. Tourism Economics, 9(4), 431- 448.

28 Dwyer, L., Gill, A., & Seetaram, N. (2012). Handbook of Research Methods in Tourism: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Economists at large. (2009). Whale Watching Worldwide: Tourism numbers, expenditures and economic benefits. Melbourne: International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Einarsson, N. (2009). From good to eat to good to watch: whale watching, adaptation and change in Icelandic fishing communities. Polar Research, 28, 129-138.

Eriksen, L., & Ahmt, T. (1999). Measuring and Modelling the Regional Impact of Tourism in Denmark. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1, 313-327.

Eurostat. (2013). Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSAs) in Europe. Luxembourg: European Union.

Fletcher, J. E. (1989). Input-output analysis and tourism impact studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(4), 514-529.

Frechtling, D. (2011). Exploring the Full Economic Impact of Tourism for Policy Making: Extending the Use of the Tourism Satellite Acount through Macroeconomic Analysis Tools. Madrid: UNWTO.

Frechtling, D. C. (2006). An Assessment of Visitor Expenditure, Methods and Models. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 26-35.

Frechtling, D. C. (2010). The tourism satellite account: A primer. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 136-153.

Frechtling, D. C. (2013). The Economic Impact of Tourism: Overview and Examples of Macroeconomic Analysis. Madrid: UNWTO.

Frechtling, D. C., & Horváth , E. (1999). Estimating the Multiplier Effects of Tourism Expenditures on a Local Economy through a Regional Input-Output Model. Journal of Traveo Research , 37(4), 324-332.

Frechtling, D., & Smeral, E. (2010). Measuring and Interpreting the Economic Impact of Tourism: 20/20 Hindsight and Foresight. (D. G. Pearce, & R. W. Butler, Ritstj.) Tourism Research: A 20-20 Vision, bls. 67-79. Sótt frá http://home.gwu.edu/~frechtli/material/FrechtlingSmeral2020.pdf

Frenţ, C. (2013). The Economic Benefits of Tourism in Iceland: Boosting the Icelandic Tourism Satellite Account Development - Icelandic Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) – A Conformity Assessment with United Nations standards for TSA – Part I. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Frenţ, C. (2014a). The Economic Benefits of Tourism in Iceland: Boosting the Icelandic Tourism Satellite Account Development - Icelandic Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) – A Conformity Assessment with United Nations standards for TSA – Part II. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

29 Frenţ, C. (2014b). The Economic Benefits of Tourism in Iceland: New Developments for the Icelandic Tourism Satellite Account: Tourism Gross Fixed Capital Formation and Tourism Collective Consumption. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Frenţ, C. (2015). The New Compilation of the Tourism Satellite Account in Iceland for 2009- 2013: Data Sources, Methodology and Results. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Frenţ, C. (2016). Informing tourism policy with statistical data: The Case of the Icelandic Tourism Satellite Account, Current Issues in Tourism, DOI 10.1080/13683500.2015.1126237 (published online 8 January 2016).

Giaoutzi, M., & Nijkamp, P. (Eds.). (2006). Tourism and Regional Development: New Pathways. Hants: Ashgate Publishing.

Guðmundsdóttir, R., & Ívarsson, A. V. (2008). Efnahagsleg áhrif ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík: Tilkoma hvalaskoðunar [Economic impact of tourism in Húsavík: Emergence of whale watching]. Húsavík: Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga.

Guðmundsson, R. (2003). Hvalaskoðun erlendra ferðamanna á Íslandi 1996-2003. Hafnarfjörður: Tourism Research & Consulting Ltd.

Guðmundsson, R. (2012). Vatnajökulsþjóðgarður: áhrif á ferðaþjónustu [Vatnajökull National Park: Impact on tourism]. Hafnarfjörður: Tourism Research & Consulting Ltd.

Gül, H. (2015). Effects of foreign demand increase in the tourism industry: a CGE approach to Turkey. Anatolia. An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 26(4), 598-611.

Hafsteinsson, Á. S., & Steinsson, J. B. (2014). Skattsvik í ferðaþjónustu: Umfang og leiðir til úrbóta [Tax evasion in tourism, scope and possible improvements]. Bifröst: Bifröst Research Center .

Harðarson, Ó. and Sindradóttir, J.Í. (2012). Íslensk hagskýrslusvæði á héraðsstjórnarstigi [Statistical territories in Iceland]. Reykjavík: Hagstofa Íslands.

Harris, P. (1997). Limitations on the Use of Regional Economic Impact Multipliers by Practitioners: An application to the tourism industry. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 8(2), 50-61.

Heiðarsson, J. Þ., & Sigurðsson, S. (2010). Efnahagsleg áhrif skotveiða á Íslandi [Economic impact of hunting in Iceland]. Þjóðarspegillinn XI: Conference in Social Sciences, 93- 102.

Helgadóttir, G., & Sigurðardóttir, I. (2008). Horse-based Tourism: Community, Quality and Disinterest in Economic Value. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(2), 1-17.

Heng, T. M., & Low, L. (1990). Economic impact of tourism in Singapore. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(2), 246-269.

30 Huhtala, M. (2007). Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 81, 223-238.

Huijbens, E. H., & Gunnarsson, K. B. (2014). Skemmtiferðaskip við Ísland: Úttekt á áhrifum [Cruise ships in Iceland: Impact analysis]. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Huijbens, E. H., & Helgason, J. G. (2012). Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll: Könnun meðal brottfararfarþega sumarið 2012 [International flights through Akureyri airport: A survey of departing passengers summer of 2012.]. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Huijbens, E. H., & Jóhannesson, G. Þ. (2013). Ferðamál á Íslandi [Tourism in Iceland]. Reykjavík: Mál og menning.

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2011). Ferðamálaáætlun 2011-2020 [Tourism strategy 2011-2020]. Reykjavík: Icelandic Tourist Board.

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2013). Þörfin fyrir rannsóknir í íslenskri ferðaþjónustu: Greining hagsmunaaðila [The need for tourism research in Iceland: Stakeholder analysis]. Reykjavík: Icelandic Tourist Board.

Icelandic Tourist Board. (n.d.). Numbers of foreign visitors to Iceland. Retrieved 10. March 2016 from Research & Statistics: http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/en/recearch-and- statistics/numbers-of-foreign-visitors

Icelandic Travel Industry Association. (2012). Ársskýrsla 2011-2012 [Annual Report 2011- 2012]. Reykjavík: Icelandic Travel Industry Association.

Institute of Economic Studies. (2003). Áhrif siglinga á Jökulsám á atvinnu í Skagafirði og þjóðarhag [The effects of glacier river rafting in Skagafjörður on employment and economy]. Reykjavík: Institute of Economic Studies.

Institute of Economic Studies. (2004a). Flug- og ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi: Umfjöllun í tilefni af beiðni Ryanair um lækkun gjalda á Keflavíkurflugvelli [Aviation and tourism in Iceland: Discussion on the fee reduction in Keflavik Airport by the request of Ryanair]. Reykjavík: Institute of Economic Studies.

Institute of Economic Studies. (2004b). Lax- og silungsveiði á Íslandi: Efnahagsleg áhrif [Salmon and trout fishing in Iceland: Economic effects]. Reykjavík: Institute of Economic Studies.

Institute of Economic Studies. (2006). Áhrif raungengis á ferðaþjónustu [The effects of real exhange on tourism]. Reykjavík: Institute of Economic Studies.

Institute of Economic Studies. (2011). Áhrif tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhússins Hörpu á komur erlendra ferðamanna [The effects of musical and conference centre Harpa on inbound visitor arrivals]. Reykjavík: Institute of Economic Studies.

Institute of Economic Studies. (2012). Áhrif þess að hækka virðisaukaskatt á gistiþjónustu [The effects of raising VAT on accommodation services]. Reykjavík: Institute of Economic Studies.

31 Íslandsbanki. (2015). Íslensk ferðaþjónusta [Icelandic tourism]. Reykjavík: Íslandsbanki.

Íslandsbanki. (2016). Íslensk ferðaþjónusta [Icelandic tourism]. Reykjavík: Íslandsbanki .

Ívarsson, A., & Halldórsson, Ó. (2011). Fjölgar kreppan krónum [Does the crisis create kronas?]. Húsavík: Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga.

Jamal, T., & Robinson, M. (Eds). (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies. London: SAGE Publications.

Jones, C., Munday, M., & Roberts, A. (2003). Regional Tourism Satellite Accounts: A Useful Tool? Urban Studies, 40(13), 2777-2794.

Jóhannesson, G. Þ. (2012). Tími til að tengja? Af stefnumótun í ferðaþjónustu á Íslandi [Time to connect? Of tourism policy in Iceland]. Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla, 8(1), 173-193.

Jóhannesson, T. (2009). Hagvísir Vesturlands: Staða ferðaþjónustu á Vesturlandi [Economic indicators of the West: Tourism in the West of Iceland]. Borgarnes: Samtök sveitarfélaga á Vesturlandi.

Jónsdóttir (editor), R. (2013). Kortlagning og samstarfsmótun íslenskrar ferðaþjónustu: Virðisauki í ferðaþjónustu [Mapping and cooperation in tourism in Iceland: Value added in tourism]. Reykjavík: Gekon.

Jónsson, Á. (2004). Að græða á gestakomum: Þjóðhagslegur ábati ferðaþjónustu og hlutverk ríkisins [Visitor earnings: Economic benefits of tourism and the role of the State]. Landabréfið, 20(1), 51-67.

Jónsson, Á., Friðbertsson, N. T., & Ásbjörnsson, Þ. (2006). Hagræn áhrif ferðaþjónustu - greint eftir svæðum á Íslandi [Economic effects of tourism: Regional analysis in Iceland]. Akureyri: Iceland Tourism Research Centre.

Jónsson, Ö. D., & Huijbens, E. H. (2014). Heima að Heiman. Deilihagkerfið og gestakomur til Íslands [Home away from home. The sharing economy and visitor arrivals to Iceland]. Íslenska þjóðfélagið, 5(1), 49-65.

Kauppila, P., & Karjalainen, T. P. (2012). A process model to assess the regional economic impacts of fishing tourism: A case study in northern Finland. Fisheries Research, 127- 128, 88-97.

Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Cambridge: Macmillan Cambridge University Press.

Kim, H., & Kim, B.-G. (2015). Economic impacts of the hotel industry: an input-output analysis. Tourism Review, 70(2), 132-149.

Laimer, P. (2012). Regional Tourism Satellite Accounts in Austria – sufficient information for regional tourism policy? Vienna: Statistics Austria.

32 Landsbanki Íslands. (2013). Ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi: Greining hagfræðideildar Landsbanka Íslands [Tourism: Analysis by the Economic Research department of Landsbankinn]. Reykjavík: Landsbanki Íslands.

Landsbanki Íslands. (2014). Ferðaþjónusta: Greining hagfræðideildar Landsbankans [Tourism: Analysis by the Economic Research department of Landsbankinn]. Reykjavík: Landsbanki Íslands.

Landsbanki Íslands. (2015). Ferðaþjónusta: Greining hagfræðideildar Landsbankans [Tourism: Analysis by the Economic Research department of Landsbankinn]. Reykjavík: Landsbanki Íslands.

Lee, C.-K., & Taylor, T. (2005). Critical reflections on the economic impact assessment of a mega-event: the case of 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management, 26, bls. 595- 603.

Lejárraga, I., & Walkenhorst, P. (2010). On linkages and leakages: measuring the secondary effects of tourism. Applied Economics Letters, 17, 417-421.

Leontief, W. (1966). Input-Output Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Leontief, W. (1986). Input-Output Economics (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Liu, J. C. (1986). Relative Economic Contributions of Visitor Groups in Hawaii. Journal of travel research, 25(1), 2-9.

Liu, T. V. (Ed.). (2006). Tourism Management: New Research. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: economic physical and social impacts. London: Longman Group Limited.

Mazumder, M. N., Al-Mamun, A., Al-Amin, A. Q., & Mohiuddin, M. (2012). Economic Impact of Tourism - A Review of Literatures on Methodologies and Their Uses: 1969-2011. Í M. Kasimoglu (Ritstj.), Visions for Global Tourism Industry - Creating and Sustaining Competitive Strategies (bls. 269-294). Rijeka: Intech.

McKinsey & Company. (2012). Charting a Growth Path for Iceland. London: McKinsey & Company.

Milne, S. (1991). The Economic Impact of Tourism in Kiribati. Pacific Studies, 14(2), 53-70.

Milne, S. S. (1987). Differential multipliers. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(4), 499-515.

Ministry of Industries and Innovation & The Icelandic Travel Industry Association. (2015). Road Map for Tourism in Iceland. Reykjavík: Ministry of Industries and Innovation & The Icelandic Travel Industry Association.

Murphy, P. E. (2013). Tourism: A community approach. New York: Routledge.

33 Nordisk Projectgrupp. (1980). Turismens lokala/regionala effekter på ekonomi och sysselsättning: En analysmetodik. Delrapport I.

Oddsson, G. (2003). Efnahagsleg áhrif hvalaskoðunar á Íslandi árið 2003 [Economic effects of whale watching in Iceland 2003]. Reykjavík: Hvalaskoðunarsamtök Íslands.

Óladóttir, O. (2016). Tourism in Iceland in Figures 2015. Reykjavík: Icelandic Tourist Board.

Ólafsson, G. A., Steinsson, J. B., Hafsteinsson, Á. S., Aðalsteinsson, B., Guðmundsson, S., & Egilsson, V. (2015). Íbúðagisting: Rannsókn á umfangi íbúðagistingar í ferðaþjónustunni [Private accommodation: A study of the scope of private accommodation in the tourism industry]. Bifröst: Bifröst University.

Paajanen, M. (1998). Assessing local income and employment effects of tourism: experience using the Nordic model of tourism. Í T. Baum, & R. Mudambi (Ritstj.), Economic and management methods for tourism and hospitality research (p. 123-144). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Pambudi, D., McCaughey, N., & Smyth, R. (2009). Computable general equilibrium estimates of the impact of the Bali bombing on the Indonesian economy. Tourism Management, 30(2), 232-239.

PKF. (2013). Promote Iceland: Long-term strategy for the Icelandic tourism industry. London: PKF.

Reynisdóttir, M., Song, H., & Agrusa, J. (2008). Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tourism Management, 1076-1083.

Rinne, P., & Saastamoinen, O. (2005). Local Economic Role of Nature‐based Tourism in Kuhmo Municipality, Eastern Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(2), 89-101.

Rusu, S. (2011). Tourism multiplier effect. Journal of economics and business research, 70-76.

Ryan, C. (2003). Recreational Tourism: Demand and Impacts. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Rögnvaldsdóttir, L. B. (2013). Fémæti ferðaþjónustu: Rannsókn á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslu [The value of tourism: Research on the economic effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur]. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Rögnvaldsdóttir, L. B. (2014a). Tourism Data Collection: Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Rögnvaldsdóttir, L. B. (2014b). Þróun og staða ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík: Niðurstöður ferðavenjukannana sumrin 2013 og 2014 [Scope and development of tourism in Húsavík: Visitor survey results from summer surveys 2013 and 2014]. Húsavík: Húsavík Academic Centre.

Rögnvaldsdóttir, L. B. (2016). Economic Effects of Tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur: An analysis at the subnational level in Iceland. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

34 Saarinen, J. (2003). The regional economics of tourism in Northern-Finland: The socio- economic implications of recent tourism development and future possibilities for regional development. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 3(2), 91-113.

Sigurðardóttir, I., & Helgadóttir, G. (2015a). Riding High: Quality and Customer Satisfaction in Equestrian Tourism in Iceland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism.

Sigurðardóttir, I., & Helgadóttir, G. (2015b). The new equine economy of Iceland. Í C. Vial, & R. Evans (Ritstj.), The new equine economy in the 21st century (bls. 225-236). The Netherlands: Wageninge Academic Publishers.

Sigurðsson, S. (2012). The economic impact of hunting reindeer in East Iceland. 1-13.

Sinclair, M. T., & Sutcliffe, C. M. (1982). Keynesian income multipliers with first and second round effects: an application to tourist expenditure. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 44(4), 321-338.

Singh, S., Timothy, D. J., & Dowling, R. K. (Ritstj.). (2003). Tourism in Destination Communities. Oxford: CABI.

Smeral, E. (2006). Tourism Satellite Accounts: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 92-98.

Spurr, R. (2006). Í L. Dwyer, & P. Forsyth (Ritstj.), International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism (bls. 283-300). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Stabler, M. J., Papatheodorou, A., & Sinclair, M. T. (2010). The Economics of Tourism. London: Routledge.

Statistics Iceland. (2008). Ferðaþjónustureikningar 2000-2006 [Tourism Satellite Accounts 2000-2006]. Hagtíðindi: Ferðamál, samgöngur og upplýsingatækni, 93(59), bls. 1-44.

Statistics Iceland. (2010). Ferðaþjónustureikningar 2000-2008 [Tourism Satellite Accounts 2000-2008]. Hagtíðindi: Ferðamál, samgöngur og upplýsingatækni, 95(71), 1-24.

Statistics Iceland. (2011). Ferðaþjónustureikningar 2009-2011 [Tourism Satellite Accounts 2009-2011]. Hagtíðindi: Ferðamál, samgöngur og upplýsingatækni, 96(66), 1-28.

Statistics Iceland. (26. June 2015). Ferðaþjónustureikningar staðfesta mikinn vöxt í ferðaþjónustu á Íslandi [TSA confirms the rapid growth in tourism in Iceland]. Retrieved 10. July 2015 from https://hagstofa.is/utgafur/frettasafn/ferdathjonusta/ ferdathjonustureikningar-stadfesta-mikinn-voxt-i-ferdathjonustu-a-islandi/

Statistics Iceland. (n.d.). Short term indicators in tourism. Retrieved 12. March 2016 from http://www.statice.is/statistics/business-sectors/tourism/short-term-indicators-in- tourism/

Sugiyarto, G., Blake, A., & Sinclair, M. T. (2003). Tourism and globalization: Economic Impact in Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 683-701.

35 Sun, Y.-Y. (2007). Adjusting Input–Output models for capacity utilization in service industries. Tourism Management, 28, 1507-1517.

Teigero, L. R. (2009). Creating Regional Tourism Satellite Accounts: the case of Andalusia. Enzo Paci Papers. 6, bls. 1-15. Malaga: World Tourism Organization.

United Nations. (2010a). The conceptual framework for tourism statistics - International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008. Sótt 12. 11. 2012 frá http://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/Seriesm/SeriesM_83rev1e.pdf

United Nations. (2010b). Tourism satellite account: Recommended methodological framework 2008. Luxemburg: United Nations Publication. Sótt frá http://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/Seriesf/SeriesF_80rev1e.pdf

UNWTO. (2001). The Tourism Satellite Account as an Ongoing Process: Past, Present and Future Developments. Madrid: UNWTO.

UNWTO. (2006). Measuring the Economic Importance of the Meetings Industry – Developing a Tourism Satellite Account. Madrid: UNWTO.

UNWTO. (2008). Sources and Methods: Labour Statistics – Employment in the Tourism Industries (Special Edition). Madrid: UNWTO.

UNWTO. (2013). Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSAs) in Europe - 2013 edition. Madrid: UNWTO.

UNWTO. (2015). Statistics and TSA Issues Paper Series - Computable General Equilibrium Modelling for Tourism Policy – Inputs and Outputs. Madrid: UNWTO.

Vuoristo, K. V., & Arajärvi, T. (1990). Methodological problems of studying local income and employment effects of tourism. Fennia, 168(2), 153-177.

Wattanakuljarus, A., & Coxhead, I. (2008). Is tourism-based development good for the poor?: A general equilibrium analysis for Thailand. Journal of Policy Modeling, 30(6), 929- 955.

Wei, C. K., Shuib, A., Ramachandran, S., & Herman, S. (2013). Applicability of economic models in estimating tourism impacts. Journal of Applied Economics and Business, 1(4), 5-16.

Yang, H.-Y., & Chen, K.-H. (2009). A general equilibrium analysis of the economic impact of a tourism crisis: a case study of the SARS epidemic in Taiwan. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(1), 37-60.

Zhou, D., Yanagida, J. F., Chakravorty, U., & Leung, P. (1997). Estimating economic impacts from tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), 76-89.

Zinder, H. (1969). The Future of Tourism in the Eastern Caribbean. Washington DC: Zinder and Associates.

Appendix A

Economic Effects of Tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur: Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland

Lilja B. Rögnvaldsdóttir

Icelandic Tourism Research Centre

March 2016

106 pages

Economic Effects of Tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland

Lilja Berglind Rögnvaldsdóttir

Publisher: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre, Borgum v/ Norðurslóð, IS-600 Akureyri Tel: (+354) 460-8930 Fax: (+354) 460-8919 e-mail: [email protected] Web: www.rmf.is

Title: Economic Impact of Tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur: Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland Author: Lilja B. Rögnvaldsdóttir Supervisor: Cristi Frenţ

Cover: Ásprent-Stíll and the ITRC Printing: Stell (www.stell.is)

Number: RMF-S-01-2016 ISBN: 978-9935-437-45-7 ISSN: 1670-8857

Cover picture: Dimmuborgir July 2015. Lilja B. Rögnvaldsdóttir ©

All rights reserved. This report is not to be copied or reproduced in any way, such as by photographing, printing, recording, or comparable ways in parts or as whole without the prior written consent of the publisher

Economic Effects of Tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland

Lilja Berglind Rögnvaldsdóttir

ICELANDIC TOURISM RESEARCH CENTRE MARCH 2016

iii

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD ...... 1

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3

2 KEY CONCEPTS USED, METHODOLOGY AND STUDY AREA ...... 5

2.1 Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) ...... 5 2.1.1 Concepts and classifications ...... 6 2.1.2 Tourism demand ...... 9 2.1.3 Tourism supply ...... 11 2.2 The Nordic Model ...... 12 2.3 Regional analysis ...... 13 2.3.1 Territorial units in Iceland ...... 14 2.3.2 Research area ...... 17 2.4 Inbound visitor survey ...... 22 2.5 Survey on tourism companies ...... 24

3 NON-MONETARY INDICATORS ...... 27

3.1 Visitor numbers ...... 27 3.2 Accommodation statistics ...... 37

4 RESULTS ...... 45

4.1 Total turnover by detailed industries 2013 ...... 45 4.1.1 Accommodation services ...... 50 4.1.2 Food- and beverage-serving services ...... 53 4.1.3 Travel agencies and other reservation services ...... 53 4.1.4 Transportation and transport equipment rental ...... 60 4.1.5 Cultural services ...... 61 4.1.6 Sport and recreational services ...... 62 4.1.7 Goods purchased from trade activities ...... 63 4.1.8 Other services...... 63 4.2 Internal tourism consumption ...... 63 4.3 Tourism employment in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013 ...... 66

5 TOWARDS OTHER ESTIMATIONS FROM THE STUDY ...... 71

5.1 Indirect and induced effects ...... 71 5.2 Municipal revenues ...... 78 5.2.1 Revenue basis ...... 79 5.2.2 Municipal income tax ...... 79 5.2.3 Property tax ...... 81 5.2.4 Dues ...... 81 5.2.5 Other revenues ...... 81

6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 83

7 LIMITATIONS ...... 87 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 89

v 9 APPENDICES ...... 101

APPENDIX 1 ...... 101 APPENDIX 2 ...... 103 APPENDIX 3 ...... 105 APPENDIX 4 ...... 107

List of figures

Figure 1. Classification of inbound travellers ...... 7 Figure 2. Tourism resource mapping in Iceland ...... 16 Figure 3. Icelandic Regional Development Institute’s area demarcation ...... 18 Figure 4. Regional GDP by categories in NE Iceland 2013 ...... 19 Figure 5. Regional GDP by categories in NE Iceland 2003 ...... 19 Figure 6. Research area ...... 20 Figure 7. Population in Þingeyjarsýslur 1996-2015 ...... 21 Figure 8. Relative population development 1996-2015 in Iceland and Þingeyjarsýslur...... 21 Figure 9. Number of visitors to Þingeyjarsýslur and selected areas in 2014 ...... 29 Figure 10. Inbound visitors in Þingeyjarsýslur and chosen areas 2005-2014...... 30 Figure 11. All visitors in Þingeyjarsýslur and chosen areas 2005-2014...... 30 Figure 12. Inbound visitor arrivals. Index numbers 2005-2014...... 31 Figure 13. Correlation between visitors to Húsavík and whale watching passengers ...... 32 Figure 14. Correlation between visitors to Mývatn and visitors to Nature Baths ...... 32 Figure 15. Number of inbound visitors in Þingeyjarsýslur 2014 by months ...... 33 Figure 16. Country of residence of visitors to Þingeyjarsýslur...... 34 Figure 17. Inbound visitors to Iceland, Húsavík and the Lake Mývatn region ...... 35 Figure 18. Cruise ship passengers in Húsavík 2007-2015 ...... 36 Figure 19. Overnight stays in Þingeyjarsýslur 2014 ...... 38 Figure 20. Overnight stays in Þingeyjarsýslur by types of accommodation establishments ... 38 Figure 21. Overnight stays in Þingeyjarsýslur by months, 2010-2014 ...... 39 Figure 22. Overnight stays in camping sites by region ...... 40 Figure 23. Overnight stays by regions and months ...... 40 Figure 24. Overnight stays by foreign nationalities in June-August 2014...... 41 Figure 25. Overnight stay ratio in Þingeyjarsýslur by inbound visitors 2012-2014 ...... 41 Figure 26. Correlation between inbound overnight stays and inbound visitor numbers ...... 42 Figure 27. Total tourism turnover in Þingeyjarsýslur by tourism sectors ...... 47 Figure 28. Number of accommodation establishments, rooms and beds in Þingeyjarsýslur ... 51 Figure 29. AirBnB accommodation supply in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013-2015 ...... 52 Figure 30. Number of whale watchers in Húsavík 1995-2015...... 56 Figure 31. Number of whale watchers in Iceland per region 1995-2014 ...... 57 Figure 32. The boundaries of tourism-related employment and total employment ...... 66 Figure 33. Employment development in Þingeyjarsýslur 2006-2014. AWUs per category. ... 68 Figure 34. AWUs and FTEs in the tourism industry. Þingeyjarsýslur 2007-2014 ...... 69 Figure 35. Effects of tourism: direct, indirect and induced...... 72

vi List of tables

Table 1. List of tourism characteristic consumption products and activities ...... 8 Table 2. NUTS and LAUs in Iceland ...... 14 Table 3. Regions of Iceland and some characteristics...... 15 Table 4. Tourism resource mapping in Iceland ...... 16 Table 6. Focus factors in the visitor profile statistics ...... 22 Table 7. Data sources for identifying tourism related companies in Þingeyjarsýslur ...... 24 Table 8. Companies’ response rate ...... 26 Table 5. Seasonal concentration of overnight stays by regions and months in Iceland ...... 43 Table 9. Total tourism turnover in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013 ...... 46 Table 10. Tourism ratios in Iceland and Þingeyjarsýslur ...... 48 Table 11. Total turnover in tourism industries in Iceland and Þingeyjarsýslur 2013 ...... 49 Table 12. The average annual growth rate of whale watchers per region and time period ...... 57 Table 13. Estimated internal tourism consumption in Þingeyjarsýslur in 2013 ...... 64 Table 14. Estimated inbound tourism consumption in Húsavík and Mývatn ...... 65 Table 15. Tourism employment numbers in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013 ...... 67 Table 16. Total tourism operating cost spent within regions of study ...... 77 Table 17. Municipal revenue sources with relevance for tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur ...... 78 Table 18. Estimated municipal income tax revenues from tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur ...... 80 Table 19. Classification of products and related industries from the new Icelandic TSA. .... 103

vii

FOREWORD

Statistical data is essential when it comes to strategic planning, decision making and implementation of policies in tourism, as in any other activity or industry. The quality and interpretation of this data directly impacts the efficiency of such work. The need for more and improved statistical data on tourism has arisen worldwide with the rapid growth of the tourism industry and much discussion has taken place in Iceland on that subject. Progress has been made with the publication of Tourism Satellite Accounts and the creation of the Tourism Task Force, but there is still much work to be done. This report focuses on regional tourism statistical data gathering and an analysis of the economic impacts of tourism regionally in Iceland. The regional data is compiled from national data which adheres to international standards where possible, but most of the data here presented is gathered from in situ research.

2 1 INTRODUCTION

Tourism is an important contributor to the Icelandic economy. In 2013, the tourism industry’s direct contribution to the country’s GDP was estimated to be 87,3 billion ISK, resulting in a share of 4,6%.1 This demonstrates a growth of 55% from the year 2009 in nominal terms. At the same time, the nominal increase rate of Iceland’s GDP was 18,6% (Statistics Iceland, 2015c). The tourism industry directly employed 9.500 people in 2013, which accounts for about 5,5% of the country’s total workforce (World Travel & Tourism Council, 2014).

Tourism is generally dependent on the national system of transport and the destinations are developed around place specific natural and/or cultural attractions. It can therefore be unevenly distributed within the national territory. Consequently, it can generate additional demand at different territorial levels which needs to be measured using reliable and appropriate frameworks in order to ensure rational and prosperous decision making by public and private stakeholders (Huijbens & Bjarnason, 2014; United Nations, 2010b). With the enlarged scope of tourism worldwide, the need for detailed and improved statistics of the industry has risen. Regional tourism authorities have shown a growing interest in the development of regional statistics as a means to provide valuable indicators for tourism enterprises and organisations in finding potential business opportunities, evaluating the intensity and size of tourism businesses and measuring the level of interconnection between private and public regional tourism networks and clusters (United Nations, 2010a).

Iceland is a small country in a European context and has limited obligations to compute regional statistics and build regional accounts2 (EFTA, 2015). However, in order to develop a strong and well-functioning tourism industry, statistical analysis by regions is indispensable. The nature and scope of tourism has to be understood in order to rationalise decision making and fulfil the objectives of the parliamentary resolution on tourism for 2011-2020, which i.a. aims at increasing the profitability of the sector by reducing seasonal fluctuations and lengthening the tourist season (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2011).

With the purpose of evaluating tourism’s regional economic effects in Iceland, a study has been carried out by the Icelandic Tourism Research Centre in collaboration with the University of Iceland’s Research Centre in Húsavík and the Húsavík Academic Centre during

1 The aggregate of Tourism Direct Gross Domestic Product (TDGDP). 2 According to the EEA agreement, Iceland and Norway are not bound by the regulation on regional accounts as the EU member states (EFTA, 2015).

3 the period of 2012-2015. A report presenting the methodology of the study was published in 2013 (Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2013). Visitor survey results were published in 2014 (Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2014b) and a report on regional tourism data availability in Iceland was published in 2014 (Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2014a). The field of study is the Þingeyjarsýslur counties and the year 2013 is the focus of the analysis, which is also the most recent year for which data has been compiled in the Icelandic TSA. Other data, such as tourist numbers and overnight stays, is more recent. The method used in this study is retrieved as much as possible from the principles of the Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008 (TSA:RMF 2008), which is generally applied for a country as a whole (national level). The project was funded with support from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and the Northeast Iceland Growth Agreement.

The main focus of the study is on the direct regional effects of tourism. However, special consideration is given to the indirect and induced effects with the aim of evaluating if such estimations are feasible at the regional level.

The methodology of the study is described in chapter two as well as the study area and key concepts. Chapter three discusses non-monetary indicators, focusing mainly on tourism numbers and overnight stays in the region. In chapter four, the direct effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur are discussed and the total turnover by tourism industries and tourism consumption in the region is presented. Chapter five discusses other estimations of the study, such as the indirect effects and municipal revenues from tourism in the region, and it is followed by a conclusion and a discussion of the study's limitations in chapters six and seven.

The main results of the study can be summarized as follows:

 The total turnover by detailed industries directly related to tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur was 8.335 m. ISK in the year 2013, whereof total tourism turnover was 4.672 m. ISK.  The total number of Annual Work Units in tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur was 313 in 2013. Full Time Equivalents during the summer were 749 and 151 during the winter. The total tourism salary cost in the region accounted for 1.436 m. ISK in 2013.  The number of visitors to Þingeyjarsýslur in 2013 is estimated to have been 312.0003.  Total overnight stays in the region are estimated to have been 292.3594 in 2013.

3 Domestic and inbound visitors. 4 Domestic and inbound tourists in all types of accommodation.

4 2 KEY CONCEPTS USED, METHODOLOGY AND STUDY AREA

Tourism is primarily a demand-defined industry unlike most output-defined industries in the national accounts such as fisheries, agriculture and manufacturing. The scope of the tourism industry is in fact determined by its consumers at the time of consumption (Smeral, 2006). Expenditures on travel and tourism cut across many types of industries that do not fit neatly into the Industrial Classification System (Mak, 2004). Tourism economic statistics are therefore hidden in various macro-economic national accounts frameworks like current accounts or private consumption. In order to unveil these different tourism components for analysis and to foster international comparability, the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) developed successive sets of international recommendations on tourism statistics; International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008 (IRTS 2008) and Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008 (TSA:RMF 2008). These publications provide the basic definitions and concepts regarding the diverse aspects of tourism as well as a conceptual framework designed for the computation of the importance of tourism from a macroeconomic perspective (Eurostat, n.d.c.; OECD, 2010; United Nations, 2010a, 2010b).

2.1 TOURISM SATELLITE ACCOUNT (TSA) TSA concentrates on the description and dimension of tourism in its various components (inbound, outbound and domestic) (OECD, 2010). It measures the direct economic contributions of tourism consumption to a national economy based on a set of ten interrelated tables which are consistent with the general Supply and Use Tables (SUT) established by countries at the national level to describe the general economic balance of goods and services and the production accounts of the producers following the System of National Accounts (Frechtling, 2010; United Nations, 2010b).

The purpose of a Tourism Satellite Account is to analyse in detail all the aspects of demand for goods and services associated with the activity of visitors; to observe the operational interface with the supply of such goods and services within the economy; and to describe how this supply interacts with other economic activities (United Nations, 2010b, p. iii).

5 2.1.1 Concepts and classifications The construction of TSA employs a number of tourism concepts. A brief definition of each concept is provided as follows:

(a) Tourism can be regarded as a social, cultural and economic phenomenon associated with the movement of people outside their usual environment. Tourism therefore refers to the activity of visitors (OECD, 2010). (b) “Travel refers to the activity of travellers. A traveller is someone who moves between different geographic locations for any purpose and any duration. Travel within a country by residents is called domestic travel. Travel to a country by non-residents is called inbound travel, whereas travel outside a country by residents is called outbound travel” (United Nations, 2010a, p. 9). (c) “A visitor is a traveller taking a trip to a main destination outside his/her usual environment, for less than a year, for any main purpose (business, leisure or other personal purpose) other than to be employed by a resident entity in the country or place visited. These trips taken by visitors qualify as tourism trips” (United Nations, 2010a, p. 10). (d) “A visitor (domestic, inbound or outbound) is classified as a tourist (or overnight visitor) if his/her trip includes an overnight stay, or as a same-day visitor (or excursionist) otherwise” (United Nations, 2010a, p. 10).

Figure 1 demonstrates the classification of inbound travellers to a country. According to TSA principles, only the travellers in the blue boxes in figure 1 count as visitors to a country where they do not reside. There are miscellaneous reasons for the red boxes to be excluded, such as travellers being considered as residents of the extraterritorial area that is part of the territory of the country they represent, or the country of residence is considered to be the usual residence of the traveller (United Nations, 2010a).

(e) Tourism industries are defined as “the activities that typically produce tourism characteristic products” (table 10) (United Nations, 2010a, p. 40). (f) Tourism industries are also defined in IRTS 2008 as the “grouping of those establishments whose main activity is the same tourism characteristic activity. In supply-side statistics, establishments are classified according to their main activity, which is determined by the activity that generates the most value added” (United Nations, 2010b, p. 25).

Figure 1. Classification of inbound travellers Source: United Nations (2010a, p. 17).

(g) An establishment is “an enterprise, or part of an enterprise, that is situated in a single location and in which only a single productive activity is carried out or in which the principal productive activity accounts for most of the value added” (United Nations, 2010b, p. 25). (h) Tourism ratio is “the ratio between the total value of tourism share and total value of the corresponding variable in the Tourism Satellite Account expressed in percentage form” (United Nations, 2010b, p. 80). (i) Tourism characteristic activities generally produce tourism characteristic products. (j) Tourism characteristic products are those that fulfil one or both of the following criteria:

(j.1) Tourism expenditure on the product should represent a significant share of total tourism expenditure (share-of-expenditure/demand condition);

7 (j.2) Tourism expenditure on the product should represent a significant share of the supply of the product in the economy (share-of-supply condition). This criterion implies that the supply of a tourism characteristic product would cease to exist in meaningful quantity in the absence of visitors (United Nations, 2010a, p. 40).

As the industrial origin of a product (in Iceland the ISAT 2008 industry that produces it) is not a measurement for the accumulation of products within a similar Central Product Classification (CPC)5 category, there is no exact one-to-one relationship between products and the industries producing them as their primary output.

Table 1 demonstrates the typology of tourism characteristic consumption products and activities, separately grouped in the 12 corresponding categories to be used in the Tourism Satellite Account tables (United Nations, 2010a-b).

Table 1. List of tourism characteristic consumption products and tourism characteristic activities (tourism industries) Source: United Nations (2010b, p. 25).

Tourism products Tourism activities 1 Accommodation services for visitors Accommodation for visitors 2 Food- and beverage-serving services Food- and beverage-servicing activities 3 Railway passenger transport services Railway passenger transport 4 Road passenger transport services Road passenger transport 5 Water passenger transport services Water passenger transport 6 Air passenger transport services Air passenger transport 7 Transport equipment rental services Transport equipment rental 8 Travel agencies and other reservation services Travel agencies and other reservation services activities 9 Cultural services Cultural activities 10 Sports and recreational services Sports and recreational activities 11 Country-specific tourism characteristic goods Retail trade of country-specific tourism characteristic goods 12 Country-specific tourism characteristic Other country-specific tourism characteristic activities services

5 The Central Product Classification (CPC) is an internationally approved product classification, based on the physical characteristics of goods or on the nature of the services provided. It classifies goods and services as a result of production in the economy and is used as a standard for organizing and analysing data on industrial production. Each activity of the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) is defined in such a way that it only produces one type of product (OECD, n.d.; United Nations, 2015).

8 Categories 1 to 10 in table 1 encompass the core for international comparison in terms of International Standard Industry Classification (ISIC) for activities (equivalent to ISAT2008 in Iceland) and CPC subclasses for products. Categories 11-12 are country specific, whereas category 11 includes tourism characteristic goods for products and the equivalent retail trade activities for activities. Category 12 refers to country-specific tourism characteristic services and other country-specific tourism characteristic activities (United Nations, 2010b).

Each enterprise in Iceland is classified with a five digit classification code which enables industry categorisation based on the European Union’s NACE Rev2. The system consists of 664 industries and facilitates demarcation between the different sectors as well as the aggregation of related sectors. As tourism is not specially categorized in ISAT 2008, the codes of all the tourism related industries are listed according to IRTS 2008, enabling the coverage of the tourism industry population (Statistics Iceland, n.d.c.). Attention must be paid to the fact that enterprise lists by regions inevitably include biases in the case of branches with headquarters elsewhere. The ISAT numbers of the tourism activities in table 1 have been identified in accordance with the classifications proposed by UNWTO. Appendix 2 contains a list of tourism industries that was used in the last TSA compilation for Iceland (Icelandic Tourism Research Centre, 2015a; Statistics Iceland, n.d.e.).

2.1.2 Tourism demand As tourism is a demand-based industry, reliable demand data is essential for the development of TSA. There are two crucial elements under the TSA demand side which need to be calculated; tourism expenditure and tourism consumption. The TSA:RMF 2008 makes a distinction between tourism expenditure and tourism consumption. As already mentioned, the former relates to monetary transactions whereas the latter also takes into account other transactions such as vacation in second homes, tourism social transfers in kind and other imputed consumption. Tourism expenditure is more immediately assessable while tourism consumption is more complete (OECD, 2010; United Nations, 2010b).

Tourism expenditure is defined as “the amount paid for the acquisition of consumption goods and services, as well as valuables, for own use or to give away, for and during tourism trips. It includes expenditures by visitors themselves, as well as expenses that are paid for or reimbursed by others” (United Nations, 2010a, p. 31). There are several types of tourism expenditure:

9 (a) Domestic tourism expenditure is the tourism expenditure of a resident visitor within the economy of reference;

(b) Inbound tourism expenditure is the tourism expenditure of a non-resident visitor within the economy of reference;

(c) Outbound tourism expenditure is the tourism expenditure of a resident visitor outside the economy of reference (United Nations, 2010a, p. 34).

Furthermore,

(a) Internal tourism expenditure comprises all tourism expenditure of visitors, both resident and non-resident, within the economy of reference. It is the sum of domestic tourism expenditure and inbound tourism expenditure. It includes acquisition of goods and services imported into the country of reference and sold to visitors. This indicator provides the most comprehensive measurement of tourism expenditure in the economy of reference;

(b) National tourism expenditure comprises all tourism expenditure of resident visitors within and outside the economy of reference. It is the sum of domestic tourism expenditure and outbound tourism expenditure (United Nations, 2010a, p. 34).

The TSA relates tourism demand to the tourism supply in the economy. In order to do that, information needs to be collected not only on the total value of tourism expenditure, but also on the components of this aggregate. This is done by asking visitors to group their expenditures according to their purpose, and the most commonly used categories are the following:

i. Package travel, package holidays and package tours ii. Accommodation iii. Food and drink iv. Local transport v. International transport vi. Recreation, culture and sporting activities vii. Shopping viii. Others (United Nations, 2010a, p. 35)

10 Data collection on expenditure may vary between countries due to different levels of resources and statistical availability. TSA:RMF 2008 recommend that countries use visitor surveys as well as tourism-specific household expenditure surveys to collect this data. Visitor surveys should be conducted at borders as well as at key destinations or places visited (United Nations, 2010b).

2.1.3 Tourism supply Three different indicators need to be compiled in order to describe the tourism supply in an economy according to TSA. These indicators differ somewhat and complement each other. They are the following: Gross value added of the tourism industries (GVATI), Tourism direct gross domestic product (TDGDP) and Tourism direct gross value added (TDGVA). Each of them will be presented below:

Gross value added of the tourism industries (GVATI) is “the value of a productive activity’s output minus the value of inputs purchased from other productive activities for the collection of industries whose main activities are tourism characteristic activities” (United Nations, 2010b, p. 30, p. 34). GVATI is a measure of the supply side of tourism, but as it lacks the direct link to tourism consumption it cannot be accepted as a measure of the importance of tourism for supply. The only indicators strictly embodying tourism supply are therefore TDGVA and TDGDP from a TSA perspective (United Nations, 2010b).

Tourism direct gross value added (TDGVA) is “the part of gross value added generated by tourism industries and other industries of the economy that directly serve visitors in response to internal tourism consumption” (United Nations, 2010b, p. 80). Tourism Satellite Account measures only the value added resulting from the consumption of visitors and excludes the indirect and induced effects of tourism (United Nations, 2010b).

Tourism direct gross domestic product (TDGDP) is “the sum of the part of gross value added (at basic prices) generated by all industries in response to internal tourism consumption plus the amount of net taxes on products and imports included within the value of this expenditure at purchasers’ prices” (United Nations, 2010b, p. 80).

TDGVA and TDGDP express the scope of the direct economic contribution of tourism in the economy of reference in a similar way to GVA of an industry. However, they do not refer to tourism as an industry comparable to other industries in the System of National Accounts 2008. These are indicators, originating from a reconciliation of tourism consumption and

11 supply, based on numerous assumptions and implicit modelling procedures, and therefore special caution must be taken when using these aggregates (United Nations, 2010b).

A limitation of the TSA is that the accounts are mainly descriptive in nature and do not include calculations on the indirect and induced effects of tourism on the economy. Other methods have to be used for that, such as Input-Output tables which are derived from the SUTs (United Nations, 2010b). The I-O tables show how much of each product is used as input for the production of other products at the same time as they demonstrate how much of each product is consumed by different user categories. This results in a map of the inter- industry relations in the economy (Eurostat, n.d.b.).

2.2 THE NORDIC MODEL Applying the TSA methodology can be complicated when measuring the regional economic effects of tourism in rural regions such as those of the Nordic periphery where lack of data is persistent. In the early 1980s, a new method to assess the regional economic impacts of tourism in the Nordic countries was introduced, the so-called Nordic Model (Paajanen, 1993, as cited in Huhtala, 2007). It consisted of two main parts; the income model and the expenditure model. The income model studies the supply side of tourism whereas the expenditure model is used for the demand side (Kauppila & Karjalainen, 2012; Saarinen, 2003). Usually, only one approach is used in each research. The first one uses questionnaires or interviews for local companies in order to examine their annual turnover and to measure the proportion of this turnover deriving from tourism. In addition, employment numbers are examined, as are salary costs, and companies’ purchases. When measuring the direct effects of tourism on income, the contributions from the local demand are subtracted from the turnover whereas the indirect effects are calculated from the companies’ purchases in the region. The latter approach uses tourist expenditure surveys, requiring an assessment made on the total extent of tourism in the region (Saarinen, 2003). This model has been used both at the larger regional and local municipality level in Finland, but to a lesser extent in other Nordic countries (Müller & Jansson, 2007). This model was partly taken into account when implementing the research methodology in this study.

12 2.3 REGIONAL ANALYSIS The measurement of tourism economic impact at the national level is a complex process even though it follows the standardized methodological framework of TSA. The measurement of regional tourism economic effects is even more demanding when it is based on the same data sources as the national figures. No conceptual framework exists for the TSA on a subnational level equivalent to the System of National Accounts. This is both due to observational difficulties as well as problems with applying the national accounting concepts on the regional level. In order to construct a regional tourism satellite account, fully developed supply and use tables are necessary on the regional level, as are input output tables (Office for National Statistics, 2014). These are not available in Iceland. The lack of a coherent and managed regional collection framework for tourism statistics has also restricted regional data production in Iceland.

The main restrictions for identifying tourism activity with the system used in the making of the System of National Accounts and the TSA are the following:

• Some tourism variables are not transferable from the national level to a region. • Not all activities can be regionalised, such as travel agency services and central government services. • General lack of instruments to monitor the flow of visitors in and out of a region (United Nations, 2010b).

TSA:RMF 2008 recommends two main approaches to adapt TSA at the subnational level.

• The interregional approach is conducted in the same way in each region and is directly linked to the System of National Accounts. It relies on the availability of uniform tourism information in each region for each of the TSA tables and is often called the “top-down” approach. • The regional approach has to be specially developed in each region where specific situations and differentials are identified. This approach is called the “bottom-up” approach and is likely to generate a set of regional evaluations that add up to greater totals than the national TSA. It can only fairly be used for comparison between regions (United Nations, 2010b).

The lack of uniform tourism information and the lack of regional data in Iceland excludes the interregional approach. Therefore, calculations in Þingeyjarsýslur for the reference year of this study will be based on the regional approach.

13 2.3.1 Territorial units in Iceland The European Union has introduced a legal framework for the territorial division of EU, EFTA and candidate countries in order to harmonise the collection, transmission and publication of national and community statistics. The Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) is a geocode standard for referencing the subdivisions of countries for statistical purposes. If sub-national statistics are to be comparable, the geographical areas need to be of similar size in population terms. Their political, institutional and administrative arrangements should also be defined (European Union, n.d.). A hierarchy of three NUTS levels is established, followed by two levels of local administrative units (LAUs). The LAUs are generally the lowest administrative division of a country and can also designate municipalities, communes, cities and counties (Eurostat, n.d.a.). The statistical territories in Iceland are classified as in table 2.

Table 2. NUTS and LAUs in Iceland Source: Association of Local Municipalities in Iceland (n.d.b.); European Union (n.d.);.Harðarson and Sindradóttir (2012).

Level Iceland Number of entities NUTS1 IS0 Iceland 1 NUTS2 IS00 Iceland 1 NUTS3 IS001 Capital Region 2 IS002 Rest of country LAU1 Regions in Iceland 8 LAU2 Municipalities in Iceland 74

Table 3 presents the population and geographical size of each LAU1 territory unit as of 1 January 2015. As can be seen, 64% of all inhabitants in Iceland live in the capital area, which represents only 1% of the total geographical area of the country. The smallest areas, population wise, are the North-western region and the West Fjords.

14 Table 3. Regions of Iceland and some characteristics Source: Administrative divisions of Iceland, (n.d).; Statistics Iceland, (n.d.e.); Harðarson and Sindradóttir, (2012).

Area Popul. Popul. Administrative Name Pop. (km²) density6 Share centre

1 Capital Region 211.282 1.044 202,00 64% Reykjavík

2 Southern Peninsula 22.026 816 27,00 7% Reykjanesbær

3 Western Region 15.566 9.527 1,63 5% Akranes

4 West Fjords 6.970 9.357 0,74 2% Ísafjörður

5 North-western Region 7.137 12.591 0,57 2% Sauðárkrókur

6 North-eastern Region 29.257 22.687 1,28 9% Akureyri

7 Eastern Region 12.496 22.013 0,57 4% Egilsstaðir

8 Southern Region 24.366 24.677 0,98 7% Selfoss Total country 329.100 102.712 100%

As table 3 demonstrates, Icelandic conditions have made the implementation of a proper statistical territorial division in the country problematic. Iceland is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world with a very imbalanced population by regions which encumbers statistical work and comparison between regions. This applies to tourism as well and is one of the main reasons why the interregional approach cannot by applied in the making of Regional TSA. What makes the territorial division even more complicated in relation to tourism is the fact that a tourism destination developed around specific attractions does not necessarily follow administrative boundaries.

According to UNWTO International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics (IRTS, 2008), the main destination of a tourism trip from a demand-side perspective is:

The place visited that is central to the decision to take the trip. However, if no such place can be identified by the visitor, the main destination is defined as the place where he/she spent most of his/her time during the trip. Again, if no such place can be identified by the visitor, then the main destination is defined as the place that is the farthest from the place of usual residence (United Nations, 2010a, p. 13).

In a report on tourism resource mapping published by the Icelandic Tourist Board, an approach was made to define the concept of destination, highlighting the role of transport and access. According to this report, a destination is the equivalent of an accessible attraction

6 Population per km2

15 within a certain distance from tourist services. Five main regions were outlined (the capital area and four other areas around the country) and each of them included subregions based on their uniqueness, as listed in table 4 and figure 2 (Sigurbjarnarson and Gíslason, 2002).

Table 4. Tourism resource mapping in Iceland Source: Sigurbjarnarson and Gíslason (2002). Capital East and area South West West Fjords North South Suðurfirðir and - Reykjanes Barðaströnd Húnaþing East Norðurfirðir and Skagafjörður and - South Djúp Siglufjörður Southeast

- Vestmannaeyjar Hornstrandir Eyjafjörður Skaftárþing

- West Strandir Þingeyjarsýslur -

Figure 2. Tourism resource mapping in Iceland Source: Sigurbjarnarson and Gíslason (2002, p.15).

No matter where the borderlines can be drawn with the intention of defining a destination, it can never be clear-cut as the destination changes continuously with the actions and relations of the visitors and locals. Perceptions of a destination can be formed on the part of tourists as well as by other factors that affect the formation of a destination image (Cai, 2002; Huijbens and Jóhannesson, 2013). Defining destinations in Iceland and demarcating them around the

16 country therefore continues to be a challenge for Icelandic policy makers, analysts and scholars of tourism.

Industry clusters have been identified and defined as the main driving force of regional economies through the Icelandic regional development policy (Government offices of Iceland, n.d.). This policy is manifest in special regional growth agreements in the eight regions of the country (figure 3). The main concern of these agreements is to bring increased authority and greater responsibility to these regions in Iceland in order to ensure future growth and versatility in employment. Tourism is one of these specified clusters (Government Offices of Iceland, n.d.; Huijbens & Bjarnason, 2014; Huijbens, Jóhannesson, & Jóhannesson, 2014). Tourism in Iceland is different from most other industries in the country as it is usually tied to natural attractions. These are resources that cannot be transferred from the destination, such as in the case of fishing rights in Iceland, which has affected many coastal communities. This gives rural areas in Iceland a certain advantage in the case of resource and destination management (Huijbens & Bjarnason, 2014; Karlsdóttir, 2008; Karlsdóttir & Benediktsson, 2011).

2.3.2 Research area

The Icelandic Regional Development Institute (IRDI) monitors regional development in Iceland. The institution follows a strategic regional plan which divides the country into eight regions with the aim of enhancing settlements in rural areas through viable, long-term projects with various economic origins (figure 3). These regions are slightly different from the LAU1 demarcation, but coincide with the special regional growth agreements. As can be seen, these administrative regions sit somewhat awkwardly compared to the attempted definition of tourism destinations (figures 2 and 3).

Figure 3. Icelandic Regional Development Institute’s area demarcation Source: Icelandic Regional Development Institute (n.d.).

North East area Despite the variation between some LAU1 regional demarcation and the IRDI’s demarcation, the Northeast area (Eyþing, Norðurland Eystra – fig. 3) remains the same in both cases. This area is the second largest both in terms of population and area. Tourism has a long history in this area where Lake Mývatn and its surroundings play an important role.

The share of Northeast Iceland in national GDP was 7% in 2013. The largest part came from the service sector (63%) whereof hotels, food and beverage (F&B) services, transport and commerce counted for 14%7 (figure 4). When comparing these figures with 2003 (figure 5), one can see that the production from the service sectors (red colour) has increased whereas other industry sectors have declined. The main changes occurred in the seafood industry sector (decrease from 24% to 14%) and the banking, insurances and real estate sector where the production increased from 16% to 26% (Jóhannesson & Árnason, 2011; Jóhannesson, Árnason, & Sigurðsson, 2015).

7 The results in chapter 4 are based on other calculation methods (TSA recommended methodological framework).

18 Power industry, Agriculture Power Agriculture heavy 4% industry, 3% industry heavy 5% industry 4% Other Public Public services Other industry industry 7% services 9% 23% 26% Construct- Construct- ion 7% ion 6%

Seafood Banking, industry Seafood insurances, 14% industry real estate Banking, 24% 16% insurances, Commerce, real estate Commerce, Hotel, 26% Hotel, F&B, F&B, transport transport 14% 12%

Figure 4. Regional GDP by categories in Figure 5. Regional GDP by categories in NE-Iceland 2013 NE-Iceland 2003 Source: Jóhannesson, Árnason, & Sigurðsson (2015) Source: Jóhannesson & Árnason (2011)

At the same time, the capital region’s total share of GDP has been growing in the last years and counted for about 71% in 2013, compared to 64% in 2003, according to the Institute of Economic Studies (Jóhannesson & Árnason, 2011; Jóhannesson et al., 2015).

The economic growth in Iceland was 3% in 2013. The growth in NE-Iceland was 0% at the same time. When focusing on the five-year period of 2009-2013 these numbers are 4% for the country as a whole and 3% for NE-Iceland (Jóhannesson et al, 2015).

The category of commerce, hotel, F&B and transport grew from 12% of the total regional GDP in 2003 to 14% in 2013 in Northeast Iceland. These sectors are involved with tourism as demonstrated in table 1.

Þingeyjarsýslur The Icelandic Regional Development Institute divides Northeast Iceland into two parts in the institute’s regional analysis: the Eyjafjörður area and the Eastern area (Þingeyjarsýslur counties) (Icelandic Regional Development Institute, 2014). The latter is the subject of this research, consisting of six municipalities with a total population of 4.791 (Jan 2015) (Húsavík Academic Centre, 2015; Statistics Iceland, n.d.c.). The municipalities are: Þingeyjarsveit, Skútustaðahreppur, Norðurþing, Tjörneshreppur, Svalbarðshreppur and Langanesbyggð (figure 6).

Figure 6. Research area Source: National Land Survey of Iceland (n.d.).

During the last three decades, Þingeyjarsýslur have suffered economic recession followed by a decline in population. The collapse of the shrimp industry along with mergers and acquisitions in the fishing industry have resulted in the closing of fish processing plants at the same time as quota holders have sold valuable fishing rights away from the region. The closing of the regional cooperative along with its food processing plants proved to be a setback for the society as well as the closing of the silica plant at Lake Mývatn, to name other compounding factors.

At the same time, the tourism industry has grown as the area boasts a series of natural and man-made tourist attractions which are attracting a growing number of tourists every year. The rise in tourism has indisputably provided important counterweight to this regional economic recession. Tourism is generally labour-intensive and is often considered suitable to tackle unemployment as it does not demand extensive training or experience and provides jobs with low entry demands (Inkson & Minnaert, 2012; UNWTO, 2014a).

The research area population represented 1,46% of the total Icelandic population (329.100) in 2015. There has been a sustained population decline in the region over the last decades (figure 7). In the last ten years, the decline was 6,3% (322 individuals), varying between municipalities. Over a period of 20 years (1996-2015) the decline was 19,5% whilst the Icelandic population grew 22,8% as demonstrated in figure 8 (Húsavík Academic Centre, 2015; Statistics Iceland, n.d.c.).

7.000

5.949 5.949 5.921 5.921 5.908

5.807 5.807

5.684 5.684

5.585 5.585

5.458 5.458 5.402 5.402

6.000

5.306 5.306

5.221 5.221

5.113 5.113

5.061 5.061

5.011 5.011

4.983 4.983

4.930 4.930

4.903 4.903

4.853 4.853

4.832 4.832

4.791 4.791

4.786 4.786

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

1996 2007 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1997

Figure 7. Population in Þingeyjarsýslur 1996-2015 Source: Statistics Iceland (n.d.c.).

25,0% 20,0% 22,8% 15,0% 10,0% 5,0% 0,0% -5,0% -10,0% -15,0% -19,5% -20,0% -25,0% Iceland Þingeyjarsýslur

Figure 8. Relative population development 1996-2015 in Iceland and Þingeyjarsýslur Source: Statistics Iceland (n.d.c.).

21 2.4 INBOUND VISITOR SURVEY For the demand side there is a serious lack of tourism data at regional level in Iceland. The possibilities of retrieving regional information from the ITB inbound visitor survey are limited so a special inbound visitor survey had to be conducted in the research area. A questionnaire was developed and tested in collaboration with the Húsavík Academic Centre and the University of Iceland Research Centre, and a total of four inbound visitor surveys were conducted in the region during the summers of 2013 and 2014. One survey was carried out each year in Húsavík and another survey each year in the region of Lake Mývatn. The questions were based on the inbound tourism data frame and indicators as proposed in the WTO manual for data collection and analysis for tourism management and planning (UNWTO, 1999). The main categories were the following:

 Arrivals  Arrivals by region  Arrivals by main purpose of visit  Arrivals by mode of transport  Arrivals by form of organization of the trip  Accommodation  Expenditure

More specifically, visitor profile statistics were based on Cooper, Fletcher, Fyall, Gilbert, & Wanhill (2005) (table 5).

Table 5. Focus factors in the visitor profile statistics Source: Cooper et al. (2005, p. 88).

The visitor The visit

Age Origin and destination Sex Mode of transport Group type Purpose of visit Country of residence Length of stay Occupation Accommodation used Income Activities engaged in

Places visited

Tour or independently organised

22 The questionnaire consisted to a large extent of structured questions where respondents chose an answer from a list of pre-determined options. However, questions on country of residence, age, education, expenditures and the main reason of visit were open-ended questions, allowing the respondents to provide more specific answers (Appendix 1). The questions were restricted to those who stayed in Húsavík or around Lake Mývatn for a period of 24 hours. Those who stayed for a shorter period estimated the expenditure during their stay in the area and those who stayed longer were asked to limit their expenditure estimate to 24 hours.

Participants in the survey were asked to provide certain basic information about themselves, such as age, gender, residence, education and income (demographic variables). These data were used to shed light on the composition and background of the visitors at the same time as it enabled comparison with previous visitor surveys in the area as well as a comparison with the inbound visitor survey on the national level commissioned by the Icelandic Tourist Board. As the main focus was on Húsavík and the Lake Mývatn region, the travel related questions were based on the travel behaviour in those areas and not in Iceland in general. The main expenditure categories were based on the classification provided by the UNWTO International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics:

 Accommodation  Food and drink  Local transport  Recreation, culture and sporting activities  Shopping  Others

Questionnaires were distributed to all reachable inbound visitors to the regions, 18 years and older, who agreed to participate in the survey. This convenience sampling yielded a total number of 451 to 492 valid answers in the four surveys and the response rate was from 71%- 76%.8

8 The response rate was only calculated in 2014.

23 2.5 SURVEY ON TOURISM COMPANIES In order to establish the number of tourism companies in the area, a list of enterprises categorised by the ISAT 2008 classification was retrieved from the Statistics Iceland’s Enterprise Register data. Two criteria were established in order to exclude companies that were not operational. Companies had to deliver salary payments or show revenues at the Directorate of Internal Revenue during the research period.

Despite these criteria, an obvious bias in the companies list occurred as large companies such as hotel chains and other companies with operations in more than one place in the country were missing. In order to limit this sample error, an additional approach was used.

Each section from the ISAT 2008 list was taken into consideration and compared to other information sources (table 6). These sources were the following:

 Travel agencies and tour operator licence list by the Icelandic Tourist Board.  Accommodation and restaurant licence list from the NE Iceland District Commissioner.  Destination Marketing Organisation registration of tourism related companies in the region.  Northeast Iceland development agency’s list of companies by categories.

Table 6. Data sources for identifying tourism related companies in the Þingeyjarsýslur region, example

from the Accommodation sector

Section I – Accommodation and

Food Service Activities pany 2

55 Accommodation

Com Company 3 Company 4 Company 5 Company 6 Company 7 Company 8 Company 9 Company 10 55.1 Hotels and similar accommodation Company 1

Statistics Iceland Enterprise Register x x x x x x

Northeast Iceland Development Agency x x x x x x x Icelandic Tourist Board: Licenced tour operators and travel agencies x x NE Iceland District Commissioner: Licence list for accommodation and restaurants x x x x x x x x x x

Destination Marketing Organisation in North Iceland (DMO) x x x x x x x x

Through combining these four sources with the Enterprise register of Statistics Iceland a total population of tourism related companies in the study region is believed to have been reached,

24 consisting of 189 tourism entities. This list was analysed further, eliminating companies with no function in 2013. Eventually data from 126 companies was analysed.

Due to possible biases and gaps in the regional list of tourism companies from the Enterprise Register, no economic data could be retrieved from this official database by regions on the entities to be analysed. The same applies to enterprise operating accounts by section from Statistics Iceland and credit card turnover from the Centre for Retail Studies. These contain important indicators on economic development in the country and would have been useful in this study had they been regionally dividable. Therefore, the only reliable data source for regional financial information in this research was the tourism companies themselves. Therefore, semi-structured interviews with the enterprise representatives were used as the main data collection method. Semi-structured interviews include specified questions but allow for probing to seek clarification and explanation of the discussion topic (Finn, Elliott-White, & Walton, 2000). In the interviews, the main emphasis was on the following subjects:

 Total revenues in the year 2013  Estimated tourism ratio from the above revenues  Total cost in the year 2013 (salaries and amortization excluded)  Operation cost paid to companies or organizations within the research area  Operation cost paid to companies within North East Iceland  Salary payments  Investments  Number of employees, Annual Working Units and Full Time Equivalents (summer and winter)  Ratio of employees with registered domicile within the research area  Supplies and services – ranked by scope of business within the research area  Taxes and fees  Origin of employees (former jobs or education)

The already described UNWTO methodology for TSA compilation solely measures the direct effects of tourism on the economy. In order to evaluate the indirect effects, additional questions on total cost, investments, supplies and services were asked in the interviews, enabling a wider measurement of the total effects of tourism in the region.

A pilot test of six companies was implemented one month before the main interviewing period. Pilot testing generally indicates potential flaws, limitations, or other weaknesses

25 within the interview design and allows for necessary revisions and adjustments of questions before the implementation of the study (Turner, 2010). The testing revealed some difficulties for the interviewees in obtaining the requested information from the companies’ accounting systems and adjustments were made to the questions in order to improve the reachability of the statistical information.

An introduction letter was sent to each company in the research population where the research was described and participation required. The letters were followed by an e-mail or a phone call to decide a time for the interview and to confirm participation. In most cases, the interview took place in the interviewee’s office and the total duration ranged from 20 minutes to 1 hour.

All 126 companies established as relevant were asked to participate in the research. Thereof 102 accepted participation, which results in a 81% response rate (table 7). For the 19% of the companies that did not participate, the total turnover and tourism share was estimated, based on their answers to the survey (Appendix 3). The low response rate in the sport and recreational industry, where three companies rejected participation, is coincidental.

Table 7. Companies’ response rate

Companies Answers Response rate Accommodation services 33 30 91% F&B serving services 7 6 86% Transportation 5 4 80% Travel agencies and other reservation services 17 14 82% Cultural services 5 5 100% Sport and recreational services 4 1 25% Goods purchased from trade activities 18 14 78% Other services 37 28 76% Total 126 102 81%

26 3 NON-MONETARY INDICATORS

Tourism economic impact assessment requires non-monetary indicators to support the interpretation of tourism monetary information. These indicators include e.g. the number and classes of visitors, the duration of stay, types of accommodation and the number and size of tourism establishments (United Nations, 2010b).

This chapter discusses these factors, focusing mainly on visitor numbers and overnight stays.

3.1 VISITOR NUMBERS Understanding the spatial behaviour of visitors is essential for effective tourism management. Inter-destination movements from tourist-generating regions to one or more destinations and intra-destination movements within a destination are both necessary subjects of analysis. Studying the flow of visitors enables more effective planning, budgeting, determination of demand trends, tourism impact analysis, and measurement of social, political and economic importance of tourism at each place (Lau & McKercher, 2007; Orellana, Bregt, Ligtenberg, & Wachowicz, 2012; Wolf, Hagenloh, & Croft, 2012).

The flow of international visitors to the country of reference includes both tourists (overnight visitors) and same-day visitors. Arrivals data are generally attained from sources such as administrative records (e.g. traffic counts and immigration control) as well as visitor surveys and accommodation surveys (United Nations, 2010a; UNWTO, 2014b). Additional counting methods have been used worldwide for tourist counting. These include manual observation and tallying in various places and regions, mechanical and electronic counters such as wired door counters, GPS tracking, road traffic detectors, vehicle and people counters with magnetometers etc. (Ahas, Aasa, Mark, Pae, & Kull, 2007; Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration, n.d.; Lau & McKercher, 2007; Ólafsson, 2012, 2014; Wolf, Hagenloh, & Croft, 2012).

In Iceland, travellers who pass through the airport terminal at Keflavík (KEF) upon departure are counted and registered by their nationalities. Monthly numbers are published at the website of the Icelandic Tourist Board (ITB). Visitors arriving at Seyðisfjörður harbour with M/S Norröna are estimated by Austfar (Smyril Line’s sales office) and passengers coming to the country through other airports are estimated through figures from the Icelandic Aviation Authorities (ISAVIA) by the Icelandic Tourist Board. The total sum of the above passengers

27 is then published, presenting the total number of foreign visitors to Iceland every year. Cruise passengers are not included in these numbers (Frenţ, 2013; Icelandic Tourist Board, n.d.a.; Óladóttir, 2014; United Nations, 2010a). International visitors in KEF are classified by 17 nationalities (Frenţ, 2013; Icelandic Tourist Board, n.d.a.). Arrivals per mode of transport are quite simple in Iceland as the only possible transport mode is by air or sea. These numbers are counted separately and published by the ITB on a national level (Icelandic Tourist Board, n.d.a.).

Foreign visitors to Iceland are not counted by regions. However, an approximation can be provided by calculating ratios of those stating that they have visited specific areas from the inbound visitor surveys commissioned by the ITB (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014a-b), as well as from specific surveys conducted by Tourism Research & Consulting Ltd. (TRC), with the total numbers of foreign visitors. However, these surveys are conducted on an irregular basis and rely on the memory of respondents which emphasises the need for a regular and reliable tourist counting per region. New vehicle counters with magnetometers have recently been implemented in selected areas, whereof 14 are located within Þingeyjarsýslur (Þórhallsdóttir, 2016; Ólafsson & Þórhallsdóttir, 2015; Þórhallsdóttir & Ólafsson, 2015).

Information on visitors’ numbers in Þingeyjarsýslur is therefore still scarce and the only regularly published numbers are those retrieved from the ITB visitor survey. Other numbers need to be accumulated from the tourist companies themselves, information centres, harbours, occasional private counters etc. In this study, a report from TRC was purchased in cooperation with Húsavík Academic Centre and Northeast Iceland Development Agency. These numbers are retrieved from TRC’s visitor survey in KEF. Other numbers were accumulated from local museums, whale watching companies, the tourism information centre at Lake Mývatn, the Mývatn Nature Baths, and campsites, as well as from new vehicle counters located around Lake Mývatn. Figures 9 to 11 are based on the TRC survey.

28 400

350

300

250 269

200 243 Inbound visitors 215 150 158 Domestic visitors 181 100 79

50 112 86 68 46 38 42 20 11 12 13 18 0 7 12 13 14

Figure 9. Number of visitors to Þingeyjarsýslur and selected areas in 2014 (’000 visitors) Source: Guðmundsson (2015).

In Þingeyjarsýslur, the estimated total visitor number was 312.000 in the year 2013 (205.000 inbound visitors and 107.000 domestic visitors). In 2014, this number reached 381.000, whereof 269.000 were inbound visitors and 112.000 were domestic visitors, according to TRC (Guðmundsson, 2015). When cruise ship passengers are included, the total number of visitors to Þingeyjarsýslur in 2014 reached 417.000 (Guðmundsson, 2015).

300 269

250 243

205 Þingeyjarsýslur 200 188 Mývatn 181 190 Húsavík 158 158 158 139 138 142 Dettifoss 150 131 136 139 129 126 130 122 121 119 Ásbyrgi 111 110 '000visitors 113 122 Askja 102 98 101 123 100 96 90 96 80 100 79 Kópasker 93 93 93 90 92 65 56 Raufarhöfn 73 54 54 54 51 51 50 50 44 Þórshöfn 22 22 22 16 17 18 18 19 21 20 13 7 7 8 10 12 12 0 6 6 6 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 10. Inbound visitors in Þingeyjarsýslur and chosen areas 2005-2014 (‘000 visitors). Source: Guðmundsson (2015)

450

400 381

350 329 312 Þingeyjarsýslur 302 300 Mývatn 266 273 251 251 Húsavík 242 242 245 250 229 223 Dettifoss 206 208 212 225 198 202 195 219 Ásbyrgi 200 181 177 187 170 166 166 '000visitors 158 158 Askja 148 150 132 163 Kópasker 163 Raufarhöfn 130 100 117 118 122 122 124 121 Þórshöfn 95 94 96 100 86 87 89 91 91 32 50 2474 26 27 26 28 28 28 31 27 28 20 20 21 20 21 21 24 27 26 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 11. All visitors in Þingeyjarsýslur and chosen areas 2005-2014 (‘000 visitors). Source: Guðmundsson (2015).

In order to compare the development of visitor numbers in Þingeyjarsýslur to the total number of inbound visitors coming to Iceland, an index calculation was made as presented in figure 12. The figure presents a strong positive correlation between the total number of arrivals in Iceland and visitor numbers in Þingeyarsýslur (r=0,99).

Mývatnssveit and Dettifoss follow the arrival trend to Iceland very closely, but there is more variation between Húsavík and Ásbyrgi and the national inbound tourism numbers.

280

Correlation with visitor numbers to Iceland 2005-2014: 260 Þingeyjarsýslur r= 0,992 Mývatnssveit r= 0,994 240 Húsavík r= 0,971 Dettifoss r= 0,977 220 Ásbyrgi r= 0,936

200

180

Index 160

140

120

100 Index: 2005= 100 80 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Iceland Þingeyjarsýslur Mývatn Húsavík Dettifoss Ásbyrgi

Figure 12. Inbound visitor arrivals. Index numbers 2005-2014. Source: The author’s elaboration based on data from Statistics Iceland (2014a, 2015a).

When analysing the total inbound visitor numbers around Lake Mývatn and Húsavík a comparison was made with the total passenger numbers going whale watching in Húsavík and the number of foreign visitors to the Mývatn Nature Bath. A strong positive correlation was calculated in both instances, as presented in figures 13 and 14, and this is in line with the growth in visitor numbers documented in the TRC surveys. During the period of 20069 to 2014 the annual average ratio of inbound visitors to the Lake Mývatn region who visited the

9 2006 is the first year when visitor numbers in the Mývatnssveit Nature bath were catagorised by inbound and domestic visitors.

31 Mývatn Nature Baths was 38%. In Húsavík, 44% of total inbound visitors to Húsavík went whale watching during the same period.

100.000 r=0,96 80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0 0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000

Húsavík visitors vs whale watching passengers Linear (Húsavík visitors vs whale watching passengers)

Figure 13. Correlation between total inbound visitors to Húsavík and whale watching passengers in Húsavík during the period of 2006-2014. Source: The author’s elaboration on data from local whale watching companies and Guðmundsson (2015).

100.000 r=0,95 80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

- - 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000

Mývatn visitors vs nature bath visitors Linear (Mývatn visitors vs nature bath visitors)

Figure 14. Correlation between total inbound visitors to the Lake Mývatn region and foreign visitors to Mývatn Nature Baths during the period of 2006-2014. Source: The author’s elaboration on data from Guðmundsson (2015) and Mývatn Nature Baths (2015).

80.000

70.000

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Overnight visitors Same day visitors

Figure 15. Number of inbound visitors in Þingeyjarsýslur 2014 by months. Source: Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson (2015).

According to the Tourism Research & Consulting surveys, 55% of the inbound visitors to Þingeyjarsýslur in 2014 stayed overnight. Almost all (91%) of the total visits occurred during May to September. The same ratio for June to August was 77%.

Figure 16 shows that the majority of the 269.000 inbound visitors who came to Þingeyjarsýslur in 2014 came from Central and Southern Europe (45%).10 At the same time, 35% of the total number of inbound visitors to Iceland came from these countries. Visitors from the Benelux countries to Þingeyjarsýslur constituted 7% of total inbound visitors to the region. In comparison, 4% of the inbound visitors to Iceland came from the Benelux countries (Guðmundsson, 2015).

10 In the TRC report, the Central European countries are Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The Southern European countries constitute Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece and the Mediterranean islands.

33 Other 18% Central Europe 24%

UK 3%

Benelux 7%

N-America S-Europe 12% 21%

Nordic Countries 15%

Figure 16. Country of residence of visitors to Þingeyjarsýslur. Source: Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson (2015).

A closer look at the country of residence can be gained from the visitor survey in the Mývatn region and Húsavík from 2014. The difference between country of residence in the case of visitors to Þingeyjarsýslur and the nationality of the inbound visitors to Iceland is presented in figure 17.

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

Keflavik Airport Húsavík Mývatn

Figure 17. Inbound visitors to Iceland, Húsavík and the Lake Mývatn region in summer 2014 by country of residence. Source: Icelandic Tourist Board (n.d.a.), Rögnvaldsdóttir (2014b) and the author’s elaboration on results from visitor surveys in the Mývatn region and Húsavík summer 2014 (unpublished).

In 2014, visitors from the USA represented 16% of the total inbound visitor number to Iceland during the period of June to August. At the same time, the American visitors to the Mývatn region were only 7% of the total. The largest group in the Mývatn region and Húsavík came from Germany (22% and 27%) whilst this group represented only 13% of total inbound visitors to Iceland. Figure 17 demonstrates this difference more specifically. It presents the 17 nationalities, surveyed upon departure from KEF. Nationals from Belgium and Austria are not counted and therefore not listed in the figure. According to the Lake Mývatn and Húsavík visitor surveys, 7% of all inbound visitors to the Lake Mývatn region in the summer of 2014 came from Belgium (3% in Húsavík) and 4% from Austria (3% in Húsavík).

35 The ratios of visitors’ country of residence are in accordance with the trend in Statistics Iceland’s accommodation statistics for NE-Iceland in 2014, as discussed in chapter 3.2.

Cruise ship passengers are classified as inbound same-day visitors, as they do not reside in the country of arrival and stay only for the day without spending the night in collective or private accommodation in the country. They are not included in the countries visitor tallying at KEF.

3.000 2.848

2.500 2.295

2.000

1.500 1.364 1.289 1.320

1.000 684 464 500 264 306

- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 18. Cruise ship passengers in Húsavík 2007-2015 Source: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre (2014) and Húsavík harbour (2015).

The total number of cruise ship passengers in 2015 was 2.295, on 14 cruise ships. That year the greatest number of cruise ships since registration started were hosted in Húsavík. However, the passenger number was higher in 2013, through only six cruise ship arrivals, which is explained by exceptionally large cruise ships berthing in August that year.

36 3.2 ACCOMMODATION STATISTICS Accommodation statistics are a vital part of the tourism statistics system in the EU and these have been collected systematically since 1995 with the establishment of a tourism statistics system in Council Directive 95/97/EC (Eurostat, 2014b). Even though accommodation statistics are only relevant for one type of visitors (i.e. overnight visitors), the accommodation sector is one of the core tourism sectors and its economic importance can be gauged in the TSA results from many European countries where accommodation services account for about 15% to 20% of total internal tourism expenditure (Eurostat, 2012).

Statistics Iceland has collected data on the capacity of accommodation establishments in Iceland as well as data on overnight stays since 1984. The data gathering covers all types of accommodation establishments except for trade-union summer houses. Since 1995, data on arrivals at accommodation establishments has been collected, which enables calculations on the average length of stay. The accommodation statistics give information on the capacity and occupancy, number of arrivals and overnight stays in accommodation establishments categorised by type of accommodation, region and the citizenship of guests. The data source is a report sheet that is to be delivered monthly to Statisitics Iceland by everyone who sells accommodation in Iceland. The report details the capacity, the number of overnight stays and the arrivals by citizenship of guests at each accommodation establishment.

Accommodation statistics are one of the very few tourism statistics in Iceland that are allocated by regions. The numbers are presented separately for the eight regions of Iceland mentioned in table 3.

Figures 19, 20 and 21 demonstrate overnight stays per months in Þingeyjarsýslur in 2014. The total number of overnight stays in 2014 was 292.539, whereof 212.953 were nights spent by inbound tourist (73%). This same number was 206.808 the year before, whereof nights spent by inbound tourists were 79%. The seasonal fluctuations were particularly high in the tourist accommodation sector where 83% of annual nights spent were recorded in the three peak months, June to August 2014 (243.699 nights).

37 120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Domestic tourists Inbound tourists

Figure 19. Overnight stays in Þingeyjarsýslur 2014. All types of accommodation establishments Source: Statistics Iceland (2015a).

140.000

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

- 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Hotels and guesthouses Camping and huts Private homes, hostels and cottages

Figure 20. Overnight stays in Þingeyjarsýslur by types of accommodation establishments. All tourists. Source: Statistics Iceland (2014a and 2015a).

Figure 21. Overnight stays in Þingeyjarsýslur by months, 2010-2014. Inbound tourist on all types of accommodation establishments. Source: Statistics Iceland (2014a and 2015a).

As can be seen in figures 20 and 21, a sudden growth in overnight stays occurred from 2013 to 2014. This increase was mainly in the category of camping places.

This extraordinary increase in overnight stays in camping sites was put under consideration and compared to other areas in the country. As demonstrated in figure 22, this rapid increase occurred in other places as well, such as the Northeast and the East, but not to the same extent. A significant increase also occurred in the South. These numbers have been discussed with Statistics Iceland, and confirmed on their behalf.

Figure 23 demonstrates the proportional division of overnight stays per month and region in Iceland. The numbers are averages for nights spent by inbound tourists per month during the period of 2005-2014. The figure demonstrates well the seasonal differences between the capital area and other regions where each month sums up to 100%.

Figure 22. Overnight stays in camping sites by region. All visitors. Source: Statistics Iceland (n.d.a.).

Figure 23. Overnight stays by regions and months. Average numbers for 2005-2014. Source: Statistics Iceland (n.d.a.; 2014a; 2015a).

40 25%

20%

15%

10%

USA

Italy

Spain

Japan

Israel

China

Russia

France

Poland

Austria

Canada

Finland

Sweden

Norway

Belgium

Australia

Germany

Denmark

Switzerland

Netherlands

Czech Czech Republic Othercountries

Iceland North east

Figure 24. Overnight stays by foreign nationalities in June-August 2014. Ratios in Iceland and North East. Source: Statistics Iceland (n.d.a).

According to Tourism Research & Consulting the number of inbound tourists staying overnight in Þingeyjarsýslur as a ratio of the total number of inbound visitors to the region11 has decreased in Þingeyjarsýslur over the last few years. In year 2012, 71% of all inbound visitors during the summer time stayed overnight. This ratio was 59% in the summer of 2014 and 41% during winter time in the same year (figure 25).

80% 71% 70% 64% 59% 60% 55% 50% 43% 41% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2012 2013 2014 summer winter

Figure 25. Overnight stay ratio in Þingeyjarsýslur by inbound visitors 2012-2014. Source: Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson (2015).

11 Cruise passengers excluded.

41 When these numbers are compared to the accommodation statistics from Statistics Iceland it appears that since 2009 the increase in overnight stays in Þingeyjarsýslur has not followed the increase in inbound visitor numbers to the same extent as the national numbers, which supports the development in the report from TRC. The positive correlation between overnight stays and inbound visitors to Iceland is very strong, or r = 0,996 (figure 26), whereas the correlation in Þingeyjarsýslur is r = 0,969.

300 r 0,996 280 260 240 220

200 r 0,969 180 160 140 120 100 index 2005 = 100 80 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Iceland overnight stays Þingeyjarsýslur overnight stays Iceland visitors Þingeyjarsýslur visitors

Figure 26. Correlation between inbound overnight stays and inbound visitor numbers to Iceland and Þingeyjarsýslur 2005-2014. Source: The author’s elaboration on data from the Icelandic Tourist Board (n.d.a.), Guðmundsson, (2015) and Statistics Iceland (2014a and 2015a).

The Icelandic Tourism Research Centre has measured and published the seasonal concentration of overnight stays by regions and months by using the Gini Coefficient. The value of the Gini Coefficient ranges from 0 to 1. The value of 1 indicates total concentration, i.e. the region has all its overnight stays in one month, whereas the value of 0 indicates an even distribution of overnight stays throughout the months of the year. The development of the Gini Coefficient in overnight stays in Iceland shows increased distribution by months in almost all regions in year 2012. However, this distribution continues almost solely in the capital area. The problem of seasonal concentration in overnight stays therefore continues in the tourism industry in areas outside the capital area, as presented in table 8 (Icelandic Tourism Research Centre, 2015b).

42 Table 8. Seasonal concentration of overnight stays by regions and months in Iceland, using the Gini Coefficient Source: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre (2015b).

Capital Southern West North North Year Area Peninsula West Fjords West East East South 1998 0,32 0,44 0,66 0,75 0,78 0,75 0,77 0,72 1999 0,29 0,49 0,70 0,74 0,77 0,74 0,76 0,73 2000 0,28 0,46 0,71 0,75 0,77 0,73 0,76 0,72 2001 0,25 0,36 0,68 0,74 0,76 0,71 0,75 0,72 2002 0,27 0,44 0,70 0,73 0,76 0,73 0,73 0,71 2003 0,27 0,42 0,70 0,74 0,74 0,73 0,73 0,68 2004 0,28 0,41 0,69 0,75 0,75 0,73 0,72 0,68 2005 0,29 0,44 0,65 0,74 0,74 0,72 0,73 0,66 2006 0,27 0,43 0,65 0,71 0,73 0,70 0,69 0,67 2007 0,26 0,42 0,66 0,69 0,75 0,70 0,68 0,66 2008 0,24 0,44 0,65 0,70 0,74 0,71 0,70 0,65 2009 0,27 0,43 0,68 0,70 0,71 0,72 0,71 0,65 2010 0,26 0,43 0,69 0,71 0,71 0,70 0,71 0,62 2011 0,26 0,44 0,66 0,71 0,71 0,70 0,68 0,62 2012 0,20 0,39 0,64 0,66 0,71 0,64 0,67 0,59 2013 0,17 0,36 0,55 0,66 0,67 0,61 0,63 0,53 2014 0,14 0,37 0,55 0,70 0,63 0,60 0,64 0,52 Average 0,25 0,42 0,66 0,72 0,73 0,70 0,71 0,65

The Gini Coefficient for the Northeast region has changed from 0,7 in 2010 to 0,6 in 2014, which is a steeper decline than in the Northwest, the East and the West Fjords. In comparison to other regions it is still relatively high and the seasonality in the tourism industry therefore continues to be a serious concern in Þingeyjarsýslur. According to the visitor surveys in Húsavík and Mývatnssveit, the average length of stay for those12 who spent the night in the area was 36 hours in Húsavík and 38 hours in the Lake Mývatn region in 2014. The average length of stay for inbound day visitors (excursionists) was 5,4 hours in Húsavík and 7,2 hours in the Lake Mývatn region.

12 Inbound tourists exclusively.

44 4 RESULTS

Due to insufficient regional tourism data in Iceland, the making of a regional TSA is practically impossible in the country. Therefore, this study measures the value of tourism by reconciling the supply and demand data in a set of tourism related industries and the results are mainly retrieved from interviews and visitor surveys in the area of research. This should therefore be considered as an approach of indicating the size of the industry on a regional level (for Þingeyjarsýslur region) and the methods deployed will hopefully be of use in regional strategic decision making and in improving the understanding of the industry on a regional level in Þingeyjarsýslur and elsewhere.

The main monetary aggregates that this study approaches and presents in this chapter are the following:

 Total turnover by detailed industries directly related to tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013.  Total tourism turnover by detailed industries 2013.  Regional inbound tourism expenditure by areas 2013.  Regional internal tourism consumption 2013.  Regional employment in the tourism industries.

This study approaches the TSA methodology, by using the total turnover by detailed industries 2013 as a proxy to represent the regional production accounts of tourism industries and other industries (at basic prices). These numbers are used to present the scope of the supply side of tourism. Visitor surveys are used to measure tourism consumption from the demand side and these aggregates are then compared and reconciled.

4.1 TOTAL TURNOVER BY DETAILED INDUSTRIES 2013 As described in chapter 2, the tourism characteristic products and tourism characteristic activities are grouped in 12 corresponding categories in the Tourism Satellite Account tables (see Appendix 2). The total turnover by detailed industries in Þingeyjarsýslur in 2013 follows the categorisation from the national Icelandic TSA, aggregated into 6 categories due to the low number of companies in some categories (table 9). What distinguishes this table from the

45 TSA methodology is that it solely contains companies directly involved in tourism and does therefore not cover the entire ISAT dimension of each tourism category. This affects the total turnover results but should not affect the total tourism turnover which is the main focus of this study.

Table 9. Total tourism turnover in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013 (m. ISK)* Source: The author’s elaboration based on interview data.

Total Tourism Number of turnover turnover companies Accommodation services 1.655 1.549 33 F&B serving services 393 319 7 Travel agencies and other 836 802 17 reservation services Cultural services & 1.290 488 14 Sport and recreational services & Transportation Goods purchased from trade 2.963 800 18 activities Other services 1.197 714 37 Total 8.335 4.672 126 *Only companies directly involved in tourism are included in this table.

In 2013, the total turnover from industries in Þingeyjarsýslur which were directly involved in tourism was 8.335 m. ISK. Thereof, the estimated tourism turnover was 4.672 m. ISK, where accommodation services presented the largest share (figure 27).

The tourism proportion, the tourism ratio, is the percentage of a sector’s turnover which is attributable to tourism demand (Stabler, Papatheodoru, & Sinclair, 2010). However, one should avoid presenting total tourism ratios from table 9 as it only includes companies directly involved in tourism. Turnover from companies with no direct tourism relation should be taken into account as well to allow for comparability with national tourism ratios.

46 Other services 15% Accommodation services 33% Goods purchased from trade activities 17%

F&B serving Cultural services & services Sport and 7% recreational services Travel agencies and & other reservation Transportation services 11% 17%

Figure 27. Total tourism turnover in Þingeyjarsýslur by tourism sectors Source: The author’s elaboration based on interview data.

The industry division in figure 27 shows that the accommodation sector is the largest tourism category in terms of tourism turnover in Þingeyjarsýslur. Travel agencies and other reservation services come next, along with goods purchased from trade activities.

According to Statistics Iceland (2015c), 6% of all goods and services supplied in the national economy in 2013 were consumed by tourists. The same ratio was 4,6% in 2009. This ratio is not retrievable on a regional level, due to lack of data. In table 10 and 11, companies with no tourism relation (0% tourism ratio) have been included in the total tourism turnover, enabling the calculation of tourism ratios.13

13All companies in the accommodation and travel agency categories were directly related to tourism. Therefore companies with no tourism relation (a total of 4 companies) were only added to the F&B serving category in tables 10 and 11.

47 Table 10. Tourism ratios in Iceland and Þingeyjarsýslur Source: Frenţ (2015b) and the author’s elaboration based on interview data.

Iceland Þingeyjarsýslur Tourism ratio Tourism ratio Accommodation services 96,2% 93,6%

F&B serving services 34,8% 72,9%

Travel agency, tour operators 100,0% 95,9% and reservation services

Tourism ratios for other industry categories were not calculated in Þingeyjarsýslur as there was insufficient data for companies with no direct tourism relation within these categories.

The difference between the national and regional tourism ratio in the F&B serving services in table 10 is noteworthy and might be explained by the difference in the F&B environment. In Þingeyjarsýslur, the local F&B market is limited at the same time as a large share of F&B serving services is solely open during the tourism season, resulting in a higher tourism ratio. All companies in the accommodation and travel agency category were directly involved in tourism and the total turnover therefore remains the same in tables 9 and 11 in the accommodation and travel agency categories.

Statistics Iceland regularly publishes total turnover by detailed industries, which can be used for comparison and estimation of the share of Þingeyjarsýslur of the total turnover of the tourism category in Iceland. Data for the following categories is published:

 Accommodation services (solely 55.10.1 and 55.10.2)  Transport equipment rental (77.11.0 and 77.12.0)  Travel agency and other reservation services (79.11.0, 79.12.0 and 79.90.0)

(Statistics Iceland, n.d.g.)

However, this information is limited as the data covers only taxable turnover in the tourism industry. The taxing of the tourism industry is complex in Iceland as elsewhere, and tax exemptions and ratios have changed since this study. Tax computations in this research are based on the tax year 2013. Travel-related services that were exempt from VAT during the year of study were the following:

48  Travel agencies and tour operator services  Transportation of passenger, e.g. whale watching, horseback riding, sea angling and snowmobile tours.  Public transport

(Directorate of internal revenue, n.d.; KPMG, 2013)

This means that only a small share of tourism turnover in the category of travel agencies and reservation services is published. A reliable comparison will therefore not be possible. A comparison for transport equipment rental is not feasible either due to data traceability as there are so few transport equipment rental companies within the region. Therefore, the sole comparison will be in the category of accommodation services and food and beverage services.

Table 11. Total turnover in tourism industries in Iceland and Þingeyjarsýslur 2013 Source: Statistics Iceland (n.d.f.), Frenţ (2015b) and the author’s elaboration based on interview data.

Iceland Þingeyjarsýslur Total Tourism Tourism Total Tourism Tourism Þingeyjars. turnover ratio14 turnover turnover ratio turnover tourism m.ISK m.ISK m.ISK 15 m.ISK turnover share of Iceland’s Accommodation 40.313 96,2% 38.781 1.655 93,6% 1.549 4,0% services 57.756 34,8% 20.099 437 72,9% 319 1,6% F&B services

When Þingeyjarsýslur tourism turnover is compared to the corresponding number on the national level, the share of the region is 4,0% of the total. Numbers from Statistics Iceland on overnight stays were used to cross-check this ratio. The total number of overnight stays in Iceland in 2013 was 4.546.38316 (Statistics Iceland, n.d.a.). In Þingeyjarsýslur the comparable number was 206.808, which represents 4,5% of the total. This shows a certain similarity which supports the results of total tourism turnover in accommodation services. The ratio for food and beverage services is lower, which might either be explained by less visitor spending in this sector when travelling through Þingeyjarsýslur, or partly by lower prices in that region

14 Retrieved from TSA at national level (Frenţ, 2015b). 15 Turnover from companies with no direct tourism relation included. 16 Domestic and inbound tourists in all types of accommodation.

49 compared to the rest of Iceland or the capital region in particular, but these are mere speculations.

4.1.1 Accommodation services The scope of observation in this sector comprises all tourist accommodation establishments providing short-term accommodation as a paid service (Eurostat, 2012).

Accommodation fulfils the basic need of a visitor to lodge for rest during a tourism trip. It is a core tourism segment although it is solely relevant for overnight visitors. The economic importance of this sector is substantial as it generally accounts for 15 to 20% of the total internal tourism expenditure in EU member countries (Eurostat, 2012).

The accommodation sector in Iceland is highly important to the country’ s tourism statistics as it is one of the very few tourism sectors which have a history of systematic data gathering and publishing of tourism statistical information.

Tourism accommodation establishments are classified by the following categories in TSA:

 Hotels and similar accommodation, without restaurants (55.10.1)  Hotels and similar accommodation, with restaurants (55.10.2)  Holiday and other short-stay accommodation (55.20.0)  Camping grounds, recreational vehicle parks and trailer parks (55.30.0)17  Other accommodation (55.90.0)

(Eurostat, 2012; Frenţ, 2013; United Nations, 2010b)

During the year of study (2013) there were 71 accommodation establishments in the area, providing 908 rooms and 2.026 beds. These numbers present the capacity of all accommodation establishments in the area, except for camping places, regardless of their availability at each point in time. The supply numbers from Statistics Iceland are slightly lower as they subtract rooms that are not for sale at each time, for reasons such as renovations, temporary closing of establishment etc. Figure 28 demonstrates the development in these numbers for the region of study, showing an increase of 29% in rooms and 28% in beds, and a 41% increase in the number of establishments between 2013 and 2015. However, the average size of an establishment has decreased from 12,8 rooms and 28,5 beds per establishment

17 Municipally run campsites are excluded from the total numbers in this study due to lack of information.

50 to 11,7 rooms and 25,9 beds per establishment. This development is interesting given that some of the larger accommodation providers in the study region have been expanding during this period.

2.590 2.500

2.026 2.000

1.500 1.172

1.000 908

500 71 100 0 establishments rooms beds 2013 2015

Figure 28. Number of accommodation establishments, rooms and beds in Þingeyjarsýslur in 2013 and 2015 Source: AirBnB (n.d.), Visit North Iceland (n.d) and the author’s elaboration based on interview data.

Whilst the more established providers have been expanding, numerous smaller accommodation services have sprung up such as in the private accommodation and the AirBnB sector, which are included in these numbers. Figure 29 demonstrates the development in the AirBnB sector in Þingeyjarsýslur, showing a growth from 3 members in 2013 to 30 members in 2015. AirBnB’s share in the total accommodation supply has therefore risen from 0,7% to 7,4% during this period. The AirBnB database is mutable showing immediate changes in registration at each point of time and the numbers might therefore differ by periods of the year.18

According to a recent study on the private accommodation sector in Iceland, approximately 4% of all private apartments in Reykjavík are listed on AirBnB (Ólafsson, Steinsson, Hafsteinsson, Aðalsteinsson, & Guðmundsson, 2015). In Þingeyjarsýslur, this ratio is lower, or 1,35% in 2015 (AirBnB, n.d.; Registers Iceland, n.d.).

18 This statistic is from Dec 2015, showing the number of registered AirBnB members and their time of membership registration.

51 AirBnB plays a big role in the sharing economy, where individuals with underused assets, such as spare rooms or a spare car, use the internet to find people interested in borrowing or renting these assets (Economist, 2013, 2014; Jónsson & Huijbens, 2014). The rise of the sharing economy has somewhat met the increased demand of tourism services in the region. However, this system is receiving critique, e.g. on account of regulatory uncertainty around the operations. As figure 29 demonstrates, the effects for 2013 are minimal, but at the current rate of growth it might affect figures in the very near future.

250

207 200

150 Members Rooms 92 100 87 Beds

50 42 30 16 12 3 6 0 2013 2014 2015

Figure 29. AirBnB accommodation supply in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013-2015 Source: AirBnB (n.d.).

As described before, the accommodation sector counts legal entities, with ISAT registration numbers 55.10.1, 55.10.2, 55.20.0, 55.30.0 and 55.90.0. Out of the 71 accommodation establishments in Þingeyjasýslur in 2013, only 35 (including 654 rooms and 1.417 beds) count within this registration. The remaining accommodation establishments (36) are classified within other industry sectors such as agriculture, fishing, retail industry, travel agencies and booking services, and their turnover therefore belongs to other categories than accommodation.

The total revenues from the above ISAT numbers are 1.655 million ISK. The estimated tourism ratio is 93,6% resulting in total tourism revenues of 1.549 million ISK of this sector.

52 More information about accommodation in the region is to be found in chapter 3 on accommodation statistics in the region.

4.1.2 Food- and beverage-serving services As in the case of accommodation, the food and beverage industry fulfils a basic need of a visitor. F&B outlets consist of a broad range of services such as fast food services, restaurants, pubs, bars and clubs. They can also be part of other services such as accommodation, recreation and retail industry as well as standing alone (Eurostat, 2012). Therefore, a considerable share of F&B serving services counts in other tourism categories in this study.

Generally, F&B services serve both visitors and local residents. In some cases, as in highly populated cities, the locals might represent the majority of customers whereas in less populated tourist destinations the restaurants might be more dependent on visitors. This is the case in Þingeyjarsýslur where numerous F&B services are only open during the tourism season resulting in a higher tourism ratio, as demonstrated in table 11.

The F&B serving sector consists of the following three categories:

 Restaurants and mobile food service activities (56.10.0)  Other food service activities (56.29.0)  Beverage serving activities (56.30.0)

(Frenţ, 2013; United Nations, 2010b)

Eleven entities are registered within this sector in Þingeyjarsýslur, thereof seven with a direct tourism relation and a total tourism turnover of 319 million ISK.

4.1.3 Travel agencies and other reservation services Travel agencies provide information and other services to visitors when planning a trip. They often function as an intermediary in the purchase of certain services such as accommodation, transport, recreation activities, etc. Also, travel agencies in some cases provide additional services themselves, such as various tours, guiding services, etc. (United Nations, 2010a).

53 This category consists of the following three subcategories:

 Travel agency activities (79.11.0)  Tour operator activities (79.12.0)  Other reservation service and related activities (79.90.0)

(Frenţ, 2013; United Nations, 2010b)

Travel agencies and other reservation services are under specific jurisdiction of most national tourism administrations and in Iceland they function under Act no. 73, 24 May 2005 on Tourism Administration, Article 7 (Ministry of Industries and Innovation, n.d.; United Nations, 2010a). In this Act travel agencies are defined as the following:

a party, either an individual or a legal entity, who, either on his own initiative or at the request of a customer, organises, offers, and sells package tours professionally, either in Iceland or abroad.

A travel agency may also handle and offer all travel-related services offered by a tour operator, whether these are provided in the form of package tours or not.

The term “travel agency” refers both to tourism wholesalers and to tourism retailers pursuant to Act no. 80/1994 on Package Tours

(Ministry of Industries and Innovation, n.d.).

Tour operators are defined in the following way in the same Act:

tour operator shall refer to a party, either an individual or a legal entity, who, either on his own initiative or at the request of a customer, organises, offers, and sells professionally the following tourism-related services to the public:

a. The organisation and sale of tours to groups and individuals, and the organisation of tours, stays, and leisure-time activities, both in Iceland and abroad.

b. The organisation of meetings, exhibitions, and conferences and any services related thereto, both in Iceland and abroad.

c. Any sort of agency retailing or resale of tickets for travel by ship, automobile, aircraft, or railway.

d. Leisure-time activities, such as horseback-riding tours, snowmobile tours, river rafting tours, and adventure tours using specially equipped motor vehicles.

e. Travel and refreshments as a part of services rendered.

(Ministry of Industries and Innovation, n.d.).

54 Furthermore, booking services are defined by the same Act as:

the operation of all types of booking services offered to the public, to tour operators, and to travel agencies, whether within Iceland or abroad; this shall include electronic booking services (Ministry of Industries and Innovation, n.d.).

To run a tour operation or a travel agency in Iceland, one must apply for a license by the Icelandic Tourist Board. For booking services, a registration certificate is necessary (Icelandic Tourist Board, n.d.b.). As can be seen from the above definitions, travel agencies and other reservation services cover a wide array of tourism services. Within the study area, the whale watching industry, sport fishing industry, horse tourism and accommodation services which function also as tour operators fit the category. These subsectors are discussed in the following sections.

Whale watching Whale watching in Húsavík has become one of the main attractions in the research area. The Skjálfandi Bay is known for its rich wildlife where whales play an important role. The whale watching industry has experienced a substantial growth in Húsavík from its very start in 1995 (Rasmussen, 2014), and during the summer of 2015 the total number of whale watchers reached 89.500 (figure 30). The whale watching industry has also experienced a rapid growth countrywise and in 2015 the total number of whale watching passengers exceeded 272.000, whereof Húsavík held a 33% share (Anderson, Gothall, & Wende, 2014; Huijbens, 2013; Icelandic Whale Watching Associations, 2016). Húsavík has been branded the “Whale capital of Iceland”, emphasising the accessibility to a number of whale species in the Bay, along with the great odds of seeing whales sustained by the Bay’s thriving ecosystem (Visit Húsavík, n.d.). In Skjálfandi Bay the most commonly seen species are humpback whales, minke whales and blue whales. Other species are e.g. white beaked dolphins and harbour porpoises. The total number of whale watching boats in Skjálfandi bay was sixteen during the summer of 2015, thereof three schooners and five RIB boats. Two of these schooners operated in Greenland during the peak of the season but the other boats were mainly located in Skjálfandi bay and surroundings. The total number of advertised tours per day in Skjálfandi Bay was 39 during the peak season of 2015.

55 According to the Icelandic Tourist Board visitor survey (2014b), 28% of all foreign visitors to the country paid for a whale watching tour during the summer of 2014. In Húsavík specifically, whale watching expenses represented over 40% of total tourism expenditure in the area in the summers of 2013 and 2014 (Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2014).

100.000

89.500 89.500

90.000

78.100 78.100

80.000

70.000

63.200 63.200

56.000 56.000

60.000

45.800 45.800

50.000

43.400 43.400

41.000 41.000

40.400 40.400

38.000 38.000

37.300 37.300

40.000

33.000 33.000

32.000 32.000

28.800 28.800

25.100 25.100

30.000

22.700 22.700

21.000 21.000

20.100 20.100

18.100 18.100

20.000 14.050

7.100 7.100

10.000

1.500 1.500

2002 2013 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 1995

Figure 30. Number of whale watchers in Húsavík 1995-2015 Source: The author’s elaboration on data from the local whale watching companies.

Since 1995, a total of five companies have offered whale watching tours in Húsavík, the last one starting in the summer of 2015. The whale watching season now starts in March and ends in November. Figure 31 presents the total number of whale watching passengers in Iceland from 1995 to 2014, categorised by three regions; the capital area, Húsavík and other areas.

56 120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

Other places Húsavík Reykjavík

Figure 31. Number of whale watchers in Iceland per region 1995-2014 Source: Icelandic Whale Watching Associations, (2014, 2015) and the author’s elaboration on data from the local whale watching companies.

The average annual growth rate (AAGR) of whale watchers during a ten year period (2005- 2014) was 10% in Húsavík whilst it was 14% in the capital area. The rate of growth has been increasing in the last few years in tandem with growing visitor numbers to the country.

Table 12. The average annual growth rate of whale watchers per region and time period Source: Icelandic Whale Watching Associations (2016) and the author’s elaboration on data from the local whale watching companies.

10 years 5 years 3 years Region 2005-2014 2010-2014 2012-2014 Húsavík 10% 13% 20%

Reykjavík 14% 12% 21%

Iceland in total 11% 15% 24%

57 Equestrian tourism Equestrian tourism or horse tourism is a growing sector of the Icelandic tourism industry. The Icelandic horse is renowned worldwide for its characteristics; the small size and colour diversity as well as its five gaits. The equestrian tourists in Iceland are often owners or admirers of the Icelandic horse worldwide, visiting the homeland of the horse breed they merit (Helgadóttir & Dashper, 2016; Helgadóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2008; Sigurðardóttir & Helgadóttir, 2015).

Companies in the study area catering to this type of tourism offer two distinct tourism products. The former, horse trekking, is a trip that takes more than 24 hours whereas the latter, horse rental, is shorter. Tourists participating in horse trekking make the purchase decision with much longer notice than tourists buying services from a horse rental. The average purchase decision notice for horse trekking in Iceland is six months whereas it is about 24 hours in the case of a horse rental (Sigurðardóttir & Helgadóttir, 2015).

The Icelandic horse has long been trained for travelling through uneven grounds, which makes it ideal for horse trekking in Iceland. In Þingeyjarsýslur, horse trekking has grown in popularity as in other places around Iceland in the last few years (Helgadóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2008). In 2015 it is estimated that approximately 400 visitors participated in horse trekking in Þingeyjarsýslur. This number accounts for visitors of horse tourism companies with establishments in the research area. More visitors participate in horse trekking within the area, operated by companies with establishments outside of the area, and are therefore not counted in these numbers.

Horse trekking visitors are highly valuable to the regional economy as they stay longer in the area than the average visitor and their total expenses in the region are generally higher. The average length of the trekking is six days, and it includes full service, e.g. accommodation, food and beverage services as well as other recreational services which often are part of the trekking. The estimated number of overnight stays in the area from horse trekking tourists was therefore approximately 2.400 in 2015.

Information on the number of horse rental visitors is limited and no specific numbers in this regard are presented in this study.

58 Sport fishing Þingeyjarsýslur boast some of the most popular salmon and trout fishing rivers in Iceland and sport fishing has become a very popular and expensive sport in the area. Statistics Iceland gathers data on salmon caught, categorised by fishing gear used in Icelandic rivers each year. These numbers are categorised within the agriculture sector under hunting, along with the hunting of puffin, reindeer, geese, etc. (Statistics Iceland, n.d.b.). However, when measuring the total turnover of the sport fishing industry, the angling clubs and lease holders are most often categorised within the Tourism industry sector under sport and recreational services, travel agency activities and accommodation services in the ISAT2008 system.

The sport fishing category was not measured through interview estimates in this study. The reason is the complex system of landowners and lease holders selling fishing permits to the rivers in Þingeyjarsýslur. The lease holders can be located all around the country and even abroad, leasing only few rods for assorted rivers countrywide. In addition, a group of specified fishing tour operators also sell fishing permits to a number of different rivers in cooperation with the lease holders. Therefore, information on the total turnover in this industry was not found by interviewing each seller of fishing permits, but by calculating permit prices by the number of rods and the length of period in each river in the area. Attention was paid to the price fluctuations by periods as price lists were in most cases official on the web sites of the lease holders. Some prices were obtained directly from the lease holders along with additional information.

Other sources of revenues are from accommodation services and guiding fishers in the research area. The leasing revenues to landowners from lease holders do not count as direct revenues and are therefore not counted in this research.

When measuring regional impacts of sport fishing, only revenues generated by companies with an establishment in the research area were counted. Therefore, a considerable share of the total turnover of the sport fishing industry is excluded from these calculations.

59 4.1.4 Transportation and transport equipment rental As respondents are too few to ensure anonymity, transportation and transport equipment rental have been aggregated with cultural services and sport and recreational services. Transportation entails road, water and air passenger transportation. More specifically, the ISAT classifications within these three transport categories are the following:

 Taxi operation (49.32.0)  Other passenger land transport not elsewhere classified (n.e.c.) (49.39.0)  Sea and coastal passenger water transport (50.10.0)  Inland passenger water transport (50.30.0)  Scheduled air transport (51.10.1)  Non-scheduled air transport (51.10.2)

(Frenţ, 2013; United Nations, 2010b)

The criterion for calculating tourism revenues in the area of research is that the tourism company has to have an establishment in the region of study. This excludes the numerous bus companies in the neighbouring areas that transport day visitors around Þingeyjarsýslur. In the summer of 2013, the estimated number of cruise ship passengers solely, being transported with busses from the Akureyri based bus company, SBA Norðurleið, through Þingeyjarsýslur, was 41.200. The vast majority of these tours were made to explore the region of Lake Mývatn (Huijbens & Gunnarsson, 2014).

The number of air transport passengers that went through Húsavík airport in 2013 was 9.893 and the same number for 2014 was 9.464.19 Eagle Air operates scheduled flights between Reykjavík and Húsavík. In Þórshöfn, Air Iceland operates scheduled flights between Reykjavík and Þórshöfn, via Akureyri, in collaboration with NorlandAir. The number of passengers going through the airport in Þórshöfn in 2014 was 718 (Isavia, 2014, 2015). The estimated tourist ratio in Húsavík was 20%, resulting in approximately 1.900 visitors going through the airport in 2013 and 2014. This ratio has not been estimated for Þórshöfn.

At Lake Mývatn an airstrip is operated mainly for non-scheduled sightseeing flights for tourists around Lake Mývatn and surroundings during the summer months.

19 Arrivals and departures in Húsavík both included.

60 The renting and leasing of cars and light motor vehicles does not cover car rentals with establishments outside of the area. The ISAT number in this category is 77.11.0 for cars and light motor vehicles and 77.12.0 for trucks.

Only five companies belong to the category of transportation and transport equipment rental and the turnover is therefore presented with cultural services and sport and recreational services to avoid traceability.

4.1.5 Cultural services This category consists of

the operation of facilities and provision of services to meet the cultural and entertainment interests of their customers. This includes the production and promotion of, and participation in, live performances, events or exhibits intended for public viewing; the provision of artistic, creative or technical skills for the production of artistic products and live performances (United Nations, 2010a, p. 117-118).

The ISAT 2008 classification for this category is the following:

 Performing arts (90.01.0)  Support activities to performing arts (90.02.0)  Artistic creation (90.03.0)  Operation of arts facilities (90.04.0)  Museums activities (91.02.0)  Operation of historical sites and buildings and similar visitor attractions (91.03.0)  Botanical and zoological gardens and nature reserves activities (91.04.0) (Frenţ, 2013; United Nations, 2010b)

There are numerous museums, theatres and clubs in the study area, which partly serve visitors and partly locals. The local museums often serve the role of collecting, preserving and sharing artefacts and collections of cultural, historical, artistic or scientific importance for the society through permanent or temporary exhibits. They are generally non-profit organisations, funded by government grants, private donations and earned revenue such as admission fees, which generally is a minor source of income. The whale museum in Húsavík and the bird museum at Lake Mývatn have developed a tourism focus and receive more visits from tourists and same- day visitors than other museums in the area.

61 Theatres in the research area are amateur theatres which rarely stage a performance during the tourism season. Their turnover has not been taken into consideration in this study.

Only five entities belong to this category and the turnover has therefore been aggregated with the sport and recreational services in this study to prevent traceability of data.

4.1.6 Sport and recreational services Recreation is often defined as “all activities that are undertaken voluntarily for personal pleasure or enjoyment in a person’s leisure time” (Nagle, 1999, p. 2). In the case of tourism one might therefore think that this category would cover a wide range of tourism services. However, in the case of tourism statistics, this category does not cover as large a share of tourism services as the title of the subchapter might indicate. It consists of the following subcategories:

 Renting and leasing of recreational and sports goods (77.21.0)  Gambling and betting activities (92.00.0)  Operation of sports facilities (93.11.0)  Fitness facilities (93.13.0)  Other sports activities (93.19.0)  Activities of amusement parks and theme parks (93.21.0)  Other amusement and recreation activities (93.29.0) (Frenţ, 2013; United Nations, 2010b)

In this study, this category initially consisted of 14 associations, most of them local sports clubs such as soccer and athlete associations. These entities have no connections to tourism and were therefore excluded. Golf clubs and fishing clubs were taken into calculations, along with cultural services. The results of four companies are presented with cultural services to prevent data traceability.

62 4.1.7 Goods purchased from trade activities The categories listed from 3.1.1 to 3.1.6 all belong to tourism characteristic products and industries (see table 1).

Goods purchased from trade activities covers other consumption products, particularly referring to goods, partly purchased by visitors. These are e.g. retail outlets, such as grocery stores, clothes stores, sports stores etc. According to the Icelandic TSA, this category consists of the following subcategories:

 Wholesale trade (46.00)  Retail sale (47.00) (Frenţ, 2013)

This sector counts 18 entities with direct relation to tourism and a total turnover of 2.963 m. ISK, whereof 800 m. ISK comes from tourism.

4.1.8 Other services This category includes all other industries providing services to tourists (Frenţ, 2013). This is for example tourism activities such as accommodation and recreational services, registered by Statistics Iceland within other ISAT classification categories mentioned in the previous sections. These industries are e.g. agriculture, fishing, construction, activities of other membership organisations and physical wellbeing activities. Therefore, this category includes numerous tourism entities which offer services described in the previously described tourism categories, but do not fit into the classification due to different ISAT registration. The total number of companies in this category is 37, with a total turnover of 1.197 m. ISK, whereof 714 m. ISK comes from tourism.

4.2 INTERNAL TOURISM CONSUMPTION The internal tourism consumption by products is another outcome of the study. It comprises the consumption of both resident (domestic) and non-resident (inbound) visitors within the region of study. Tourism consumption has the same definition as tourism expenditure but with the addition of services associated with vacation accommodation on own account, tourism social transfers in kind and other imputed consumption (United Nations, 2010b). No information was available on the vacation accommodation on own account and on other

63 elements of tourism consumption in the region and therefore tourism expenditure and tourism consumption is the same aggregate in this study.

The supply side approach with outcomes tallied in chapter 4.1 was used in this study to measure the internal consumption in Þingeyjarsýslur. Total tourism turnover retrieved from the company interviews was complemented with Value Added Tax to present the total internal tourism consumption, at purchasers’ prices. The average taxation used for calculation was retrieved from the production accounts of tourism and other industries on the national level in 2013 (Statistics Iceland, n.d.e.). The results are listed in table 13.

Table 13. Estimated internal tourism consumption in Þingeyjarsýslur in 2013 (based on supply side calculation on tourism turnover). Source: Statistics Iceland (n.d.f.) and the author’s elaboration based on interview data.

Total tourism consumption Accommodation services 1.662 F&B serving services 346 Travel agencies and other reservation 806 services Cultural services & 498 Sport and recreational services & Transportation Goods purchased from trade activities 911 Other services 747 Total 4.971

Visitor surveys are generally used to measure tourism consumption from the demand side. The tourism consumption is then compared to the total output of the tourism industries in order to calculate the tourist ratio (United Nations, 2010b).

In this study, tourism consumption from the demand side20 (table 14) is based on visitor surveys conducted in Húsavík and in the region of Lake Mývatn during the summer of 2013. A total of 451 visitors responded to the survey in the region of Lake Mývatn and 469 in Húsavík. The questions were restricted to a period of 24 hours. Those who stayed shorter estimated the expenditure during their stay in the area and those who stayed longer were asked to limit their expenditure estimate to 24 hours. The average expenditure was then

20 Inbound tourism expenditure

64 multiplied by the estimated number of inbound visitors in the region to measure the total inbound consumption in the two areas in 2013.

Table 14. Estimated inbound tourism consumption in Húsavík and in the region of Lake Mývatn in 2013 Source: Rögnvaldsdóttir, (2014) and the author‘s elaboration based on visitor survey results in the region of Lake Mývatn in 2013 (unpublished).

Total inbound Average 24h Visitor numbers in consumption in expenditure21 2013 2013 (‘000 ISK) The Mývatn region 10.678 190.000 2.028.820 Húsavík 15.785 124.84822 1.970.726 Total: 3.999.546

The total inbound consumption in the two areas, according to the visitor surveys, is estimated 4.000 m. ISK (table 14). The difference between the inbound tourism consumption in table 14 (demand side derived) and the internal tourism consumption23 in table 13 (supply side derived) is 971 m. ISK or 19,5% of total internal consumption. This difference might partly be explained by regional inbound tourism consumption in other areas than Mývatn and Húsavík, as well as by domestic tourism consumption in the whole region. It is estimated that 29% of all visitors to Þingeyjarsýslur in 2014 were domestic visitors (Guðmundsson, 2015), which is still slightly higher than the difference.

21 On the price level of 2013. 22 Cruise ship passengers in Húsavík are included in the visitor numbers. 23 Internal tourism consumption comprises both domestic and inbound visitors’ consumption

65 4.3 TOURISM EMPLOYMENT IN ÞINGEYJARSÝSLUR 2013 Measuring tourism employment can be complicated due to seasonality, high variability in the working environment, flexibility and, sometimes, a lack of formal work contracts (United Nations, 2010a).

Industries depend to a different degree on tourism. Figure 32 demonstrates how industries defined as “tourism industries” both serve the needs of visitors and locals and therefore only a share of their employment can be linked to tourism. The total number of tourism employees is retrieved by relating tourism demand to tourism supply, using the tourism ratio to calculate the tourism share of total employment in the 12 corresponding industries (OECD, 2000).

Figure 32. The boundaries of tourism-related employment and total employment generated by the expenditure of visitors Source: OECD (2000, p. 155).

In this study, each company was asked to provide information on the number of employees and Full Time Equivalent (FTE) depending on the season as well as the total Annual Work Units (AWU)24. This number was then multiplied with the tourism ratio provided by the companies.

The results from the interviews showed that the total number of AWU in tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur was 313 in 2013. The total number of tourism employees was 856 during the same period. The total number of FTEs during the summer of 2013 was 749 and 151 during

24 AWU is equivalent to the work of one person, full time, for one year

66 the winter. The total salary cost in the study was 1.971 m. ISK, whereof salaries directly related to tourism were 1.436 m. ISK.25 The average monthly salary in 2013 was estimated to be 324 thousand ISK. The ratio of AWUs with registered domicile within Þingeyjarsýslur was 82%.

Table 15. Tourism employment numbers in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013 Source: The author’s elaboration based on interview data.

Employees Employees Annual summer winter Work Units (FTE) (FTE) (AWU)

Total 749 151 313

The total number of tourism employees on the national level was at the same time 15.260 (ranging from 12.600 in January up to 18.400 in August) (Statistics Iceland, n.d.d.). According to these numbers, the share of Þingeyjarsýslur was 4,7% during summertime26.

Figures from the Northeast Iceland Development Agency (NIDA) are used in this study to show the development of total employment in the region and the share of each industry (figure 33). NIDA’s industry categorisation differs from this study in that all employees within the accommodation and F&B industry as well as all employees in the travel agencies and tour operator services are counted in NIDA’s classification whereas this study follows the UNWTO methodology, using tourism ratios to estimate employment numbers from the twelve defined tourism industries in this study. In 2007, the total number of annual work units (AWU) in all industries in the region was 2.201.27 The same number for 2014 was 2.141

25 Wages and related expenses. The tax base was 1.217 m. ISK. 26 Employment numbers for comparison are based on averages in Iceland June-August 2013. Total employment numbers for Þingeyjarsýslur during the wintertime are unknown (only FTEs were computed). 27The numbers of FTE are counted during the summer and in December each year. Annual Work Unit is retrieved by multiplying the number of FTE during the summer with 3 and with 9 during the winter. Both numbers are then divided by 12. AWUs in 2013 were 2.113.

67 which represents a 2,7% reduction. All industries have lost AWUs except agriculture (increase of 4%), public services (increase of 0,4%) and tourism (50% increase). The loss in the other industries ranged from -4% to -28% (Northeast Iceland Development Agency, 2015).

700

647 649

600

Public services 500 Agriculture Fish processing Tourism 400 Construction Other services 320 Fishing 307 300 Other industry 266 302 Food processing Commerce 255 243 Finance 200 186 224 176 216 Transport 170 198 165 126 128 100 93

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 33. Employment development in Þingeyjarsýslur 2006-2014. AWUs per category Source: Northeast Iceland Development Agency (2015).

Figure 34 shows tourism employment in Þingeyjarsýslur in the winter and summer season according to NIDA. In 2014, the total number of AWU was 255 in the tourism industry. During the summer, this number rose to 575 while it decreased to 148 during the wintertime (Northeast Iceland Development Agency, 2015).

700

600 575

500

400 FTE summer 393 FTE winter 300 AWU 255 200 170 148 100 96

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 34. AWUs and FTEs in the tourism industry. Þingeyjarsýslur 2007-2014 Source: Northeast Iceland Development Agency (2015).

The tourism seasonality clearly affects the employment in the region and creates challenges in the management of the industry. This is common in peripheral destinations and calls for strategic planning and implementation in the industry.

The difference in employment numbers between NIDA’s counting and the TSA methodology, which this study is based on, shows that the latter is more complete and includes higher numbers of employees as it refers to more categories than the three tourism industries in NIDA’s method.

70 5 TOWARDS OTHER ESTIMATIONS FROM THE STUDY

The main emphasis in this study has been on measuring the direct effects of tourism according to the International recommendations for compiling TSAs. The direct effects represent “the purchases of goods and services by or on behalf of visitors, i.e. expenditures incurred before, during, and after a trip and expenditures that are related to the trip itself” (Smeral, 2006, p. 94). The TSA methodology is essential for attaining the most accurate tourism statistics. It is therefore important to base further calculations on this framework. Indirect effects can be estimated through different interrelated indicators that can be developed from the TSA methodology in combination with other instruments relating to value added, employment, remuneration of employees, gross business income etc. (United Nations, 2010b; Vellas, 2011). When measuring the indirect effects of tourism it is important to carefully consider table 6 in the 2008 TSA:RMF. Although no concrete aggregates can be immediately calculated from this table, it contains important elements such as intermediate consumption by tourism sectors and compensation of employees, providing the base for measuring the indirect and induced effects of tourism (Vellas, 2011). However, as already stated, data sources to compile regional TSAs in Iceland do not exist.

5.1 INDIRECT AND INDUCED EFFECTS Tourism creates demand in a broad array of economic sectors. This demand can be met either within or outside the region, depending on the capability of the local economy. An autonomous rise in demand in the tourism industry calls for production and services from the delivering industry. This generates a need for goods and services in the delivering industry which then results in a multiplier process that generates direct and indirect income as well as employment. The chain of indirect effects of tourism consumption on other industries is due to industry linkages. These linkages are between tourism serving industries and other industries which serve tourism with intermediate goods and services. This chain of additional demand for different factors continues through several rounds until depleted by leakages which are mainly imports and savings (figure 35) (Lejárraga & Walkenhorst, 2010; Smeral, 2006; United Nations, 2010b).

Figure 35. Effects of tourism: direct, indirect and induced Source: Lejárraga and Walkenhorst (2010, p. 418).

There are three main methods used to estimate the indirect and induced effects of tourism:

 Models based on Input-Output analysis  Computable general equilibrium models  Multipliers (United Nations, 2010b)

Input – Output analysis Input-output tables demonstrate a detailed segmentation of intermediate transactions in an economy, and designate the supply and use of the products within the economy (McLennan, 2006). They generally provide a detailed industry-by-industry breakdown of the projected effects of demand changes and are widely used to present the technical relationship between output by product or activity and intermediate consumption (Giaoutzi & Nijkamp, 2006; United Nations, 2010b). Input-Output models presume free flow of resources, such as labour, capital and land, to the tourism industries as well as to other industries. It is, however, assumed that these resources are not used elsewhere, which limits the model in the case of tourism (Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, 2004).

The use of I-O tables is particularly complex in the tourism industry due to the fact that many elements of tourism consumption belong to intermediate consumption of activities developed by resident producers. It therefore requires the use of a developed system of National

72 Accounts as well as the TSA. The supply and use tables should represent the imported components of each cell, representing inputs of all industries as well as of internal tourism consumption (United Nations, 2010b). The most recent supply and use table for Iceland is from the year 2003. Input-Output tables have not been produced on the regional level in Iceland and are not used as such in this study (Statistics Iceland, 2015b).

Computable general equilibrium models The computable general equilibrium (CGE) models are descended from the input-output models with the aim of relaxing some of the constraints such as the price variation in the I-O tables. The supply and use table represents a situation of equilibrium between the diverse variables of the system in this model. It is used to estimate how the economy reacts to changes of variables generated by tourism. A new equilibrium situation is calculated under the conditions imposed by the vector of tourism demand and the relationships between the variables of the supply and use table. Unlike input-output models, the CGE models vary in data, assumptions and structure and are less fit for international comparison (Burnett, Cutler, & Thresher, 2007; Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, 2004; United Nations, 2010b). No tourism related economic studies in Iceland using this method were found.

Multipliers Multipliers are a useful tool to estimate the re-circulation of spending within a region. They are often based on input-output models and the most commonly used types of multipliers are those which estimate the effects on output of the sectors, household income and employment generation. Multipliers differ across the various sectors of the economy, where the combination of labour and other inputs affect the size of the multiplier as well as the tendency of each sector to buy goods and services from producers within the economy (Giaoutzi & Nijkamp, 2006). A special method, called Regional Industrial Multiplier System (RIMS), has been developed to estimate regional input-output multipliers (Daley, 1997; Frechtling & Horváth, 1999). Input-Output tables are generally broken down to industry sectors (in Iceland this would be according to the ISAT2008 classification). In the tourism industry, an output multiplier is defined as the total value of production in all sectors of the economy that is necessary to satisfy each krona’s worth of final demand for tourism goods or services (Miller & Blair, 2009).

73 The Keynesian multiplier is often used in tourism studies as it assesses the leakages and linkages effects, where the multiplier represents the amount of income generated per unit of tourist expenditure. The Keynesian multiplier is divided into direct and indirect components (Lejárraga & Walkenhorst, 2010).

Multipliers have been used in several economic studies in Iceland. However, no examples were found on regional I-O multipliers as no I-O tables have been produced on the regional level in the country. In a study from 2004 on the economic effects of lower airport charges at the Keflavík International Airport (KEF), the Institute of Economic Studies used output multipliers to estimate the effects based on tourism expenditure in Iceland. The multipliers were used to calculate the expenditures by categories as presented in the Icelandic Tourist Board visitor survey. The multiplier for the category of Commerce, hotels and restaurants was 1,70 for direct and indirect effects and 4,20 when induced effects were included. This means that every Icelandic krona spent in the above sector, recirculates 4,2 times within the local economy before leaving through the purchase of an import when indirect and induced effects are taken into calculation (Institute of Economic Studies, 2004).

Other multipliers used in Icelandic studies are for instance multipliers on employment. In a study on the economic effects of the Alcoa aluminium plant in Reyðarfjörður in 2005, the Institute of Economic Studies calculated both output and employment multipliers derived from a 1997 I-O table. For the output multiplier, the institute calculated a multiplier in the hotel and restaurant sector of 2,48 when induced and indirect effects were both taken into consideration. The employment multiplier for the same category was 1,88, meaning that every job change in the hotel and restaurant industry effects 1,88 other jobs in the economy.

Input-Output multipliers are particularly suitable for the evaluation of regional services industries such as tourism as they measure how much of direct spending is recirculated within the regional economy, allowing an evaluation of the total economic impact of tourism in the region (D'Hernoncourt, Cordier, & Hadley, 2011).

The size of the multiplier depends on the scope and diversity of the region’s economy. A large and diverse economy is more likely than a small and a homogenous economy to retain revenues generated locally within the region. Small regions generally do not have the structural capacity to recycle revenues through the economy and must import a large share of goods and inputs to the region. This increases the leakages from the local economy, resulting in a lower multiplier (Saarinen, 2003; Watson, Wilson, Thilmany, & Winter, 2007).

74 As output multipliers are derived from I-O tables this application has not been possible on the regional level in Iceland, due to the absence of these tables on the subnational level in the country. Output multipliers are therefore only relevant in the case of the entire national economy in Iceland and should not be used for regional estimations as the economic conditions differ from one region to another and the national multipliers do not reflect the industries’ intermediate transactions within specific regions.

In this study, an approach was made to estimate the partial indirect effects, or the first round effects which arise when the initial demand generates a need for inputs from the productive sectors. Due to time and financial constraints it was not possible to measure these effects further and study the need that these outputs generate for additional inputs, second round effects and so forth until it leaks out in the form of imports. In the first round, the demand for the extra ISK’s worth of tourism output is considered as having caused the production of these outputs and the tourism industry is said to have backwards linkages to the industries supplying its inputs (McLennan, 2006). Companies were asked for detailed information on operating expenses, including the share of inputs originated from the research area.

Total operating expenses when salary cost and depreciation were excluded resulted in 2.495 m. ISK, whereof 36,2% originated in Þingeyjarsýslur and 58,7% in Northeast Iceland (table 16). First round effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur can therefore be considered 0,19 when induced effects and later rounds of indirect effects are excluded. These indirect effects are partial and should be considered as such.

Linkages and leakages The tourism demand for goods and services, described in the preceding section, can be met either within the local region or outside the region. This depends on the scope of linkages and leakages which designates the relationship between the tourism industry and the host economy (Lejárraga & Walkenhorst, 2010). Figure 35 demonstrates the effects of linkages and leakages in the tourism economy. There is a direct link between the size of the multiplier and the leakage in the economy. Regions with extensive and diversified economies generally have high multipliers and small leakage as households and business find most of the service needed within the region. The geographic size of the region also affects the multiplier as high transport costs inhibit import (Giaoutzi & Nijkamp, 2006; Saarinen, 2003). Furthermore, regions that serve as centres for the surrounding areas tend to have higher multipliers and smaller leakage than more isolated areas (Giaoutzi & Nijkamp, 2006).

75 Tourism linkages with other sectors of the economy are important when developing a profitable and well-functioning regional tourism industry. In Þingeyjarsýslur, the supply of goods and services for the tourism industry are reasonably good compared to the size of the economy. Local greenhouse vegetable production, meat and fish production, various local farm production, bakery and specified production of traditional bread, grocery stores, as well as diverse technical services in the construction industry can be found in the region. However, there is little supply of appliances needed for the rapid growth of the tourism industry, such as furniture, fixtures and equipment in the accommodation and F&B sector as well as other specified equipment in the recreational industry. It can also be time consuming for a tourism enterprise to procure supplies from all the various local food suppliers in the area in comparison to the larger specialised wholesalers (outside the region), offering all in one for the F&B industry.

However, it was obvious from the interviews that a vast majority of respondents emphasised doing business with local companies whenever possible, not only to support the regional economy, but also to enable the promotion of their goods as local production. This calls for good organisation and high quality services within the region, which most often was the case. However, some companies claimed that they would have liked to experience more initiative from the servicing companies, e.g. in the form of promotion and presentation of their services, as they generally received from the larger suppliers outside the region.

The total operating cost of companies directly involved in tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur was 4.819 m. ISK, whereof tourism related operation cost was 2.495 m. ISK in year 2013. This includes all expenses directly related to tourism except salary cost and depreciation. During the interviews, companies were asked to estimate the share of the expenses that were derived from within Þingeyjarsýslur and the North East Iceland specifically. The share of the expenses derived from the region represents the linkages within the regional economy and the remaining share represents the leakages from the region. Table 16 demonstrates the results by tourism categories. The highest linkages ratio in Þingeyjarsýslur was within the travel agencies and other reservation sector whereas the highest leakages ratio was within the sector of goods purchased from trade activities.

76 Table 16. Total tourism operating cost spent within regions of study (‘000 ISK) Source: The author’s elaboration based on interview data.

Þingeyjarsýslur North East Total Linkages Leakages Total Linkages Leakages

Accommodation services 267.130 35,6% 64,4% 529.604 70,6% 29,4%

Other services 147.754 40,8% 59,2% 225.707 62,3% 37,7%

Total 903.943 36,2% 63,8% 1.465.543 58,7% 41,3%

Tourism literature on linkages and leakages often suggests that countries should keep their focus on minimizing leakages and maximizing linkages in the economy of reference. Lejárraga and Walkenhorst (2010), however, warn that this could include deprivation of the gains from free trade and specialisation and that countries should rather aim for the prosperous balance of both linkages and leakages. This applies also for the regional level.

The results presented in table 16 should not be compared to international studies on linkages or leakages as this approach is based on limited data and shows only the first round multiplier effects whereas most international studies present more rounds based on more data availability. Difficulties in measuring the indirect effects of tourism in the Nordic peripheries are known. According to Saarinen (2003) the indirect effects are frequently ignored in the Nordic Model due to their low level which is common in the Nordic peripheries.

Induced effects With the rise in tourism demand, an increase occurs in tourism salary payments, which then generates additional demand for goods and services through a rise in the household consumption by tourism employees. This causes a chain of induced effects on goods and services in the economy (United Nations, 2010b). Induced effects in tourism are generally larger than the indirect effects as tourism tends to be labour intensive (Giaoutzi & Nijkamp, 2006).

77 A special survey was conducted in this study on the regional expenditure of tourism employees in Þingeyjarsýslur (Appendix 4). No information was available on tourism employees in the region so the only way to approach them was through the company representatives. Each of the 126 companies in this study received an e-mail with information on the research and a request to send the survey to all the employees with registered e-mail accounts at the company (either company or private account). The questions in the survey were designed to reflect similar questions in the Statistics Iceland household expenditure survey. Despite several reminders and the positive reaction of company representatives, the total number of responses was only 44. This did not reach the minimum level for statistical analysis and therefore induced effects had to be excluded from the calculations of this study.

5.2 MUNICIPAL REVENUES The increase in tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur has generated increased use of public facilities and services such as information centres, swimming pools, museums, public restroom facilities, waste collection and health care services. At the same time, physical infrastructure, such as roads, walking paths, water supply, sewage, signage, parking places and other public utilities such as wifi, is being better utilized. Much of these facilities are under the auspices of local municipalities causing increased expenses with this rise in usage. It has been argued that the municipal revenues from tourism cannot cover the increase in expenses and a discussion on changes in the municipal share of the national tax system has taken place (Einarsson, 2015; Sustainable tourism online, n.d.). The municipal revenue sources in tourism in the Þingeyjarsýslur region are mainly the following (table 17):

Table 17. Municipal revenue sources with relevance for tourism in the Þingeyjarsýslur region

Taxes Dues Other revenues Municipal income tax Harbour dues Community centres Property tax Water dues Schools (summer rentals) Sewage dues Culture centres Garbage dues Sport centres & clubs Passenger charge Swimming pools Camping places Theatres & clubs Information centres

78 Table 17 demonstrates the main tourism related municipal revenue sources. The categorisation in the table is different from the conventional classification in municipal accounts in Iceland of the three revenue sources; revenues from taxes, from intergovernmental transfers and from other sources (Association of Local Authorities in Iceland, n.d.a.). Taxes and intergovernmental transfers generally generate revenues without demanding expenses or services, but the other revenue sources rarely generate revenues which cover the service expenses.

5.2.1 Revenue basis The municipal revenue base in Iceland is tripartite, consisting of the municipal income tax, property tax and contributions from the Equalisation Fund. Other revenues come from miscellaneous service fees and dues. The municipal income tax is generally the largest source of revenue and its collection takes place at source each month during the income year. Every person who is obliged to pay municipal income tax shall pay the tax to the municipality where he or she has legal residence. If a person has legal residence in more than one municipality during the tax year, that person has to pay municipal tax to the appropriate municipality in accordance with the time of residence in each municipality (Alþingi, 1995; KPMG, 2013; Sverrisson & Hannesson, n.d.). It has proved difficult to estimate regionally the tourism related revenues from the municipal income tax due to the seasonality of the industry as well as the employees’ mobility. Temporary employment within the tourism industry is common and students seeking summer jobs present a large share of the total employment in the industry. Foreign employees are generally registered with legal domicile at the place of work, but in the case of temporary Icelandic employees, the registration of legal domicile is deficient at times.

5.2.2 Municipal income tax The municipal income tax in Þingeyjarsýslur ranged from 14,05% to 14,48% of total salaries in 2013 in the six municipalities28 (Association of Local Authorities in Iceland, 2013). When calculating the share of tourism revenues in this category, one must pay attention to the tourism ratio in each tourism category. The levied municipal income tax in Þingeyjarsýslur in 2014 (salary year 2013) was 2.086 m. ISK. The share of the Equalisation Fund was 248

28 Tjörneshreppur: 14,05%, Other municipalities in the region: 14,48%.

79 million ISK. The levied net tax was therefore 1.838 m. ISK (Association of Local Authorities in Iceland, 2014).

According to the results of this study, the total salary cost in the tourism related companies in Þingeyjarsýslur was 1.971 m. ISK, whereof salaries from tourism activities exclusively were 1.436 m. ISK. The estimated municipal tax accounted for 176 m. ISK, or 155 m. ISK net municipal income tax when the share of the Equalisation fund has been subtracted. This figure represents 8,45% of the total levied municipal income tax in the region.

However, the net municipal income does not go directly to the municipality where the tourism activity takes place, as it depends on the legal residence of the employee and not the employer. In the case of Þingeyjarsýslur, 82% of the annual work units had their legal residence within Þingeyjarsýslur. This lowers the value of the revenues from the municipal income tax to 145 m. ISK29. According to this, 6,9% of the total municipal income tax in Þingeyjarsýslur was derived from tourism in 2013. At the same time, the share of the total AWU in tourism of the total AWU in all industries in the region is 14,8% (Northeast Iceland Development Agency, 2015).

Table 18. Estimated municipal income tax revenues from tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur 2013 (m. ISK) Source: Association of Local Authorities in Iceland (2014) and the author‘s elaboration on interview data.

Total wages and related expenses in the tourism industry 1.436 Tax base in the tourism industry 1.217 Total municipal income tax 2.086 Total tourism related municipal income tax 176 Total tourism related municipal income tax according to 145 domicile registration

According to the estimations in table 18, municipal revenues totalling 31 m. ISK leaked from the region in 2013 due to deficiencies in tourism employees domicile registration. This refers solely to the income from tourism operation within Þingeyjarsýslur.

29 Including the share of the Equalisation fund.

80 5.2.3 Property tax Property taxes are obligatory in Iceland. Municipalities levy the tax on the official premises valuation of real estate annually. The tax rate varies depending on the municipality and the type of real estate (Alþingi, 1995; KPMG, 2013). Tourism related property tax is derived from real estates in the industry such as in the accommodation sector and the food and beverage service sector, as well as in other categories. When estimating tourism related revenues from this tax source, the tourism ratio of each category has to be calculated as in all other tourism related calculations. The property types are categorised into three parts, A, B and C where A constitutes residential buildings, B is for public buildings and C is for commercial premises. When computing tourism related revenues, the main focus is on category B and C. The property tax rates in Þingeyjarsýslur in 2013 ranged from 0,45% to 0,63% in category A, it was 1,32% in category B and ranged from 1,5% to 1,65% in category C between the municipalities in the region (Association of Local Authorities in Iceland, n.d.c.). Only two municipalities out of six responded to queries on tourism related revenues from property tax, resulting in inadequate information to draw conclusions from.

5.2.4 Dues Other municipal income derives from various smaller income bases like service fees, e.g. license fees, sewage disposal fees, lot rental, passenger charge etc. Furthermore, municipalities run various activities in independent operational units or companies, such as heating and water utilities, harbours and social apartments which have independent revenues (Alþingi, 1995).

Passenger charge is levied on passenger ships in Norðurþing. In 2013, revenues from cruise ships were 7,1 m. ISK and revenues from whale watching boats 5,6 m. ISK (Norðurþing Harbour Fund, 2014).

5.2.5 Other revenues Other sources of income are some municipality run tourism characteristic entities such as campsites and information centres (table 17). These entities gain revenues directly from tourism. Municipalities gain rental revenues in some cases, such as when boarding schools and community centres are rented as summer hotels and restaurants.

81 An unsuccessful attempt was made to get information on the abovementioned revenue sources within the six municipalities in the study. Two municipalities out of six responded to queries, resulting in inadequate information to draw conclusions from.

82 6 CONCLUSIONS

This study set out to explore the availability of regional statistical data in the tourism industry in Iceland and to analyse the economic effects of tourism regionally. This was done by gathering regional data from in situ research consisting of 102 company interviews and 920 visitor survey responses. The data was compiled in Þingeyjarsýslur during the period of 2013-2015.

The method used in this study was retrieved as much as possible from the principles of the Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008 (United Nations, 2010b). This method is designed for the national level and therefore it inevitably includes limitations when applied on the regional level. In the instances where this method was not applicable, special consideration was paid to the Nordic Model, which has been used for the evaluation of economic impacts of tourism in Nordic peripheries (Saarinen, 2003).

At the first stages of this research, much effort was put into the search for regional enterprise data in public databases. It turned out that the only acceptable enterprise data for the region had to be gathered first hand, which resulted in the above mentioned interviews and visitor survey. The participation in the company interviews was good and resulted in a 81% response rate.

The main results from the study are the following:

In 2013, the total visitor number in Þingeyjarsýslur was estimated to be 312.000. Thereof 205.000 were inbound visitors and 107.000 were domestic visitors. In 2014 these numbers increased to 269.000 inbound visitors and 112.000 domestic visitors. Approximately 77% of the inbound visitors in 2013 came to the region during the period of June-August. During the summer months, 64% of the visitors spent the night in the region whereas 43% of the visitors spent the night in the region during the wintertime (Guðmundsson, 2015).

The total number of overnight stays in Þingeyjarsýslur in all types of accommodation and by all tourists in 2013 was 206.808, whereof 58% stayed at hotels and guesthouses. Thereof 79% of the total nights in the region were spent by inbound tourists. The overnight stays in Þingeyjarsýslur represented 4,5% of the total overnight stays in Iceland in 2013 (Statistics Iceland, n.d.a; 2014a; 2015a).

The total turnover from industries directly involved in tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur in 2013 was 8.335 m. ISK. The estimated tourism turnover thereof was 4.672 m. ISK, where

83 accommodation services presented the largest share (33%). The share of the tourism accommodation turnover in Þingeyjarsýslur of the total tourism accommodation turnover in Iceland was 4,0% in 2013.

The total number of Annual Working Units in the tourism industry was estimated to be 313 in year 2013. Full time equivalents during the summer months accounted for 749 whereas the same number during the wintertime was 151.

The abovementioned results present the direct impacts of tourism in the region. This study also had the purpose of measuring the indirect and induced effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur. It emerged from the study that international methods based on Input-Output models, Computable general equilibrium models and multiplier calculations were not applicable in this region due to lack of data. The only possible way of estimating the indirect effects was through primary data collected from the company interviews.

The indirect effects measured in this study are therefore partial and should be considered as such. They only present the first round effect of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur based on purchases and other operating expenses of tourism companies in the region. According to these results, the total tourism operating expenses when salary costs and depreciation were excluded were 2.495 m. ISK, whereof 36,2% originated in Þingeyjarsýslur and 58,7% in NE Iceland. First round effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur can therefore be considered 0,19 when induced effects and later rounds of indirect effects are excluded.

An attempt was made to measure the induced effects based on expenditure survey sent to the tourism companies in the region, intended for the tourism employees. Due to difficulties in reaching the employees, as well as a low response rate to the survey, these attempts yielded no success and calculations on the induced effects of tourism were excluded from the study.

The total salary cost in companies directly involved in tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur was estimated to be 1.971 m. ISK, whereof salaries from tourism activities exclusively were 1.436 m. ISK. The estimated municipal tax accounted for 176 m. ISK, representing 8,45% of the total levied municipal income tax in the region. When adjustments have been made for the employees domicile registration, this amount decreases to 145 m. ISK, or 6,9% of total municipal income tax in the region. The average monthly salary in the tourism industry in 2013 was estimated to be 324 thousand ISK.

This study has developed an approach to evaluating the regional economic effects of tourism in Iceland. This work is based on extensive primary data gathering due to the serious lack of

84 tourism data on the regional level in Iceland. It is the author’s opinion that this research environment is unacceptable for further regional studies. Public effort must be put into this sector in order to improve the data availability in the tourism industry. Rural areas differ in nature from the urban areas at the same time as they differ from one another and national data cannot be applied for specific regions. The need for area specific data is essential to provide a base for future analysis and industry planning. This is very urgent in the ever-growing tourism industry in Iceland. Borderlines must be drawn for tourism regions and destinations and area specific planning and implementation for these areas needs to be based on reliable data and analysis in order to secure the best use of resources in the future.

86 7 LIMITATIONS

In this study, an attempt was made to evaluate the regional economic impact of tourism in the Þingeyjarsýslur region in Iceland based to the greatest extent possible on the TSA:2008 principles. Due to lack of regional data, adjustments were inevitable to the methodology.

Total output could not be retrieved due to lack of data and despite conceptual differences between turnover and production concepts, the total turnover of companies directly involved in tourism was used as a proxy to represent the regional production accounts of tourism industries (at basic prices). This is done in accordance with the Nordic Model.

The company population in the study consisted solely of companies directly involved in tourism, and not the entire list of companies within each ISAT 2008 categorisation of tourism industries as recommended in the TSA methodology. This is due to time and financial constraints as information on all companies in the region needed to be collected by interviews as necessary regional enterprise data was not retrievable in public data sources. This affects the total turnover in the industry, but should not affect the tourism turnover.

TSGVA and TDGDP were not calculated on the regional level due to lack of data. Information from the interviews on investments and financing did not suffice as a foundation for any conclusions and was therefore excluded from the calculations.

Results from visitor surveys are exclusively for the Lake Mývatn region and Húsavík. Numbers from other places in the region are therefore not included. The visitor surveys were based on convenience sampling from one spot at each place, which includes inevitable sampling biases. This is due to the fact that no information was retrievable on the location and number of tourists at each time and place which deters the possibility of spreading the survey proportionally around the area. The areas chosen were outside the Húsavík Information Centre and the Lake Mývatn Information Centre. This inevitably excludes tourists such as those on horse trekking and sport fishing tours from the sample.

Direct municipal revenues from tourism establishments owned by the municipalities are not included in the calculations due to a lack of response from the municipalities.

Indirect effects calculations from the study are partial and need to be considered as such.

Induced effects were not calculated due to the low response rate of the expenditure survey.

88 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahas, R., Aasa, A., Mark, Ü., Pae, T., & Kull, A. (2007). Seasonal tourism spaces in Estonia: Case study with mobile positioning data. Tourism Management, 28, 898-910.

AirBnB. (n.d.). AirBnB. Retrieved December 20, 2015, from https://www.airbnb.com/

Alþingi. (1995). Alþingi – lagasafn. Retrieved December 10, 2014, from Lög um tekjustofna sveitarfélaga 1995 nr. 4 30. janúar: http://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1995004.html

Anderson, T. D., Gothall, S. E., & Wende, B. D. (2014). Iceland and the resumption of whaling: An empirical study of the attitudes of international tourists and whale-watch tour operators. In J. Higham, L. Bejder, & R. Williams (Eds.), Whale-watching: Sustainable Tourism and Ecological Management (pp. 95-109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Association of Local Authorities in Iceland. (2013, January 4). Útsvarsprósentur 2013. Reykjavík. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from http://www.samband.is/media/upplysingar- um-utsvar/Brutto_prosenta_vs_Netto_prosenta.pdf

Association of Local Authorities in Iceland. (2014). Árbók sveitarfélaga 2014. Reykjavík: Association of Local Authorities in Iceland.

Association of Local Authorities in Iceland. (n.d.a.). Annual Accounts. Retrieved November 12, 2015, from http://www.samband.is/verkefnin/fjarmal-sveitarfelaga/arsreikningar/

Association of Local Municipalities in Iceland. (n.d.b.). Municipalities. Retrieved December 8, 2015, from http://www.samband.is/sveitarfelogin/

Association of Local Authorities in Iceland. (n.d.c.). Property Tax. Reykjavík. Retrieved October 8, 2015, from http://www.samband.is/verkefnin/fjarmal-sveitarfelaga/ tekjutofnar-sveitarfelaga/fasteignaskattur/

Burnett, P., Cutler, H., & Thresher, R. (2007). The impact of tourism for a small city: A CGE approach. The Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 37(3), 233-242.

Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D., & Wanhill, S. (2005). Tourism: Principles and Practice (3rd ed.). London: Pearson Education.

Daley, W. M. (1997). Regional multipliers: A user handbook for the regional Input-Output modeling system (RIMSII). Washington: US Department of Commerce.

89 D'Hernoncourt, J., Cordier, M., & Hadley, D. (2011). Input-Output Multipliers – Specification sheet and supporting material, Spicosa Project Report. Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles.

Directorate of internal revenue. (n.d.). VAT on tourism in Iceland. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from Companies: https://www.rsk.is/english/companies/vat-on-tourism-in- iceland/

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2004). Evaluating tourism's economic effects: new and old approaches. Tourism management, 25(3), 307-317.

Economist. (2013). The rise of the sharing economy. Economist. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573104-internet-everything-hire-rise- sharing-economy

Economist. (2014). The sharing economy: Boom and backlash. Economist. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://www.economist.com/news/business/21601254-consumers-and- investors-are-delighted-startups-offering-spare-rooms-or-rides-across-town

EFTA. (2015). EEA agreement: Annex XXI: Statistics. Luxembourg: EFTA. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea- agreement/Annexes%20to%20the%20Agreement/annex21a.pdf

Einarsson, G. (2015, July 17). Vilja hlut í virðisaukaskatti. Retrieved August 17, 2015, from http://www.ruv.is/frett/vilja-hlut-i-virdisaukaskatti

European Union. (n.d.). Common classification of territorial units for statistical purposes. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from Europa: Summaries of EU legislation: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/regional_policy/management/g24218_en.htm

Eurostat. (2012). Methodological manual for tourism statistics: Version 1.2. Luxembourg: Eurostat.

Eurostat. (n.d.a.). NUTS: Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from Local administrative units (LAU): http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/c/portal/ layout?p_l_id=345247&p_v_l_s_g_id=0

Eurostat. (n.d.b.). Supply and use tables – input-output analysis. Retrieved june 8, 2015, from Statistics Explained: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/ Supply_and_use_tables_-_input-output_analysis

90 Eurostat. (n.d.c.). Tourism industries – economic analysis. Luxembourg. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/ Tourism_industries_-_economic_analysis

Finn, M., Elliott-White, M., & Walton, M. (2000). Tourism & Leisure Research Methods: Data collection, analysis and interpretation. Essex: Longman.

Frechtling, D. C. (2010). The tourism satellite account: A primer. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 136-153.

Frechtling, D. C., & Horváth, E. (1999). Estimating the Multiplier Effects of Tourism Expenditures on a Local Economy through a Regional Input-Output Model. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 324-332.

Frenţ, C. (2013). The Economic Benefits of Tourism in Iceland: Boosting the Icelandic Tourism Satellite Account Development. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Frenţ, C. (2015a). Classification used in the new Icelandic TSA. E-mail communication with Cristi Frenţ, November 26, 2015.

Frenţ, C. (2015b). The New Compilation of the Tourism Satellite Account in Iceland for 2009- 2013: Data Sources, Methodology and Results. Reykjavík: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Giaoutzi, M., & Nijkamp, P. (Eds.). (2006). Tourism and Regional Development: New Pathways. Hants: Ashgate Publishing.

Government offices of Iceland. (n.d.). Sóknaráætlanir landshluta. Retrieved November 3, 2015, from http://www.stjornarrad.is/sl/

Guðmundsson, R. (2015). Erlendir ferðamenn í Þingeyjarsýslur 2005-2014. Reykjavík: Tourism Research & Consulting Ltd.

Helgadóttir, G., & Dashper, K. (2016). "Dear International Guests and Friends of the Icelandic Horse". Experience, Meaning and Belonging at a Niche Sporting Event. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism.

Helgadóttir, G., & Sigurðardóttir, I. (2008). Horse-based Tourism: Community, Quality and Disinterest in Economic Value. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(2), 1-17.

91 Huijbens, E. H. (2013). Yfirlit yfir sumarkannanir Ferðamálastofu meðal erlendra gesta 1996-2011. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála.

Huijbens, E. H., & Bjarnason, Þ. (2014). Stefna íslenskra stjórnvalda og vöxtur ferðaþjónustu á jaðarsvæðum: Áhrif Héðinsfjarðarganga í Fjallabyggð. Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla, 10(2), 567-588.

Huijbens, E. H., & Gunnarsson, K. B. (2014). Skemmtiferðaskip við Ísland: Úttekt á áhrifum. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Huijbens, E. H., & Jóhannesson, G. Þ. (2013). Ferðamál á Íslandi. Reykjavík: Mál og Menning.

Huijbens, E. H., Jóhannesson, H., & Jóhannesson, G. Þ. (2014). Clusters without content? Icelandic national and regional tourism policy. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 18(1), 63-85.

Húsavík Academic Centre. (2015). Mannfjöldaþróun á starfssvæði Þekkingarnets Þingeyinga. Húsavík: Húsavík Akademic Centre.

Húsavík harbour. (2015). Cruise ship arrivals and passengers. E-mail communication with Aðalgeir Bjarnason, October 12, 2015.

Icelandic Regional Development Institute. (2014). Norðurland eystra: Stöðugreining 2014. Sauðárkrókur: Byggðastofnun.

Icelandic Regional Development Institute. (n.d.). Útgáfa. Retrieved September 4, 2015, from Myndir: http://www.byggdastofnun.is/is/utgefid-efni/myndir/kort-gerd-arid-2011

Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration. (n.d.). Umferðin í tölum. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from Umferð: http://www.vegagerdin.is/upplysingar-og-utgafa/umferdin/

Icelandic Tourism Research Centre. (2014). Cruise ships statistics. Email communication with Kristinn Berg Gunnarsson, December 2, 2014.

Icelandic Tourism Research Centre. (2015a). Classification of products and the related industries from the new Icelandic TSA: E-mail communication with Cristi Frenţ, November 26, 2015.

Icelandic Tourism Research Centre. (2015b, August 8). Enn lagast árstíðasveifla á höfuðborgarsvæði – önnur svæði standa í stað. Retrieved November 14, 2015, from http://www.rmf.is/is/um-rmf/frettir/enginn-titill

92 Icelandic Tourist Board. (2011). Ferðamálaáætlun 2011-2020. Reykjavík. Retrieved December 15, 2015 from http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/is/tolur-og-utgafur/utgefid- efni/stefnumotun-og-skipulag/ferdamalaaaetlun-2011-2020

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2014a). Erlendir ferðamenn á Íslandi sumar 2014. Reykjavík: Icelandic Tourist Board.

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2014b). Erlendir ferðamenn á Íslandi vetur 2013-2014. Reykjavík: Maskína.

Icelandic Tourist Board. (n.d.b.). Licences & legislation. Retrieved November 18, 2015, from http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/en/licences-legislation

Icelandic Whale Watching Associations. (2014). Number of whale watchers in Iceland. E- mail communication with Rannveig Grétarsdóttir, April 22, 2014.

Icelandic Whale Watching Associations. (2015). Number of whale watchers 2014. E-mail communication with María Gunnarsdóttir, May 11, 2015.

Icelandic Whale Watching Associations. (2016). Number of whale watchers 2015. E-mail communication with María Gunnarsdóttir, November 28, 2016.

Inkson, C., & Minnaert, L. (2012). Tourism management: An introduction. London: SAGE Publication.

Institute of Economic Studies. (2004). Retrieved August 18, 2012, from Flug- og ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi: Umfjöllun í tilefni af beiðni Ryanair um lækkun gjalda á Keflavíkurflugvelli: http://www.innanrikisraduneyti.is/media/Skyrsla/Flug_lokaskyrslaPDF.pdf

Isavia. (2014). Flugtölur 2013. Reykjavík: Isavia.

Isavia. (2015). Ársskýrsla 2014. Reykjavík: Isavia.

Jóhannesson, S., & Árnason, S. (2011). Hagvöxtur landshluta 2004-2009. Reykjavík: Institute of Economic Studies, Icelandic Regional Development Institute.

93 Jóhannesson, S., Árnason, S., & Sigurðsson, S. B. (2015). Hagvöxtur landshluta 2009-2013. Reykjavík: Institute of Economic Studies, Icelandic Regional Development Institute.

Jónsson, Ö. D., & Huijbens, E. H. (2014). Heima og heiman: Deilihagkerfið og gestakomur til Íslands. Íslenska þjóðfélagið, 5(1), 49-65.

Karlsdóttir, A. (2008). Not Sure about the Shore! Transformation Effects of Individual Transferable Quotas on Iceland's Fishing Economy and Communities. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 68, 99-117.

Karlsdóttir, A., & Benediktsson, K. (2011). Iceland: Crisis and regional development – Thanks for all the fish? European Urban and Regional Studies, 18(2), 28–235.

Kauppila, P., Karjalainen, T. P. (2012). A Process Model to Assess the Regional Economic Impacts of Fishing Tourism: A Case Study in Northern Finland. Fisheries Research, 127–128, 88-97.

KPMG. (2013). Icelandic Tax Facts 2013: In-depth Information on the Icelandic Tax System. Reykjavík: KPMG Iceland.

Lau, G., & McKercher, B. (2007). Understanding tourist movement patterns in a destination: A GIS approach. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(1), 39-49.

Lejárraga, I., & Walkenhorst, P. (2010). On linkages and leakages: measuring the secondary effects of tourism. Applied Economics Letters, 17(5), 417-421.

Mak, J. (2004). Tourism and the economy: Understanding the economics of tourism. Honululu: University of Hawai'i Press.

McLennan, W. (2006). Information paper: Australian national accounts: Introduction to input-output multipliers. Belconnen: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (2009). Input-Output analysis: foundation and extentions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ministry of Industries and Innovation. (n.d.). Act no. 73 24 May 2005 on Tourism Administration. Retrieved November 18, 2015, from Laws and regulations: http://eng.atvinnuvegaraduneyti.is/laws-and-regulations/nr/nr/7454

Huhtala, M. (2007). 81(1):. Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 81(1), 223-238.

Müller, D. K., & Jansson, B. (Eds.). (2007). Tourism in Peripheries: Perspectives from the Far North and South. Wallingford: Cabi.

94 Mývatn Nature Baths. (2015). Visitor number to Mývatn nature baths: E-mail communications with Gunnar Atli Fríðuson, February 6, 2015.

Nagle, G. (1999). Tourism, Leisure and Recreation. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.

National Land Survey of Iceland. (n.d.). Sveitarfélög á Íslandi í maí 2015. Retrieved October 10, 2015, from http://www.lmi.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/sveito.pdf

Norðurþing Harbour Fund. (2014). Annual Account 2013. Akureyri: Deloitte.

Northeast Iceland Development Agency. (2015). Employment statistics: E-mail communications with Ari Páll Pálsson, December 11, 2015.

OECD. (2000). Measuring the role of tourism in OECD economies. The OECD manual on tourism satellite accounts and employment. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2010). OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2010. Paris: OECD publishing.

OECD. (n.d.). Central Product Classification (CPC). Retrieved November 12, 2015, from Glossary of statistical terms: https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=309

Office for National Statistics. (2014). The Regional Value of Tourism 2011. London: Office for National Statistics.

Orellana, D., Bregt, A. K., Ligtenberg, A., & Wachowicz, M. (2012). Exploring visitor movement patterns in natural recreational areas. Tourism Management, 33(3), 672- 682.

Óladóttir, O. Þ. (2014). Ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi í tölum – apríl 2014. Reykjavík: Ferðamálastofa.

Ólafsson, G. A., Steinsson, J. B., Hafsteinsson, Á. S., Aðalsteinsson, B., & Guðmundsson, S. (2015). Íbúðagisting: Rannsókn á umfangi íbúðagistingar í ferðaþjónustunni. Reykjavík: Bifröst University.

Ólafsson, R. (2014). Laugavegurinn: Gönguleiðin milli Landmannalauga og Þórsmerkur. Fjöldi göngufólks 2011 til 2013. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Ólafsson, R. & Þórhallsdóttir, G. (2015). Fjöldi ferðamanna á átta áfangastöðum á Suður- og Vesturlandi 2014 til 2015. Reykjavík: Icelandic Tourist Board.

Rasmussen, M. (2014). The whaling versus whale-watching debate: The resumption of Icelandic whaling. In J. Higham, L. Bejder, & R. Williams (Eds.), Whale-watching: Sustainable Tourism and Ecological Mangement (pp. 81-94). Cambridge: Cambridge.

Registers Iceland. (n.d.). Talnaefni. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from Skipting íbúða eftir sveitarfélögum í árslok hvers árs frá árinu 1994 til og með 2014: http://www.skra.is/markadurinn/talnaefni/.

Rögnvaldsdóttir, L. B. (2013). Fémæti ferðaþjónustu: Rannsókn á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslu. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Rögnvaldsdóttir, L. B. (2014a). Tourism Data Collection: Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre.

Rögnvaldsdóttir, L. B. (2014b). Þróun og staða ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík: Niðurstöður ferðavenjukannana sumrin 2013 og 2014. Húsavík: Húsavík Academic Centre.

Saarinen, J. (2003). The regional economics of tourism in Northern-Finland: The socio- economic implications of recent tourism development and future possibilities for regional development. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 3(2), 91- 113.

Sigurbjarnarson, V., & Gíslason, E. (2002). Auðlindin Ísland: Ferðaþjónustusvæði. Reykjavík: Ferðamálaráð Íslands. Retrieved August 18, 2013, from http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files-/upload/files/audlindin_e.pdf.

Sigurðardóttir, I. & Helgadóttir, G. (2015). Riding High: Quality and Customer Satisfaction in Equestrian Tourism in Iceland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 15, 105-121.

Smeral, E. (2006, August). Tourism Satellite Accounts: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 92-98.

Stabler, M. J., Papatheodoru, A., & Sinclair, T. (2010). The economics of tourism (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Statistics Iceland. (2014a). Accommodation statistics: E-mail communication with Hildur Kristjánsdóttir, April 30, 2015.

96 Statistics Iceland. (2014b). Mannfjöldinn eftir póstnúmerum, kyni og aldri 1998-2014. Retrieved March 7, 2014, from http://hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Mannfjoldi/Byggdakjarnar,- postnumer,-hverfi.

Statistics Iceland. (2015a). Accommodation statistics: E-mail communication with Magnús Bergmann, September 11, 2015.

Statistics Iceland. (2015b). SUT & I-O: E-mail communication with Benedikt Hálfdanarson, February 13, 2015.

Statistics Iceland. (2015c). Tourism increased its direct contribution to GDP in Iceland up to 4.6% in 2013. Reykjavík. Retrieved August 25, 2015, from http://www.hagstofa.is/en/publications/news-archive/tourism/tourism-increased-its- direct-contribution-to-gdp-in-iceland-up-to-46-in-2013/.

Statistics Iceland. (n.d.a.). Gistinætur og gestakomur á öllum tegundum gististaða 1998-2014. Retrieved December 10, 2015, from Ferðaþjónusta: http://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/pxweb/is/Atvinnuvegir/Atvinnuvegir__ferdathjonusta__Gisti ng__3_allartegundirgististada/SAM01601.px/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=2fe90f59 -b648-46ab-b0f7-faf104df1780

Statistics Iceland. (n.d.b.). Hunting 1995-2013. Retrieved November 28, 2015, from Business sectors: http://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Atvinnuvegir/Atvinnuvegir__landbun adur/?rxid=a8701827-0159-4f8f-8a34-5e763c66d635.

Statistics Iceland. (n.d.c.). Mannfjöldi eftir kyni, aldri og sveitarfélögum 1998-2015 – Sveitarfélagaskipan hvers árs. Reykjavík. Retrieved December 8, 2015, from http://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/pxweb/is/Ibuar/Ibuar__mannfjoldi__2_byggdir__sveitarfelog /MAN02001.px/.

Statistics Iceland. (n.d.d.). Number of employees in activities related to tourism 2008-2015. Retrieved January 7, 2016, from http://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/pxweb/is/Atvinnuvegir/ Atvinnuvegir__ferdathjonusta__ferdaidnadurhagvisar/SAM08051.px/table/tableView Layout1/?rxid=82ab3f78-1f3f-4483-8834-61bad22ebf23.

Statistics Iceland. (n.d.e.). Production accounts of tourism and other industries 2009-2013. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from http://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/ Atvinnuvegir/Atvinnuvegir__ferdathjonusta__ferdaidnadur__ferdaidnadur/SAM0800 3.px.

97 Statistics Iceland. (n.d.f.). Turnover by detailed activity 2008-2015. Reykjavík. Retrieved December 18, 2015, from http://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Atvinnuvegir/ Atvinnuvegir__fyrirtaeki__veltutolur/FYR04102.px.

Statistics Iceland. (n.d.g.). Turnover by industry and months 2008-2015. Retrieved November 11, 2015, from http://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Atvinnuvegir/Atvinnuvegir__ fyrirtaeki__veltutolur/FYR04101.px.

Sustainable tourism online. (n.d.). Public Infrastructure. Retrieved October 8, 2015, from http://www.sustainabletourismonline.com/destinations-and-communities/implement ation/destination-development/public-infrastructure.

Sverrisson, S., & Hannesson, M. K. (n.d.). Local Governments in Iceland. Reykjavík: The Association of Local Authorities in Iceland.

Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760.

United Nations. (2010a). The conceptual framework for tourism statistics – International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008. Retrieved December 11, 2012, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/Seriesm/SeriesM_83rev1e.pdf.

United Nations. (2010b). Tourism satellite account: Recommended methodological framework 2008. Luxemburg: United Nations Publication. Retrieved May 21, 2013 from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/Seriesf/SeriesF_80rev1e.pdf.

United Nations. (2015). Central Product Classification (CPC). New York: United Nations Publication. Retrieved December 29, 2015, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/down loads/CPCv2.1_complete%28PDF%29_English.pdf.

UNWTO. (1999). Data collection and analysis for tourism management, marketing and planning: A manual for managers and analysts. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

UNWTO. (2014a). Measuring Employment in the Tourism Industries: Guide with best practices. Madrid: UNWTO Publications.

UNWTO. (2014b). Methodological Notes to the Tourism Statistics Database. Madrid: World Tourism Organization (UNWTO).

Vellas, F. (2011). The indirect impact of tourism: An economic analysis. Third meeting of T20 tourism ministers Paris, France, 25. October 2011. Paris: UNWTO AGORA.

98 Visit Húsavík. (n.d.). Húsavík the Whale Capital of Iceland. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from http://www.visithusavik.com/husavik/whale-watching/

Visit North Iceland. (n.d). Accommodation. Retrieved August 30, 2015, from http://www.northiceland.is/en/where-to-stay

Watson, P., Wilson, J., Thilmany, D., & Winter, S. (2007). Determining economic contributions and impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? The Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 37(2), 140-146.

Wolf, D. I., Hagenloh, G., & Croft, B. D. (2012). Visitor monitoring along roads and hiking trails: How to determine usage levels in tourist sites. Tourism Management, 33, 16-28.

World Travel & Tourism Council. (2014). Travel & Tourism. Economic impact 2014. Iceland. London: World Travel & Tourism Council.

Þórhallsdóttir, G. (2016). Tourist numbers: E-mail communication with Gyða Þórhallsdóttir, January 27, 2016.

Þórhallsdóttir, G., & Ólafsson, R. (2015). Fjöldi gesta í Vatnajökulsþjóðgarði. Reykjavík: Vatnajökull National Park.

100 9 APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Visitor survey 2013

101

102 APPENDIX 2

Table 19. Classification of products and the related industries from the new Icelandic TSA. Source: Frenţ, 2015a.

No. UNWTO categories Icelandic categories

ISAT Name codes

A.1. Tourism characteristic products/industries (for international comparability)

1. Accommodation services 55.10.1 Hotels and similar accommodation, without restaurants

55.10.2 Hotels and similar accommodation, with restaurants

55.20.0 Holiday and other short-stay accommodation

55.30.0 Camping grounds, recreational vehicle parks and trailer parks

55.90.0 Other accommodation

2. Food- and beverage-serving services 56.10.0 Restaurants and mobile food service activities

56.29.0 Other food service activities

56.30.0 Beverage serving activities

3. Road passenger transportation 49.32.0 Taxi operation

49.39.0 Other passenger land transport not elsewhere classified (n.e.c.)

4. Water passenger transportation 50.10.0 Sea and coastal passenger water transport

50.30.0 Inland passenger water transport

5. Air passenger transportation 51.10.1 Scheduled air transport

51.10.2 Non-scheduled air transport

6. Transport equipment rental 77.11.0 Renting and leasing of cars and light motor vehicles

77.12.0 Renting and leasing of trucks

7. Travel agencies and other reservation 79.11.0 Travel agency activities services 79.12.0 Tour operator activities

79.90.0 Other reservation service and related activities

103 8. Cultural services 90.01.0 Performing arts

90.02.0 Support activities to performing arts

90.03.0 Artistic creation

90.04.0 Operation of arts facilities

91.02.0 Museums activities

91.03.0 Operation of historical sites and buildings and similar visitor attractions

91.04.0 Botanical and zoological gardens and nature reserves activities

9. Sports and recreational services 77.21.0 Renting and leasing of recreational and sports goods

92.00.0 Gambling and betting activities

93.11.0 Operation of sports facilities

93.13.0 Fitness facilities

93.19.0 Other sports activities

93.21.0 Activities of amusement parks and theme parks

93.29.0 Other amusement and recreation activities

A.2. Other consumption products

10. Goods purchased from trade activities 46.00 Wholesale trade

47.00 Retail sale

11. Other services All the rest of industries providing services to tourists

104 APPENDIX 3 Companies’ questionnaire

105

106 APPENDIX 4 Questionnaire for tourism employees

107

108

March 2016

Appendix B

Tourism Data Collection: Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland

Lilja B. Rögnvaldsdóttir

Icelandic Tourism Research Centre

November 2014

65 pages

Tourism Data Collection Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland

Lilja Berglind Rögnvaldsdóttir

Útgefandi: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála, Borgum v/ Norðurslóð, IS-600 Akureyri Sími: (+354) 460-8930 Fax: (+354) 460-8919 Rafpóstur: [email protected] Veffang: www.rmf.is

Titill: Tourism Data Collection - Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland Höfundur: Lilja Rögnvaldsdóttir

Kápa: Ásprent-Stíll og Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála Prentun: Stell (www.stell.is)

Númer: RMF-S-07-2014 ISBN: 978-9935-437-33-4 ISSN: 1670-8857

Forsíðumynd: Mærudagar 2014 Ljósmynd: Gréta Bergrún Jóhannsdóttir ©

Öll réttindi áskilin. Skýrslu þessa má ekki afrita með neinum hætti, svo sem með ljósmyndun, prentun, hljóðritun eða á annan sambærilegan hátt, að hluta eða í heild, án skriflegs leyfis útgefanda.

Tourism Data Collection Analysis at the sub-national level in Iceland

Lilja Berglind Rögnvaldsdóttir

ICELANDIC TOURISM RESEARCH CENTRE NOVEMBER 2014

Table of contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Tourism at sub-national level in Europe ...... 2 1.2. Territorial units in Iceland ...... 5 1.3. Defining a destination ...... 7 2. Regional tourism data availability in Iceland ...... 11 2.1. Inbound tourism ...... 11 2.1.1. Arrivals and other related data ...... 11 2.1.2. Accommodation statistics ...... 17 2.1.3. Expenditures ...... 17 2.2. Domestic tourism ...... 20 2.3. Outbound tourism ...... 23 2.4. Tourism industries ...... 23 2.5. Tourism employment statistics ...... 29 2.6. Complementary macroeconomic indicators...... 30 3. Estimating the economic contribution of tourism at regional level: An example from the UK ...... 33 4. Research on economic effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur, Iceland ...... 37 4.1. Total population of tourism companies in the region ...... 37 4.2. Interviews ...... 39 4.3. Municipalities’ revenues ...... 41 4.4. Inbound visitor survey ...... 42 5. Conclusion ...... 47 6. References ...... 49 7. Appendix 1. Short description of data sources for tourism in Iceland and their applicability in Þingeyjarsýslur region ...... 57

Tables and figures

Table 1. NUTS and LAUs in Europe ...... 3 Table 2. NUTS and LAUs in Iceland ...... 5 Table 3. Regions of Iceland and some characteristics ...... 6 Table 4. Inbound tourism data and indicators proposed by UNWTO ...... 12 Table 5. ITB categorisation of world regions ...... 13 Table 6. RRF categorisation of world regions ...... 14 Table 7. UNWTO classification of world regions ...... 14 Table 8. Places visited in Iceland by foreign visitors 2014 ...... 16 Table 9. Categories of foreign credit card expenditures in Iceland ...... 19 Table 10. Domestic tourism data and indicators proposed by UNWTO ...... 20 Table 11. Places visited by Icelandic visitors in Iceland 2014 ...... 21 Table 12. Outbound tourism data and indicators proposed by UNWTO ...... 23 Table 13. List of tourism characteristic consumption products and activities ...... 24 Table 14. Table of concordances between UNWTO classification of TI and ISAT 2008...... 26 Table 15. Tourism industries data and indicators proposed by UNWTO ...... 28 Table 16. Tourism employment data and indicators proposed by UNWTO ...... 30 Table 17. Complementary tourism indicators proposed by UNWTO ...... 31 Table 18. Data sources for identifying tourism related companies in Þingeyjarsýslur ...... 38 Table 19. Synchronisation of ONS methodology and Þingeyjars. research methodology ...... 40 Table 20. Municipal revenues with relevance for tourism in the Þingeyjarsýslur region ...... 42 Table 21. Focus factors in the visitor profile statistics ...... 43 Table 22. Tourism related data availability on the national and sub-national level in Iceland ..... 47

Figure 1. Total nights spent in tourist accommodation establishments in Europe by NUTS2 regions . 4 Figure 2. Regions of Iceland ...... 6 Figure 3. Tourism resource mapping in Iceland ...... 8 Figure 4. International tourist arrivals (ITA) and receipts (ITR) by world regions ...... 18

1. Introduction Tourism in Iceland has grown substantially over recent years. The number of foreign visitors to the country has more than doubled in the last ten years and the industry has acquired increasing recognition as a central pillar of the national economy. Over the last two decades Iceland’s inbound tourism has grown at a faster pace than international world tourism in general and it has mainly been driven by five key factors; global tourism growth, volcanic eruptions, airline route development, promotion and the devaluation of the Icelandic krona (Boston Consulting Group, 2013; Icelandic Tourist Board, n.d.c.; Statistics Iceland, n.d.d.).

The rising importance of tourism in the economy calls for a thorough and systematic assembling of tourism statistics in order to regulate and organise this industry. The need for tourism statistics is not only required by the National Tourism Administrations (NTAs), but also by various groups of interest, such as local communities, industries, industry associations and academia. Tourism has to be measured at a destination level as well as en route and in tourism generating areas (World Tourism Organization, 1999). Tourism is also a seasonal phenomenon. That stresses the importance of a place and space-specific research framework for regional evaluation (Saarinen, 2003). Common language and international definitions are indispensable in this matter. Much work has been done in this relation worldwide. The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has published international guidelines and recommendations for tourism statistics which is important for each country to follow. International definitions and methods permit countries to measure and understand the scope of the industry at each place, enabling global comparison (Eurostat, 2012; United Nations, 2010b; World Tourism Organization, 1999).

In order to control tourism growth in a promising and profitable manner, decisions have to be based on reliable data and professional analysis. In the Parliamentary Resolution on a Tourism Strategy for 2011-2020 in Iceland, tourism growth is met by four main objectives; to increase the profitability of the sector, engage in its systematic development, enhance quality, safety, professionalism and environmental awareness as well as to define and maintain Iceland’s uniqueness as a tourism destination (Alþingi, 2011b; OECD, 2014).

The main aim of this report is to study the tourism data availability at regional level in Iceland, based on international methodological framework. In addition, an attempt is made to present a possible application on measuring the regional economic effects of tourism in

Iceland based to the extent possible on a framework provided for Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSA) (United Nations, 2010b). These effects are experientially measured through an ongoing research in a region in North Iceland; Þingeyjarsýslur. In this report, the main emphasis will be on data sources in the research, whereas calculation methods and results will be described in a later report at the end of the research period.

The methodology presented in this report is also aimed at operationalising and optimizing information from all the data sources available at the sub national level in Iceland. This is accomplished through compiling and analysing data produced within Statistics Iceland as well as from other data sources.

The first chapter in this report describes the statistical territorial division in Europe and Iceland especially with main focus on tourism statistics. Chapter two discusses the regional tourism data availability in Iceland based on the UNWTO International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008. In chapter three, an example is taken from the UK on evaluating the regional economic effects of tourism. Chapter four describes an ongoing research on the regional economic effects of tourism in North-East Iceland, followed by a conclusion in chapter five, summarizing the results of this analysis.

1.1. Tourism at sub‐national level in Europe The European Union has introduced a legal framework for the territorial division of EU, EFTA and candidate countries in order to harmonise the collection, transmission and publication of national and community statistics. The Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) is a geocode standard for referencing the subdivisions of countries for statistical purposes. If sub-national statistics are to be comparable, the geographical areas need to be of similar size in population terms. Their political, institutional and administrative arrangements should also be defined (European Union, n.d.). A hierarchy of three NUTS levels is established followed by two levels of local administrative units (LAUs). The LAUs are generally the lowest administrative division of a country and can also designate municipalities, communes, cities and counties (table 1) (Eurostat, n.d.b.).

Table 1. NUTS and LAUs in Europe Source: European Commission, 2003

Level Minimum Maximum NUTS1 3 million 7 million NUTS2 800.000 3 million NUTS3 150.000 800.000 LAU1 Regions, districts, counties, municipalities LAU2 Municipalities, cities, communes, councils

Eurostat presented a change in European tourism statistics in 2012. The adoption of Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning European statistics on tourism ((EU) 692/2011) created a base for the collection of regional tourism statistics, in addition to the European Commission implementing regulation ((EU) 1051/2011). This new regulatory basis requires EU Member States, EFTA countries and candidate countries to provide a regular set of comparable tourism statistics where regional data shall be at the NUTS2 level. As a consequence, small countries like Iceland will have limited territorial division in that matter (Eurostat, 2014a).

Figure 1 presents countries and regions in Europe at the NUTS2 level. The total number of nights spent in tourist accommodation is ranked by regions on this figure and shows Iceland as one region whereas most Mid-European countries are divided into smaller areas according to higher population rates.

Regulation (EU) 692/2011 presented also two new analyses for accommodation statistics, i.e. by degree of urbanisation (thinly populated areas, intermediate density areas and densely populated areas) and by coastal or non-coastal locality. Coastal areas are defined by local area units (LAU2) or municipalities. If a municipality borders the sea, it is defined as coastal. If it is not bordering the sea but has half of its surface within a distance of 10 km from the sea, it is also classified as coastal. All other municipalities are non-coastal (Eurostat, 2014a).

In 2013, a total of 4.280.685 nights were spent at tourist accommodation establishments in Iceland, whereof 3.781.972 (88%) were in coastal areas (Eurostat, n.d.a.). Of the 74 municipalities on the LAU2 level in Iceland, 65 are in coastal areas of which 64 border the sea (Statistics Iceland, 2015a).

Figure 1. Total nights spent in tourist accommodation establishments in Europe by NUTS2 regions, 2012 Source: Eurostat, 2014a.

1.2. Territorial units in Iceland

Iceland is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world with 325.6711 inhabitants on an area of approximately 103.000km2 (3.2 per km2). The country is divided into 74 municipalities in 8 regions. Statistics Iceland has classified counties and municipalities together in 8 regions, based on ancient traditions of division in counties and land quarters. Some changes have occurred within these regions in the last decades, mainly due to municipal mergers and demographic change (National Land Survey of Iceland, n.d.; Harðarson and Sindradóttir, 2012; Sverrisson and Hannesson, 2006).

Icelandic conditions have made the implementation of a proper statistical territorial division in the country problematic. The sparse and imbalanced population by regions encumbers statistical work and comparison between regions. Aggregation of regions is indispensable for future statistical work. This is complicated to achieve and has to be based on acknowledged values such as balance between regions, statistical continuity, topography, jurisdictional assessment, homogeneity within areas and heterogeneity between areas. Statistics Iceland has started to work towards a new regional demarcation of Iceland on these terms (Harðarson and Sindradóttir, 2012; Statistics Iceland, n.d.f.).

The statistical territories in Iceland are classified as in table 2.

Table 2. NUTS and LAUs in Iceland Source: Icelandic Association of Local Authorities, n.d.; Harðarson and Sindradóttir, 2012; European Union, n.d.

Level Iceland Number of entities NUTS1 IS0 Iceland 1 NUTS2 IS00 Iceland 1 NUTS3 IS001 Capital Region 2 IS002 Rest of country LAU1 Regions in Iceland 8 LAU2 Municipalities in Iceland 74

As already mentioned, there is no territorial division in Iceland on the NUTS1 and NUTS2 level. On the NUTS3 level, there are two partitions, the capital area and the rest of the country. On the LAU1 level, there are eight statistical territorial units in Iceland, as can be seen in table 2 but also in figure 2. These regions are mainly used for administrational and

1 Population 1st January 2014 (Statistics Iceland, n.d.f.) 5 statistical purposes and the district court jurisdictions also follow this division and are numbered in accordance with table 3. The red lines in figure 2 divide the country up in 74 municipalities which represent the LAU2 level.

Figure 2. Regions of Iceland Source: Administrative divisions of Iceland, n.d.; Harðarson and Sindradóttir, 2012.

Table 3 presents the population and geographical size of each LAU1 territory unit. As can be seen, 64% of all inhabitants in Iceland live in the capital area which represents only 1% of the total geographical area of the country. The smallest areas, population wise, are the North- western region and the West fjords.

Table 3. Regions of Iceland and some characteristics Source: Administrative divisions of Iceland, n.d.; Statistics Iceland, n.d.f.; Harðarson and Sindradóttir, 2012.

# Name Popu- Area Pop./Area Popul. Administrative lation (km²) Ratio centre

1 Capital Region 208.752 1.044 199,95 64% Reykjavík

2 Southern Peninsula 21.560 816 26,42 7% Reykjanesbær

3 Western Region 15.441 9.527 1,62 5% Akranes

4 West fjords 6.972 9.357 0,74 2% Ísafjörður

5 North-western Region 7.245 12.591 0,58 2% Sauðárkrókur

6 North-eastern Region 29.091 22.687 1,28 9% Akureyri

7 Eastern Region 12.524 22.013 0,57 4% Egilsstaðir

8 Southern Region 24.086 24.677 0,98 7% Selfoss 325.671 102.712

As stated before, Iceland is a small country in European context and according to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning European statistics on 6 tourism ((EU) 692/2011) the country has no regional division for tourism statistics as NUTS2 represents Iceland as one area.

However, in order to build up a strong and well-functioning tourism industry in this country, statistical analysis by regions is indispensable. The nature of tourism has to be understood in order to rationalise decision making and fulfil the following objectives of the parliamentary resolution on tourism for 2011-2020:

 Increased profitability of the sector.  Systematic development of tourist destinations and products, promoted with the aim of lengthening the tourist season and reducing seasonal fluctuations.  Enhanced professionalism, quality and safety in the tourism sector.  Iceland’s uniqueness as a tourism destination defined and maintained (Alþingi, 2011b).

In the following sections, an attempt will be made to propose the best use of available tourism data in Iceland in order to get a clearer picture of regional division of tourism.

1.3. Defining a destination A destination is difficult to define. The reason is the miscellaneous permutations and implications associated with the term (Wang, 2011). However using a systems approach, supported by consumption patterns, Pike (2008, p. 24) defines destination as “a geographical space in which a cluster of tourism resources exists, rather than a political boundary”. Cluster is defined by Rubies (2001, p. 39) as “an accumulation of tourist resources and attractions, infrastructures, equipments, service providers, other support sectors and administrative organisms whose integrated and coordinated activities provide customers with the experiences they expected from the destination they chose to visit”.

According to UNWTO International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics (IRTS, 2008), the main destination of a tourism trip is:

In a report on tourism resource mapping published by the Tourist Board of Iceland (2002), an approach was made to define the concept of destination. According to this report, a destination is the equivalent of an accessible attraction within a certain distance from tourist services. Five main regions were outlined (capital area and four other areas around the country) and each of them included sub regions based on their uniqueness (figure 3) (Sigurbjarnarson and Gíslason, 2002).

Figure 3. Tourism resource mapping in Iceland Source: Clker.com, n.d.; Sigurbjarnarson and Gíslason, 2002, p.15.

Industry clusters have been identified and defined as the main driving force of regional economies through the Icelandic regional development policy (Alþingi, 2014; Prime Minister's Office, 2011). This policy has been delineated through special regional growth agreements in the eight regions of the country as defined in figure 2. The main concern of these agreements is to bring increased authority and greater responsibility to these regions in Iceland in order to ensure future growth and versatility in employment. Tourism is one of 8 these specified clusters (Huijbens et al., 2014; Government Offices of Iceland, n.d.). Tourism in Iceland is different from most other industries in the country as it is usually tied with natural attractions. These are resources that cannot be transferred from the destination, such as the case of fishing rights in Iceland, which has affected many coastal communities. This gives rural areas in Iceland a certain advantage in the case of resource and destination management (Benediktsson and Karlsdóttir, 2011; Bjarnason and Huijbens, 2014).

2. Regional tourism data availability in Iceland The UNWTO Compendium of Tourism Statistics is a comprehensive statistical compilation of tourism data, based on the UNWTO International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008 (United Nations, 2010a). The compendium contains internationally comparable indicators and data on tourism, divided into six categories: Inbound, Domestic and Outbound tourism, Tourism industries, Employment and Complementary macroeconomic indicators (UNWTO, 2014a).

Statistics Iceland’s data sources mostly cover the measurement of the supply side of tourism, in other words the ensemble of industries grouped by Statistical classification of economic activities in the European community (Eurostat, 2008). Statistics Iceland is also responsible for accommodation statistics in the country (Statistics Iceland, n.d.g.).

On the demand side, there is a lack of data. The Icelandic Tourist Board (ITB) is responsible for the tallying of tourists who pass through the airport terminal at Keflavík International airport and has been involved in several inbound visitor surveys at a semi-regular basis. ITB has also conducted an annual survey on Icelanders’ travel behaviour in a domestic and outbound survey. Statistics Iceland carried out a household tourism survey in 1996 and 2007- 2008 (Frenţ, 2013; Icelandic Tourist Board, n.d.d.).

2.1. Inbound tourism Inbound tourism encompasses the activities of a non-resident visitor in the country of reference on an inbound tourism trip. Expenditures made by these visitors are considered as inbound tourism expenditures. The data sources and indicators for inbound tourism are listed in table 4.

2.1.1. Arrivals and other related data Understanding the spatial behaviour of visitors is essential for effective tourism management. Inter-destination movements from tourist-generating regions to one or more destinations and intra-destination movements within a destination are both necessary subjects of analysis. Studying the flow of visitors enables more effective planning, budgeting, determination of demand trends, tourism impact analysis, measurement of social, political and economic importance of tourism at each place (Lau & McKercher, 2007; Orellana, et al., 2012; Wolf, Hagenloh, & Croft, 2012).

Table 4. Inbound tourism data and indicators proposed by UNWTO Source: UNWTO, 2014a, p. 5 Arrivals  Overnight visitors (tourists)  Same-day visitors (excursionists) − of which, cruise passengers  Arrivals by country of origin  Arrivals by mode of transport Arrivals by region  Africa  Americas  East Asia and the Pacific  Europe  Middle East  South Asia  Other not classified Arrivals by main purpose  Personal of visit − holidays, leisure and recreation − visiting friends and relatives − education and training − health and medical care − religion/ pilgrimage − shopping − transit − other  Business and professional Arrivals by mode of  Air transport  Water  Land − railway INBOUND TOURISM − road − other Arrivals by form of  Package tour organization of the trip  Other forms Accommodation  Total guests  Total overnights  Guests in hotels and similar establishments  Overnight stays in hotels and similar establishments Expenditure  Travel  Passenger transport Expenditure by main  Personal purpose of the trip  Business and professional Indicators  Average size of travel party  Average length of stay − For all commercial accommodation services (of which “hotels and similar establishments”) − For non-commercial accommodation services  Average expenditure per day

The flow of international visitors to the country of reference includes both tourists (overnight visitors) and same day visitors (excursionists). Arrivals data are attained from sources such as

12 administrative records (e.g. traffic counts and immigration control) as well as visitor surveys and accommodation surveys (UNWTO, 2014a; United Nations, 2010a). Additional counting methods have been used worldwide for tourist counting such as manual observation and tallying in various places and regions, mechanical and electronic counters such as wired door counters, GPS tracking, road traffic detectors, vehicle and people counters with magnetometers etc. (Ahasa et al., 2007; Lau & McKercher, 2007; Ólafsson, 2012 and 2014; Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration, n.d.; Wolf, et al., 2012).

In Iceland, foreign travellers who pass through the airport terminal at Keflavík International airport upon departure are counted and registered by their nationalities. Monthly numbers are published at the website of the Icelandic Tourist Board. Visitors arriving at Seyðisfjörður harbour with M/S Norröna are estimated by Austfar (Smyril Line’s sales office) and passengers coming to the country through other airports are estimated through figures from the Icelandic Aviation Authorities (ISAVIA) by the Icelandic Tourist Board. The total sum of the above passengers is then published presenting the total number of foreign visitors to Iceland every year. Cruise passengers are not included in these numbers (Frenţ, 2013; Icelandic Tourist Board, n.d.c; Óladóttir, 2014; United Nations, 2010a). International visitors in Keflavik Airport are ranked by 17 nationalities (Frenţ, 2013; Icelandic Tourist Board, n.d.a.). These nationalities are then categorised by regions in the world as presented in table 5.

Table 5. ITB categorisation of world regions Source: Óladóttir, 2014 World Regions Countries Nordic countries Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland Central and Eastern Germany, France, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Switzerland Europe United Kingdom United Kingdom North America USA, Canada Other regions Poland, Japan, China, Russia and other countries not mentioned above.

Another visitor counting is conducted in Keflavik Airport and Seyðisfjörður Harbour by the Tourism Research and Consultancy in Iceland (RRF). In RRF’s analysis the world region categorisation is as presented in table 6.

Table 6. RRF categorisation of world regions Source: Guðmundsson, 2013 World Regions Countries Nordic countries Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland Central Europe Germany, Switzerland og Austria Benelux countries Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg South-Europe France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Mediterranean Islands United Kingdom United Kingdom, Ireland North America USA, Canada og Mexico Other regions Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, South-America

Table 5 and 6 show lack of consistency between classifications which hinders comparison between analyses and reports in Iceland. Neither categorisation complies with the UNWTO classification of world regions as presented in table 7.

Table 7. UNWTO classification of world regions Source: World Tourism Organisation, 2014 World Regions Countries Europe Northern-, Western-, Central/Eastern- and Southern/Mediterranean Europe

Asia and the Pacific North-East-, South-East-, South-Asia and Oceania America North-, Central-, South-America and the Caribbean Africa North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa Middle-East Middle-East

According to UNWTO classification of world regions (table 7), Northern-Europe includes the Nordic countries, United Kingdom and Ireland. Western-Europe comprises the Benelux countries, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Austria and Switzerland. Central/Eastern Europe includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Baltic countries, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Poland, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Southern/Mediterranean Europe comprises Albania, Andorra, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Macedonia, Greece, Israel, Italy, Malta, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain and Turkey (UNWTO, 2014b).

This inconsistency between UNWTO classifications and ITB and RRF categorisation of world regions prevents global comparison of tourism statistics and needs enhancement.

Through inbound visitor surveys, administered at Keflavík International airport at departure by the ITB (or sub-contractors), the purpose of visit is queried. Categories are generally in harmony with the IRTS 2008 except for the religion/ pilgrimage factor which is not measured in Iceland (Frenţ, 2013; Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014a). Arrivals per mode of transport are quite simple in Iceland as the only possible transport mode is by air or sea. These numbers are counted separately and published by ITB on the national level (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014d).

The numbers of foreign visitors to Iceland are not counted by regions. However, an approximation is provided for by calculating ratios from the inbound visitor surveys conducted by the ITB (or sub-contractors), as well as from specific surveys conducted by RRF2 with the total numbers of foreign visitors. The ITB’s commissioned inbound visitor survey has demonstrated visitor ratios for certain regions of Iceland since 2011. Eight regions are mentioned (not the same as the ones in figure 2) and for each region (table 8), information on nationalities, age, income, position, length of stay, reason for the trip and the mode and type of travel are calculated. The choices of places visited are slightly more numerous in the survey from 2014 than 2011 (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014a).

Inbound visitor surveys rely on the memory of visitors and their ability to reference a visited place on map. They are therefore unreliable as such and useful only as a supplementary tool with other counting methods (Wolf et al., 2012). The inbound visitor surveys in Iceland have been conducted on an irregular basis since 1992 (Icelandic Tourist Board, n.d.b.).

The Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration has counted vehicles on Icelandic roads for about 40 years. There are 185 counting points on the Icelandic road network where traffic numbers are counted all year round. No special tourism numbers have been published yet, but a work on that is in progress (Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration, n.d.).

New counting methods that use mechanized counters with magnetometers which detect and count vehicles and walkers on an hourly basis are in development in Iceland. These counters have been located in about 20 places around the country. The number of visitors is estimated

2 Rannsóknir og ráðgjöf ferðaþjónustunnar 15 from the number of vehicles by occasional hand-counting of visitors per vehicle and calculating the proportion of busses versus private cars (Ólafsson, 2012 and 2014). As already stated, no organized regional tourist counting is operated in Iceland today and all numbers rely on estimations from surveys and other irregular counting methods as mentioned above.

Table 8. Places visited in Iceland by foreign visitors 2014 Source: Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014a, p. 217-218. Region Sub region or places/sites of interest

Capital Region Reykjavík

Southern Peninsula Blue Lagoon Reykjanesbær Reykjanes lighthouse, bridge between continents, Gunnuhver

Western Region Snæfellsnes/National Park Borgarfjörður Stykkishólmur/Breiðafjörður Búðardalur/Dalir

West fjords Hólmavík/Strandir Ísafjörður Látrabjarg Arnarfjörður/Dynjandi

Northern Region Akureyri Mývatn Ásbyrgi/Dettifoss Húsavík Skagafjörður Hvammstangi/Hvítserkur Melrakkaslétta/Þórshöfn

Eastern Region Egilsstaðir/Hallormsstaður Seyðisfjörður Djúpivogur Neskaupsstaður/Norðfjörður Borgarfjörður eystri

Southern Region Geysir/Gullfoss Þingvellir Vík Skógar Skaftafell Jökulsárlón vantar Þórsmörk Eyrarbakki Hornafjörður Vestmannaeyjar

Highlands Kjölur/Hveravellir Landmannalaugar Sprengisandur Kárahnjúkar Herðubreiðalindir/Askja

2.1.2. Accommodation statistics Accommodation statistics are a vital part of the tourism statistics system in the EU and have been collected systematically since 1995 with the establishment of tourism statistics system in Council Directive 95/97/EC (Eurostat, 2014b). Even though accommodation statistics are only relevant for one type of visitors (i.e. overnight visitor) the accommodation sector is one of the core tourism sectors and its economic importance can be gauged in the TSA results from many European countries where accommodation services account for about 15% to 20% of total internal tourism expenditure (Eurostat, 2012). During the year 2012, approximately 2.7 billion nights were spent at collective accommodation establishments in the EU and EEA. Iceland’s share thereof was only 0.2% (Eurostat, 2012 and 2013).

Statistics Iceland has collected data on the capacity of accommodation establishments in Iceland as well as data on overnight stays since 1984. The data gathering covers all types of accommodation establishments except for trade-union summer houses. Since 1995 data on arrivals at accommodation establishments has been collected, which enables calculations on the average length of stay. The accommodation statistics give information on the capacity and occupancy, number of arrivals and overnight stays in accommodation establishments categorised by type of accommodation, region and citizenship of guests (Statistics Iceland, n.d.g.). The data source is reports required to be delivered monthly by everyone who is selling accommodation in Iceland to Statistics Iceland. The report details the capacity, number of overnight stays and arrivals by citizenship of guests at each accommodation establishment.

Accommodation statistics are one of the very few tourism statistics in Iceland that are allocated by regions. The numbers are presented specially for each of the eight regions of Iceland as in figure 2 (Statistics Iceland, n.d.g.).

2.1.3. Expenditures Inbound tourism expenditure is “the tourism expenditure of a non-resident visitor within the economy of reference” (United Nations, 2010a, p. 34). International tourism receipts (ITR) refer to the earnings generated in destination countries from expenditures by international inbound visitors (UNWTO, 2014b). These expenditures are according to UNWTO International Tourism Statistics Recommendation 2008;

the amount paid for the acquisition of consumption goods and services, as well as valuables, for own use or to give away, for and during tourism trips. It includes expenditures by visitors themselves, as well as expenses that are paid for or reimbursed by others (United Nations, 2010a, p. 31).

In year 2013, ITR grew by 22% in Iceland whereas the global growth was 5% in real terms, resulting in 1.159.000 million US$ worldwide. The ITR in Iceland was 1.055 million US$ in 2013 and accounted for 0.1% of world‘s total ITR. Total International tourist arrivals (ITA) around the world were at the same time 1.087 million and Iceland’s share 0.8 million or 0.1% (figure 4) (UNWTO, 2014b).

Figure 4. International tourist arrivals (ITA) and International tourist receipts (ITR) by world regions Source: UNWTO, 2014b, p. 3

Inbound tourism expenditures in Iceland count in macro-economic terms as exports for Iceland and as imports for the foreign visitor’s country of residency. The receipts from inbound tourism are reported as “travel credit” in the Balance of Payments (BoP), under the services balance while expenditure on outbound tourism as “travel debit” (UNWTO, 2014b). Statistics Iceland and the Central Bank of Iceland have published statistics for external trade in goods and services, balance of payments, and national accounts according to updated international standards in September 2014 (Statistics Iceland, 2014).

In Iceland, inbound expenditures are also measured in the ITB inbound visitor survey at Keflavík Airport. The tourism expenditure categories are in accordance with the following recommended categories by ITRS 2008 (Frenţ, 2013; Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014a):

 Package travel, package holidays and package tours  Accommodation  Food and drink  Local transport  International transport  Recreation, culture and sporting activities  Shopping  Others (United Nations, 2010b, p. 35)

Expenditure data is not divided by regions in these surveys and no expenditure surveys are available on the sub-national level in Iceland in general, except for some special surveys such as the passenger departure survey at Akureyri airport conducted by the Icelandic Tourism Research Centre (ITRC) during the summers of 2009-2012 (Bjarnadóttir and Huijbens, 2012).

Table 9. Categories of foreign credit card expenditures in Iceland Source: Centre for Retail Studies, 2014. Category Sub category 1.1 Hotels 1 Accommodation 1.9 Other accommodation 2 Restaurants 3.1 Road passenger transport 3 Transport 3.2 Water passenger transport 3.3 Air passenger transport 4 Miscellaneous tourism Fuel, car repair and 5 car maintenance 6.1 Car rentals Other transport services 6 6.2 Road taxes, parking fees and other services 7.1 Museums, galleries and Zoos Culture, entertainment and 7 7.2 Concerts, theatres, cinemas and other events recreation 7.3 Other 8 Other services 9.1 Groceries 9.2 Clothing 9 Retail 9.3 Gifts and souvenirs 9.8 Duty free 9.9 Other retail 10 Public levies 11 Cash withdrawals

The Centre for Retail Studies in Iceland has analysed and published foreign credit card turnover by users’ nationalities (card issuer’s country of origin) and Tourism Industry Categories since 2012 (table 9). These numbers are published monthly and are an important indicator of tourism expenditure in Iceland (Centre for Retail Studies, 2014). The credit card

19 statistics are only available at the national level, but a further breakdown by regions would be an important source to measure how tourism expenditure is spread around the country.

2.2. Domestic tourism Domestic tourism “comprises the activities of a resident visitor within the country of reference either as part of a domestic tourism trip or part of an outbound tourism trip” (United Nations, 2010a, p. 15). Table 10 demonstrates the main tourism data sources and indicators for domestic tourism.

Table 10. Domestic tourism data and indicators proposed by UNWTO Source: UNWTO, 2014a, p. 6 Trips  Overnight visitors (tourists)  Same-day visitors (excursionists) Trips by main purpose  Personal − holidays, leisure and recreation − other personal purposes  Business and professional Trips by mode of transport  Air  Water  Land − railway − road − others Trips by form of organization  Package tour  Other forms Accommodation  Total guests  Total overnights  Guests in hotels and similar establishments DOMESTIC TOURISM  Overnight stays in hotels and similar establishments Indicators  Average size of travel party  Average length of stay − For all commercial accommodation services (of which “hotels and similar establishments”) − For non-commercial accommodation services  Average expenditure per day

A survey on Icelanders’ travel patterns has been carried out annually by ITB since April 2009. This survey covers both domestic and outbound tourism (Frenţ, 2013). The domestic part includes questions on domestic trips such as destinations by regions, time of travel, length of

20 stay, paid attraction and number of excursions. Three regions in Iceland are specified as residency of respondents: “Capital area”, “Communities near the capital area” and “Rest of Iceland” (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014d). Destinations visited by Icelanders are divided into eight regions (not the same as in figure 2) and each region is then subdivided in 6-10 places (table 11) (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014b).

Table 11. Places visited by Icelandic visitors in Iceland 2014 Source: Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014b, p. 29 Region Sub region and places/sites of interest

Capital Region Reykjavík

Southern Peninsula Blue Lagoon Reykjanesbær Reykjanes lighthouse, bridge between continents, Gunnuhver Grindavík Krísuvík Sandgerði

Western Region Snæfellsnes/National Park Borgarnes Stykkishólmur Dalirnir Hvalfjörður Akranes Húsafell/Reykholt

West fjords Ísafjörður Hólmavík/ Strandir Látrabjarg Hrafnseyri Patreksfjörður Djúpavík Hornstrandir Flatey á Breiðafirði

Northern Region Akureyri Mývatn Ásbyrgi Dettifoss Húsavík Skagafjörður Hvammstangi Þórshöfn Siglufjörður

Eastern Region Egilsstaðir/Hallormsstaður Seyðisfjörður Djúpivogur Eskifjörður Stöðvarfjörður Borgarfjörður eystri Vopnafjörður

Region Sub region and places/sites of interest

Southern Region Þingvellir/Geysir/Gullfoss Vík Kirkjubæjarklaustur Skógar Skaftafell Jökulsárlón Þórsmörk Eyrarbakki Hornafjörður Vestmannaeyjar

Highlands Kjölur/ Hveravellir Landmannalaugar Sprengisandur Kárahnjúkar Herðubreiðalindir/ Askja Kverkfjöll Lakagígar

The survey on Icelanders’ travel patterns enables an estimation of the number of visitors at each sub region and paid attraction. The places visited in the domestic tourism survey differ slightly from the inbound visitor survey (table 8) as it is more detailed and includes more choices. The specification of places visited in the domestic surveys started in year 2010 and the number of places has increased since then, resulting in the choices presented in table 11 in year 2014. The places visited are measured separately for day trips (excursions) and overnight stays (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014b).

Information on the purpose of the trip, means of transport, tourism expenditure, travel party and if the trip was a package tour are lacking from the domestic tourism surveys commissioned by ITB (Frenţ, 2013).

Information on accommodation is supplied by Statistics Iceland. The accommodation statistics include information on the number of arrivals and overnight stays as well as the occupancy and capacity in accommodation establishments at both national and regional level (Statistics Iceland, n.d.g.).

Information on domestic travel therefore remains scarce and for regional statistics, the only retrievable data is on estimated number of visits from the visitor survey and accommodation numbers from Statistics Iceland.

2.3. Outbound tourism Outbound tourism “comprises the activities of a resident visitor outside the country of reference, either as part of an outbound tourism trip or as part of a domestic tourism trip” (United Nations, 2010a, p. 15).

Outbound tourism expenditure is “the expenditure of a resident visitor outside the economy of reference” (United Nations, 2010a, p. 34).

As mentioned before, survey on Icelanders’ travel patterns includes both domestic and outbound tourism (Frenţ, 2013). The outbound tourism part includes questions on tourist trips abroad such as the number of trips, type of trip, destination country and the length of stay, which gives some indication on departures (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014b). No data is collected on tourism expenditure in this survey, but information on Icelandic credit card turnover in other countries has been used as an indicator for outbound tourism expenditure (Central Bank of Iceland, n.d.). As in the case of domestic tourism, the residency of respondents is divided into three regions, capital area, communities near the capital area and rest of Iceland which enables regional subdivision at NUTS3 level. Data regarding the purpose of the trip as recommended by UNWTO (table 12) are lacking.

Table 12. Outbound tourism data and indicators proposed by UNWTO Source: UNWTO, 2014a, p. 6 Departures  Overnight visitors (tourists)  Same-day visitors (excursionists) Expenditure by main  Personal purpose of the trip  Business and professional

TOURISM Indicators  Average length of stay OUT BOUND BOUND OUT  Average expenditure per day

2.4. Tourism industries Tourism is primarily a demand-defined industry unlike most output-defined industries in the national accounts such as fisheries and manufacturing. Tourism statistics are therefore hidden in various macro-economic aggregates like current accounts or private consumption (Smeral, 2006). Expenditures on travel and tourism cut across many types of industries that do not fit neatly into the Industrial Classification System (Mak, 2004). In order to unveil these different tourism components for analysis, a special method has been elaborated by tourism statistics experts, namely the Tourism Satellite Account (TSA). TSA measures the direct economic

23 contributions of tourism consumption to a national economy based on a set of ten interrelated tables which are consistent with the general Supply and Use Tables (SUT) established by countries at the national level to describe the general economic balance of goods and services and the production accounts of the producers following the System of National Accounts 1993 (Frechtling, 2010; United Nations, 2010b). TSA constructing in Iceland is limited as the accounts have solely been published three times, in 2008, 2010 and 2011.

Tourism industries are defined as “the activities that typically produce tourism characteristic products” (table 13) (United Nations, 2010a, p. 40).

Table 13. List of tourism characteristic consumption products and tourism characteristic activities (tourism industries) Source: United Nations, 2010b, p. 25.

Tourism products Tourism activities 1 Accommodation services for visitors Accommodation for visitors 2 Food- and beverage-serving services Food- and beverage- servicing activities 3 Railway passenger transport services Railway passenger transport 4 Road passenger transport services Road passenger transport 5 Water passenger transport services Water passenger transport 6 Air passenger transport services Air passenger transport 7 Transport equipment rental services Transport equipment rental 8 Travel agencies and other reservation Travel agencies and other reservation services services activities 9 Cultural services Cultural activities 10 Sports and recreational services Sports and recreational activities 11 Country-specific tourism characteristic Retail trade of country-specific tourism goods characteristic goods 12 Country-specific tourism characteristic Other country-specific tourism characteristic services activities

Tourism industries are also defined in IRTS 2008 as “grouping of those establishments whose main activity is the same tourism characteristic activity. In supply-side statistics, establishments are classified according to their main activity, which is determined by the activity that generates the most value added” (United Nations, 2010b, p. 25).

An establishment is “an enterprise, or part of an enterprise, that is situated in a single location and in which only a single productive activity is carried out or in which the principal productive activity accounts for most of the value added (United Nations, 2010b, p. 25).

Tourism characteristic activities generally produce tourism characteristic products. As the industrial origin of a product (in Iceland the ISAT 2008 industry that produces it) is not a measurement for the accumulation of products within a similar Central Product Classification (CPC) category, there is no exact one-to-one relationship between products and the industries producing them as their primary output. Table 14 demonstrates the typology of tourism characteristic consumption products and activities, separately grouped in the 12 corresponding categories to be used in the Tourism Satellite Account tables (United Nations, 2010a; United Nations, 2010b).

Categories 1 to 10 encompass the core for international comparison in terms of International Standard Industry Classification (ISIC) for activities (equivalent to ISIC 2008 in Iceland) and CPC subclasses for products. Categories 11-12 are country specific, whereas category 11 includes tourism characteristic goods for products and the equivalent retail trade activities for activities. Category 12 refers to country-specific tourism characteristic services and other country-specific tourism characteristic activities (United Nations, 2010b).

In table 14 the tourism activities from table 13 are listed in accordance with the Icelandic industry classification of activities ISAT 2008. Each enterprise in Iceland is classified with a five digit classification code which enables industry categorisation based on European Union’s NACE Rev2. The system consists of 664 industries and facilitates distinguishing between the different sectors as well as aggregating related sectors. As tourism is not specially categorized in ISAT 2008, table 14 lists the codes of all the tourism related industries according to IRTS 2008 enabling the coverage of tourism industry population (Statistics Iceland, n.d.c.). Attention must be paid to the fact that enterprise lists by regions inevitably include biases in the case of branches with headquarters elsewhere. Table 14 contains a list of tourism industries data and indicators in Iceland.

Table 14. Table of concordances between UNWTO classification of tourism industries for international comparability and Icelandic industry classifications of activities ISAT 2008. Source: Frenţ, 2013, p. 88

No UNWTO ISAT Icelandic categories categories of codes tourism industries 1. Accommodation 55.10.1 Hotels and similar accommodation, with restaurants for visitors 55.10.2 Hotels and similar accommodation, without restaurants 55.20.0 Holiday and other short-stay accommodation 55.30.0 Camping grounds, recreational, vehicle and trailer parks 55.90.0 Other accommodation 68.20.1 Letting of residential housing* 68.31.0 Real estate agencies* 68.32.0 Management of real estate on a fee or contract basis* 2. Food- and beverage 56.10.0 Restaurants and mobile food service activities serving industry 56.29.0 Other food service activities 56.30.0 Beverage serving activities 3. Railways passenger Not applicable in Iceland transport 4. Road passenger 49.32.0 Taxi operation transport 49.39.0 Other passenger land transport n.e.c. 5. Water passenger 50.10.0 Sea and coastal passenger water transport transport 6. Air passenger 51.10.1 Scheduled air transport transport 51.10.2 Non-scheduled air transport 7. Transport 77.11.0 Renting and leasing of cars and light motor vehicles equipment rental 8. Travel agencies and 79.11.0 Travel agency activities other reservation 79.12.0 Tour operator activities services 79.92.0 Other reservation service and related activities 9. Cultural industry 90.01.0 Performing arts 90.02.0 Support activities to performing arts 90.03.0 Artistic creation 90.04.0 Operation of arts facilities 91.02.0 Museums activities 91.03.0 Historical sites, buildings and similar visitor attractions 91.04.0 Botanical, zoological gardens and nature reserves activities 10. Sports and 77.21.0 Renting and leasing of recreational and sports goods recreational 92.00.0 Gambling and betting activities industry 93.11.0 Operation of sports facilities 93.13.0 Fitness facilities 93.19.0 Other sports activities 93.21.0 Activities of amusement parks and theme parks 93.29.0 Other amusement and recreation activities 11. Country-specific 47.30.0 Retail sale of automotive fuel in specialised stores tourism characteristics goods ** Retail trade of handicrafts ** Retail trade of souvenirs 12. Country-specific 93.12.0 Activities of sport clubs (e.g. golf) tourism characteristics services *- only a part what is related to second homes and timeshare properties ** - no ISAT codes allocated

External trade in services is published yearly by Statistics Iceland based on EBOPS classification system (Extended Balance of Payments Services classification). The system consists of 11 aggregated groups and more detailed subgroups. In Iceland the trade in services is divided into three main groups: Transport, Travel and Other services. The data are based on an enterprise survey of 100 large enterprises and a sample of about 700 small and medium sized enterprises. Information on travel services are based on credit card transactions from the Central Bank of Iceland (Statistics Iceland, n.d.b.). Regional information on external trade in services is not available.

As mentioned before, Supply and Use Tables (SUT) are a principal factor in the making of Tourism Satellite Accounts. SUT show the interface between demand for goods and services and the supply of these goods and services within the economy of reference, including how the tourism demand is met by domestic supply and import. SUT also demonstrate how the supply from domestic or imported origin, interacts with other economic activities. A limitation of the TSA is that the accounts are mainly descriptive in nature and do not include calculations on the indirect and induced effects of tourism on the economy. Other methods have to be used for that such as Input-Output tables which are derived from the SUTs (United Nations, 2010b). The I-O tables show how much of each product is used as input for the production of other products at the same time as it demonstrates how much of each product is consumed by different user categories. This results in a map of the inter-industry relations in the economy (Eurostat, n.d.c.).

Based on the European system of national and regional accounts (ESA95), EU Member States and EFTA countries shall construct and transmit SUT to Eurostat annually and I-O tables every five years. The Icelandic national accounts do neither comprise the required SUT and I-O tables nor a set of full sector accounts and need to be comprehensively developed according to an EU progress report for Iceland in 2011 (European Commission, 2011). Supply and use tables have been made for years 1992, 1997 and 2001, 2002, 2003 and a SUT for 2009 is under construction (Eurostat, n.d.c.; Frenţ, 2013; Statistics Iceland, 2015b).

Economic growth per region in Iceland has been measured by the Icelandic Regional Development Institute for the years 1998-2011 as well as an estimation of GDP per capita in each region (Jóhannesson et al, 2013). Tourism is not included in these numbers as special calculations are necessary in that matter.

The measurement of tourism economic impact at the national level is a complex process even though it follows the standardized methodological framework of TSA. The measurement of tourism regionally is even more demanding when it is based on the same data sources as the national figures. The Supply and Use Tables are not easily adaptable to regional estimates (Bucellato et al., 2010). As an example, hotel chains around Iceland are usually registered at their headquarters along with their economic turnover, no matter where from it is derived. That is also the case for other large companies with branch offices around the country. In the case of the hotel chains, they can nevertheless represent a large part of accommodation services in smaller towns in the regions with numerous important jobs. This biases the regional numbers from SUT and makes it necessary to seek this information from the region itself. In countries where Regional TSAs have been produced, special regional data sources have been established through Structural Business Statistics (SBS), Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) or similar establishments (Laimer, 2012; Office for National Statistics, 2014).

Table 15. Tourism industries data and indicators proposed by UNWTO Source: UNWTO, 2014a, p.7 Number of establishments Accommodation for visitors Food and beverage serving activities Passenger transportation Travel agencies and other reservation services activities Other tourism industries Accommodation for visitors Monetary data in hotels and similar Output establishments Intermediate consumption Gross value added Compensation of employees

Gross fixed capital formation Non-monetary data Number of establishments Number of rooms Number of bed-places Indicators Occupancy rate / rooms Occupancy rate / bed-places Average length of stay Available capacity (bed-places per 1000 inhabitants) TOURISM INDUSTRIES Travel agencies and other Monetary data reservation service Output activities Intermediate consumption Gross value added Compensation of employees Gross fixed capital formation Non-monetary data Domestic trips (with and without package tour) Inbound trips (with and without package tour) Outbound trips (with and without package tour)

Table 15 demonstrates tourism industries data and indicators according to UNWTO Methodological Notes to the Tourism Statistics Database (UNWTO, 2014a). Number of establishments and non-monetary data for accommodation services is retrievable on the national level. Information on travel agencies and reservation services is lacking. Tourism industry data on the regional level is scarce as already mentioned before. An approach of a possible adaptation to evaluating the tourism industry on a sub-national level in Iceland is described later in this report, using a research in Þingeyjarsýslur as an example (chapter 4).

2.5. Tourism employment statistics Statistics Iceland has carried out a continuous quarterly labour force survey since January 2003. The primary purpose of the survey is to gauge labour market developments of the Icelandic population. The sample is drawn from the National register with a sample of 4.030 individuals, aged 16-74, each quarter. The main concepts of the survey are based on definitions from Eurostat and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) (Statistics Iceland, n.d.i.). It is conducted by telephone and the information that that can be derived from it includes main work status, main and second job, former work experience, job search, trade union membership, education and training (Statistics Iceland, n.d.i).

Data on trade union membership is gathered once a year from the trade unions and four times a year employment agencies provide Statistics Iceland with information on registered unemployment by sex, age and duration of unemployment registration. Since 2001 Statistics Iceland has published estimates on the quarterly numbers of employed persons based on PAYE register (Pay-As-You-Earn) of the Tax authority (Statistics Iceland, n.d.i.; Frenţ, 2013). Results can be categorized by ISAT 2008 industry classification of activities and NUTS3 level (Statistics Iceland, n.d.e.).

Tourism employment is not estimated on a regular basis in Iceland, but information on employment in hotels, restaurants and transport can be retrieved from the Labour Force Survey by sections as in table 13. More specified estimation on tourism employment can be found in the Tourism Satellite Accounts (Statistics Iceland, n.d.h.; Statistics Iceland, 2011).

Through an agreement with the Institute of Labour Market Research, valid from January 2005, Statistics Iceland runs a business survey for wage data. The business survey is based on

29 a random sample of companies. Data is collected every month directly from the company’s payroll systems and contains information on labour costs for all employees.

Table 16. Tourism employment data and indicators proposed by UNWTO Source: UNWTO, 2014a, p. 8. Number of employees by Accommodation services tourism industries Other accommodation services Food and beverage serving activities Passenger transportation Travel agencies and other reservation services activities Other tourism industries Number of jobs by status in Employees employment Self employed

EMPLOYMENT Indicators Number of full-time equivalent jobs by status in employment Employees (male and female) Self-employed (male and female)

The sample is a stratified cluster sample where the sample unit is the local activity unit and the observation unit is the employee. The target population contains all local activity units with at least 10 employees. Industry categorisation is based on ISAT 2008 and covers about 80% of all employees in the country. Tourism is not measured especially (Statistics Iceland, n.d.a.).

Regional tourism data is not retrievable from this labour market research. The reason is inaccuracy as it is based on a sample of companies. It is also restricted to companies with 10 or more employees, but numerous tourism companies (particularly in the regions of Iceland outside the capital) have less than 10 employees.

2.6. Complementary macroeconomic indicators. Table 17 lists complementary tourism indicators from the demand side and from macroeconomic indicators.

Measuring the travel propensity is a useful measure of the effective demand in tourism as it measures the percentage of a population that actually engages in tourism. Net travel propensity is the percentage of population that takes at least one tourism trip in a given period of time, indicating what proportion of the population engages in tourism. The gross travel propensity measures the total number of tourism trips taken, as a percentage of the population.

By dividing the gross travel propensity by the net travel propensity, an average number of trips taken by people participating in tourism is retrieved, i.e. the travel frequency for the population (Bowen & Clarke, 2009). These numbers are retrievable from the outbound visitor survey by the Icelandic Tourist Board on a NUTS3 level as participants were asked to state if they took a trip abroad on the specific year and if so, how many trips were taken the same year (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014b).

Calculating tourism arrivals per population gives an indication on the carrying capacity of a destination. In Iceland the main focus has been on the carrying capacity of unpopulated or sparsely populated areas such as the highlands with subject to growing tourism traffic. Ambitious research is in process in eight nature destinations in South and West Iceland focusing on the carrying capacity of the sites commissioned by ITB (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2014c). The Icelandic Tourism Research Centre will publish a study on social carrying capacity also commissioned by the ITB in spring 2015.

The macroeconomic indicators in table 17, are only measurable on the national level.

Table 17. Complementary tourism indicators proposed by UNWTO Source: UNWTO, 2014a, p. 8. Demand Gross travel propensity Carrying capacity (arrivals/population) Macroeconomic indicators Inbound tourism expenditure over GDP related to international Outbound tourism expenditure over GDP Tourism tourism balance (inbound minus outbound tourism expenditure) over GDP Tourism openness (inbound plus outbound tourism expenditure) over GDP Tourism coverage (inbound over outbound tourism expenditure) Inbound tourism expenditure over exports of goods Inbound tourism expenditure over exports of services Inbound tourism expenditure over exports of goods and services Inbound tourism expenditure over current account credits Outbound tourism expenditure over imports of goods

COMPLEMENTARY INDICATORS Outbound tourism expenditure over imports of services Outbound tourism expenditure over imports of goods and services Outbound tourism expenditure over current account debits

3. Estimating the economic contribution of tourism at regional level: An example from the UK

In the United Kingdom (UK), a recognized lack of coordination in the production of official tourism statistics caused the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to come up with a methodology that reconciled the demand and supply of tourism related activities at the regional level in the UK, based on the TSA framework. The methodology was designed in order to enable English Regional Development Agencies to measure the contribution of tourism within regions in a reliable form, allowing a robust performance comparison between regions. At the same time it was aimed at optimizing the amount of information from all the data sources available at the regional level (Bucellato et al., 2010). This method will be described in this chapter as it is believed to be suitable for Icelandic conditions when some principal improvements in the regional statistical data gathering in the country will be reached.

The method is based on data gathering within ONS as well as data sources externally. The ONS data covers the measurement of the supply side of tourism as the industries are grouped by international recommendations in the Standard International Code (SIC) of tourism activities, including 42 five-digit SICs combined in 10 industries. On the demand side, the consumption of overnight domestic tourism and the expenditure of domestic excursionists is collected from external suppliers (Bucellato et al, 2010).

In the UK, the Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) provides a scaling factor which is used in these calculations to ensure that tourism data are representative at the regional level. The ABI is an annual business survey which collects both employment and financial information by regions in the UK and is the main source for measuring the supply side of tourism. Similar data collection takes place in other countries such as Austria where Regional National Accounts (RNA) are calculated for the 35 NUTS3 regions (Laimer, 2012; Office for National Statistics, 2014; Statistics Austria, n.d.; Bucellato et al., 2010).

The financial information count for about two third of the UK economy and the Approximate Gross Value Added (aGVA) is calculated as an input into the measurement of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The data are regional estimates and the statistics are produced to professional standards and released according to the arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority (Bucellato et al., 2010; Office for National Statistics, 2014).

In order to measure the Gross Value Added of Tourism Industries (GVA-TI) a ratio (GVA-TI (%)) has to be calculated to apportion the total supply of commodities to those in the tourism related SICTA (Standard International Code of Tourism Activities).3

ABI GVAi = Gross Value Added in the region according to ABI n = 1,2,…42 sum GVA over SICTAs k = 1,2,…638 sum GVA over the complete set of 5 digits SICs composing the whole regional economy.

Even though GVA-TI (%) is calculated from a unique dataset with the advantage of internal consistency, two issues have to be taken into consideration. Firstly, tourism is demand defined and measured by the activities of tourists and what they spend their money on. Therefore tourism only accounts for a proportion of the total amount in each tourism related SICTA category. Because of that, further apportionment is required when calculating the Tourism Direct Gross Value Added (TD-GVA). Secondly, an under-representation may have occurred of small firms which are below the VAT limits, but the tourism sector is reliant to a large degree on medium and small enterprises (Bucellato et al., 2010).

For the domestic tourism, a ratio has to be found in order to calculate the ratio between tourists and residents at leisure on the supply side. Four components of tourism consumption are captured in this relation (Bucellato et al., 2010):

 Inbound visitor spending within the UK.  Domestic overnight visitor spending.  Excursionist spending.  Domestic spending of outbound residents.

In the UK, various data sources exist for the above information. International Passenger Survey by the ONS, UK Tourism Survey by Taylor Nelson Sofres, English Leisure Visits survey by English nature and the national Parks in England, Great Britain Day Visit Survey

3 A list similar with SICTA in Iceland (at ISAT 2008 level) can be found in table 11. 34 and other surveys conducted by VisitBritain. Most of these sources are available at the regional level.

When data gathering and calculations on the supply side as well as the demand side are finished, reconciliation between these two sources has to be obtained. That is done by calculating the Demand to Supply ratio (DS ratio). The DS ratio is the most important figure within the TSA framework, better known as the tourism ratio (United Nations, 2010b; Bucellato et al., 2010).

In the numerator, all the tourism components for each of the 12 regions in UK are summed: i = 1,2,….12 TotInbExp = Total inbound expenditure TotDomNightExp = Total domestic overnight expenditure TotDomDayVis = Total domestic expenditure by excursionists (day visitors) TotOutDomExp = Total domestic expenditure of outbound tourists before they leave the region The denominator is the total supply of products at purchasers’ prices for the region i in SUT units divided up through the UK Annual Business Inquiry (ABI).

As a final point, the DS ratio can be used to calculate figures for Tourism Direct Gross Value Added (TDGVA). The GVA are to be found in the SUT apportioned by region using the ABI shares and then multiplied by the DS ratio:

SUT SUT TDGVAi = GVAi x DS(Ratio)i

Despite presenting all the most important figures from the TSA, ONS does not consider this methodology sufficient in order to attain a complete TSA framework at the regional level. The reason is a lack of a consistent set of Supply and Use Tables produced at a regional level.

The method described above could be a suitable approach to evaluate regional effects of tourism in Iceland if a systematic approach similar to the Business Inquiry or Structural Business Statistics would be operated at a regional level as well as a demand side survey. As that is not the case yet, no statistical data by region is applicable except risking unacceptable biases due to miscellaneous registration of business entities.

4. Research on economic effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur, Iceland In order to evaluate tourism’s regional economic effects in Iceland, based on the recommended international methods, a study has been carried out by the Icelandic Tourism Research Centre in collaboration with the University of Iceland’s Research Centre in Húsavík and the Húsavík Academic Centre during the period of 2012-2015. The field of study is Þingeyjarsýslur counties, including six municipalities and a total population of 4.786 in a geographical area of 18.460 km2 (Húsavík Academic Centre, 2014; National Land Survey of Iceland, n.d.). In this report, the main emphasis is on data sources whereas calculation methods and results will be described in a later report at the end of the project. Due to financial and time restrictions of the project, domestic and outbound tourism factors in the region will be excluded. These factors need different approach as explained in chapter 2.2. The main emphasis will be on inbound tourism and economic effects of foreign visitors to Þingeyjarsýslur.

4.1. Total population of tourism companies in the region As already mentioned, a list of enterprises categorised by the ISAT 2008 classification is retrievable at the Statistic’s Iceland Business Register on a national level. However, when an enterprise list is created for certain regions, biases are inevitable due to miscellaneous registration of the companies, especially in the case of branch operations of firms with headquarters elsewhere.

For this research, a list of companies in the research area was created by the Business Register. The activities were then ranked by the categorization in table 14. The research area is Þingeyjarsýslur consisting of six municipalities:

 Norðurþing  Skútustaðahreppur  Tjörneshreppur  Þingeyjarsveit  Svalbarðshreppur  Langanesbyggð

The list of companies includes all registered enterprises and organizations according to the enterprise register of the Internal Revenue Directorate in the research area. Two criteria were

37 established in order to exclude companies that were not operating; companies had to deliver salary payments or show revenues during the research period.

Despite these criteria, an obvious bias in the companies list occurred as large companies such as hotel chains and other companies with operations in more than one place in the country were missing, as already explained. In order to limit this sample error, an additional approach was used.

Each section from the ISAT 2008 list was taken into consideration and compared to other information sources (table 18). These sources were the following:

 Travel agencies and tour operator licence list by the Tourist Board of Iceland.  Accommodation and restaurant licence list by the Icelandic Police Website.  Destination Marketing Organisation registration of tourism related companies in the region.  Development agencies list of companies by categories.

Table 18. Data sources for identifying tourism related companies in the Þingeyjarsýslur region

Section I – Accommodation and Food Service Activities 55 Accommodation 55.1 Hotels and similar accommodation

Company 1 Company 2 Company 3 Company 4 Company 5 Company 6 Company 7 Company 8 Company 9 Company 10 Statistics Iceland Business Register x x x x x x

Northeast Iceland Development x x x x x x x Agency Tourist Board of Iceland: Licenced x x tour operators and travel agencies The Icelandic Police Website: Licence x x x x x x x x x x list for accommodation and restaurants Destination Marketing Organisation x x x x x x x x in North Iceland (DMO)

By using this approach a total population of tourism related companies in the region of research is believed to have been reached, consisting of 189 tourism entities.

4.2. Interviews Due to possible biases and gaps in the regional list of tourism companies from the Business Register, no economic data could be retrieved from official databases by regions. Enterprise operating accounts by section from Statistics Iceland and credit card turnover from the Centre for Retail Studies contain important indicators on economic development in the country and would have been useful in this study if they allowed for the data to be regionally dividable. The only reliable data source for regional financial information in this research was to be found within the tourism companies themselves and therefore semi structured interviews with the enterprise representatives were used as the main data collection method. The questions were constructed in accordance with the UNWTO methodology and the main emphasis was on the following subjects:

 Total revenues in the year 2013  Estimated tourism ratio from the above revenues  Total cost in the year 2013 (salaries and amortization excluded)  Operation cost paid to companies or organizations within the research area  Operation cost paid to companies within North East Iceland  Salary payments  Investments  Number of employees and full time equivalents (summer and winter)  Ratio of employees with registered domicile within the research area  Supplies and services – ranked by scope of business within the research area  Taxes and fees  Origin of employees (former jobs or education)

The subjects were chosen in and are in harmonisation with the ONS methodology presented in chapter three (table 19).

Table 19. Synchronisation of ONS methodology and Þingeyjarsýslur research methodology

Regional tourism data UK Regions Þingeyjarsýslur Employment data The ONS Annual Population Northeast Iceland Development Survey collects employment Agency collects employment data data by sectors and regions in Þingeyjarsýslur annually by quarterly, including tourism.4 sectors, including tourism.

Financial data The ONS collects data on No direct regional collection of turnover and purchases directly financial data is practiced in from companies in 12 regions in Iceland. In this research, financial the UK through the Annual data derives from annual accounts Business Survey. GVA is presented in interviews with subsequently measured as an tourism companies in input into the GDP. Þingeyjarsýslur.

GVA of Tourism Industries GVA-TI is calculated by GVA-TI is retrieved from the apportioning the total supply of interviews by aggregating total commodities to those in the 42 wage cost, pre-tax profit and tourism related SICTA of each depreciation of the tourism region. companies in the region.

Tourism Ratio The tourism ratio is the sum of Each enterprise evaluates the all the tourism demand side data tourism ratio in the interviews components divided by the total from the total revenues of the obtained from the tourism company. supply side data components.

Tourism DGVA The Tourism Direct Gross Value The TDGVA is calculated by Added is calculated by multiplying the GVA with the multiplying the GVA with the tourism ratio as in the case of tourism ratio. ONS.

The UNWTO methodology framework provided for the TSA solely measures the direct effects of tourism on the economy. In order to evaluate the indirect effects, additional questions on total cost, investments, supplies and services were asked in the interviews, enabling a wider measurement of the total effects of tourism in the region.

As the interviews were still ongoing at the time of the publication of the report, no results or final response rate can be described in this report. More specific calculations will be presented with the results in a later report.

4 Office for National Statistics, 2012 40

4.3. Municipalities’ revenues This section will describe an attempt to develop a method aimed at measuring municipalities’ revenues from tourism. The list of tourism characteristic activities is based on the TSA Recommended Methodological Framework as described in chapter 2.4 (United Nations, 2010b). A list of tourism characteristic companies was sent to each of the six municipalities in the research area and information on the taxes and fees in table 19 were accumulated. Each category was then adjusted according to the tourism ratio derived from the interviews.

Iceland’s local authorities function under the Local Government Act, No. 138/2011. All the municipalities in Iceland have self-determination and responsibility concerning their own affairs in accordance with the law. They shall have their own sources of revenue, and shall be autonomous in determining fees collected by their own companies and agencies in order to meet their own expenses according to Section 5 of Article 3 of the Local Government Act (Alþingi, 2011a; Sverrisson and Hannesson, 2006).

The revenue bases of municipalities are tripartite: property tax, contributions from the Equalisation Fund and municipal income tax. Other municipal income derives from various smaller income bases like service fees, e.g. license fees, sewage disposal fees, lot rental, passenger tax etc. Furthermore, municipalities run various activities in independent operational units or companies, such as heating and water utilities, harbours and social apartments which have independent revenues (Alþingi, 1995).

The municipal income tax is generally the largest source of revenue, followed by service fees and property tax. The collection of municipal income tax takes place at source each month during the income year. Every person who is obliged to pay municipal income tax shall pay the tax to the municipality where one has legal residence. If a person has legal residence in more than one municipality during the tax year, one has to pay municipal tax to the appropriate municipality in accordance with the time of residence in each municipality (Directorate of Internal Revenue, n.d., KPMG, 2013; Sverrisson and Hannesson, 2006).

Real estate taxes are obligatory in Iceland. Municipalities levy the tax on the official premises valuation of immovable property annually. The tax rate varies depending on the municipality and the type of real estate. In year 2013 the roof was 1.65% of the official premises valuation of the property (European Council, 2005; Alþingi, 1995; KPMG, 2013).

Table 20. Municipal revenues with relevance for tourism in the Þingeyjarsýslur region

Taxes Dues Other revenues Communal income tax Harbour dues Community centres Property tax Water dues Schools (rentals) Passenger tax Drain dues Culture centres Garbage dues Sport centres & clubs Swimming pools Camping places Theatres & clubs Information centres

Other sources of income are some municipality run tourism characteristic companies such as camping places and information centres (table 20) which gain revenues from tourism. Economic data from these companies are covered through interviews with the relevant municipal employees, based on the same interview frame as introduced in chapter 4.2.

The total income from the factors in table 20 are then aggregated and multiplied with the tourism ratio of each tourism enterprise in order to accumulate the total tourism revenue of each municipality in the region of research.

4.4. Inbound visitor survey The interviews described in chapter 4.2. provide important data of the supply side of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur. For the demand side there is a serious lack of data at a regional level. The possibilities of retrieving regional information from the ITB inbound visitor survey are limited, hence a special inbound visitor survey had to be conducted in the research area. A questionnaire was developed and tested in collaboration with the Húsavík Academic Centre and the University of Iceland's Research Centre in Húsavík and a total of four inbound visitor surveys were conducted in the region during the summers of 2013 and 2014. One survey was carried out each year in Húsavík and another survey each year in Mývatnssveit. The total number of valid answers ranged from 451 to 492 in the four surveys and the response ratio from 71% -76%. The questions were based on the inbound tourism data frame as proposed in table 4. The main categories were the following:

 Arrivals  Arrivals by region  Arrivals by main purpose of visit  Arrivals by mode of transport  Arrivals by form of organization of the trip  Accommodation  Expenditure

More specifically, visitor profile statistics were based on Cooper et al. (2005) as presented in table 21. The questionnaire consisted to a large extent of structured questions where respondents chose an answer from a list of pre-selected options. However, questions on country of residence, age, education, expenditures and the main reason of visit were open- ended questions, allowing the respondents to provide more specific answers. The questions were restricted to the stay in Húsavík or Mývatnssveit for a period of 24 hours.

Table 21. Focus factors in the visitor profile statistics Source: Cooper et al. 2005, p. 88

The visitor The visit Age Origin and destination Sex Mode of transport Group type Purpose of visit Country of residence Length of stay Occupation Accommodation used Income Activities engaged in Places visited Tour or independently organised

The main expenditure categories in the survey were based on the UNWTO International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics (chapter 2.1.3):

 Accommodation  Food and drink  Local transport  Recreation, culture and sporting activities  Shopping  Others

A sample size of around 400 answers is often considered to be suitable for representing a population at a 95% confidence level and with a ±5% margin of error in recreation and human dimensions studies (Vaske, 2008; Veal, 2006). In this research, Dillman’s equation for estimating desired sample size was used: (Dillman, 2007; see also Vaske, 2008, p. 180).

(Np)(p)(1-p) Ns = 2 (Np-1)(B/C) +(p)(1-p) where: Ns = completed sample size needed. Np = Size of population (in this case, number of foreign visitors in Húsavík/Mývatnssveit in one year). p= proportion expected to answer in a certain way (0,5). B = acceptable level of sampling error (0,05). C= Z statistic (1,96). (Vaske, 2008, p. 180).

Dillman’s equation resulted in a minimum sample of 383 answers, ensuring statistical significance for all four inbound visitor surveys conducted in this research (Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2014).

In regional inbound visitor surveys, selecting respondents on a truly random or representative basis is problematical as population lists are unavailable. Another challenge is the access to these individuals. Probability sampling is therefore not practical when a population list is unavailable and on-site surveys are often the only possible solution as was in this case (Smith, 2010). The sampling method used in this survey was a non-probability convenience sampling where the sample consisted of visitors available to the interviewer at a given point in time and space (Finn et al., 2000). An interviewer was located at the entrance of the Tourism Information Centre in Húsavík and Mývatnssveit during opening hours and questionnaires were distributed to all inbound visitors 18 years and older who came to the centre during the period of study.

The advantage of an on-site survey is that it usually yields a high response rate as the researcher can explain the rationale and significance of the survey at the same time as he can give clarifications if questions are unclear to the respondents (Vaske, 2008). The disadvantage of an on-site survey is the risk of sample selection bias, resulting in skewed results. Therefore the results of the study should not be used to generalise to the entire population, but as an indicator of a situation that can be used for further research (FedNor, e.d.; Malhotra, 1999).

The main objective of this inbound visitor survey in Þingeyjarsýslur was to provide local data on visitor profile, travel behaviour and consumption pattern of the visitors in order to shed light on and improve understanding of the demand side of tourism in the area of research. (Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2014).

5. Conclusion The aim of this report has been to map up the obtainable tourism data sources in Iceland according to the framework of UNWTO Compendium of Tourism Statistics 2014, and means of linking these to the regional level. Main focus was on the statistical territorial division of Iceland in chapter one and the tourism legal framework of the European Union in that relation. Due to the small size of the country, Iceland has limited obligations of regional division of tourism data for the European Union. However, statistical territorial division is necessary in order to comprehend the function of the national economy and Statistics Iceland has started to work towards a new regional demarcation of Iceland on these terms.

Chapter two focused on the regional tourism data availability in Iceland. Tourism data on the regional level in Iceland is lacking as demonstrated in table 22. The sole systematic data collection by regions in Iceland is the accommodation statistics by Statistics Iceland. Visitor numbers are not counted on a sub-national level and very few regional statistics can be retrieved from the ITB inbound visitor survey. This lack of data makes statistical analysis of tourism at the regional level in Iceland difficult and expensive.

Table 22. Tourism related data availability on the national and sub-national level in Iceland

National level Subnational level Accommodation statistics yes yes Foreign Visitors Counting yes scarce Inbound visitor survey (ITB*) yes scarce Domestic and outbound visitor survey (ITB*) yes scarce Cruise passengers statistics yes no Household Expenditure survey yes no External trade in services statistics yes no Credit card turnover yes no Enterprise Account Register (EAR) yes no VAT Register yes no Supply and use tables scarce no Input – output tables scarce no Wage statistics yes no Labour Force Survey yes no Enterprise Register yes no Pay as you earn Register (PAYE) yes no * - commissioned actually by ITB to private market research companies

The tourism related data deficiency on the subnational level should not be of surprise to anyone as the tourism industry has long called for more data and research to base future strategy and industry management decisions on (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2013). A more specified description of each data source in table 22 can be found in Appendix 1.

Statistics on domestic and outbound tourism are collected systematically on a national level, but do not allow regional breakdown. Tourism statistics on the supply side in Iceland are almost exclusively on the national level. Tourism satellite accounts have been published three times in the country, measuring the contribution of tourism in the national economy. Regional statistics have not been retrievable from the TSAs. The business registry in Iceland lists enterprises by headquarters, regardless of the location of business activities, risking sample biases when company list is retrieved by regions. The same holds true for financial statistics such as enterprise operating accounts by section from Statistics Iceland and credit card turnover from the Centre for Retail Studies, as the financial numbers are registered by the headquarters regardless of their place of origin.

Several countries have developed methods to estimate the economic contribution of tourism at the regional level, based on the framework provided for Tourism Satellite Accounts. The Office for National Statistics in the UK has come up with a method that is presented in this report as it is believed to be suitable in Iceland upon completion of future improvements in tourism data gathering in the country. This method requires regional data collection at the place of origin. In the UK, data is collected by an annual business inquire, providing information on regional economic contribution to GDP by industry sectors.

At the time being, systematic measures of regional economic contribution of tourism in Iceland are impossible with the use of secondary data. Primary data has to be obtained with cost and time consuming methods. An ongoing research in Þingeyjarsýslur region was described in chapter four as an attempt to present a possible application on measuring the regional economic effects of tourism in Iceland based to the extent possible on a framework provided for Tourism Satellite Accounts.

As already stated, the main emphasis in this report has been on data sources whereas calculation methods and results from the research project in Þingeyjarsýslur will be described in a later report at the end of the project.

6. References Administrative divisions of Iceland. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2014, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_Iceland Ahasa, R., Aasaa, A., Markb, Ü., Paea, T., & Kull, A. (2007). Seasonal tourism spaces in Estonia: Case study with mobile positioning data. Tourism Management, 28, 898-910. Alþingi. (1995). Alþingi - lagasafn. Retrieved December 10, 2014, from Lög um tekjustofna sveitarfélaga 1995 nr. 4 30. janúar: http://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1995004.html Alþingi. (2011a). Sveitarstjórnarlög 2011 nr 138. 28. september. Retrieved December 10, 2014, from Alþingi - Lagasafn: http://www.althingi.is/lagas/142/2011138.html Alþingi. (2011b). Þingskjal 758. Tillaga til þingsályktunar um ferðamálaáætlun 2011–2020. Þskj. 758 - 467. mál.[Parliamentary proposal on tourism policy 2011-2020]. Reykjavík. Alþingi. (2014). Þingskjal 1083. Þingsályktun um stefnumótandi byggðaáætlun fyrir árin 2014-2017. Þskj. 1083-256. mál [Parliamentary resolution on a strategic regional plan for the years 2014–2017]. Reykjavík. Benediktsson, K. and Karlsdóttir, A. (2011). Iceland: crisis and regional development - Thanks for all the fish? European Urban and Regional Studies, 18(2), 228-235. Bjarnadóttir, E.J. og Huijbens, E.H. (2012). Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll: Könnun meðal brottfararfarþega sumarið. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála. Bjarnason, Þ. and Huijbens, E.H. (2014). Stefna íslenskra stjórnvalda og vöxtur ferðaþjónustu á jaðarsvæðum: Áhrif Héðinsfjarðarganga í Fjallabyggð. Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla, 10(2), 567-588. Boston Consulting Group. (2013). Northern sights: The future of tourism in Iceland. The Boston Consulting Group. Bowen, D., & Clarke, J. (2009). Contemporary Tourist Behaviour. Wallingford: CABI. Bucellato, T., Webber, D., White, S., Ritchie, F., & Begum, S. (2010). The economic impact of tourism across regions and nations of the UK. Economic & Labour Market Review, 4(5), 44-50. Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 720-742. Central Bank of Iceland. (n.d.). Greiðslumiðlun. Retrieved November 5, 2014, from Payment Instruments: http://www.sedlabanki.is/hagtolur/nanar/2015/01/13/Greidslumidlun/? stdID=21 Centre for Retail Studies. (2014, December 17). Retrieved December 29, 2014, from Metaukning í erlendri kortaveltu í nóvember: http://www.rsv.is/Files/Skra_0069661.pdf Clker.com. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from Map of Iceland clip art: http://www.clker.com/clipart-2152.html

Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D. og Wanhill, S. (2005). Tourism: Principles and Practice (3.ed.). Essex: Pearson. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.): 2007 update with new internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and sons. Directorate of Internal Revenue. (n.d.). Skattskylda. Retrieved December 29, 2014, from Staðgreiðsla 2014: https://www.rsk.is/einstaklingar/stadgreidsla/stadgreidsla/2014 European Commission. (2003). Regions: Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics; NUTS - 2003, Part 2. Luxembourg: European Communities. European Commission. (2011). Commission staff working paper: Iceland 2011 progress report. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2011/package/is_ rapport_2011_en.pdf European Council. (2005). Structure and operation of local and regional democracy: Situation in 2005. Iceland. Strasbourg: European Council. European Union. (n.d.). Common classification of territorial units for statistical purposes. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from Europa: Summaries of EU legislation: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/regional_policy/management/g24218_en.htm Eurostat. (2008). NACE Rev.2: Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community. Luxembourg: European Communities. Eurostat. (2012). Methodological manual for tourism statistics: Version 1.2. Luxembourg: Eurostat. Eurostat. (2013). Retrieved November 10, 2014, from File:Tourist accommodation establishments, 2013 YB15: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/ index.php/File:Tourist_accommodation_establishments,_2013_YB15.png Eurostat. (2014a). Tourism statistics at regional level. Retrieved September 12, 2014, from Statistics explained: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Tourism_statistics_at_regional_level Eurostat. (2014b). Tourism statistics. Retrieved December 14, 2014, from Statistics explained: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Tourism_statistics Eurostat. (n.d.a.). Nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments by coastal and non- coastal area (from 2012 onwards). Retrieved November 10, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tin0 0178&plugin=1 Eurostat. (n.d.b.). NUTS: Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from Local administrative units (LAU): http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/c/portal/layout?p_l_id=345247&p_v_l_s_g_id=0 Eurostat. (n.b.c.). Supply and use tables - input-output analysis. Retrieved December 15, 2014 from Statistics explained: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/ Supply_and_use_tables_-_input-output_analysis.

FedNor. (e.d.). A Guide to Using Market Research and Marketing Measurement for Successful Tourism Destination Marketing. Government of Canada. Sótt 31. júlí 2014 frá http://fednor.gc.ca/eic/site/fednor-fednor.nsf/eng/fn03325.html. Finn, M., Elliott-White, M. and Walton, M. (2000). Tourism & Leisure Research Methods: Data collection, analysis and interpretation. Essex: Longman. Frechtling, D. C. (2010). The tourism satellite account: A primer. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 136-153. Frenţ, C. (2013). The Economic Benefits of Tourism in Iceland: Boosting the Icelandic Tourism Satellite Account Development. Akureyri: Icelandit Tourism Research Centre. Government Offices of Iceland. (n.d.). Sóknaráætlanir landshluta. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from Hugmyndafræði og forsaga sóknaráætlana landshluta: http://www.stjornarrad.is/sl/hugmyndafraedi-forsaga/ Guðmundsson, R. (2013). Ferðamenn í Þingeyjarsýslum 2012 og þróunin frá 2005. Reykjavík: Rannsóknir og ráðgjöf ferðaþjónustunnar. Harðarson, Ó. and Sindradóttir, J.Í. (2012). Íslensk hagskýrslusvæði á héraðsstjórnarstigi. Reykjavík: Hagstofa Íslands. Huijbens, E.H. og Jóhannesson, G.Þ. (2013). Ferðamál á Íslandi. Reykjavík: Mál og Menning. Huijbens, E.H., Jóhannesson, H and Jóhannesson, G.Þ. (2014). Clusters without content? Icelandic national and regional tourism policy. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 18(1), 63-85. Húsavík Akademic Centre. (2014). Mannfjöldaþróun á starfssvæði Þekkingarnets Þingeyinga. Húsavík: Húsavík Akademic Centre. Icelandic Association of Local Authorities. (n.d.). Sveitarfélög. Retrieved Dec 10, 2014, from Upplýsingar um sveitarfélög: http://www.samband.is/sveitarfelogin/upplysingar-um- sveitarfelog/ Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration. (n.d.). Umferðin í tölum. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from Umferð: http://www.vegagerdin.is/upplysingar-og-utgafa/umferdin/ Icelandic Tourist Board. (2013). Þörfin fyrir rannsóknir í íslenskri ferðaþjónustu: Greining Hagsmunaaðila. Reykjavík: Iceland Tourist Board. Icelandic Tourist Board. (2014a). Erlendir ferðamenn á Íslandi sumar 2014. Reykjavík: Icelandic Tourist Board. Icelandic Tourist Board. (2014b). Ferðalög Íslendinga (ferðalög Íslendinga 2013 og ferðaáform þeirra 2014). Reykjavík: Icelandic Tourist Board. Icelandic Tourist Board. (2014c). Fréttir. Retrieved October 5, 2014, from Samið um þolmarkarannsóknir á átta stöðum: http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/is/um- ferdamalastofu/frettir/samid-um-tholmarkarannsoknir-a-atta-stodum Icelandic Tourist Board. (2014d). Tourism in Iceland in figures - April 2014. Reykjavík: Icelandic Tourist Board. 51

Icelandic Tourist Board. (n.d.a.). Ferðamenn um Keflavíkurflugvöll. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from Erlendir gestir um Flugstöð Leifs Eiríkssonar eftir mánuðum 2002 - 2014: http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/is/tolur-og-utgafur/fjoldi-ferdamanna/talningar- ferdamalastofu-i-flugstod-leifs-eirikssonar Icelandic Tourist Board. (n.d.b). Ferðavenjur erlendra ferðamanna. Retrieved December 14, 2014, from Kannanir og rannsóknir: http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/is/tolur-og- utgafur/kannanir-og-rannsoknir/ferdavenjur-erlendra-ferdamanna Icelandic Tourist Board. (n.d.c.). Heildarfjöldi erlendra ferðamanna með skipum og flugvélum 1949-2013. Retrieved July 10, 2014, from Fjöldi ferðamanna: http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/is/tolur-og-utgafur/fjoldi-ferdamanna Icelandic Tourist Board. (n.d.d.). Research and statistics. Retrieved December 30, 2014, from Numbers of foreign visitors: http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/en/recearch-and-statistics/ numbers-of-foreign-visitors Jóhannesson, S., Árnason, S. og Sigurðsson, S.B.. (2013). Hagvöxtur landshluta 2007-2011. Sauðárkrókur: Byggðastofnun. KPMG. (2013). Icelandic Tax Facts 2013: In-depth Information on the Icelandic Tax System. Reykjavík: KPMG Iceland. Laimer, P. (2012). Regional Tourism Satellite Accounts in Austria – sufficient information for regional tourism policy? Vienna: Statistics Austria. Lau, G., & McKercher, B. (2007). Understanding tourist movement patterns in a destination: A GIS approach. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(1), 39-49. Mak, J. (2004). Tourism and the economy: Understanding the economics of tourism. Honululu: University of Hawai'i Press. Malhotra, N. K. (1999). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (3. ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Inc. National Land Survey of Iceland. (n.d.). Sveitarfélagasjá. Retrieved December 14, 2014, from Sveitarfélög á Íslandi: http://atlas.lmi.is/sveitarfelog/ Óladóttir, O.Þ. (2014). Ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi í tölum - apríl 2014. Reykjavík: Ferðamálastofa. OECD. (2014). OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2014, . Paris: OECD Publishing. Office for National Statistics. (2012). The Geography of Tourism Employment. London. Retrieved December 14, 2014 from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_287932.pdf Office for National Statistics. (2014). Annual Business Survey, 2013 Provisional Results. London. Retrieved December 14, 2014 from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/abs/ annual-business-survey/2013-provisional-results/index.html Orellana, D., Bregt, A. K., Ligtenberg, A., & Wachowicz, M. (2012). Exploring visitor movement patterns in natural recreational areas. Tourism Management, 33(3), 672- 682.

Ólafsson, R. (2012). Tourist distribution in time and space: A case from the Icelandic Highlands. The 6th International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitors in Recreational and Protected Areas (pp. 28-29). Stockholm: MMV. Ólafsson, R. (2014). Laugavegurinn: Gönguleiðin milli Landmannalauga og Þórsmerkur. Fjöldi göngufólks 2011 til 2013. Akureyri: Icelandic Tourism Research Centre. Pike, S. (2008). Destination marketing: An integrated marketing communication approach. Burlington: Routledge. Prime Minister's Office. (2011). Iceland 2020 - governmental policy statement for the economy and community. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from Past Projects: http://eng.forsaetisraduneyti.is/iceland2020/ Rubies, E. B. (2001). Improving public-private sectors cooperation in tourism: a new paradigm for destinations. Tourism Review, 56(3/4), 38-41. Rögnvaldsdóttir, L.B. (2014). Þróun og staða ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík: Niðurstöður ferðavenjukannana sumrin 2013 og 2014. Húsavík: Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga. Saarinen, J. (2003). The regional economics of tourism in Northern-Finland: The socio- economic implications of recent tourism development and future possibilities for regional development. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 3(2), 91- 113. Sigurbjarnarson, V. and Gíslason, E. (2002). Auðlindin Ísland: Ferðaþjónustusvæði. Reykjavík: Ferðamálaráð Íslands. Smeral, E. (2006, August). Tourism Satellite Accounts: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 92-98. Smith, S.L.J. (2010). Practical tourism research. Wallingford: CABI. Statistics Austria. (n.d.). Statistics. Retrieved December 30, 2014, from National Accounts: http://www.statistik.at/web_en/statistics/national_accounts/ Statistics Iceland. (2011). Tourism Satellite accounts 2009-2011. Statistical Series: Tourism, transport and IT, 3(66), 1-28. Statistics Iceland. (2014, August 27). News. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from New international standards for economic statistics: http://www.statice.is/Pages/444?NewsID=10981 Statistics Iceland. (2015a). Coastal areas in Iceland for tourism statistics. E-mail communication with Hildur Kristjánsdóttir, sent January 15, 2015. Statistics Iceland. (2015b). SUT and I-O. E-mail communication with Benedikt Hálfdánarson, sent February 13, 2015. Statistics Iceland. (n.d.a.). Laun, tekjur og vinnumarkaður. Retrieved November 2, 2014, from Laun: http://www.hagstofa.is/pages/1516/?src=../../vorulysingar/v_transporter.asp? filename=V29547.htm

Statistics Iceland. (n.d.b.). External trade. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from External trade in services: http://www.statice.is/pages/1549/?src=../../vorulysingar_en/v_transporter. asp?filename=V28199.htm Statistics Iceland. (n.d.c.). Fyrirtæki og velta. Retrieved November 2, 2014, from ÍSAT2008: http://www.hagstofa.is/Pages/1830 Statistics Iceland. (n.d.d.). Helstu liðir útflutnings vöru og þjónustu 2009-2013. Retrieved 9. 2, 2013, from http://hagstofa.is/pages/2271 Statistics Iceland. (n.d.e.). Laun, tekjur og vinnumarkaður. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from Starfandi eftir atvinnugreinum, kyni og búsetu 2008-2013, ÍSAT2008 (NACE REV 2.): http://www.hagstofa.is/?PageID=2594&src=https://rannsokn.hagstofa.is/pxis/ Dialog/varval.asp?ma=VIN01103%26ti=Starfandi+eftir+atvinnugreinum%2C+kyni+o g+b%FAsetu+2008%2D2013%2C+%CDSAT2008+%28NACE+REV+2%2E%29+++ ++%26path=../Database/vinnumarkadur/rannsoknir/ Statistics Iceland. (n.d.f.). Mannfjöldi eftir kyni, sveitarfélagi og ríkisfangi 1. janúar 1998- 2014. Retrieved December 3, 2014, from Mannfjöldi: http://hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Mannfjoldi Statistics Iceland. (n.d.g.). Tourism, transport and information technology. Retrieved December 30, 2014, from Accommodation, guests and overnight stays: http://www.statice.is/pages/1730/?src=../../vorulysingar_en/v_transporter.asp?filename =V10189.htm Statistics Iceland. (n.d.h.). Vinnumarkaðsrannsóknir. Retrieved December 19, 2014, from Starfandi eftir atvinnugreinum, kyni og búsetu 2008-2013, ÍSAT2008 (NACE REV 2.): http://www.hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Laun,-tekjur-og-vinnumarkadur/Vinnumarkadur Statistics Iceland. (n.d.i.). Wages, income and labour market. Retrieved November 5, 2014, from Labour force survey: http://www.statice.is/pages/1786/?src=../../vorulysingar_en/ v_transporter.asp?filename=V00611.htm Sverrisson, S. and Hannesson, M.K.. (2006). Local Governments in Iceland. Reykjavík: The Association of Local Authorities in Iceland. United Nations. (2010a). The conceptual framework for tourism statistics - International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008. Retrieved 11. 12, 2012, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/Seriesm/SeriesM_83rev1e.pdf United Nations. (2010b). Tourism satellite account: Recommended methodological framework 2008. Luxemburg: United Nations Publication. UNWTO. (2014a). Methodological Notes to the Tourism Statistics Database. Madrid: World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). UNWTO. (2014b). UNWTO Tourism Highlights 2014 Edition. Madrid: World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation and Human Dimensions. Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing.

Veal, A.J. (2006). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: Practical Guide. London: Prentice Hall. Wang, Y. (2011). Tourism destination marketing management: Collaborative strategies. In Y. Wang, & A. Pizam (Eds.), Destination Marketing and Management: Theories and Applications (pp. 1-20). Wallingford: CABI. Wolf, D. I., Hagenloh, G., & Croft, B. D. (2012). Visitor monitoring along roads and hiking trails: How to determine usage levels in tourist sites. Tourism Management, 33, 16-28. World Tourism Organization. (1999). Data collection and analysis for tourism management, marketing and planning: A manual for managers and analysts. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

7. Appendix 1. Short description of data sources for tourism in Iceland and their applicability in Þingeyjarsýslur region Based on Frenţ (2013)

ICELAND ÞINGEYJARSÝSLUR

Accommodation A monthly survey by Statistics Statistics Iceland presents statistics Iceland: Number of Accommodation data for eight regions of establishments, guests and Iceland. A special data file overnight stays. was created for this research which includes a number of First published in 1984. Collects accommodation data on capacity and occupancy for establishments, guests and the following categories: overnight stays in Þingeyjarsýslur for the  Hotels and guesthouses period 2002-2013. Due to  Private home accommodation traceability it was broken  Holiday centres down to the following three  Youth hostels categories:  Sleeping-bag facilities  Camping sites  Hotels and guesthouses  Lodges in the wilderness  Private home accommodation + Holiday centres+ Youth hostels+ Sleeping-bag facilities  Camping sites + Lodges in the wilderness

Foreign Visitors Since 2002 the Icelandic Tourist A special report based on a Counting Board has been responsible for the visitor survey at KEF airport tallying of tourists passing through (“Dear visitor survey”) from the airport terminal at KEF airport. RRF was made for The figures are broken down to Þingeyjarsýslur for 2005- months and 17 nationalities. 2012

A total number of visitors in Iceland Tourist numbers are assumed (calculated only on yearly basis) is but no detailed breakdown for the sum of: nationalities is provided.

 Number at KEF airport security gate prior to departure  Foreign visitors from M/S Norröna at Seyðisfjörður  Foreign visitors from other airports /Rvk-Ak-Est

ICELAND ÞINGEYJARSÝSLUR

Inbound Visitor Inbound visitor surveys have been The survey gives possibility survey: conducted by the ITB in: to calculate tourist numbers

Travel Behaviour of Summer 2014 from the visiting ratios in Foreign Tourists Winter 2013-2014 North Iceland and the Winter 2011-2012 following places in the Summer 2011 region:

Summer 2010  North Iceland Winter 2009-2010  Húsavík Other surveys were conducted on an  Mývatnssveit irregular basis from 1992-2008  Ásbyrgi/Dettifoss The inbound visitor survey was  Melrakkaslétta/Þórshöfn conducted online; addresses were collected in a systematic manner in For each region, information the arrival and departure areas of on nationalities, age, income, Keflavik Airport and Seyðisfjörður position, length of stay, harbour. Main focus was on the reason for the trip and the travel behaviour in Iceland, mode and type of travel can expenditure pattern, prelude to the be retrieved. visit, attitudes to various aspects of Icelandic tourism etc.

Domestic and A survey on Icelanders’ travel This survey gives possibility outbound Visitor patterns has been carried out by the to calculate tourist numbers survey: Icelandic Tourist Board yearly since from the numbers of visits to Travel Behaviour of April 2009: North Iceland and the ratio of Icelanders Icelanders visiting: Year 2013  North Iceland Year 2012  Húsavík Year 2011  Mývatnssveit Year 2010  Ásbyrgi Year 2009

Year 2003  Dettifoss Year 2000  Þórshöfn

This survey covers both domestic and outbound tourism. The domestic part includes questions on domestic trips such as destinations by regions, time of travel, length of stay, paid attraction and number of excursions. Destinations visited by Icelanders are divided up in eight regions and each region is then subdivided in 6-10 places. A special demand side survey on Icelanders’ travel patterns was conducted in year 1996 and

2007-2008 by Statistics Iceland.

ICELAND ÞINGEYJARSÝSLUR

Cruise passengers Associated Icelandic Port records No official information is statistics the number of cruise passengers. available for harbours in However, Icelandic Tourist Board Þingeyjarsýslur. Information published data only for the on number of cruise following ports: Reykjavík passenger is provided by the Akureyri, Ísafjörður, harbours upon requests. Grundarfjörður, Vestmannaeyjar Icelandic Tourism Research and Seyðisfjörður. Centre has gathered data on cruise passengers in Húsavík port.

Household A continuous household The HE survey could be used Expenditure survey expenditure survey commenced in to some point in estimating the beginning of year 2000, and has the travel behaviour of people been carried on since then. The from Þingeyjarsýslur as well main purpose of the household as measuring the induced expenditure survey is to gather effect based on the general information on the consumption consumption of tourism expenditures of households for the employees in the area. Main expenditure base of the consumer drawback is that it cannot be price index. It provides important broken down to special insight into changes to patterns of regions of Iceland. consumer spending and information on household expenditure and its composition according to various social and economic factors.

Focus should be put on consumption in the following categories

 Package holidays.  Hotels, cafe and restaurants.  Recreation and cultural services.  Transportation services.

ICELAND ÞINGEYJARSÝSLUR

External trade in Statistics Iceland publishes yearly This data cannot be broken services statistics data on External trade in services by down to specific regions due service category (EBOPS to inaccuracy in registration. classification) and on goods and Data has therefore to be services balance. collected first hand from Expenditure on non-residents in tourists and businesses in Iceland = export of services. Þingeyjarsýslur.

Expenditure of Icelandic residents Adaptations to made abroad = import of services. Þingeyjarsýslur region: Travel credit: goods and services Travel credit: goods and for own use or to give away services for own use or to acquired from an economy by non- give away acquired from residents during visits to that Þingeyjarsýslur economy by economy non-residents during visits to Travel debit: goods and services Þingeyjarsýslur. for own use or to give away (information retrievable from acquired from an economy by tourism expense surveys in residents during visits to these other Mývatnssveit and Húsavík) economies Travel debit: goods and services for own use or to give away acquired by Þingeyjarsýslur residents in other economies (countries) during visits to these other economies (countries)(data unavailable for Þingeyjars.).

Credit card The Centre for Retail Studies in Foreign credit-card turnover turnover Bifröst, recently started publishing has not been broken down to the credit-card turnover of foreign regions due to inaccuracy, tourists by categories and retail traceability and an agreement subcategories. with the Credit card Main categories are the following: companies.  Accommodation  Restaurants  Transport  Miscellaneous tourism  Fuel, car repair and  car maintenance  Other transport services  Culture, entertainment and recreation  Other services  Retail  Public levies  Cash withdrawals

ICELAND ÞINGEYJARSÝSLUR

Enterprise Register The Enterprise Register is From the Enterprise Register (Business Register) maintained by the Internal Revenue a list was created containing Directorate. It contains information all companies and VAT on all enterprises, institutions and individuals in Þingeyjarsýslur organizations in Iceland. Statistics with revenues or salary Iceland produces data from the payments 2011-2012. enterprise register such as the A total of 481 enterprise and number of enterprises and new 382 individuals were registrations at the same time as it identified. Enterprises with obtains information on wage payers. activities in Þingeyjarsýslur In this register each enterprise has a but legal domicile elsewhere unique identification code classified were not included. with a 5 digit Icelandic Standard Industrial Classification (ISAT 2008) code.

VAT Register The VAT Register consists of It is not possible to get enterprises with an annual turnover information on specific over 500,000 ISK (in 2010). Data is regions due to inaccurate collected from VAT returns from registration of regional enterprises to tax authorities and information and possible covers all the sales of goods and traceability. services that are VAT taxable regardless if the sale is to a final user or for resale. The VAT register provides also data on turnover for some tourism industries such as:  Air transport  Accommodation and food service activities  Travel agency, tour operator reservation service and related activities  Creative, arts and entertainment activities  Sport activities and amusement and recreation activities

ICELAND ÞINGEYJARSÝSLUR

Supply and use The SUT provide detailed data in SUT are not constructed on a tables the form of matrices that record regional level. how supplies of different kinds of goods and services originate from domestic industries and imports and how those supplies are allocated between various intermediate or final uses, including exports.

Statistics Iceland does not create regular annual supply and use tables as EU member states do, but constructed them for the years 1992, 1997, 2001, 2002 and 2003. A SUT for 2009 is under construction.

Input – output The SUTs give detailed information No regional I-O tables are tables on production processes, planned in Iceland in the near interdependencies in production, the future. use of goods and services, and income generated in production. Regional I-O tables would They form the basis for symmetrical enable calculations on input-output tables, which are indirect and multiplier effects produced by applying certain of tourism at regional level. assumptions to the relationship between outputs and inputs and are used by policy-makers for input- output analysis. As for the SUT tables, I-O tables have not been created in Iceland on a five year basis as is requested of EU member states.

ICELAND ÞINGEYJARSÝSLUR

Wage statistics Through an agreement with the According to Statistics Institute of Labour Market Iceland it is not possible to Research, valid from January 2005, get regional wage data from Statistics Iceland runs the business the labour market research. survey for wage data. The business The reason is inaccuracy as it survey is based on a sample of is based on a sample of private companies. Data is collected companies. It is also every month directly from the restricted to companies with company’s payroll systems and 10 or more employees, but contains information on labour costs numerous tourism companies for all employees. The sample is a in Þingeyjarsýslur have less stratified cluster sample where the than 10 employees. sample unit is the local activity unit and the observation unit is the employee. The target population contains all local activity units with at least 10 employees. The survey currently covers the following sectors; D Manufacturing, F Construction, G Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and personal and household goods and I Transport, storage and communication. The aim of this survey is to cover all main sectors and occupations of the Icelandic labour market. Methods are based on European recommendations. However information on tourism such as Hotels, restaurants and transportation are not measured especially in this survey.

ICELAND ÞINGEYJARSÝSLUR

Labour force survey Statistics Iceland has carried out a Results from the labour force continuous quarterly labour force survey can be categorized by survey since January 2003. The the following economic primary purpose of the survey is to activities for give a proper description of the labour market status of the Icelandic a) Capital area population. The sample is drawn from the National register with a b) Rest of the country sample of 4.030 persons, aged 16- 74 each quarter. In the period 1991-  Agriculture total 2002 the labour force survey was  Agriculture conducted twice a year, for one  Fishing reference week in April and  Industry total November. The survey, conducted  Fish processing by telephone, includes questions  Manuf. Except fish relating to employment status, processing working hours, education,  Electricity and water residence, etc. They are based on supply international standards and  Construction modelled on comparable surveys in  Services total the neighbouring countries. In  Wholesale, retail trade, addition, data on trade union repairs membership is gathered once a year  Hotels, restaurants from the trade unions and four times  Transport, per year employment agencies communication provide Statistics Iceland with  Financial intermediation information on registered  Retail estate and unemployment by sex, age and business activities duration of unemployment  Public administration registration.  Education  Health services, social work  Other services and n.s.

The data is not accurate enough for the use of estimating number of tourism employees in Þingeyjarsýslur.

ICELAND ÞINGEYJARSÝSLUR

Enterprise Account The EAR is the main data source Information on specific Register (EAR) used in compiling production in regions cannot be retrieved National Accounts, including the due to inaccurate registration Hotels and Restaurants sector. This of regional information and register is also an enterprise possible traceability. oriented one, providing a rather detailed standardized disaggregation Information on revenues and of the revenue and operating costs operating cost has to be of enterprises similar for all the gathered first hand by industries. interviews.

Pay as you earn The PAYE register is administrated It is impossible to get Register (PAYE) by the tax authorities. It comprises unbiased wage data for data on salaries and percentage of certain regions due to biases full-time equivalents for every in the domicile registration of employee and self-employed employees as well as person. Data publication from this company registration. register is published on an aggregate two digit ISAT level.

November 2014

Appendix C

Þróun og staða ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík Niðurstöður ferðavenjukannana sumrin 2013 og 2014

[Scope and Development of Tourism in Húsavík Visitor survey results from summer surveys 2013 and 2014]

Lilja B. Rögnvaldsdóttir

Icelandic Tourism Research Centre

December 2014

72 pages

Desember 2014

Lokaskýrsla rannsóknaverkefnis sem unnið var 2013-2014. Verkefnið er unnið í framhaldi af rannsóknum Þekkingarnets Þingeyinga á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík árin 2008 og 2010. Rannsóknin árið 2013-2014 er unnin samhliða stærra rannsóknarverkefni, „Fémæti ferðaþjónustu“, sem Háskóli Íslands, Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála og Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga standa að.

Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga

Forsíðumyndir (frá vinstri):

Húsavíkurviti: ljósm. Hansueli Krapf, 2014 Húsavíkurkirkja: ljósm. Andreas Tille, 2002 Mærudagar: ljósm. Gréta Bergrún Jóhannesdóttir, 2013 Hvalasafn: ljósm. Wolfgang Sauber, 2009

Höfundur: Lilja B. Rögnvaldsdóttir

Framkvæmd: Ingvar Björn Guðlaugsson Kiddý Hörn Ásgeirsdóttir Lilja B. Rögnvaldsdóttir

Ábyrgð/útgáfa Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga Óli Halldórsson

ISBN 978-9935-405-47-0

ÚTDRÁTTUR Sumrin 2013 og 2014 stóð Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga fyrir spurningakönnunum meðal erlendra ferðamanna á Húsavík. Þessar kannanir voru byggðar á eldri könnunum stofnunarinnar meðal ferðamanna frá árunum 2008 og 2010. Markmið þessa verkefnis er að fá mynd af samsetningu þeirra erlendu ferðamanna sem heimsóttu Húsavík sumrin 2013 og 2014, kanna ferðavenjur þeirra og ferðahegðun auk þess að kortleggja neyslumynstur þeirra á áfangastað. Að auki verður kannað hvort breytingar hafi orðið á útgjöldum þeirra og ferðahegðun frá fyrri rannsóknum áranna 2008 og 2010. Rannsóknin er unnin samhliða stærra rannsóknarverkefni, „Fémæti ferðaþjónustu“, sem Háskóli Íslands, Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála og Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga standa að og hefur það markmið að leggja mat á hagræn áhrif ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslum og hvernig greiningu á staðbundnum umsvifum er hægt að þætta saman við þjóðhagsreikninga. Könnun var lögð fyrir ferðamenn á Húsavík þar sem þeir voru beðnir að svara spurningum um ferðavenjur og sundurliða útgjöld sín síðustu 24 klukkustundirnar samkvæmt fyrirfram skilgreindum útgjaldaliðum. Niðurstöðurnar voru í stuttu máli þessar:  Meðalútgjöld erlendra ferðamanna á sólarhring voru 15.939 krónur á sólarhring sumarið 2014 og 16.007 krónur sumarið 2013 á verðlagi ársins 2014.  Stærsti útgjaldaliðurinn var afþreying þar sem hvalaskoðun var vinsælasti afþreyingarþátturinn.  Rúmur helmingur ferðamanna sem tók þátt í könnuninni gisti eina nótt eða fleiri á Húsavík sumarið 2013, eða 55%. Árið 2014 var hlutfallið 49%.  Mikill meirihluti erlendra ferðamanna á Húsavík kom frá Mið- og Suður-Evrópu, eða 64% árið 2013 og 63% árið 2014.  Í samanburði við þjóðerni erlendra brottfararfarþega í Flugstöð Leifs Eiríkssonar samkvæmt talningum Ferðamálastofu komu hlutfallslega færri ferðamenn frá Bandaríkjunum til Húsavíkur og hlutfallslega fleiri frá Þýskalandi, Frakklandi og Ítalíu sumrin 2013 og 2014.  Stór hluti gesta hafði lokið háskólanámi, eða yfir 70% bæði árin og rúmur helmingur var með háar tekjur eða tekjur yfir meðallagi í samanburði við tekjustig í heimalandinu. Af niðurstöðum þessarar rannsóknar má draga þá ályktun að ekki hafi verið marktækur munur á meðalútgjöldum erlendra ferðamanna á Húsavík á sólarhring sumrin 2013 og 2014. Fjöldi erlendra ferðamanna hefur þó aukist nokkuð á sama tíma og heildarútgjöld þeirra því að sama skapi hækkað. Ljóst má vera af niðurstöðum þessarar rannsóknar að tekjur af umfangi erlendra ferðamanna mynda veigamikinn þátt í atvinnulífi og samfélagi á Húsavík.

EFNISYFIRLIT

1 INNGANGUR ...... 1 1.1 Bakgrunnur og markmið könnunarinnar ...... 1 2 FERÐAÞJÓNUSTA Á HÚSAVÍK ...... 2 2.1 Staðhættir og atvinnulíf...... 2 2.2 Þróun ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík ...... 6 2.3 Fjöldi ferðamanna ...... 8 2.3.1 Fjöldi farþega í hvalaskoðun á Húsavík ...... 11 2.3.2 Fjöldi gesta Hvalasafnsins á Húsavík ...... 12 2.3.3 Fjöldi farþega með skemmtiferðaskipum til Húsavíkur ...... 14 2.4 Gistinætur í Þingeyjarsýslum ...... 14 2.4.1 Árstíðasveifla í fjölda gistinátta ...... 20 2.4.2 Tjaldsvæðið á Húsavík ...... 23 3 KÖNNUN Á FERÐAVENJUM 2013 OG 2014 ...... 27 3.1 Bakgrunnur rannsóknarinnar ...... 27 3.2 Spurningakönnun ...... 27 3.2.1 Spurningar tengdar ferðamanninum...... 28 3.2.2 Ferðatengdar spurningar ...... 28 3.2.3 Spurningar um útgjöld ferðamanna ...... 29 3.3 Úrvinnsla og mat á gögnum ...... 31 4 NIÐURSTÖÐUR ...... 33 4.1 Erlendir ferðamenn á Húsavík sumarið 2013 ...... 33 4.2 Dvalarlengd ...... 37 4.3 Gistimáti ...... 38 4.4 Ferðafélagar ...... 38 4.5 Ferðamáti...... 39 4.6 Tilgangur ferðar ...... 40 4.7 Afþreying ...... 41 4.8 Ákvörðunartími heimsóknar ...... 42 4.9 Upplýsingar um Húsavík ...... 43 4.10 Ástæða heimsóknar ...... 43 4.11 Útgjöld ferðamanna á Húsavík...... 45 4.11.1 Útgjöld á sólarhring ...... 45 4.12 Athugasemdir ...... 47 4.13 Samantekt ...... 48 5 UMRÆÐUR OG ÁLYKTANIR ...... 49 6 HEIMILDIR ...... 51 7 VIÐAUKAR ...... 55 1. Spurningakönnun 2013 ...... 55 7.1 Spurningakönnun 2014...... 57 7.2 Athugasemdir ferðamanna 2013 ...... 59 7.3 Athugasemdir ferðamanna 2014 ...... 62 7.4 Hvers vegna varð Húsavík fyrir valinu sem áfangastaður ? ...... 66

MYNDASKRÁ

Mynd 1. Þróun íbúafjölda á Húsavík 1998-2014 ...... 2 Mynd 2. Íbúafjöldi á Húsavík eftir aldurshópum árin 1998 og 2014 ...... 3 Mynd 3. Fjöldi ársverka eftir atvinnugreinum á Húsavík 2007-2012 ...... 4 Mynd 4. Fjöldi stöðugilda og ársverka í ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík 2007-2012...... 5 Mynd 5. Vörumerki Húsavíkur ...... 6 Mynd 6. Áætlaður heildarfjöldi ferðamanna til Húsavíkur 2005-2012 ...... 9 Mynd 7. Áætlaður heildarfjöldi gesta í Þingeyjars. og á völdum stöðum þar 2005-2012 ...... 10 Mynd 8. Áætlaður fjöldi erlendra gesta í Þingeyjars. og á völdum stöðum þar 2005-2012...... 11 Mynd 9. Fjöldi farþega í hvalaskoðun eftir svæðum 1995-2013 ...... 12 Mynd 10. Fjöldi gesta Hvalasafnsins 2002-2013 ...... 13 Mynd 11. Fjöldi farþega með skemmtiferðaskipum til Húsavíkur 2007-2014 ...... 14 Mynd 12. Fjöldi gistinátta í Þingeyjarsýslum 2004-2013 ...... 16 Mynd 13. Heildarfjöldi gistinátta í Þingeyjarsýslum eftir tegundum gististaða 2004-2013 ...... 17 Mynd 14. Hlutfall Íslendinga og útl. af gistinóttum á hótelum og gistih. í Þingeyjars. 2012...... 19 Mynd 15. Hlutfall Ísl. og útl. af gistin. á tjaldsv. og skálum í óbyggðum í Þingeyjarsýslum 2012. 19 Mynd 16. Hlutfall Ísl. og útl. af gistinóttum í heimag., orlofsh. og farfuglah. í Þingeyjars. 2012. . 19 Mynd 17. Þróun í fjölda gistinátta og heimsókna erlendra gesta...... 19 Mynd 18. Heildarfjöldi gistinátta í Þingeyjarsýslum 2013 á öllum tegundum gististaða ...... 20 Mynd 19. Hlutfall svæða af heildargistináttafj. útl. eftir mán. á öllum tegundum gististaða...... 21 Mynd 20. Heildarfj. gistin. útl. í Þingeyjars. 2004-2013 eftir mán. á öllum tegundum gististaða 22 Mynd 21. Fjöldi gistinátta á tjaldsvæðinu á Húsavík 2005-2013 ...... 24 Mynd 22. Meðaldvalarlengd gesta á tjaldsvæðinu á Húsavík 2005-2013 ...... 25 Mynd 23. Þjóðerni gesta á tjaldsvæðinu á Húsavík sumarið 2013 ...... 25 Mynd 24. Tegund menntunar erlendra gesta sem lokið hafa iðnnámi eða háskólanámi...... 34 Mynd 25. Búseta svarenda eftir landsvæðum 2013 (t.v.) og 2014 (t.h.)...... 35 Mynd 26. Búseta svarenda eftir helstu löndum 2013 (t.v.) og 2014 (t.h.)...... 35 Mynd 27. Dvalarlengd gesta árin 2013 (t.v.) og 2014 (t.h.)...... 37 Mynd 28. Ferðamáti erlendra gesta á Húsavík sumrin 2013 (t.v.) og 2014 (t.h.)...... 39 Mynd 29. Tilgangur ferðar 2013 (t.v.) og 2014 (t.h.)...... 40 Mynd 30. Afþreying ferðamanna á Húsavík sumrin 2013 (t.v.) og 2014 (t.h.)...... 41 Mynd 31. Hvenær var ákvörðun um heimsókn til Húsavíkur tekin? ...... 42 Mynd 32. Hvar fengust upplýsingar um Húsavík? ...... 43 Mynd 33. Hvers vegna varð Húsavík fyrir valinu sem áfangastaður? ...... 44 Mynd 34. Meðalútgjöld ferðamanna á Húsavík sumrin 2008, 2010, 2013 og 2014 ...... 46 Mynd 35. Athugasemdir ferðamanna sumarið 2013...... 47 Mynd 36. Athugasemdir ferðamanna sumarið 2014 ...... 49

TÖFLUR

Tafla 1. Fjöldi ferðaþjónustueininga á Húsavík 2003-2013...... 5 Tafla 2. Gini stuðull gistinátta útl. á öllum gististöðum 1998-2013 ...... 23 Tafla 3. Áhersluþættir við mælingar á samsetningu ferðamanna...... 28 Tafla 4. Markaðssvæði ferðamanna í talningum Ferðamálastofu...... 31 Tafla 5. Skilgreining á markaðssvæðum...... 31 Tafla 6. Skilgreining markaðssvæða samkvæmt UNWTO ...... 32 Tafla 7. Bakgrunnsupplýsingar yfir svarendur könnunarinnar ...... 33 Tafla 8. Fjöldi erl. gesta eftir þjóðernum í Flugstöð Leifs Eiríkssonar sumrin 2013 og 2014 ...... 36 Tafla 9. Gistihlutfall og dvalarlengd ferðamanna á Húsavík sumrin 2008, 2010, 2013 og 2014. 37 Tafla 10. Gistimáti erlendra gesta á Húsavík sumrin 2008, 2010, 2013 og 2014...... 38 Tafla 11. Ferðafélagar erlendra gesta á Húsavík sumrin 2008, 2010, 2013 og 2014...... 39 Tafla 12. Meðalútgjöld eftir þjónustuþáttum...... 45

1 INNGANGUR Sumrin 2013 og 2014 stóð Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga (ÞÞ) fyrir spurningakönnunum meðal erlendra ferðamanna á Húsavík. Áður hafði stofnunin staðið fyrir ferðamannakönnunum sumrin 2008 og 2010. Með útgáfu þessarar skýrslu eru niðurstöður kannananna árin 2013 og 2014 kynntar auk þess sem þróun og stöðu ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík eru gerð skil.

1.1 BAKGRUNNUR OG MARKMIÐ KÖNNUNARINNAR Ferðamannakönnun ÞÞ árið 2008 hafði það markmið að meta efnahagsleg áhrif ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík með tilkomu hvalaskoðunar. Könnunin sem framkvæmd var tveimur árum síðar lagði mat á það hvort mælanlegar breytingar hefðu orðið á útgjaldamynstri ferðamanna á Húsavík við breyttar efnahagslegar aðstæður í kjölfar bankahrunsins. Í þessari skýrslu, sem byggir að stórum hluta á fyrri könnunum ÞÞ, eru niðurstöður spurninga-kannananna sumrin 2013 og 2014 kynntar. Það sem aðgreinir þessar kannanir frá hinum eldri er að einungis er leitað svara hjá erlendum ferðamönnum. Meginmarkmið verkefnisins nú var að fá mynd af samsetningu þeirra erlendu gesta sem heimsóttu Húsavík sumarið 2013, kanna ferðavenjur þeirra og ferðahegðun auk þess að kortleggja neyslumynstur þeirra á áfangastað. Þessi könnun hefur auk þess verið útvíkkuð frá fyrri spurningakönnunum og löguð að öðrum rannsóknum sem unnar hafa verið á Íslandi til að auka möguleika á frekari samanburði milli svæða. Horft var sérstaklega til könnunar Rannsóknamiðstöðvar ferðamála (RMF) sem framkvæmd var meðal erlendra brottfararfarþega í millilandaflugi á Akureyri sumrin 2009-2012 og könnun Ferðamálastofu meðal erlendra ferðamanna á Íslandi sumrin 2011 og 2014. Grunnbreytum kannananna hefur engu að síður verið haldið óbreyttum til að auðvelda samanburð milli ára við fyrri kannanir ÞÞ. Spurningakannanirnar sumrin 2013 og 2014 voru unnar í samstarfi Þekkingarnets Þingeyinga við Rannsóknasetur Háskóla Íslands á Húsavík, Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála og Húsavíkurstofu. Verkefnið var hýst og fjármagnað af stofnununum sjálfum auk þess sem það hlaut styrk úr Vaxtarsamningi Norðausturlands. Spurningakönnunin var framkvæmd á Upplýsingamiðstöð ferðamála á Húsavík á tímabilinu júní til ágúst. Rannsóknaraðferðinni er lýst í kafla 3. Í upphafi skýrslunnar er fjallað um ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík og þróun hennar undanfarin ár. Þá er greint frá þeim aðferðum sem beitt var við söfnun og úrvinnslu gagna og í fjórða kafla eru helstu niðurstöður kynntar og að lokum ályktanir dregnar af þeim.

2 FERÐAÞJÓNUSTA Á HÚSAVÍK Saga ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslum er löng, enda skartar svæðið fjölbreytilegri náttúru sem hefur vakið áhuga ferðamanna í gegnum tíðina. Umsvif í ferðaþjónustu hafa aukist jafnt og þétt á svæðinu undanfarna áratugi og á Húsavík eru miklar væntingar bornar til atvinnugreinarinnar.

2.1 STAÐHÆTTIR OG ATVINNULÍF Húsavík stendur við austanverðan Skjálfanda og er fjölmennasti byggðarkjarninn í Þingeyjarsýslum. Þar hefur verið búið allt frá landnámi og 1. janúar 2014 var íbúafjöldi bæjarins 2.207. Sjávarútvegur hefur frá upphafi verið einn mikilvægasti atvinnuvegur staðarins auk landbúnaðar og matvælavinnslu. Verslun og þjónusta hefur einnig gegnt mikilvægu hlutverki fyrir Húsavík og sveitirnar um kring (Norðurþing, 2010; Hagstofa Íslands, 2014b). Nokkur fólksfækkun hefur átt sér stað á Húsavík undanfarin ár, en frá árinu 1998 hefur íbúum fækkað um 284, eða um 11,4% á sama tíma og íbúum landsins fjölgaði um 20%. Árleg meðalfækkun á Húsavík er því 0,75% á tímabilinu 1998-2014. Á mynd 1 má greina þróun íbúafjölda á Húsavík árin 1998-2014 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014b).

Mynd 1. Þróun íbúafjölda á Húsavík 1998-2014 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014b).

Á sama tíma og íbúum staðarins hefur fækkað, hefur atvinnulíf á Húsavík dregist saman. Samdráttur í útgerð, fiskvinnslu og landbúnaði með tilheyrandi matvælaiðnaði hefur lengi verið viðvarandi, en einnig hefur störfum fækkað í verslun og þjónustu líkt og víðar á landinu (Byggðastofnun, 2014; Karl Benediktsson og Anna Karlsdóttir, 2011). Aðdráttarafl höfuðborgarsvæðisins með auknum tækifærum til menntunar og starfsframa hefur togað til sín ungt fólk af svæðinu sem veldur því að hlutfall ungs fólks

á svæðinu hefur minnkað á meðan hlutfall þeirra eldri hefur aukist (Byggðastofnun, 2013; Norðurþing, 2010). Einnig má ætla að Akureyri laði til sín fólk, en þar hefur íbúum fjölgað um 18% á tímabilinu 1998-20141 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014b). Á mynd 2 má sjá íbúafjölda eftir aldurshópum árin 1998 og 2014 á Húsavík. Meðalaldur, skilgreindur sem meðaltal af aldri íbúa Húsavíkur hvers árs, hefur hækkað um 19% á tímabilinu eða úr 33,1 í 39,4 ár á meðan meðalaldur Íslendinga allra hefur hækkað um 8%, úr 34,3 í 37,2 ár. Mesta breytingin varð í aldurshópnum 0-15 ára þar sem börnum á þessu aldursbili á Húsavík fækkaði úr 679 árið 1998 í 438 árið 2014 eða um 35% (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014b).

679 700

600 542 565 471 500 438 437 456 405 365 400 340 1998

300 2014 200 100 0 0-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 61+ Mynd 2. Íbúafjöldi á Húsavík eftir aldurshópum árin 1998 og 2014 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014b).

Vöxtur í ferðaþjónustu undanfarin ár hefur verið mikilvægt mótvægi við samdrátt í áður nefndum atvinnugreinum, en þar hefur helsti drifkrafturinn verið í hvalaskoðun (Anna Karlsdóttir og Auður H. Ingólfsdóttir, 2011; Cunningham, Huijbens og Wearing, 2012; Níels Einarsson, 2009; Norðurþing, 2010). Unnin var fimm ára stefnumótunaráætlun fyrir ferðaþjónustu á Norðausturlandi fyrir tímabilið 2009-2014 sem byggði á regluramma þróunaráætlunar Sameinuðu þjóðanna um sjálfbæra ferðaþjónustu. Atvinnuþróunarfélag Þingeyinga vann að áætluninni ásamt teymi innlendra og erlendra sérfræðinga. Út var gefin skýrsla með greiningu á helstu styrkleikum og veikleikum ferðaþjónustunnar, tækifærum og þörfum hennar og hvernig best væri að haga markaðssetningu og vöruþróun í því tilliti. Samkvæmt skýrslunni tengjast helstu styrkleikar svæðisins náttúrulegri og menningarlegri arfleifð þess og tengdum afþreyingarkostum. Veikleikarnir voru helst slæmar samgöngur og stutt ferðamannatímabil. Tækifærin lágu í frekari þróun á ferðaþjónustu og ferðatengdum

1 Á Húsavík og Akureyri byggja íbúatölur á póstnúmeraskiptingu; 640, 600 og 603.

vörum sem byggðu á óspilltri náttúru svæðisins, sögu þess og menningu. Helstu þarfir atvinnugreinarinnar voru því frekari vöruþróun sem byggði á sérstöðu svæðisins, meiri samvinna á milli fyrirtækja og stoðkerfisins og myndun afþreyingarpakka sem hefðu hvetjandi áhrif til lengri dvalar ferðamanna á svæðinu. Einnig var bent á mikilvægi þess að bæta stoðþjónustu, aðgengi og markaðssetningu (John S. Hull Associates Inc. ofl., 2008). Í aðalskipulagi Norðurþings 2010-2030 er litið til ferðaþjónustu sem eins helsta vaxtarmöguleika atvinnulífsins auk þess sem væntingar eru bornar til þess að hægt verði að nýta orkuna í héraðinu til uppbyggingar stóriðju sem gæti orðið nýr hornsteinn í atvinnulífinu (Norðurþing, 2010). Á mynd 3 má sjá þróun í fjölda ársverka í ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík árin 2007-2012. Á þessu tímabili fjölgaði ársverkum úr 47 í 79, eða um 68%, sem er meiri aukning en í öðrum atvinnugreinum á staðnum. Samdráttur varð í 7 atvinnugreinum af 11. Fjöldi ársverka reiknast sem fjöldi stöðugilda yfir vetrarmánuðina fyrir tímabilið september til maí og fjöldi stöðugilda yfir sumarmánuðina fyrir júní til ágúst, sem síðan er deilt niður á 12 mánuði.

Mynd 3. Fjöldi ársverka eftir atvinnugreinum á Húsavík 2007-2012 (Ari Páll Pálsson, vefpóstur, 20. ágúst 2014).

Sumarið 2012 var fjöldi starfa í ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík alls 205, eða 183 stöðugildi, samkvæmt atvinnumálakönnun Atvinnuþróunarfélags Þingeyinga. Yfir vetrartímann var fjöldinn 63 störf og 45 stöðugildi (Ari Páll Pálsson, vefpóstur 20. ágúst 2014). Á mynd 4 má sjá sveifluna í fjölda stöðugilda á milli sumars og vetrar sem og reiknuð ársverk.

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Stöðugildi sumar Stöðugildi vetur Ársverk

Mynd 4. Fjöldi stöðugilda og ársverka í ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík 2007-2012 (Ari Páll Pálsson, vefpóstur, 20. ágúst 2014).

Í töflu 1 hefur verið tekinn saman fjöldi þjónustueininga í ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík. Með þjónustueiningu er í þessari skýrslu átt við starfsstöð með beinni þjónustu til ferðamanna. Tegund þjónustunnar er óháð því hver rekstraraðilinn er eða hvort sami aðili standi að baki fleiri en einni þjónustueiningu, svo sem gistingu og afþreyingu. Frá árinu 2003 hefur fjöldinn tæplega tvöfaldast. Talsverð aukning hefur verið í framboði gistiheimila og heimagistingar auk þess sem nýtt nítján herbergja hótel opnaði árið 2012. Veitingastöðum og kaffihúsum fjölgaði úr fjórum í níu og afþreyingarfyrirtækjum úr sex í níu á sama tímabili.

Tafla 1. Fjöldi ferðaþjónustueininga á Húsavík 2003-2013. Flokkar 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 Hótel með veitingasölu 1 1 1 1 1 2 Gistiheimili/ heimagisting 3 4 6 6 9 10 Veitinga- og kaffihús 4 4 6 6 9 9 Söfn og handverkshús 3 4 4 4 4 4 Afþreying 6 6 6 6 6 9 Samgöngur 2 2 2 2 2 2 Alls 19 21 25 25 31 36

2.2 ÞRÓUN FERÐAÞJÓNUSTU Á HÚSAVÍK Ekki liggur fyrir hvert raunverulegt upphaf gisti- og veitingaþjónustu á Húsavík er, enda hefur lengi verið tekið vel á móti gestum í húsum bæjarins. Þó liggur fyrir að greiðasalan í Stangarbakka hófst árið 1871 og Vertshúsið (síðar Gamli-Baukur) hóf starfsemi sína árið 1880. Þá var Hótel Húsavíkur sett á laggirnar í Ásgarðsvegi 2 árið 1903 (Björn Helgi Jónsson og Sæmundur Rögnvaldsson, 1999). Upphaf skipulegrar ferðaþjónustu á Íslandi miðast gjarnan við árið 1936 þegar lög voru sett um Ferðaskrifstofu ríkisins. Með tilkomu millilandaflugsins um miðja síðustu öld urðu svo ákveðin þáttaskil í atvinnugreininni þegar heimsóknum erlendra ferðamanna til landsins fjölgaði verulega á sama tíma og utanlandsferðir Íslendinga tóku kipp (Birna G. Bjarnleifsdóttir, 1988). Á Húsavík tók umfang ferðaþjónustu í atvinnulífinu að vaxa á síðustu áratugum 20. aldar líkt og víða annars staðar um landið. Árið 1984 hófst skipulagt samstarf ferðaþjónustuaðila í bænum með stofnun Ferðamálafélags Húsavíkur. Markmið félagsins var að vera leiðandi afl í uppbyggingu ferðaþjónustu á svæðinu og vinna að kynningarmálum fyrir Húsavík sem ferðamannastaðar. Helstu áherslur í markaðsmálum voru á fegurð héraðsins og ferðir í Kverkföll. Félagið vann einnig að því að koma á fót upplýsingaþjónustu fyrir ferðamenn í bænum (Sæmundur Rögnvaldsson, 2003). Ferðaskrifstofa Húsavíkur hóf starfsemi sína um svipað leyti og Ferðamálafélagið var stofnað. Hún sá um farmiðasölu fyrir Flugfélag Íslands og Úrval Útsýn auk þess sem hún gegndi hlutverki upplýsingamiðstöðvar fyrir ferðamenn. Ferðaskrifstofan stóð þar að auki fyrir utanlandsferðum og skoðunarferðum á sjó þar sem boðið var upp á sjóstöng og fuglaskoðun. Sumarið 1992 var boðið upp á hestaferðir frá Húsavík en sú þjónusta vatt síðar upp á sig og varð að Hestamiðstöðinni Saltvík. Árið 1980 var Safnahúsið á Húsavík tekið í notkun, Hvalasafnið opnaði 1997 og Hið íslenska reðasafn var rekið á Húsavík árin 2004-2011 (Andri Valur Ívarsson og Óli Halldórsson, 2011; Rannveig Ólafsdóttir og Kristín Rut Kristjánsdóttir, 2009; Sæmundur Rögnvaldsson, 2003). Ákveðin straumhvörf áttu sér stað í ferðaþjónustu þegar hvalaskoðun hófst á Húsavík árið 1995 en hún er nú eitt helsta aðdráttarafl ferðamanna til bæjarins eins og kemur fram síðar í þessari skýrslu. Lega Húsavíkur við Skjálfandaflóa er góð í því tilliti þar sem fleiri hvalategundir sjást þar en á nokkrum öðrum stað við strendur Íslands auk þess sem meiri líkur eru að sjá stórhveli þar en annars staðar (Marianne Rasmussen, vefpóstur 20. janúar 2014). Frá upphafi hvalaskoðunar á Íslandi hefur Húsavík gegnt Mynd 5. Vörumerki forystuhlutverki í þróun atvinnugreinarinnar og var meðal annars Húsavíkur valin meðal tíu eftirsóknarverðustu hvalaskoðunarstaða í heiminum árið 2010 (Cunningham, Huijbens og Wearing, 2012; Homewood, 2010). Í bænum eru nú rekin þrjú hvalaskoðunarfyrirtæki auk hvalasafns sem hafa ásamt nokkrum

ferðaþjónustuaðilum sameinast um að markaðsetja Húsavík sem höfuðstað hvalaskoðunar á Íslandi. Á mynd 5 má sjá vörumerkið sem notað er í því verkefni („Sverðin slíðruð á Húsavík“, 2014). Því má segja að hvalir í Skjálfandaflóa gegni mikilvægu hlutverki við að laða ferðamenn til Húsavíkur, auk þess sem þeir draga ár hvert fjölda vísindamanna og nemenda til bæjarins í þeim tilgangi að vinna að rannsóknarverkefnum sínum. Eitt af rannsóknasetrum Háskóla Íslands er rekið á Húsavík og sérhæfir sig í rannsóknum á hvölum og lífríki þeirra. Þó lega Húsavíkur teljist vera einn af kostum staðarins yfir sumartímann telst hún meðal helstu veikleika hans yfir vetrartímann. Ástæða þess eru takmarkaðar samgöngur, slæmt ástand vega og skortur á aðgengi að vinsælum ferðamannastöðum (John S. Hull Associates Inc. ofl., 2008; Rannveig Ólafsdóttir og Kristín Rut Kristjánsdóttir, 2009). Nokkur bót hefur þó orðið á samgöngumálum í Þingeyjarsýslum síðustu ár auk þess sem Flugfélagið Ernir hóf áætlunarflug milli Húsavíkur og Reykjavíkur árið 2012. Vaðlaheiðargöng munu einnig verða mikil samgöngubót þegar þau opna. Ljóst er að samgöngumál munu engu að síður gegna mikilvægu hlutverki við að ná markmiðum stjórnvalda um minni árstíðasveiflu í ferðaþjónustu og betri dreifingu ferðamanna um landið (Edward Hákon Huijbens og Gunnar Þór Jóhannesson, 2013). Húsavíkurstofa er miðstöð fyrir hagsmunaaðila í verslun og þjónustu á svæðinu. Eitt af markmiðum hennar er að „gera Húsavík að eftirsóttum áfangastað með fjölbreyttri afþreyingu og þjónustu allan ársins hring, lengja dvalartíma ferðamanna og stuðla að hámarks virðisauka hagsmunaaðila af ferðaþjónustu“ (Húsavíkurstofa, 2014). Yfir sumartímann starfrækir Húsavíkurstofa upplýsingamiðstöð ferðamanna ásamt því að hafa umsjón með tjaldsvæði bæjarins. Auk Húsavíkurstofu hafa Atvinnuþróunarfélag Þingeyinga og Markaðsstofa Norðurlands komið að fjölda verkefna á sviði ferðamála á svæðinu. Ferðaþjónusta er sýnilegur þáttur í atvinnulífi og bæjarmynd Húsavíkur. Uppbygging atvinnugreinarinnar hefur byggt á sérstöðu staðarins líkt og víða annars staðar á Íslandi (Þingskjal 758, 2010-2011) og hafnarsvæðið hefur fengið nýjan svip með tilkomu hvalaskoðunar. Fjöldi hvalaskoðunarbáta liggur við höfnina auk þess sem veitingastaðir, kaffihús, söfn og fleiri þjónustufyrirtæki eru staðsett miðsvæðis. Hótel og gistiheimili hafa risið til að mæta aukinni eftirspurn ferðamanna og tjaldsvæði bæjarins er eftirsóttur áningarstaður. Sundlaugin og golfvöllurinn eru vinsæl yfir sumartímann og fjölbreyttar gönguleiðir má finna umhverfis bæinn. Miðbær Húsavíkur iðar af lífi yfir sumartímann og ferðamenn setja svip sinn á hann. Á sama tíma og nútímaþörfum ferðamanna er mætt á Húsavík hefur áhersla verið lögð á gömul gildi og varðveislu íslenskrar byggingarlistar. Húsnæði hefur víða verið endurgert og fært í upprunalegt horf í bænum auk þess sem eldri byggingar hafa staðið af sér nútímavæðinguna. Húsavíkurkirkja er gott dæmi um það, en hún var vígð árið 1907. Á hafnarsvæðinu stendur Gamli Baukur, sem reistur er úr rekaviði frá nálægum ströndum, og byggir á sögu vertshússins Gamla Bauks frá miðri 19. öld (Gamli Baukur, e.d.).

Hvalaskoðunarbátarnir eru flestir gamlir uppgerðir eikarbátar og lögð er áhersla á umhverfisvernd og varðveislu íslensku strandmenningarinnar í rekstri hvalaskoðunarfyrirtækja staðarins (Gentle Giants, e.d.; Níels Einarsson, 2009; Norðursigling, e.d.). ).

2.3 FJÖLDI FERÐAMANNA Engar fastmótaðar aðferðir eru til við talningu ferðamanna á landsbyggðinni, þó unnið sé að leiðum til að meta fjölda gesta út frá umferðargögnum Vegagerðarinnar. Í þessari skýrslu byggir talning ferðamanna á áætlunum út frá spurningakönnun Rannsókna og ráðgjafar ferðaþjónustunnar (RRF) í Flugstöð Leifs Eiríkssonar og talningu Ferðamálastofu. Einnig er horft til ferðavenjukannana Ferðamálastofu sumrin 2011 og 2014 (Ferðamálastofa, e.d,. 2012 og 2014; Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson, 2013). Fjöldi íslenskra gesta er áætlaður af RRF út frá símakönnun sem framkvæmd var af Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands árið 2012 auk fleiri kannanna sem framkvæmdar voru á tímabilinu 2005-2011. Árið 2012 voru taldir um 673 þúsund erlendir gestir til landsins með flugi eða Norrænu. Þeir eru taldir við brottför frá landinu. Inni í þeim tölum er ekki fjöldi farþega sem kom til landsins með skemmtiferðaskipum. Fjöldi þeirra er talinn í dagsferðum og árið 2012 voru þær um 212.230 í þrettán höfnum landsins (Kristinn Berg Gunnarsson, RMF, vefpóstur 2. desember 2014). Áætlaður fjöldi gesta til Húsavíkur árið 2012 var 195.000. Þar af voru erlendir gestir 126.000 og Íslendingar 69.000 (mynd 6). Af erlendu gestunum komu um 10.000 yfir vetrartímann eða tæp 8% (Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson, 2013).2 Árleg meðalaukning í fjölda íslenskra ferðamanna til Húsavíkur á tímabilinu 2005-2012 var 4,3% en 6,9% meðal erlendra ferðamanna. Árleg meðalaukning í fjölda ferðamanna í heiminum var á sama tíma 3,6% en 9,0% á Íslandi í heild. Aukningin hefur því verið heldur hægari á Húsavík en á landinu öllu þrátt fyrir að vera vel ofan við meðalaukningu í heiminum. Fjölgun erlendra ferðamanna á Íslandi hefur þó aukist mun hraðar allra síðustu ár og sem dæmi það hefur árleg meðalaukning verið um 20% tvö síðustu ár (2011-2013).

2 Ekki voru til upplýsingar um hlutfallsskiptinu gestakoma Íslendinga til Húsavíkur eftir árstíðum

Mynd 6. Áætlaður heildarfjöldi ferðamanna til Húsavíkur 2005-2012 (Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson, 2013).

Skýrsla RRF nær til ársins 2012 og því hafa engar fjöldatölur verið birtar yfir fjölda erlendra gesta á Húsavík eftir það. Ef miðað er við hlutfall þeirra sem heimsóttu Húsavík samkvæmt ferðavenjukönnunum Ferðamálastofu sumarið 2014 og veturinn 2013-2014 má þó gera ráð fyrir að fjöldi erlendra gesta á Húsavík hafi verið um 150.000 árið 2014 (Ferðamálastofa, 2014a og 2014b). Tölurnar á myndum 7 og 8 byggja á skýrslu RRF frá árinu 2013 um ferðamenn í Þingeyjarsýslum og þróunina frá 2005. Við gerð hennar var stuðst við tvær kannanir sem Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands framkvæmdi fyrir RRF auk ýmissa síma- og netkannana um ferðir Íslendinga innanlands. Fjöldatölur erlendra ferðamanna byggja á spurningakönnun RRF meðal erlendra brottfarargesta í Flugstöð Leifs Eiríkssonar og á Seyðisfirði (Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson, 2013).

Mynd 7. Áætlaður heildarfjöldi gesta í Þingeyjarsýslum og á völdum stöðum þar 2005-2012 (fjöldi í þúsundum) (Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson, 2013, bls. 16).

Á mynd 7 má sjá áætlaðan heildarfjölda ferðamanna í Þingeyjarsýslum og á völdum stöðum innan sýslanna á tímabilinu 2005-2012. Greina má talsverðan kipp í áætluðum fjölda íslenskra og erlendra gesta í Þingeyjarsýslum frá árinu 2010. Á milli áranna 2011 og 2012 fjölgaði gestum í sýslunum um 14%, en þegar litið er til einstakra staða á svæðinu var vöxturinn hlutfallslega mestur við Dettifoss þar sem aukningin nam 25% á milli áranna. Nýr vegur við Dettifoss var opnaður sumarið 2011 sem hefur áhrif á þessa aukningu auk þess sem líklega má rekja ástæðu færri gesta í Ásbyrgi til sömu framkvæmdar.3 Mynd 8 sýnir áætlaðan fjölda erlendra gesta á sömu svæðum. Þar hefur þróunin verið nokkuð í takt við talningar Ferðamálastofu í Flugstöð Leifs Eiríkssonar. Á milli áranna 2011-2012 nam fjölgun erlendra gesta til landsins um 19% og í Þingeyjarsýslum var hlutfallið það sama samkvæmt talningum RFF. Fjölgun erlendra gesta við Dettifoss var 23% á milli áranna 2011-2012.

3 Bifreiðatalningar í Jökulsárgljúfrum árin 2010 og 2011 sýna 18% fækkun bifreiða við Ásbyrgi á milli ára og 20% fækkun við Dettifoss að austan á sama tíma (Hjörleifur Finnsson ofl., 2012). Á sama tímabili nam fjölgun gesta við Dettifoss 5% samkvæmt ferðamannatalningum RMF. (Ekki voru til tölugögn yfir fjölda bifreiða við Dettifoss að vestan árið 2010).

Mynd 8. Áætlaður fjöldi erlendra gesta í Þingeyjarsýslum og á völdum stöðum þar 2005- 2012 (fjöldi í þúsundum) (Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson, 2013, bls. 16).

2.3.1 Fjöldi farþega í hvalaskoðun á Húsavík Hvalaskoðunarferðir á Húsavík verða að teljast eitt mikilvægasta aðdráttarafl ferðamanna til staðarins. Fjöldi farþega hefur aukist jafnt og þétt frá árinu 1995 en alls hafa fjögur fyrirtæki boðið upp á hvalaskoðunarferðir á Húsavík frá upphafi. Á mynd 9 má sjá fjölda farþega í hvalaskoðun á árunum 1995-2013 á Íslandi. Tímabil hvalaskoðunarferða hefur lengst frá því sem áður var og hefst það nú í byrjun apríl og stendur út nóvember á Húsavík þó veður og vindar geti haft áhrif á framboð ferða. Norðursigling og Sjóferðir Arnars hófu hvalaskoðun árið 1995. Áður höfðu verið gerðar tilraunir með hvalaskoðun á Höfn í Hornafirði 1991-1993 og í Keflavík 1994 (Rasmussen, 2014).

Mynd 9. Fjöldi farþega í hvalaskoðun eftir svæðum 1995-2013 (Rannveig Grétarsdóttir formaður Hvalaskoðunarsamtaka Íslands, vefpóstur 22. apríl 2014).4

Hvalaskoðun er sú tegund afþreyingar sem hefur vaxið hvað hraðast í ferðaþjónustu á Íslandi frá árinu 1996 (Anderson, Gothall og Wende, 2014; Edward H. Huijbens, 2013). Heildarfjöldi farþega í hvalaskoðun á Íslandi árið 2013 var 200.000 og því er hlutfall Húsavíkur tæp 32%. Árlegur meðalvöxtur í fjölda farþega á Húsavík síðastliðin tíu ár (2004-2013) er 9% á sama tíma og hann er rúm 15% í Reykjavík. Sveiflurnar hafa verið meiri á öðrum stöðum á landinu og nokkuð um að hvalaskoðunarfyrirtæki hafi flutt starfsemi sína af landsbyggðinni til höfuðborgarsvæðisins (Icewhale, e.d.). Hraðari vöxtur í Reykjavík skýrist meðal annars af lengra tímabili hvalaskoðunar, en þar er boðið upp á ferðir allan ársins hring auk þess sem fjöldi ferðamanna hefur aukist hraðar á höfuðborgarsvæðinu en á Húsavík á þessum árum.

2.3.2 Fjöldi gesta Hvalasafnsins á Húsavík Hvalasafnið á Húsavík var stofnað árið 1997 og hefur það markmið að miðla fræðslu og upplýsingum um hvali og búsvæði þeirra. Safnið er í gamla sláturhúsi Kaupfélags Þingeyinga á Húsavík og frumkvöðull að stofnun þess var Ásbjörn Björgvinsson sem jafnframt gegndi stöðu forstöðumanns safnsins fyrstu ellefu árin (Hvalasafnið á Húsavík,

4 Upplýsingar um fjölda farþega í hvalaskoðun á Húsavík voru fengnar frá hvalaskoðunarfyrirtækjunum Sjóferðum Arnars (1995-1999), Norðursiglingu (1995-2013), Gentle Giants/Hvalaferðum (2001-2013), og Salka Whale Watching (2013). Fjöldi farþega frá 1995-2004 eru samantekt Hvalasafnsins og fjöldinn frá 2005-2013 er samantekt höfundar.Fjöldatölur í Reykjavík og öðrum stöðum koma frá Icewhale sbr. tilvísun.

e.d.). Fjölda gesta frá árinu 2002 til 2013 má sjá á mynd 10. Á milli áranna 2012 og 2013 fjölgaði gestum um 21%. Mest aukning var meðal fyrirfram skipulagðra hópa, eða 81% á milli ára. Fjölgun gesta á eigin vegum var 13% yfir sama tímabil (Einar Gíslason, framkvæmdastjóri Hvalasafnsins, munnleg heimild 15. apríl 2014).

Mynd 10. Fjöldi gesta Hvalasafnsins 2002-2013 (Einar Gíslason, vefpóstur, 11. apríl 2014).

2.3.3 Fjöldi farþega með skemmtiferðaskipum til Húsavíkur Árið 2013 var metfjöldi í komu farþega með skemmtiferðaskipum til Húsavíkur eða alls 2.850 farþegar með sex skipum.5 Árið 2014 var fjöldinn 1.320 með sjö skipum. Skipin sem komu sumarið 2013 voru talsvert stærri en hin árin sem útskýrir meiri fjölda farþega. Sveiflurnar á milli ára eru talsverðar eins og sjá má á mynd 11. Hlutdeild Húsavíkurhafnar í fjölda dagsferða farþega skemmtiferðaskipa er mjög lág á landsvísu, eða einungis um 1% sumarið 2013 á meðan sama hlutfall var 31% á Akureyri og 17% á Ísafirði svo dæmi séu tekin (Kristinn Berg Gunnarsson, RMF, vefpóstur 2. desember 2014).

3.000 2848

2.500

2.000

1.500 1364 1289 1320

1.000 684 464 500 264 306

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Mynd 11. Fjöldi farþega með skemmtiferðaskipum til Húsavíkur 2007-2014 (Kristinn Berg Gunnarsson, Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála, tölvupóstur 30. janúar 2014 og Stefán Stefánsson, Húsavíkurhöfn, vefpóstur 19. nóvember 2014).

2.4 GISTINÆTUR Í ÞINGEYJARSÝSLUM Hagstofa Íslands hóf reglubundna söfnun upplýsinga um fjölda gistinátta og framboð á gistirými árið 1984. Öllum þeim sem selja gistiþjónustu ber samkvæmt lögum að skila Hagstofunni mánaðarlegum gistiskýrslum þar sem fram kemur fjöldi gesta, hvenær árs gististaðurinn er opinn og fjöldi gistinátta. Niðurstöður talningarinnar eru sundurliðaðar eftir landsvæðum og birtar árlega í Hagtíðindum Hagstofunnar (Hagstofa Íslands, e.d.a.; Hagstofa Íslands, 2009).

5 Fjöldi farþega með skemmtiferðaskipum telst ekki með í heildarfjölda farþega til Húsavíkur í kafla 2.3. (Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson, 2013) (United Nations, 2010). Inni í þessum farþegatölum skipanna er ekki fjöldi áhafnarmeðlima sem var sumarið 2013 alls 1.321 á Húsavík. Reikna má með að um 40% þeirra séu á frívakt í höfn.

Við gerð þessarar rannsóknar tók Hagstofan saman sérstaka skrá yfir gistinætur í Þingeyjarsýslum fyrir tímabilið 2004-2013. Vegna rekjanleika var ekki hægt að sundurliða tölurnar niður á sérstaka staði innan sýslunnar og fjöldi gistinátta var gefinn upp í eftirfarandi þremur flokkum af sömu ástæðu: 1. Hótel og gistiheimili. 2. Tjaldsvæði og skálar í óbyggðum. 3. Heimagisting, farfuglaheimili og orlofshús.6 Heildargistináttafjöldi á landinu öllu árið 2013 var 4.280.685 sem er um 15% aukning frá fyrra ári. Þar af voru gistinætur erlendra ríkisborgara 3.366.252 sem eru um 79% af heildarfjölda gistinátta. Af tegundum gististaða var hlutfall hótela og gistiheimila hæst, eða um 66% af heildargistináttafjölda. Næst komu tjaldsvæði með 12%, farfuglaheimili með 7% og íbúðagisting með 7% (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014a). Í Þingeyjarsýslum var fjöldi gistinátta árið 2013 alls 206.808 eða um 5% af heildargistináttafjölda landsins. Aukningin á milli áranna 2012 og 2013 var um 12%. Hlutfall gistinátta erlendra ríkisborgara árið 2013 var um 79% í Þingeyjarsýslum, eða 164.313 gistinætur, sem er sama hlutfall og á landinu í heild. Síðastliðin 10 ár hefur gistinóttum fjölgað talsvert hægar í Þingeyjarsýslum en á landinu í heild, eða um 40% á sama tíma og aukningin hefur verið um 101% á landinu öllu. Þegar vöxtur í hverjum landshluta er skoðaður á tímabilinu 2004-2013 kemur í ljós að hann er minnstur á Norðurlandi eystra eða um 57%.7 Til samanburðar var vöxtur í fjölda gistinátta á höfuðborgarsvæðinu 132%8 yfir sama tímabil. Á mynd 12 má sjá hvernig fjöldi gistinátta í Þingeyjarsýslum hefur þróast síðastliðin tíu ár. Gistinóttum Íslendinga í Þingeyjarsýslum hefur lítið fjölgað, eða einungis um 9% á meðan fjöldi gistinátta erlendra ríkisborgara hefur aukist um 52%.

6 Gistinætur í orlofshúsum félagasamtaka, stéttar- og starfsmannafélaga eru ekki taldar með. 7 Þar af er vöxturinn í fjölda gistinátta erlendra gesta 90% og Íslendinga 14% 8 Þar af er vöxturinn í fjölda gistinátta erlendra gesta 128% og Íslendinga 184%

Mynd 12. Fjöldi gistinátta í Þingeyjarsýslum 2004-2013 (Hildur Kristjánsdóttir, Hagstofu Íslands, vefpóstar 16. mars 2013 og 30. apríl 2014).

Samkvæmt Hagstofunni var fjöldi hótela og gistiheimila í sýslunni alls 27, fjöldi staða í flokknum heimagisting, orlofshús og farfuglaheimili var 23 og fjöldi tjaldsvæða og skála í óbyggðum alls 22 árið 2013. Á mynd 13 má sjá hvernig heildarfjöldi gistinátta hefur þróast eftir tegundum gistingar í Þingeyjarsýslum. Athygli vekur að aukning í gistináttafjölda hefur verið töluverð á hótelum og gistiheimilum, auk þess sem þeim hefur fjölgað í heimagistingu, á farfuglaheimilum og í orlofshúsum. Fjöldi gistinátta á tjaldsvæðum og skálum í óbyggðum er nánast óbreyttur frá árinu 2004.

140.000

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

- 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Hótel og gistiheimili Tjaldsvæði og skálar í ób. Heimagisting, orlofshús, farfuglah.

Mynd 13. Heildarfjöldi gistinátta í Þingeyjarsýslum eftir tegundum gististaða 2004-2013 (Hildur Kristjánsdóttir, vefpóstar 16. mars 2013 og 30. apríl 2014).

Þegar gistinætur í Þingeyjarsýslum eru flokkaðar eftir tegund gistingar kemur í ljós að hlutfall gististaða er nokkuð frábrugðið því sem er á landinu í heild árið 2013. Hlutfall hótela og gistiheimila9 var um 58% í Þingeyjarsýslum en 73% á landinu öllu á meðan hlutfall tjaldsvæða og skála í óbyggðum var um 28% í Þingeyjarsýslum, en 13% á landinu í heild (tjaldsvæði 12% og skálar í óbyggðum 1%). Ef tegundir gististaða eru skoðaðar sérstaklega árið 201210 kemur í ljós að á hótelum og gistiheimilum var hlutfall Íslendinga 15% í Þingeyjarsýslum, 27% á NA landi og 17% á landinu í heild (mynd 14) (Hagstofa Íslands e.d.c.; Hildur Kristjánsdóttir, vefpóstur 16.mars 2013). Ætla má að hlutfall Íslendinga á hótelum og gistiheimilum á Eyjafjarðarsvæðinu sé því töluvert hærra en meðahlutfall landsins miðað við þessar tölur.

9 Hér er íbúðagisting (7%) meðtalin. 10 Árið 2013 breyttust aðferðir Hagstofunnar við birtingu gistináttafjölda þannig að NA- og NV-land var tekið saman. Því er einungis birtur samanburður Þingeyjarsýslna og NA lands til ársins 2012 eftir tegundum gististaða.

15%

85%

Íslendingar Útlendingar

Mynd 14. Hlutfall Íslendinga og útl. af gistinóttum á hótelum og gistih. í Þingeyjarsýslum 2012.

Á tjaldsvæðum og skálum í óbyggðum voru 36% gesta Íslendingar í Þingeyjarsýslum árið 2012 (mynd 15). Á tjaldsvæðum á NA landi öllu var hlutfall Íslendinga 57% og 54% fyrir landið í heild á sama tíma. Því er ljóst að hlutfall erlendra gesta á tjaldsvæðum er hærra í Þingeyjarsýslum en á landinu í heild. (Hagstofa Íslands e.d.c.; Hildur Kristjánsdóttir, vefpóstur 16.mars 2013).

36% 64%

Íslendingar Útlendingar

Mynd 15. Hlutfall Ísl. og útl. af gistinóttum á tjaldsv. og skálum í óbyggðum í Þingeyjarsýslum 2012.

Hlutfall Íslendinga var lægst þegar skoðaður var flokkurinn heimagisting, orlofshús og farfuglaheimili, eða einungis 7% (mynd 16) (Hildur Kristjánsdóttir, vefpóstur 16.mars 2013). Gistinætur í þessum flokkum eru undir lágmarksfjölda Hagstofunnar m.t.t. rekjanleika og því er þessum tegundum steypt saman í einn flokk. Taka ber fram að orlofshús í eigu félagasamtaka eru undanskilin í þessum tölum.

93%

Íslendingar Útlendingar

Mynd 16. Hlutfall Ísl. og útl. af gistinóttum í heimag., orlofsh. og farfuglah. í Þingeyjars. 2012.

Ef einungis er horft til fjölda gistinátta erlendra gesta og þær bornar saman við fjölda heimsókna þeirra til landsins, má sjá mikla jákvæða fylgni milli þessara tveggja þátta á landinu í heild (bláar línur á mynd 17). Þegar gistinæturnar eru hins vegar teknar og bornar saman á milli svæða má sjá að þróunin er heldur hægari í Þingeyjarsýslum en á Íslandi öllu (brotalínur á mynd 17). Á þessu tíu ára tímabili jókst fjöldi gistinátta erlendra gesta á Íslandi um 128% en einungis um 52% í Þingeyjarsýslum. Norðausturland lendir á milli þessara svæða með 90% aukningu á tímabilinu. Ef gistinætur og fjöldi erlendra gesta eru svo borin saman má sjá að fylgni þeirra er töluvert minni í Þingeyjarsýslum en á landinu öllu eða 0,94 á móti 0,99. Fjölgun heimsókna erlendra gesta í sýslunum skilar sér því ekki í sömu fjölgun gistinátta þeirra á svæðinu.

240

220

200 Ísland gistinætur útl. Ísland erl. ferðamenn NA-land gistinætur útl. 180 Þingeyjars. erl. ferðam. Þingeyjars. gistin. útl. 160

140

120

100 Vísitala 2004: 100

80 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Mynd 17. Þróun í fjölda gistinátta og heimsókna erlendra gesta.

2.4.1 Árstíðasveifla í fjölda gistinátta Ljóst er að árstíðasveiflan er mikil í gistiþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslum líkt og víðar um land. Eins og fram hefur komið í þessari skýrslu áttu heimsóknir erlendra gesta til Húsavíkur árið 2012 sér stað í um 92% tilfella yfir sumarmánuðina (júní–ágúst) (Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson, 2013). Á mynd 18 má sjá hvernig fjöldi gistinátta dreifist eftir mánuðum árið 2013 eftir því hvort um er að ræða íslenska gesti eða erlenda.

Mynd 18. Heildarfjöldi gistinátta í Þingeyjarsýslum 2013 á öllum tegundum gististaða (Hildur Kristjánsdóttir, vefpóstur 30. apríl 2014).

Mynd 19 sýnir sveifluna þar sem meðalhlutfall svæða af heildargistináttafjölda erlendra gesta er greint á tímabilinu 2004-2013. Í júní, júlí og ágúst á þessu tímabili var meðalhlutfall NA lands af heildargistináttafjölda útlendinga á Íslandi um 15,8%, en þar af eru Þingeyjarsýslur með 8,9%. Yfir vetrarmánuðina eru hlutföllin 4,3% fyrir NA land og 1,6% fyrir Þingeyjarsýslur (Hagstofa Íslands, e.d.b; Hildur Kristjánsdóttir, vefpóstur 30. apríl 2014).

100%

90%

80% Höfuðborgarsvæði

70% Suðurnes Vesturland 60% Vestfirðir 50% Norðurland vestra

40% Norðurland eystra Austurland 30% Suðurland 20% Þingeyjarsýslur

10%

0% jan feb mar apr maí jún júl ágú sep okt nóv des

Mynd 19. Hlutfall svæða af heildargistináttafjölda útlendinga eftir mánuðum á öllum tegundum gististaða. Meðaltal 2004-2013 (Hagstofa Íslands, e.d.b; Hildur Kristjánsdóttir, vefpóstur 30.apríl 2014. Byggt á (Edward Hákon Huijbens og Gunnar Þór Jóhannesson, 2013, bls. 59).

Á mynd 20 kemur árstíðasveiflan í gistinóttum útlendinga í Þingeyjarsýslum í ljós, en greina má aukningu á jaðartímum frá september 2012. Sérstakar vetrar- og norðurljósaferðir hafa á sama tíma aukist töluvert sem skýra að einhverju leyti þessa þróun. Samkvæmt nýrri könnun Ferðamálastofu meðal erlendra ferðamanna á Íslandi veturinn 2013/14 kemur fram að 42,8% aðspurðra greiddu fyrir norðurljósaferð veturinn 2013/14 á Íslandi (Ferðamálastofa, 2014; „Sprenging í sölu norðurljósaferða“, 2012).

60.000

50.000

2013 40.000 2012 2011 2010 30.000 2009 2008 2007

20.000 2006 2005 2004

10.000

- jan feb mar apr maí jún júl ágú sep okt nóv des

Mynd 20. Heildarfjöldi gistinátta útlendinga í Þingeyjarsýslum 2004-2013 eftir mánuðum á öllum tegundum gististaða (Hildur Kristjánsdóttir, vefpóstur 30.apríl 2014).

Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála hefur notað svokallaðan Gini stuðul við útreikninga á dreifingu gistinátta yfir mánuði ársins eftir landshlutum. Stuðullinn er reiknaður á bilinu 0-1 og sýnir hve jöfn dreifingin er, í þessu tilfelli eftir mánuðum. Alveg jöfn dreifing gistinátta á alla mánuði ársins fær þannig gildið 0 og við gildið 1 eru allar gistinætur ársins á einum mánuði. Í töflu 2 má sjá þróun Gini stuðulsins eftir landshlutum þar sem greina má jákvæða breytingu á árinu 2013 í flestum hlutum landsins. Breytinga gætir þó strax árið 2012 á norðausturlandi þar sem stuðullinn lækkar um 8,6% frá fyrra ári og um 4,9% árið 2013. Með samanburði svæða í töflunni má sjá hve árstíðasveiflan í gistinóttum er meiri á svæðum utan höfuðborgarsvæðisins og nágrennis þess, þrátt fyrir hæga þróun í rétta átt um lengingu ferðamannatímabilsins (Edward Huijbens, vefpóstur 3. desember 2014 og Lilja Berglind Rögnvaldsdóttir, 2013).

Tafla 2. Gini stuðull gistinátta útl. á öllum gististöðum 1998-2013 (Edward Huijbens, vefpóstur 3. desember 2014)

Ár Höfuðb. Suður- Vestur- Vest- Norðurl. Norðurl. Austur- Suður- svæði nes land firðir vestra eystra land land 1998 0,32 0,44 0,66 0,75 0,78 0,75 0,77 0,72 1999 0,29 0,49 0,70 0,74 0,77 0,74 0,76 0,73 2000 0,28 0,46 0,71 0,75 0,77 0,73 0,76 0,72 2001 0,25 0,36 0,68 0,74 0,76 0,71 0,75 0,72 2002 0,27 0,44 0,70 0,73 0,76 0,73 0,73 0,71 2003 0,27 0,42 0,70 0,74 0,74 0,73 0,73 0,68 2004 0,28 0,41 0,69 0,75 0,75 0,73 0,72 0,68 2005 0,29 0,44 0,65 0,74 0,74 0,72 0,73 0,66 2006 0,27 0,43 0,65 0,71 0,73 0,70 0,69 0,67 2007 0,26 0,42 0,66 0,69 0,75 0,70 0,68 0,66 2008 0,24 0,44 0,65 0,70 0,74 0,71 0,70 0,65 2009 0,27 0,43 0,68 0,70 0,71 0,72 0,71 0,65 2010 0,26 0,43 0,69 0,71 0,71 0,70 0,71 0,62 2011 0,26 0,44 0,66 0,71 0,71 0,70 0,68 0,62 2012 0,20 0,39 0,64 0,66 0,71 0,64 0,67 0,59 2013 0,17 0,36 0,55 0,66 0,67 0,61 0,63 0,53 Meðaltal 0,26 0,43 0,67 0,72 0,74 0,71 0,71 0,66

2.4.2 Tjaldsvæðið á Húsavík Í þessari rannsókn reyndist ekki unnt að fá sundurliðaðar tölur um gistinætur fyrir Húsavík vegna rekjanleika talnanna til einstakra fyrirtækja. Tölurnar hér að framan ná því ýmist yfir Þingeyjarsýslur í heild eða hvern landshluta líkt og í töflu 2. Hægt er þó að birta tölur fyrir tjaldsvæðið á Húsavík þar sem Húsavíkurstofa hefur tekið saman fjölda gistinátta fyrir tjaldsvæðið. Á myndum 21–23 eru upplýsingar um þjóðerni gesta, heildarfjölda gistinátta og meðaldvalarlengd gesta á tjaldsvæðinu á Húsavík. Á mynd 21 má greina ákveðinn stíganda í fjölda gistinátta á tjaldsvæðinu á Húsavík undanfarin níu ár. Athygli vekur þó fækkun sumarið 2013, þrátt fyrir talsverða fjölgun gistinátta í Þingeyjarsýslum sama ár.

Mynd 21. Fjöldi gistinátta á tjaldsvæðinu á Húsavík 2005-2013 (Einar Gíslason, vefpóstur 5.mars 2014).

Á mynd 22 má sjá meðaldvalarlengd hvers árs eftir því hvort um er að ræða Íslendinga eða útlendinga. Sumarið 2013 gistu 4.289 erlendir gestir á tjaldsvæðinu að meðaltali í 1,08 sólarhringa, eða 4.623 gistinætur. Sömu tölur fyrir Íslendinga eru 1.344 gestir sem gistu að meðaltali í 1,63 sólarhringa eða 2.190 gistinætur. Meðaldvalarlengd síðustu 9 ára er 1,21 sólarhringur meðal erlendra gesta og 1,71 sólarhringur meðal Íslendinga. Því er ljóst að dvalarlengd gesta sumarið 2013 var undir meðaltali í báðum tilvikum.

2,5 2,3

2,0 1,9 1,8 1,7 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,5 1,4 1,5 1,4 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,2 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,0

0,5

0,0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Íslendingar Útlendingar

Mynd 22. Meðaldvalarlengd gesta á tjaldsvæðinu á Húsavík 2005-2013 (Einar Gíslason, vefpóstur 5.mars 2014).

Annað 18% Þýskaland 27%

Belgía 3% Danmörk 3% Austurríki 3% Bretland 3% Ítalía 4%

Holland 6% Frakkland 21% Spánn 6% Sviss 6%

Mynd 23. Þjóðerni gesta á tjaldsvæðinu á Húsavík sumarið 2013 (gestakomur) (Einar Gíslason, vefpóstur 5.mars 2014)

Á mynd 23 má sjá skiptingu erlendra gesta á tjaldsvæðinu eftir þjóðernum sumarið 2013. Mikill meirihluti gesta kemur frá Mið- og Suður-Evrópu þar sem Þýskaland og Frakkland eru algengustu löndin. Einungis 2% gesta komu frá Bandaríkjunum og 3% frá Bretlandi.

Ekki lágu fyrir töluleg gögn af öðrum tjaldsvæðum til samanburðar við þessar niðurstöður. Engu að síður telur höfundur að þróun dvalartíma erlendra gesta á tjaldsvæðinu frá árinu 2008 sé athyglisverð og beri að skoða í víðara samhengi. Dvalartími hefur á þessum árum styst um 25% sem er hátt hlutfall og mikilvægt að komast að ástæðu þessarar þróunar.

3 KÖNNUN Á FERÐAVENJUM 2013 OG 2014

3.1 BAKGRUNNUR RANNSÓKNARINNAR Spurningakönnunin sem lögð var fyrir erlenda ferðamenn á Húsavík sumrin 2013 og 2014 er svokölluð ferðavenjukönnun (e. visitor survey) sem hefur það meginmarkmið að fá mynd af samsetningu þeirra erlendu ferðamanna sem heimsækja Húsavík, kanna ferðavenjur þeirra og ferðahegðun auk þess að kortleggja neyslumynstur þeirra á áfangastað. Með því að endurtaka spurningar úr fyrri könnunum Þekkingarnets Þingeyinga (ÞÞ) frá 2008 og 2010 gefst kostur á að greina þróun í komum ferðamanna til staðarins, auk þess að kanna hvort breytingar hafi orðið á útgjöldum þeirra og ferðahegðun. Vinna við rannsóknina hófst í maí 2013.

3.2 SPURNINGAKÖNNUN Spurningakönnunin11 sem er grundvöllur þessarar rannsóknar er að mestu leyti byggð á könnununum ÞÞ sem voru lagðar fyrir árin 2008 og 2010. Þessi könnun var þó útvíkkuð frá fyrri könnunum og löguð að öðrum rannsóknum sem unnar hafa verið á Íslandi til að gefa möguleika á frekari samanburði milli svæða. Sérstaklega var horft til könnunar Rannsóknamiðstöðvar ferðamála (RMF) sem framkvæmd var meðal erlendra brottfararfarþega í millilandaflugi á Akureyri sumrin 2009-2012. Samkvæmt Aþjóðaferðamálastofnuninni (World Tourism Organization, 1999) er mikilvægt að hafa svör við eftirfarandi spurningum til að geta unnið að árangursríkri stefnumótun og markaðssetningu í ferðaþjónustu:  Hver er það sem heimsækir staðinn?  Hvers vegna, hvaðan og hvenær kemur gesturinn?  Hve lengi dvelur hann á staðnum?  Hvar dvelur hann?  Hvers konar gistiaðstöðu velur hann?  Hve mikil eru útgjöld hans ?

Við hönnun spurningalistans nú voru ofangreinar spurningar hafðar í forgrunni. Einnig var byggt á áhersluþáttum Cooper, Fletcher, Fyall, Gilbert og Wanhill (2005) við mælingar á samsetningu ferðamanna (e. visitor profile) og ferða- og neysluvenjum þeirra, líkt og gert var í flugvallarkönnun RMF. Áherslan er á gestina sjálfa og ferðir þeirra eins lýst er í töflu 3.

11 Sjá viðauka 7.1. og 7.2.

Tafla 3. Áhersluþættir við mælingar á samsetningu ferðamanna (Cooper ofl., 2005; Eyrún Jenný Bjarnadóttir og Edward H. Huijbens, 2012, bls. 9). Gestur Ferð Aldur Búsetuland og áfangastaður Kyn Ferðamáti Hvernig ferðast? (einn, í hópi, með Tilgangur ferðar fjölskyldu) Búsetuland Dvalarlengd Starf Gistimáti Tekjur Afþreying sem nýtt er Staðir heimsóttir Hópferð eða ferð á eigin vegum

Flestar spurningarnar voru lokaðar (e. structured questions) þar sem ferðamenn merktu við þann svarmöguleika sem átti best við í þeirra tilfelli. Spurningar sem snéru að búsetulandi, aldri og útgjöldum voru opnar, svo svarendur gátu skrifað nákvæmar upplýsingar eftir því sem við átti hverju sinni. Þar að auki gafst svarendum kostur á að koma athugasemdum á framfæri í opinni spurningu. 3.2.1 Spurningar tengdar ferðamanninum Þátttakendur í könnuninni voru beðnir um að gefa ákveðnar grunnupplýsingar um sjálfa sig, svo sem aldur, kyn, búsetu, menntun og tekjur (s.k. lýðfræðilegar breytur). Þessar upplýsingar voru notaðar til að varpa ljósi á samsetningu gestanna. Í fyrri könnunum hafði verið spurt um búsetuland, aldur og kyn og verða þeir þættir bornir saman við niðurstöður þessarar könnunar. Upplýsingar um menntun og tekjur erlendra ferðamanna á Húsavík hafa ekki birst áður. 3.2.2 Ferðatengdar spurningar Spurt var um eftirfarandi þætti varðandi ferðalag svarenda til að fá sem gleggsta mynd af ferðamynstri erlendra ferðamanna á Húsavík;  tilgangur ferðar,  ferðafélagar,  dvalarlengd á Íslandi,  dvalarlengd á Húsavík,  ferðamáti til Húsavíkur,  afþreying sem nýtt er á Húsavík,  gistimáti á Húsavík.

Einblínt var á dvöl ferðamanna á Húsavík svo einungis var spurt um ferðahegðun á Húsavík, en ekki á Norðurlandi eða landinu öllu. Í fyrri könnunum var spurt um ferðafélaga, dvalarlengd á Húsavík og gistimáta á Húsavík svo spurningar um tilgang ferðar, ferðamáta og afþreyingu voru nýjar í þessari könnun.

3.2.3 Spurningar um útgjöld ferðamanna Spurt var um útgjöld ferðamanna (e. visitor expenditure) síðustu 24 klukkustundirnar. Ferðamenn áætluðu útgjöld sín á sólarhring, eða á meðan dvöl þeirra stóð ef hún varaði skemur en 24 tíma. Notast var við sömu útgjaldaflokka og í fyrri könnunum auk þess sem flugvallarkönnun RMF var höfð til hliðsjónar við gerð spurninga og útreikninga. Helstu útgjaldaflokkar könnunarinnar voru eftirfarandi:  Gisting.  Kostnaður vegna samgangna (s.s. eldsneyti).  Veitingastaðir / kaffihús.  Verslun í matvöruverslunum (s.s. matur og drykkur).  Afþreying (s.s. aðgangseyrir, söfn, skoðunarferðir).  Verslun (s.s. fatnaður og aðrar vörur).  Minjagripir.  Annað. Erfitt getur verið að fá upplýsingar um ferðir og dvalarstaði ferðmanna og því er yfirleitt notast við svokölluð hentugleikaúrtök (e. convenience samples) í ferðavenjukönnunum. Þau lýsa sér þannig að svarendur verða fyrir valinu vegna þess að þeir eru staddir á ákveðnum stað á ákveðnum tíma (Finn, Elliott-White og Walton, 2000). Algengasta framkvæmd þessara spurningakannanna er á vettvangi (e. on-site surveys) þar sem ferðamenn eru ýmist spurðir spurninga af spyrli eða þeim er afhentur spurningalisti sem þeir svara sjálfir (Vaske, 2008). Kosturinn við kannanir sem spyrill afhendir er að spyrillinn getur útskýrt tilgang og mikilvægi rannsóknarinnar sem leiðir yfirleitt til hærra svarhlutfalls en ella. Einnig getur spyrillinn aðstoðað ef útskýra þarf spurningar fyrir svarendum (Vaske, 2008). Þrátt fyrir þessa kosti, hefur úrtaksaðferðin ýmsar takmarkanir. Hætta er á kerfisbundnum skekkjum svo sem valskekkjum (e. selection biases) sem er ein tegund úrtaksskekkja (e. sampling biases) og felur í sér hættu á því að val spyrils á viðmælendum endurspegli ekki þýðið sem þeir koma úr. Því verður ekki hægt að alhæfa um niðurstöður könnunarinnar, heldur ber að túlka þær sem vísbendingu um ákveðið ástand eða stöðu og jafnvel nota þær til frekari rannsókna síðar (Malhotra, 1999; FedNor, e.d.). Þegar úrtaksstærð í ferðamannakönnunum er ákveðin er gjarnan miðað við um 400 svarendur til að uppfylla skilyrði um 95% öryggismörk (Vaske, 2008; Veal, 2006). Við gerð þessarar könnunar var lágmarksstærð úrtaks reiknað 383 svör samkvæmt jöfnu Dillman (2007) (í Vaske, 2008, bls. 180):

(Np)(p)(1-p) Ns = (Np-1)(B/C)2+(p)(1-p)

Ns = Lágmarksstærð úrtaks.

Np = Stærð þýðis (í þessu tilfelli fjöldi erlendra ferðamanna á Húsavík). p= líkur á að spurningu sé svarað á ákveðinn hátt (0,5). B = ásættanleg skekkjumörk (0,05). C= Z gildi (1,96).

Áætlaður fjöldi erlendra ferðamanna á Húsavík sumarið 2013 var um 150.000 svo könnunin var vel yfir lágmarksstærð úrtaks miðað við 95% öryggismörk þar sem fjöldi gildra svara árið 2013 var 470 og 492 árið 2014. Könnunin var lögð fyrir á tímabilinu 1. júlí til 20. ágúst sumarið 2013 og 18. júní til 21. ágúst sumarið 2014. Hún var framkvæmd á Upplýsingamiðstöð ferðamála á Húsavík sem hefur sameiginlegan inngang með Hvalasafninu. Spyrill frá Þekkingarneti Þingeyinga og starfsfólk upplýsingamiðstöðvarinnar óskuðu eftir þátttöku ferðamanna sem gátu í flestum tilfellum svarað könnuninni án aðstoðar. Könnunin fór fram á opnunartíma miðstöðvarinnar. Svarhlutfall sumarið 2014 var 74%.12

12 Svarhlutfall mælist sem hlutfall þeirra sem svöruðu könnuninni af öllum þeim sem beðnir voru að taka þátt. Í þessu tilviki samþykktu 74% aðspurðra þátttöku. Svarhlutfall sumarið 2013 var ekki mælt.

3.3 ÚRVINNSLA OG MAT Á GÖGNUM Þegar söfnun svara lauk voru svörin færð inn í tölfræðiforritið SPSS. Notast var til jafns við SPSS og Excel við úrvinnslu gagnanna. Við útreikninga á útgjöldum ferðamanna í erlendum gjaldmiðlum var notast við miðgengi Seðlabanka Íslands þann 15. júlí 2013 í fyrri könnuninni, en miðgengi þess dags sem spurningakönnunin var lögð fyrir árið 2014. Í opinberum gögnum um erlenda ferðamenn á Íslandi hefur ekki legið fyrir fastmótuð skipting eftir markaðssvæðum. Ferðamálastofa telur erlenda ferðamenn við tolleftirlit brottfararfarþega í Flugstöð Leifs Eiríkssonar. Þar eru ferðamenn flokkaðir eftir 17 þjóð- löndum sem teljast til eftirfarandi markaðssvæða (tafla 4) (Oddný Þóra Óladóttir, 2014). Tafla 4. Markaðssvæði ferðamanna í talningum Ferðamálastofu. Markaðssvæði Lönd Norðurlönd Danmörk, Noregur, Svíþjóð, Finnland Mið- og Suður Evrópa Þýskaland, Frakkland, Holland, Ítalía, Spánn og Sviss Bretland Bretland Norður Ameríka Bandaríkin og Kanada Pólland, Japan, Kína, Rússland og öll önnur lönd en þau sem Önnur svæði getið er hér að ofan

Í ferðavenjukönnunum sem unnar hafa verið fyrir Ferðamálastofu gefst þó kostur á frekari sundurliðun þjóðernis með hlutfallsreikningum og í skýrslum RRF er þjóðernum svarenda skipt í sjö hópa eftir markaðssvæðum eins og kemur fram í töflu 5 (Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson, 2013, bls. 4):

Tafla 5. Skilgreining á markaðssvæðum. Markaðssvæði Lönd Frakkland, Ítalía, Spánn, Portúgal, Grikkland og eyjar á Suður-Evrópa Miðjarðarhafi Mið-Evrópa Þýskaland, Sviss og Austurríki Norðurlönd Danmörk, Noregur, Svíþjóð, Finnland Bretlandseyjar England, Skotland, Wales, N-Írland og Írska lýðveldið13 Benelux löndin Belgía, Holland, Lúxemborg Norður Ameríka Bandaríkin, Kanada og Mexíkó Önnur svæði A-Evrópa, Afríka, Asía, Ástralía og S-Ameríka

13 Þó svo að írska lýðveldið tilheyri ekki Bretlandseyjum lendir það í þessum flokki þar sem það er á sama markaðssvæði.

Þessar flokkanir eru nokkuð frábrugðnar flokkunum Alþjóðaferðamálastofnunar Sameinuðu þjóðanna (UNWTO). Þar er flokkunin eftirfarandi (tafla 6):

Tafla 6. Skilgreining markaðssvæða samkvæmt UNWTO (World Tourism Organisation, 2014) Markaðssvæði Lönd Evrópa Norður-, Vestur-, Mið- og Suður-Evrópa Norðaustur-Asía, Suðaustur-Asía, Suður-Asía og Asía og Kyrrahafið Kyrrahafseyjar Norður-Ameríka, Mið-Ameríka, Suður-Ameríka Ameríka og eyjar í Karabíska hafinu Afríka Norður Afríka og Afríka sunnan Sahara Miðausturlönd Miðausturlönd

Til Norður-Evrópu teljast Norðurlöndin, Bretland og Írland. Til Vestur-Evrópu teljast Benelux löndin, Frakkland, Þýskaland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Austurríki og Sviss. Suður-Evrópa samanstendur af Balkanlöndunum (þó ekki Búlgaríu og Rúmeníu), Andorra, Króatíu, Kýpur, Ísrael, Ítalíu, Möltu, Portúgal, San Marínó, Slóveníu og Spáni. Mið-Evrópa telur Armeníu, Aserbaídsjan, Hvíta Rússland, Búlgaríu, Tékkland, Eystrasaltslöndin, Georgíu, Ungverjaland, Kasakstan, Kirgistan, Pólland, Moldóvu, Rúmeníu, Rússland, Slóvakíu, Tajikistan, Túrkemistan, Úkraínu og Úsbekistan (World Tourism Organisation, 2014). Í þessari skýrslu verður markaðssvæðum skipt með sama hætti og gert hefur verið hjá RRF til að gera samanburð við fyrri skýrslur um fjölda ferðamanna á svæðinu mögulegan. Engu að síður telur höfundur mikilvægt að byggja aðferðafræði og svæðaskiptinu á alþjóðlegum stöðlum sem gefnir hafa verið út til samræmingar á tölfræðivinnslu í ferðaþjónustu um heim allan.

4 NIÐURSTÖÐUR

4.1 ERLENDIR FERÐAMENN Á HÚSAVÍK SUMARIÐ 2013 Í töflu 7 má sjá yfirlit yfir svarendur könnunarinnar og samanburð við nýjustu sumarkönnun Ferðamálastofu sem er frá árinu 2014 (hlutföll menntunarstigs eru frá árinu 1999). Fjöldi gildra svara árið 2013 var 470 og 492 árið 2014.

Tafla 7. Bakgrunnsupplýsingar yfir svarendur könnunarinnar

Húsavík Húsavík Húsavík Húsavík Landið allt 14 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014

Hlutfall skv. Fjöldi Hlutfall Fjöldi Hlutfall sumarkönnun Ferðamálast. Kyn Karl 207 44,1% 255 52,0% 49,1% Kona 262 55,9% 235 48,0% 50,9% Aldur 18-24 67 14,8% 44 9,2% 14,9% 25-34 164 36,3% 161 33,5% 32,1% 35-44 71 15,7% 69 14,4% 18,0% 45-54 71 15,7% 86 17,9% 15,4% 55-64 41 9,1% 69 14,4% 19,6% 65-74 31 6,9% 36 7,5% ≥75 7 1,5% 5 1,0% Menntun Grunnskólamenntu 17 3,6% 5 1,0% 4,8%14 Framhaldsskólamen 38 8,1% 60 12,3% 16,4% Iðnmenntunnntun 73 15,6% 61 12,5% 16,5% Háskólapróf 341 72,7% 362 74,2% 62,3% Tekjustig Undir meðallagi 43 9,9% 33 6,9% 21,3% Í meðallagi 166 38,1% 185 38,9% 37,0% Yfir meðallagi 185 42,4% 210 44,2% 30,9% Hátt 42 9,6% 47 9,9% 10,8%

14 Samanburður við nýjustu tölur Ferðamálastofu miðar við sumarkönnun ársins 2014 í öllum liðum nema menntun ferðamanna þar sem nýjustu upplýsingar voru frá árinu 1999.

Hlutfall kynjanna í þessari könnun var nokkuð áþekkt þar sem 56% svarenda voru kvenkyns og 44% karlkyns árið 2013 og 52% og 48% ári síðar. Meðalaldur erlendra ferðamanna var 39 ár sumarið 2013 og 42 ár sumarið 2014. Meðal þeirra bakgrunnsbreyta sem skoðaðar voru í könnuninni voru tekjur og hæsta menntunarstig svarenda. Í töflu 7 kemur fram að hlutfall gesta með háskólapróf var yfir 70% bæði árin, hlutfall gesta með iðnmenntun var 16% árið 2013 og 13% 2014. Hlutfall gesta með framhaldsskólapróf var 8% árið 2013 og 12% árið 2014. Um 4% gesta höfðu grunnskólamenntun sem hæsta menntunarstig árið 2013 og 1% árið 2014. Flestir þeirra sem höfðu lokið iðnnámi eða háskólanámi voru menntaðir í verkfræði og náttúruvísindum. Þar á eftir komu félagsvísindi þar sem viðskiptafræði og félagsfræði voru algengustu greinarnar. Síðan komu heilbrigðisvísindi, hönnun og listir og loks hugvísindi og menntavísindi. Skiptinguna má sjá á mynd 24.

Annað 7% Menntavísindi 5% Verkfræði og Hugvísindi 6% náttúruvísindi 32% Hönnun og listir 8%

Heilbrigðisvísind i 18% Félagsvísindi 24%

Mynd 24. Tegund menntunar erlendra gesta sem lokið hafa iðnnámi eða háskólanámi.

Tekjur svarenda í samanburði við tekjustig í heimalandi þeirra voru flestar í eða yfir meðallagi. Um 38% svarenda töldu sig hafa tekjur í meðallagi sumarið 2013 og 39% sumarið 2014. Um 42% töldu sig hafa tekjur yfir meðallagi sumarið 2013 og 44% sumarið 2014 og 10% háar tekjur bæði árin. Um 10% svarenda töldu sig hafa lágar tekjur sumarið 2013 og 7% sumarið 2014. Þessar niðurstöður sýna ívið hærri tekjur en hlutföll Ferðamálastofu í könnun meðal erlendra ferðamanna á Íslandi sumarið 2014 (Ferðamálastofa, 2014a) (sjá töflu 7). Mikill meirihluti ferðamanna sem svaraði könnuninni var frá Mið- og Suður Evrópu, eða um 64% árið 2013 og 62% árið 2014. Frekari skiptingu milli markaðssvæða má sjá á mynd 25.

Önnur Önnur svæði 6% svæði M-Evrópa Bretland M-Evrópa 9% N-Ameríka 32% 4% 40% 6% Norðurlönd 5% Norðurlönd 6% N- Ameríka 11% Benelux 7%

Bretland Benelux 8% 12%

S-Evrópa S-Evrópa 32% 22%

Mynd 25. Búseta svarenda eftir landsvæðum 2013 (t.v.) og 2014 (t.h.).

Pólland Danmörk 1% Önnur Önnur lönd 1% Belgía 2% 9% lönd 6% Noregur 1% Danmörk 2% Þýskaland Svíþjóð 2% Þýskaland Svíþjóð 3% 24% 27% Ítalía 3% Tékkland 3% Spánn 4% Austurríki Bretland 3% 4% Spánn 4% Kanada 4% Sviss 5% Austurríki 4% Bandaríkin Frakkland Holland 5% 20% 5% Holland Bandaríki Frakkland 15% 5% n 6% Belgía 7% Bretland Ítalía 8% Sviss 9% 7%

Mynd 26. Búseta svarenda eftir helstu löndum 2013 (t.v.) og 2014 (t.h.).

Þegar búseta svarenda er sundurliðuð eftir löndum kemur í ljós að flestir gesta sem svöruðu könnuninni komu frá Þýskalandi og Frakklandi, eða samtals um 44% árið 2013 og 42% árið 2014 (mynd 26). Þar á eftir komu Ítalía, Bretland, Holland og Bandaríkin árið 2013, en Sviss, Belgía, Bandaríkin og Holland sumarið 2014. Þessi hlutföll eru áþekk hlutföllum yfir gestakomur á tjaldsvæðinu á Húsavík sumarið 2013 eftir þjóðernum (sjá mynd 23).

Þegar þjóðerni erlendra gesta í Flugstöð Leifs Eiríkssonar eru skoðuð yfir sama tímabil (júní-ágúst 2013 og 2014) kemur í ljós að fjölmennasti hópurinn var frá Bandaríkjunum (16%) og þar á eftir Þýskalandi, Frakklandi og Bretlandi (sjá töflu 8). Samkvæmt þessum niðurstöðum komu hlutfallslega færri ferðamenn frá Bandaríkjunum til Húsavíkur og hlutfallslega fleiri frá Þýskalandi, Frakklandi og Ítalíu heldur en heildarhlutfall þeirra sem komu til landsins á sama tíma.

Tafla 8. Fjöldi erlendra gesta eftir þjóðernum í Flugstöð Leifs Eiríkssonar sumrin 2013 og 2014 (Ferðamálastofa, e.d.).

Flugsstöð Leifs Eiríkssonar Flugsstöð Leifs Eiríkssonar júní-ágúst 2013 júní-ágúst 2014 Bandaríkin 55.442 16% Bandaríkin 66.766 16% Þýskaland 45.623 13% Þýskaland 51.424 13% Frakkland 29.378 9% Bretland 33.276 8% Bretland 27.138 8% Frakkland 32.985 8% Danmörk 18.785 5% Danmörk 19.361 5% Noregur 18.730 5% Noregur 18.850 5% Svíþjóð 14.828 4% Svíþjóð 17.589 4% Ítalía 11.482 3% Kanada 16.209 4% Holland 11.194 3% Ítalía 13.644 3% Spánn 10.633 3% Spánn 12.766 3%

Þegar hlutföll erlendra gesta á Húsavík eftir búsetulandi eru bornar saman við tölur Hagstofunnar um fjölda gistinátta á NA landi árið 2013 gætir ákveðins samræmis. Flestar gestakomur útlendinga á NA-landi eftir þjóðernum á tímabilinu júní til ágúst 2013 voru frá Þýskalandi (26%), Frakklandi (15%), Ítalíu (7%), Spáni (7%) og Bandaríkjunum (6%). Þegar gestakomur þessara þjóða eru skoðaðar eftir landshlutum má sjá að 17% þeirra Þjóðverja sem dvöldu á Íslandi í júní til ágúst 2013, gistu á NA- landi, en einungis 9% Bandaríkjamanna. Sama hlutfall fyrir Frakkland var 16%, Ítalíu 20% og Spán 19% (Hagstofa Íslands, e.d.b.).

4.2 DVALARLENGD Þegar ferðamenn voru spurðir að því hvort þeir hefðu dvalið á Húsavík síðastliðna nótt eða ætluðu sér að dvelja næstu nótt svöruðu 55% aðspurðra því játandi sumarið 2013 og 49% sumarið 2014. Jafnframt tilgreindu þeir gistimáta. Hlutfallið sumarið 2014 er heldur lægra en árin 2013 og 2010 en er þó hærra en árið 2008 þar sem hlutfall næturgesta var 41% (tafla 9).

Tafla 9. Gistihlutfall og dvalarlengd ferðamanna á Húsavík sumrin 2008, 2010, 2013 og 2014. 2008 2010 2013 2014

Hlutfall dagsgesta 59% 47% 45% 51%

Hlutfall næturgesta 41% 53% 55% 49%

Meðaldvalarlengd 6,6 klst 6,1 klst 6,3 klst 5,4 klst dagsgesta Meðaldvalarlengd 1,5 dagar 1,2 dagar 1,5 dagar 1,5 dagar næturgesta

Í könnuninni voru ferðamenn beðnir um að áætla hversu lengi dvöl þeirra á Húsavík myndi vara. Áætluð meðal dvalarlengd dagsgesta var 6,3 klst árið 2013 en 5,4 klst árið 2014 sem er um 14% lækkun á milli ára. Í töflu 9 má sjá hvernig gistihlutfall og dvalarlengd hefur þróast frá árinu 2008 og á mynd 27 má sjá hvernig dvalarlengd áranna 2013 og 2014 skiptist niður. Í ferðavenjukönnun Ferðamálastofu sumarið 2014 var meðaldvalarlengd erlendra gesta á Norðurlandi 3,9 nætur15 og meðaldvalarlengd á Íslandi 10 nætur.

Mynd 27. Dvalarlengd gesta árin 2013 (t.v.) og 2014 (t.h.).

15 Inni í þessari tölu eru einungis þeir ferðamenn sem gistu á Norðurlandi

4.3 GISTIMÁTI Tæpur helmingur þeirra sem dvaldi á Húsavík yfir nótt gisti á tjaldsvæði sumarið 2014, eða 48%. Á gistiheimilum gistu 21% og 15% á hótelum. Um 6% völdu sumarhús, 1% gistu hjá ættingjum eða vinum og 10% völdu annað. Undir þann flokk fellur einkagisting, farfuglaheimili, bændagisting og í einhverjum tilfellum var tjaldað utan tjaldsvæða. Þessi hlutföll eru borin saman við niðurstöður sumarkannana Þekkingarnetsins árin 2008, 2010 og 2013 í töflu 10 hér að neðan.

Tafla 10. Gistimáti erlendra gesta á Húsavík sumrin 2008, 2010, 2013 og 2014. 2008 2010 2013 2014 Tjaldsvæði 46% 54% 53% 48% Gistiheimili 26% 20% 23% 21% Hótel 14% 11% 9% 15% Sumarhús 6% 6% 5% 6% Ættingar eða vinir16 3% 3% 1% Annað 6% 9% 8% 10%

Erfitt er að bera tölur um gistimáta á Húsavík saman við tölur yfir landið í heild. Yfirleitt er einungis um eina tegund gistingar að ræða á Húsavík á meðan ferðamenn geta nýtt sér fleiri tegundir á meðan á dvöl þeirra stendur á Íslandi. Þó er ljóst að hlutfall gistinátta á tjaldsvæðum er töluvert hærra á Húsavík en á landinu í heild og hlutfall hótelgistingar lægra.

4.4 FERÐAFÉLAGAR Mikill meirihluti ferðamanna var á ferð um Húsavík ásamt vinum eða fjölskyldu sumarið 2014 eða 89%. Um 5% ferðamanna voru einir á ferð og 5% í skipulagðri hópferð. Um 0,5% ferðamanna voru með vinnu- eða klúbbfélögum og um 1% með öðrum en fram hefur komið. Þessi skipting er ekki ósvipuð skiptingunni í fyrri könnunum. Þar er greinileg fækkun skipulagðra hópferða líkt og á landinu öllu (Edward H. Huijbens, 2013 og Ferðamálastofa, 2014a). Aukning er í ferðum með fjölskyldu og vinum en aðrir liðir haldast nokkuð svipaðir og í fyrri könnunum. Í töflu 11 má sjá þróunina á Húsavík og samanburð við niðurstöður ferðavenjukönnunar Ferðamálastofu sumarið 2014.

16 Ættingar eða vinir voru ekki valmöguleiki í könnuninni árið 2010

Tafla 11. Ferðafélagar erlendra gesta á Húsavík sumrin 2008, 2010, 2013 og 2014.

2008 2010 2013 2014 Ferðamálastofa 201417 Fjölskylda eða vinir 77% 80% 84% 89% 77% Í skipulagðri hópferð 17% 10% 6% 5% 4% Einn á ferð 4% 5% 7% 5% 15% Vinnu- eða klúbbfélagar 1% 1% 2% 0,5% 3% Annað 1% 4% 1% 1% 0,5%

4.5 FERÐAMÁTI Flestir svarenda ferðuðust með bílaleigubíl sumarið 2014, eða um 73%. Þar á eftir komu 7% á eigin bíl, 6% voru í hópferð og 6% völdu áætlunarrútu. Á mynd 28 má sjá skiptinguna nánar og samanburð við sumarið 2013.

Annað Bíll vinar Bíll vinar Áætlunar 1% Annað 8% rúta 6% 2% 6% Hópferð Hópferð 6% 6% Eigin bíll Eigin bíll 7% 9%

Bíla- Bíla- Áætlunar leigubíll rúta 11% leigubíll 64% 74%

Mynd 28. Ferðamáti erlendra gesta á Húsavík sumrin 2013 (t.v.) og 2014 (t.h.).

Erfitt er að bera niðurstöður þessarar spurningar saman við niðurstöður sumarkannana Ferðamálastofu þar sem ferðamenn nýta sér gjarnan fleiri en eina tegund ferðamáta á ferð sinni um landið. Í sumarkönnunum Ferðamálastofu má þó greina lækkun hlutfalls

17 Í könnun Ferðamálastofu var hægt að velja fleiri en einn svarmöguleika. Neðangreind hlutföll eru reiknuð af öllum svörum (samtals 100%) til að gera samanburð við Húsavíkurkönnunina mögulegan.

hópferðabíla og hækkun hlutfalls bílaleigubíla á árunum 1996-2014 sem kallast á við niðurstöður í töflu 11 (Edward H. Huijbens, 2013; Ferðamálastofa 2014a).

4.6 TILGANGUR FERÐAR Á mynd 29 má sjá hver tilgangur ferðar aðspurðra var sumrin 2013 og 2014. Í langflestum tilvikum sumarið 2014 var um að ræða frí, eða um í 91% tilvika. Þar á eftir kom viðburður eða hátíð með 1%, viðskiptaferð 0,2% og heimsókn til vina eða ættingja 0,2%. Um 8% svarenda völdu „annað“ og gáfu skýringu. Í um 90% þeirra tilvika var um að ræða hvalaskoðun í öðrum tilgangi en fríi sumarið 2014.

Viðburður Viðskipta- / hátíð Annað Heimsókn Annað ferð 0,4% 6% Viðskipta- 0,2% 8% 1% ferð 0,2%

Heimsókn Viðburður/ 2% hátíð 1%

Frí 91% Frí

91%

Mynd 29. Tilgangur ferðar 2013 (t.v.) og 2014 (t.h.).

Í ferðavenjukönnun erlendra ferðamanna hjá Ferðamálastofu sumarið 2014 var tilgangur ferðar frí í 72,9% tilvika, vinnutengdir þættir í 11,9% tilvika, heimsókn til vina eða ættingja 7,7% og viðburður eða hátíð 6,6% (Ferðamálastofa, 2014)a.18

18 Í könnun Ferðamálastofu var hægt að velja fleiri en einn svarmöguleika. Ofangreind hlutföll eru reiknuð af öllum svörum (samtals 100%) til að gera samanburð við Húsavíkurkönnunina mögulegan.

4.7 AFÞREYING Þátttakendur voru beðnir að segja til um hvað þeir gerðu eða upplifðu á meðan á dvöl þeirra á Húsavík stóð. Eins og kemur fram á mynd 30 var hvalaskoðun algengasta afþreyingin meðal svarenda sumarið 2014. Næst vinsælasti afþreyingarkosturinn var söfn, en hafa ber í huga að könnunin var gerð í Upplýsingamiðstöð ferðamála sem hefur sameiginlegan inngang með Hvalasafninu á Húsavík og gæti það haft áhrif á svör þátttakenda (sjá kafli 3.2). Þriðji vinsælasti afþreyingarkosturinn var fuglaskoðun (37%), gönguferð (35%), þar á eftir útsýnisferð (21%) og sund (18%). Um 5% svarenda ætluðu sér að skoða næturlífið og 4% höfðu hug á því að fara í hestaferð eða reiðtúr. Golf og stangveiði ráku lestina með einungis 2% og 0%. Á mynd 30 má sjá samanburð niðurstaða sumrin 2013 og 2014.

Hvalaskoðun 81% Hvalaskoðun 76%

Söfn 64% Söfn 68% Fuglaskoðun 37% Gönguferð 44% Gönguferð 35% Fuglaskoðun 38% Útsýnisferð 21%

Sund 30% Sund 18%

Hestaferðir 10% Næturlíf 5% Hestaferð 4% Næturlíf 10% Stangveiði 2% Stangveiði 1% Golf 0%

Golf 1% Annað 11%

0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%

Mynd 30. Afþreying ferðamanna á Húsavík sumrin 2013 (t.v.) og 2014 (t.h.).

Þegar þessar niðurstöður eru bornar saman við aðrar kannanir má sjá að hlutfall hvalaskoðunar er töluvert hærra á Húsavík en annars staðar eins og við var að búast. Ef einblínt er á Norðurland og tölur úr flugvallarkönnun RMF skoðaðar sumarið 2012 má sjá að 37% aðspurðra ætluðu í hvalaskoðun, 36% á söfn, 36% í gönguferð og 12% ætluðu að skoða næturlífið. Samkvæmt sumarkönnunum Ferðamálastofu hefur hlutfall erlendra ferðamanna sem fara í hvalaskoðun á Íslandi hækkað úr 12,2% árið 1996 í 27,5% árið 2014. Það fór hæst í 39% árið 2010 (Edward H. Huijbens, 2013; Ferðamálastofa, 2014a). Sumarið 2014 fóru 59,1% erlendra ferðamanna í sund á Íslandi,

43,9% skoðuðu söfn eða sýningar, 43,1% fóru í skoðunarferð með leiðsögumanni og 14,2% fóru í hestaferð (Ferðamálastofa, 2014a). Hafa ber í huga að þegar ferðamenn er beðnir um að tilgreina valkosti sem ekki hafa átt sér stað getur það haft í för með sér ósamræmi við raunverulega hegðun þegar á hólminn er komið. Þættir eins og veður og verð geta til dæmis haft áhrif á ákvörðun um hvalaskoðun, tímaskortur getur valdið því að safnið var aldrei heimsótt og svo framvegis. Til að lágmarka mögulega skekkju í slíkum tilvikum hafa rannsóknaraðilar tvinnað saman tilgreindum valkosti (e. stated preference) og raunverulegum valkosti (e. revealed preference) við framkvæmd spurningakannana (Earnhart, 2001; Whitehead, Haab og Huang, 2011). Á Íslandi hefur það reynst illmögulegt þar sem tölfræðilegar upplýsingar um raunverulega afþreyingu ferðamanna eru afar takmarkaðar (Metrass Mendes, 2013). Hér verður því einungis stuðst við tilgreindan valkost með það í huga að fyrrgreint ósamræmi getur átt sér stað.

4.8 ÁKVÖRÐUNARTÍMI HEIMSÓKNAR Í könnuninni sumarið 2014 var í fyrsta sinn spurt hvenær ákvörðun um að heimsækja Húsavík hafi verið tekin. Afgerandi meirihluti svarenda hafði tekið ákvörðum um að heimsækja staðinn áður en lagt var af stað til Íslands, eða um 71% eins og sjá má á mynd 31. Um 18% tóku ákvörðun eftir að ferðalagið hófst og hjá um 11% svarenda var einungis keyrt í gegnum Húsavík.

Aðeins var keyrt í gegnum Húsavík 11%

Eftir að ferðalagið hófst 18%

Áður en ferðalagið hófst 71%

Mynd 31. Hvenær var ákvörðun um heimsókn til Húsavíkur tekin?

4.9 UPPLÝSINGAR UM HÚSAVÍK Þegar ferðamennirnir voru spurðir hvaðan þeir fengu upplýsingar um Húsavík svöruðu flestir að þeir hefðu notast við ferðabækur (37%) og Internetið (35%). Þess ber að gæta í þessari spurningu að skörun getur átt sér stað, þar sem ferðahandbækur geta verið á Internetinu. Það sama á við um Lonely Planet (13%) sem var sérstaklega tilgreind sem upplýsingaveita, en Lonely Planet getur bæði verið í bókarformi og á Internetinu. Leiðsögumenn voru nefndir í 14% tilvika og ferðaskrifstofur í 13% tilvika (mynd 32).

Bækur 37% Internet 35% Leiðsögumenn 14% Ferðaskrifstofa 13% Lonely planet 13% Vinir 4% Bæklingar 3% Upplýsingamiðstöð 3% Kort 2% Hef komið hingað áður 1% Annað 8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mynd 32. Hvar fengust upplýsingar um Húsavík?

4.10 ÁSTÆÐA HEIMSÓKNAR Í könnuninni 2014 var spurt um hver væri meginástæða þess að Húsavík hafi orðið fyrir valinu sem áfangastaður. Þar voru hvalir og hvalaskoðun nefnd í miklum meirihluta svara eða í 73% tilvika. Í 16% tilvika var Húsavík á ferðaáætlun gesta, í 9% tilvika toguðu söfn bæjarins gesti til sín. Önnur svör voru aðdráttarafl hafnarinnar og sjávarþorpsins, fegurð staðarins, meðmæli, náttúra og fleira eins og sjá má á mynd 33. Öll svörin má finna sundurliðuð í viðauka 7.5.

Hvalir/ hvalaskoðun 73% Á ferðaáætlun 16% Söfn 9% Höfnin/hafið/fiskiþorp 4% Fallegur/ áhugaverður staður 4% Meðmæli 3% Náttúran 2% Lundaskoðun 2% Nálægð við Mývatn 1% Hestar 1% Veitingastaðir 1% Annað 9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mynd 33. Hvers vegna varð Húsavík fyrir valinu sem áfangastaður?

4.11 ÚTGJÖLD FERÐAMANNA Á HÚSAVÍK 4.11.1 Útgjöld á sólarhring Í rannsókninni voru þátttakendur beðnir að áætla og sundurliða útgjöld sín á Húsavík síðustu 24 stundirnar. Hafi dvölin staðið skemur þá var spurt um útgjöld þann tíma sem dvölin hafði staðið auk þess sem þátttakendur voru beðnir um að tilgreina þau útgjöld sem höfðu verið greidd fyrirfram eða áætluð voru og eftir átti að greiða innan þessara 24 stunda, til dæmis vegna gistingar. Þegar öll tilgreind útgjöld voru reiknuð saman og deilt með fjölda svarenda, óháð því hvort tiltekinn þátttakandi merkti við útgjöld í tilteknum flokki eða ekki, reiknuðust útgjöldin 15.939 krónur á mann á sólarhring sumarið 2014 og 16.007 krónur sumarið 2013 á verðlagi ársins 2014 (tafla 12). Í könnuninni árið 2010 reiknuðust meðalútgjöld allra þátttakenda 15.637 krónur á verðlagi ársins 2014 og útgjöldin árið 2008 11.231 krónur (Andri Valur Ívarsson og Óli Halldórsson, 2011). Breytingin er því afar lítil á milli áranna 2010, 2013 og 2014 en töluverð á milli áranna 2008 og 2010. Sú aukning mældist um 40% og skýrðist að mestu leyti með leyti með gengisbreytingum.

Tafla 12. Meðalútgjöld eftir þjónustuþáttum. Þjónustu- Af þeim sem nýttu Af öllum Hlutfall svarenda með þáttur sér þjónustuþáttinn þátttakendum tilgreind útgjöld 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 Gisting 5.301 5.954 2.897 2.907 55% 49% Eldsneyti 3.219 3.734 1.258 1.229 39% 33% Veitingahús 4.274 3.945 2.712 2.604 63% 66% Matvara 1.855 2.359 911 857 49% 36% Afþreying 8.332 11.713 6.445 6.474 77% 55% Menning 1.521 824 54% Fatnaður 3.553 4.839 470 500 13% 10% Minjagripir 1.685 2.149 548 411 33% 19% Annað 5.988 3.086 765 133 13% 4% 16.007 15.939

Í töflu 12 eru meðalútgjöld eftir þjónustuþáttum sundurliðuð fyrir árin 2013 og 2014. Árið 2013 var úgjaldaliðurinn menning inni í liðnum afþreying, en sumarið 2014 var hann tekinn sérstaklega út. Til að meta hvort marktækur munur væri á dreifni svara í útgjaldaliðum milli ára var notast við Mann-Whitney U prófið, sem gjarnan er notað þegar skilyrðum um normaldreifingu er ekki fullnægt (Einar Guðmundsson og Árni Kristjánsson, 2005; Field, 2009). Niðurstaða prófsins sýnir að munurinn milli áranna er

ekki marktækur, fyrir utan tvo liði, minjagripi og matvöru. Því telst munurinn á heildarútgjöldum milli ára ekki marktækur. Á mynd 34 má sjá hvernig útgjöldin dreifast eftir útgjaldaflokkum þegar þau hafa verið reiknuð niður á alla þátttakendur könnunarinnar. Stærsti útgjaldaliðurinn er afþreying sem nemur um 42% af heildarútgjöldum þátttakenda sumarið 2014. Þar á eftir koma útgjöld í veitingahúsum (17%) og gisting (14%). Athyglisvert er að bera þessar niðurstöður saman við flugvallarkönnun RMF frá árinu 2012. Á verðlagi ársins 2014 voru heildarútgjöld ferðamanna sem ferðuðust á eigin vegum og fóru með millilandaflugi frá Akureyrarvelli sumarið 2012 að meðaltali 22.505 krónur á sólarhring.19 Hlutfall afþreyingar var einungis um 4%, gistingar 37%, samgangna 33%, veitingastaða 9% og verslunar um 14% (Eyrún J. Bjarnadóttir og Edward H. Huijbens, 2012).

229 Annað 545 765 133

668 Eldsneyti 1.239 1.258 1.229

1.459 Verslun 1.816 1.929 1.768

1.511 Veitingahús 2.323 2.712 2.604

2.988 Gisting 2.489 2.897 2.907

4.376 Söfn/afþreying 7.225 6.445 7.298

- 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000

2008 2010 2013 2014

Mynd 34. Meðalútgjöld ferðamanna á Húsavík sumrin 2008, 2010, 2013 og 2014 á verðlagi ársins 2014

19 Um er að ræða farþega með tengiflugi Icelandair sem og farþega í beinu flugi Iceland Express

4.12 ATHUGASEMDIR Í spurningakönnuninni bauðst svarendum að koma á framfæri athugasemdum. Sérstaklega var spurt hvort þeim fyndist eitthvað vanta þegar þeir heimsóttu Húsavík. Sumarið 2013 bárust 78 athugasemdir og nefndu flestir að þeir væru ánægðir með staðinn og það sem fyrir augu bar. Margir voru ánægðir með Hvalasafnið en söknuðu Reðasafnsins. Verðlagið var í hærra lagi að mati svarenda, maturinn góður en skortur á fersku sjávarfangi, gistiplássi, gönguleiðum og lifandi tónlist. Á mynd 35 má sjá nánari flokkun athugasemda og í viðauka 7.3 eru þær allar útlistaðar. Meðal þeirra athugasemda sem lentu í safnflokki má nefna meiri almennar söguupplýsingar um bæinn, vatnsleikfimi í sundlauginni, meira opið Wifi og kaffisölu uppi á fjalli.

Allt gott 13% Gott hvalasafn 9% Vont veður 9% Sakna reðasafnsins 6% Hátt verðlag 5% Vantar gistipláss 5% Vantar upplýsingar á frönsku 5% Góður matur 4% Hefði viljað stoppa lengur 4% Stuttur opnunartími verslana 4% Vantar göngleiðir 4% Vantar meiri lifandi tónlist 4% Góð þjónusta í upplýsingamiðstöð 3% Mikil náttúrufegurð 3% Vantar meiri ferskan fisk 3% Vantar sjókajak 3% Annað 18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mynd 35. Athugasemdir ferðamanna sumarið 2013.

Sumarið 2014 bárust 107 athugasemdir. Þar lýstu flestir yfir ánægju með það sem þeir höfðu séð og upplifað. Um 13% voru ánægðir með Hvalasafnið, 9% sögðu bæinn fallegan en 8% hefðu viljað fá betra veður. Um 7% svarenda fannst verðlagið of hátt og 6% hefðu viljað sjá betri merkingar á kortum og í bænum. Allnokkrar athugasemdir komu um hvalveiðar Íslendinga, stuttan opnunartíma verslana og veitingahúsa og einhverjir áttu erfitt með að finna sundlaug bæjarins. Á mynd 36 má sjá nánari flokkun athugasemda og

í viðauka 7.4 eru athugasemdirnar allar skráðar eins og þær birtust á svarblöðum ferðamanna.

Allt gott 18% Gott hvalasafn 13% Fallegur bær 9% Vont veður 8% Of hátt verðlag 7% Betri merkingar/ upplýsingar 6% Stöðvið hvalveiðar 6% Sundlaug 4% Stuttur opnunartími 4% Góður matur 3% Vantar útsýnisstað yfir Atlantshafið 2% Vantar upplýsingar á frönsku 2% Vantar köfun 2% Góð hvalaskoðun 2% Vantar betri göngustíga 2% Annað 20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mynd 36. Athugasemdir ferðamanna sumarið 2014

4.13 SAMANTEKT Í niðurstöðum könnunarinnar kemur fram að flestir þeirra erlendu gesta sem heimsóttu Húsavík sumrin 2013 og 2014 komu frá Mið- og Suður-Evrópu. Þegar hópurinn er skoðaður í heild sinni má segja að þessir gestir hafi almennt verið vel menntaðir, vel stæðir og flestir búsettir í Þýskalandi, Frakklandi, Ítalíu, Sviss, Bretlandi eða Benelux löndunum. Meðalaldur þeirra var um 40 ár og oftast var tilgangur heimsóknar þeirra til Húsavíkur að skoða hvali. Um helmingur gesta gisti yfir nótt á Húsavík og meðaldvalarlengd næturgesta var um 1,5 dagar. Algengasti gisitmátinn var tjaldsvæðið þar sem um helmingur næturgesta dvaldi. Flestir gestanna ferðuðust með fjölskyldu og vinum og algengasti ferðamátinn var bílaleigubíll. Í flestum tilvikum hafði verið tekin ákvörðun um að heimsækja Húsavík áður en komið var til Íslands og upplýsingar um staðinn fengust gjarnan í ferðabókum og á Internetinu. Meðalútgjöld bæði árin voru um 16.000 krónur á sólarhring og stærsti útgjaldaliðurinn afþreying. Lítill munur er á niðurstöðum kannananna á milli ára.

5 UMRÆÐUR OG ÁLYKTANIR Þessari skýrslu er ætlað að veita þeim sem eftir leita, upplýsingar um ferðavenjur erlendra ferðamanna á Húsavík sem og neyslumynstur þeirra á áfangastað. Niðurstöðunum er ætlað að gefa vísbendingu um ofangreinda þætti sem nýta má sem innlegg í stefnumótunarvinnu og uppbyggingu atvinnugreinarinnar þó ekki sé hægt að fullyrða um gildi þessara niðurstaðna til skýringar á hegðun allra ferðamanna frekar en í öðrum ferðamannakönnunum. Fjöldi ferðamanna til Húsavíkur hefur aukist talsvert undanfarin ár en þó ekki í sama mæli og á landsvísu. Ýmsar ástæður geta verið fyrir því s.s. fjarlægð frá alþjóðaflugvelli og skortur á tengingum við hann, samgöngur, dvalartími á Íslandi og svo framvegis. Athyglisvert er að sjá hve vinsældir staðarins eru miklar meðal Mið- og Suður- Evrópuríkja svo sem Þýskalands og Frakklands í samanburði við önnur svæði. Ferðamenn frá Norður-Ameríku virðast til að mynda skila sér síður til staðarins en ofangreindar þjóðir. Fjölgun ferðamanna á svæðinu er hlutfallslega meiri en fjölgun gistinátta. Athygli vekur lækkun gistihlutfalls úr 55% í 49% á milli ára sem og stytting dvalarlengdar dagsferðamanna á Húsavík á sama tíma úr 6,3 klst í 5,4 klst. Flest bendir því til þess að ferðamaðurinn staldri skemur við en áður á Húsavík. Hugmyndir um hvernig lengja mætti dvalartíma dagsferðamanna með aukinni afþreyingu og þjónustu má finna í athugasemdum ferðamanna í viðaukum 7.3 og 7.4. Kallað var eftir betri merkingum í bænum, t.a.m. gönguleiðum og söguupplýsingum um bæinn. Sérstaklega var óskað eftir merktum gönguleiðum að vitanum og meðfram ströndinni. Kvartað var yfir of stuttum opnunartíma verslana og veitingastaða. Eftirspurn var þar að auki eftir meiri lifandi tónlist og meira fersku sjávarfangi á veitingastöðum. Höfnin hefur mikið aðdráttarafl og er í mörgum tilvikum nefnd sem ein af megin ástæðum heimsóknar. Hugmyndir um fjölbreyttari afþreyingu á hafnarsvæðinu koma fram í viðaukum 7.3 og 7.4, s.s. sjókajak, bryggjuveiði, köfun, útsýnispallur yfir hafið og fleira. Ljóst er að hvalaskoðun er meginaðdráttarafl ferðamanna til staðarins. Hlutfall afþreyingar er töluvert hærra af heildarútgjöldum á Húsavík en til að mynda á Akureyri. Tækifæri liggja því í að efla stoðþjónustu svo sem verslun, veitingar og gistingu sem ætti að hvetja ferðamenn til að dvelja lengur og nýta sér þjónustuna sem í boði er. Áhugavert er að sjá hversu hátt hlutfall aðspurðra tók ákvörðun um að koma til Húsavíkur áður en komið var til landsins. Hlutverk ferðahandbóka og Internetsins virðist mikið og þessir miðlar mikilvægir upplýsingabrunnar við ákvörðunartöku. Því er mikilvægt að nýta þessa miðla við markaðssetningu ferðaþjónustu. Í sumarkönnunum Ferðamálastofu má greina í hve minnkandi mæli ferðamenn nýta sér upplýsingar

ferðaskrifstofa á sama tíma og vægi Internetsins fer vaxandi. Sjálfstæði ferðamanna hefur því aukist undanfarin ár sem staðfestist með fækkun hópferða. Húsavík virðist í mörgun tilvikum vera partur af hringferð þrátt fyrir að staðsetningin sé ekki við hringveginn og krefjist þess að fólk taki auka rúnt. Fróðlegt væri að skoða hvaðan fólk væri að koma og hvert ferðinni væri heitið, til að mynda með spurningu um hvar hefði verið dvalið síðustu nótt og hvar dvelja ætti næstu nótt. Ekki var spurt að því í þessum könnunum en mælt er með því að sá þáttur verði skoðaður sérstaklega síðar, t.d. í samvinnu við Vegagerðina og þeirra umferðarkönnunum. Þegar upp er staðið dregur rannsóknin það fram að þrátt fyrir mikla og hraða uppbyggingu ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík eru enn töluverð tækifæri í eflingu atvinnugreinarinnar og þeim ábata sem nærsamfélagið getur haft af henni. Markviss markaðssetning, aukið framboð gistiaðstöðu, fjölbreyttir afþreyingarmöguleikar, lengri opnunartími þjónustuaðila og skilvirk upplýsingamiðlun stuðla saman að lengingu dvalartíma gesta og auknum tekjum vegna þeirra á svæðinu. Mikilvægt er þó að huga að fleiru en arðsköpun og gestafjölda þegar horft er til framtíðar atvinnugreinarinnar á svæðinu. Ferðaþjónusta lýtur öðrum lögmálum en framleiðsluiðnaður. Hagsmunaaðilar í ferðaþjónustu verða að líta á starf sitt í víðara samhengi umhverfisverndar og eflingar menningarverðmæta og gæta þess að jafnvægi ríki meðal gesta og heimafólks. Gæta þarf að þolmörkum staðarins og horfa til þess hvernig atvinnugreinin getur eflt samfélagið á staðnum (Edward H. Huijbens, Gunnar Þór Jóhannesson og Björn Þorsteinsson, 2014). Til að stuðla að sem blómlegustum vexti ferðaþjónustunnar þarf því að eiga sér stað samstarf og sátt á milli ferðaþjónustuaðila, íbúa staðarins, sveitarfélagsins og ferðamannanna sjálfra auk þess sem innviðir og umhverfi þurfa að geta staðið undir slíkum vexti.

6 HEIMILDIR Anderson, T. D., Gothall, S. E. og Wende, B. D. (2014). Iceland and the resumption of whaling: An empirical study of the attitudes of international tourists and whale-watch tour operators. Í J. Higham, L. Bejder, og R. Williams (Ritstj.), Whale-watching: Sustainable Tourism and Ecological Management (bls. 95-109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Andri Valur Ívarsson og Óli Halldórsson. (2011). Fjölgar kreppan krónum? Efnahagsleg áhrif ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík við breyttar samfélagsaðstæður. Húsavík: Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga.

Anna Karlsdóttir og Auður H. Ingólfsdóttir. (2011). Gendered Outcomes of Socio- economic Restructuring: A Tale from a Rural Village in Iceland. NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 19 (3), 163-180.

Birna G. Bjarnleifsdóttir. (1988). Saga ferðaþjónustunnar. Reykjavík: Bókaútgáfan Saga.

Björn Helgi Jónsson og Sæmundur Rögnvaldsson. (1999). Saga Húsavíkur III. bindi. Húsavík: Húsavíkurkaupstaður.

Byggðastofnun. (2013). Samfélagsleg áhrif lánveitinga Byggðastofnunar. Sauðárkrókur: Höfundur.

Byggðastofnun. (2014). Norðurland eystra: Stöðugreining 2014. Sauðárkrókur: Höfundur.

Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D. og Wanhill, S. (2008). Tourism: Principles and Practice (4 útg.). Essex: Prentice Hall

Cunningham, P. A., Huijbens, E. H. og Wearing, S. L. (2012). From Whaling to whale watching: Examining sustainability and cultural rhetoric. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20 (1), 143-161.

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.): 2007 update with new internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and sons.

Earnhart, D. (2001). Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Economics, 77 (1), 12-29.

Edward H. Huijbens. (2013). Yfirlit yfir sumarkannanir Ferðamálastofu meðal erlendra gesta 1996-2011. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála.

Edward Hákon Huijbens og Gunnar Þór Jóhannesson. (2013). Ferðamál á Íslandi: Heildstætt grundvallarrit um ferðamál. Reykjavík: Mál og menning.

Edward H. Huijbens, Gunnar Þór Jóhannesson og Björn Þorsteinsson. (2014). Ylrækt rísómatískra sprota: Ferðaþjónusta í nýju ljósi. Ritið, 2, 205-227.

Einar Guðmundsson og Árni Kristjánsson. (2005). Gagnavinnsla í SPSS. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.

Eyrún J. Bjarnadóttir og Edward H. Huijbens. (2012). Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll: Könnun meðal brottfararfarþega sumarið. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála.

Ferðamálastofa. (2012). Könnun meðal erlendra ferðamanna á Íslandi sumarið 2011. Reykjavík: Markaðs- og miðlarannsóknir.

Ferðamálastofa. (2014a). Erlendir ferðamenn á Íslandi: Sumar 2014. Reykjavík. Maskína

Ferðamálastofa. (2014b). Könnun meðal erlendra ferðamanna á Íslandi veturinn 2013/14. Reykjavík: Maskína.

Ferðamálastofa. (e.d.). Erlendir gestir um Leifsstöð 2002-2014. Sótt 21. febrúar 2013 frá Fjöldi ferðamanna: http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/is/tolur-og-utgafur/fjoldi- ferdamanna

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Los Angeles: Sage.

Finn, M., Elliott-White, M. og Walton, M. (2000). Tourism & Leisure Research Methods: Data collection, analysis and interpretation. Essex: Longman.

Gamli Baukur. (e.d.). Sótt 15. mars 2014 frá Saga Gamla Bauks: http://www.gamlibaukur.is/islenska/saga-gamla-bauks/

Gentle Giants. (e.d.). Sótt 15. mars 2014 frá Environmental policy: http://www.gentlegiants.is/environmental-policy/

Hagstofa Íslands. (2009). Gistiskýrslur 2008. Hagtíðindi: Ferðamál og samgöngur, 94(10), 1-36.

Hagstofa Íslands. (2014a). Gistingar ferðamanna 2013. Hagtíðindi: Ferðamál, samgöngur og upplýsingatækni, 99 (11), 1-20.

Hagstofa Íslands. (2014b). Mannfjöldinn eftir póstnúmerum, kyni og aldri 1998-2014. Sótt 7. mars 2014 frá http://hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Mannfjoldi/Byggdakjarnar,- postnumer,-hverfi

Hagstofa Íslands. (e.d.a.). Ferðamál, samgöngur og upplýsingatækni. Sótt 22. janúar 2014 frá Um gistiskýrslur: http://www.hagstofa.is/Pages/101

Hagstofa Íslands. (e.d.b.). Gistinætur og gestakomur á öllum tegundum gististaða 1998- 2013. Sótt 17. nóvember 2014 frá http://hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Ferdamal-samgongur- UT/Ferdathjonusta

Hagstofa Íslands (e.d.c.) Gistinætur, gestakomur og meðaldvalarlengd á öllum tegundum gististaða 1998-2012. Sótt 12. maí 2013 frá Ferðamál samgöngur og upplýsingatækni: http://hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Ferdamal-samgongur-UT/Ferdathjonusta

Hjörleifur Finnsson, Helga Árnadóttir og Jóhanna Katrín Þórhallsdóttir. (2013). Ársskýrsla norðursvæðis 2012. Vatnajökulsþjóðgarður.

Homewood, V. (8. mars 2010). Whale watching: 10 of the best. The Telegraph. Sótt 7. september 2013 frá http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/activityandadventure/7397122/ Whale-watching-10-of-the-best.html

Húsavíkurstofa. (2014). Visit Husavik. Sótt 16. janúar 2014 frá http://www.visithusavik.is/husavik/husavikurstofa/

Hvalasafnið á Húsavík. (e.d.). Sótt 20. október 2013 frá Um safnið: http://www.hvalasafn.is/um-safnid/

Icewhale. (e.d.). Sótt 30. júlí 2014 frá Whale watching in Iceland: http://icewhale.is/whale-watching-in-iceland/

John S. Hull Associates Inc., Kalahari Management Inc., Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála, New Zealand Tourism Research Institute. (2008). Stefnumótun í ferðaþjónustu á Norðausturlandi: Áætlun til fimm ára 2009-2014. Húsavík: Atvinnuþróunarfélag Þingeyinga.

Karl Benediktsson og Anna Karlsdóttir. (2011). Iceland: crisis and regional development - Thanks for all the fish? European Urban and Regional Studies, 18(2), 228- 235. Lilja Berglind Rögnvaldsdóttir. (2013). Fémæti ferðaþjónustu: Rannsókn á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslu. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála. Malhotra, N. K. (1999). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (3. útg.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Inc.

Metrass Mendes, A. (2013). Icelandic tourism profitability and sustainability strategies: The facilitating role of aviation. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála.

Níels Einarsson. (2009). From good to eat to good to watch: Whale watching, adaption and change in Icelandic fishing communities. Polar Research, 28, 129-138.

Norðursigling. (e.d.). Sótt 15. mars 2014 frá Saga Norðursiglingar: http://www.nordursigling.is/um-nordursiglingu/saga-nordursiglingar/

Norðurþing. (2010). Aðalskipulag Norðurþings 2010-2030. Húsavík: Höfundur.

Oddný Þóra Óladóttir. (2014). Ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi í tölum - apríl 2014. Reykjavík: Ferðamálastofa.

Rannveig Ólafsdóttir og Kristín Rut Kristjánsdóttir. (2009). Mat á áhrifum álvers á Bakka á ferðamennsku. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð Ferðamála.

Rasmussen, M. (2014). The whaling versus whale-watching debate: The resumption of Icelandic whaling. Í J. Higham, L. Bejder, og R. Williams (Ritstj.), Whale-watching: Sustainable Tourism and Ecological Mangement (bls. 81-94). Cambridge: Cambridge.

Rögnvaldur Guðmundsson. (2013). Ferðamenn í Þingeyjarsýslum 2012 og þróunin frá 2005. Rannsóknir og ráðgjöf ferðaþjónustunnar ehf.

Sprenging í sölu norðurljósaferða. (2012, október). Ruv.is. Sótt 8. nóvember 2014 af http://ruv.is/frett/sprenging-i-solu-nordurljosaferda

Sverðin slíðruð á Húsavík. (2014, apríl). Mbl.is. Sótt 8. maí 2014 af http://www.mbl.is/frettir/innlent/2014/04/29/sverdin_slidrud_a_husavik/

Sæmundur Rögnvaldsson. (2003). Saga Húsavíkur (V.bindi). Akureyri: Húsavíkurkaupstaður.

United Nations. (2010). The conceptual framework for tourism statistics - International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008. New York: Höfundur.

Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation and Human Dimensions. Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing.

Veal, A. J. (2006). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide. London: Prentice Hall.

Whitehead, J., Haab, T. og Huang, J.-C. (2011). Preference Data for Environmental Valuation: Combining revealed and stated approaches. London: Routledge.

World Tourism Organisation. (2014). UNWTO Highlights. 2014 Edition. New York: Höfundur.

World Tourism Organization. (1999). Data collection and analysis for tourism management, marketing and planning: A manual for managers and analysts. Madrid: Höfundur.

Þingskjal 758. (2010-2011). Tillaga til þingsályktunar um ferðamannaáætlun 2011- 2020. Reykjavík. Sótt 12. maí 2014 frá http://www.althingi.is/altext/139/s/0758.html

7 VIÐAUKAR

1. SPURNINGAKÖNNUN 2013

7.1 SPURNINGAKÖNNUN 2014

7.2 ATHUGASEMDIR FERÐAMANNA 2013 „Er eitthvað sem þú vildir koma á framfæri? Hefur þú hugmyndir um afþreyingu sem þú vildir sjá á húsavík, eða er eitthvað sem þér finnst vanta á svæðinu ?“

Allt dásamlegt Allt er í fínu lagi hér á Húsavík Allt í góðu lagi Alltof dýrir veitingastaðir Alvöru víkinga með rautt skegg :) Ekki nægilega mörg hótel á Húsavík. Vantar gistipláss Ég hélt þið væruð veiðiþjóð? Hvar er hægt að kaupa ferskan fisk!? Ég veit ekki mikið annað um Húsavík en að þetta er góður hvalaskoðunarstaður. Því miður á ég ekki pening til þess að fara í slíkt, en við stoppuðum annars bara hér á leið okkar vestur Fallegt Botnsvatn Fínt tjaldsvæði, góðar sturtur. Fleiri gönguleiðir. Frábært landslag Fleiri valmöguleika um gerðir sumarhúsa til leigu Franska þýðingu í hvalasafnið Frábær matur Frábær staður. Var á hraðferð og gat því ekki dvalið eins lengi og ég vildi Frábært eins og það er Frábært hvalasafn Frábært hvalasafn. Kannski skortir kaffiteríu sem er með lengri opnunartíma? Frábært. Tvær nothæfar tölvur í upplýsingamiðstöðinni! Gistiskála/kofa Gönguleið meðfram ströndinni - sjávarlengjunni Gönguleiðirnar ekki nógu vel merktar en voru í lagi. Leitaði lengi að merkjum um leið 5 en fann ekki Hafa kindur á tjaldsvæðinu til þess að halda grasinu stuttu. Laga hurðina að sundlauginni, hún lokast sjálfkrafa á mikilli ferð sem er stórhættulegt fyrir yngri börn Hafa tónlistarviðburði á pöbbunum á kvöldin, jafnvel heimafólk að spila - geta átt möguleika á að hitta fólk og kynnast fleirum Hefði viljað bæta við smá sól :) Hefði viljað lengri tíma en er í skipulagðri ferð og stoppuðum í tæpar 3 klst

Hefðum eflaust farið í fuglaskoðun og göngu ef við værum ekki búin að því annars staðar á Íslandi. Langaði að kaupa bók en var lítið um þær á hvalasafninu Húsavík er mjög fínn bær Hvalasafn og upplýsingamiðstöð magnað. Hvalasafnið er frábært Hvalaskoðun frestað vegna veðurs Hvar er reðasafnið? :( Kajak eða kanó Kom með 25 manna hóp á sunnudegi og ætlaði að versla skyr og ávexti en matvörubúðirnar lokaðar. Mjög slæmt Lengri opnunartími verslana um helgar. Eftir 14.00 Lifandi tónlist á kvöldin Margir hlutir að gera og sjá Meiri almennar söguupplýsingar um þennan bæ Meira sjávarfæði Meira sólskin Meira sólskin og minni vindur Mér þótti mjög leiðinlegt að sjá að Reðursafnið er farið til Reykjavíkur Mjög fínn og þrifalegur bær Mjög leið yfir því að Reðursafnið hafi flust til Reykjavíkur. Mjög mikið af góðum upplýsingum í hvalasafninu Mjög sáttur með safnið og aðstöðuna þar. Mættu vera fleiri upplýsingar á ensku um afþreyingu í bænum yfir sumarið Myndi vilja sjá lifandi tónlist Mætti vera bíó. Söknuðum þess að finna ekki reðasafnið Mögulega kaffisölu uppi á fjalli Námsmenn á ferðalagi, hvalaskoðunin dýr. Spurning um að hafa námsmannaafslátt? Aðeins tvö okkar fóru í ferð Nýmætt og höfum því ekki enn eytt í hvalaskoðun Óþrifaleg eldunar- og salernisaðstaða á tjaldsvæði Pallurinn er frábær Rækjurúllur/Shrimp Rolls Sakna Reðasafnsins Sjókajak

Sólskin Sólskin og betra næturlíf Stoppaði of stutt. Bara að keyra um þetta fallega land Tjölduðum í villtri náttúrunni og vorum með eigin mat, því engin eyðsla. Mætti vera hostel á Húsavík Vantaði frönskumælandi túlk á Hvalasafnið þegar að ég kom Vantar eiginlega ekkert, fínt þorp Vantar franska þýðingu á safnið Vantar meira um opið Wifi Vantar upplýsingar á frönsku Vantar þvottaaðstöðu. Vatnseróbik í lauginni Við elskum allt hérna!! Vildi að hvalaskoðun væri ekki svona dýr, hugsið um námsmennina!! :) Vont veður. Frábært safn Það er enginn klósettbursti á kvennaklósettinu á Hvalasafninu. Slíkur bursti mætti gjarnan vera

7.3 ATHUGASEMDIR FERÐAMANNA 2014 „Er eitthvað sem þú vildir koma á framfæri? Hefur þú hugmyndir um afþreyingu sem þú vildir sjá á Húsavík, eða er eitthvað sem þér finnst vanta á svæðinu ?“

Allt er mjög gott (x2) Allt fínt Allt fullkomið (x2) Almenningssamgöngur eru frekar dýrar á Íslandi en það er bara einn partur af því að ferðast til/á Íslandi Betra veður Bjargið hvölunum Ekki hingað til, þetta er mjög fallegur bær Engu við að bæta Ég er mjög miður mín yfir hvalveiðum á Íslandi. Vinsamlegast hættið þeim, þær láta ykkur líta út fyrir að vera heimsk. Ég myndi vilja segja að allt byrjar mjög snemma og að maður getur ekki fundi stað til þess að borða á eftir 10 á kvöldin. Ég var ánægð með að einn af veitingastöðunn var opinn lengur (23:00). Í sumar fórum við í kvöldgöngu og vantaði stað að borða á þegar við komum aftur. Ég veit ekki þar sem ég er bara á leið í gegnum bæinn Ég þarf nýja skó en allar verslanirnar eru lokaðar Falleg og góð staðsetning. Verðlag frekar hátt á ferðum í samanburði við aðrar Fallegt land, verðlag mjög hátt, þurfti að stytta dvöl mína hér á Íslandi Fallegt útsýni Fallegur bær Fallegur bær, ef ég hefði meiri tíma myndi ég eyða öðrum degi hér. Fallegur bær, ég fékk góðan hamborgara nálægt bensínstöðinni, ég man ekki eftir neinu sérstöku. Fallegur lítill bær, Ég var mög ánægð að finna gott bakarí í morgunmat Fallegur staður, vildi að eg gæti dvalið lengur Fjallaklifur. Sundlaug Fleiri veitingahús Framboðið í svo litlum bæ er gott. Upplýsingamiðstöðin mætti vera aðeins betur merkt Frábær söfn Frábært hvalasafn. Ég myndi mæla með að ferðast til Húsavíkur við aðra ferðamenn.

Frábært og upplýsandi safn Gott veður gerði upplifunina ennþá betri Góður matur Göngustíga að klettunum/ströndinni Haldið áfram góðri þjónustu Hótelið er allt of dýrt miðað við þjónustu Húsavík er fín eins og hún er Húsavík er sannarlega eins fögur og lýsingarnar í ferðahandbókinni segja til um. Ég vissi að ég mætti ekki missa af henni. Hvala og lundaferðin var frábær, tjaldstæðið var einnig fínt Hvalasafnið (x2) Hvalasafnið er besta hvalasafn sem ég hef séð. Hins vegar var myndin sem var sýnd um hvalveiðar frá sjónarhorni hvalverndar og sýnir því ekki rétt viðhorf til hvalveiða út frá íslensku sjónarhorni. P.s. ég er sjálf á móti hvalveiðum Hvalasafnið var frábært og gistingin er góð. Ódýrara verðlag væri betra ekki bara á Húsavík, heldur á öllu Íslandi. Hvalasafnið var frábært. Fór í skoðunarferð með leiðsögumanni sem var mjög góður Hættið hvalveiðum (x3) Innisundlaug á rigningardögum Ísland er frábært land með fullt af fallegu fólki Kannski sundlaug Köfun Köfun með hvölum Látið sólina skína Leiðbeiningar á frönsku á söfnunum Merkið betur staðsetningu Upplýsingamiðstöðvarinnar á kort og hvernig hægt er að komast þangað. Merkt gönguleið að vitanum Minni rigning Mjög fallegt og áhrifamikið að sjá heildarmyndina hér við höfnina Mjög gott safn, hvalaskólinn áhrifamikið verkefni Mjög heilluð af safninu (hvalasafninu) Mjög vingjarnlegt fólk Mætti kannski endurbæta hvalasafnið að utan Námskeið í að komast af.

Nei eiginlega ekki, höldum Húsavík eins og hún er þekkt fyrir Nei takk ! Frábært safn, spennandi og upplýsandi Nei takk! Nei þetta hefur verið frábært hingað til Nei, allt í góðu lagi Nei, þetta er fínt Nýtt upplýsingaskilti við hvalaskoðunina Ok (x2) Okkur langaði að fara í hvalaskoðun en hún var of dýr Ódýrari matur Reðasafnið! Reykt hvalkjöt Rúta sem fer hringinn ætti að hafa stoppistöð hér. Skoðunarferð til þess að skoða seli á svæðinu ef það er hægt Skýrari merkingar, upplýsingar um hvar má leggja Sól (x2) Sól allan sólarhringinn ;) Sólbrúnka (ég er að sjálfsögðu að grínast) ! Sólin Spa og nudd Stutt heimsókn, gæti alveg komið aftur. Frábært hvalasafn Sundlaug Tjaldsvæðakort Tónlistarhátíð, og myndi vilja sjá sólina Töluð franska á söfnunum Upplýsingar um helsta nágrenni takmarkaðar, fyrir utan hvalaskoðun Upplýsingar um hvalvernd Upplýsingarnar á Upplýsingamiðstöðinni mættu vera skýrari, maður gæti haldið að þetta væri bara hvalasafn Útsýnisstaði yfir Atlantshafið (x2) Vantar betri almenningsaðstöðu s.s. salerni og nestisaðstöðu/ skýli til að verja sig fyrir rigningu og sól. Hvalasafnið var frábært. Vantar heitan pott Við förum í hvala, lunda og siglinga ferð í dag

Við gátum hvergi fengið að borða eftir kl 10 á kvöldin. Við vorum mjög svöng. Við höfum aðeins verið hér í 20 mínútur þannig að við höfum ekki séð margt. Hingað til er þetta fínt. Við höfum átt góðan tíma á Íslandi. En hér er dýrt að vera. Við höfum séð mjög lítið hingað til Við höfum verið hér svo stutt Það er mjög fallegt hér. Þetta er fallegur bær, við erum mjög ánægð að vera hér. Þið ættuð að hætta hvalveiðum Þið ættuð að kynna höfnina betur fyrir stangveiði. Að veiða fisk í klukkutíma með leiðsögn væri fljótleg og auðveld leið til þess að leyfa ferðamönnum að tengjast sjónum betur. Þjónustan er mjög góð. Hvalasafnið er frábært. Það væri samt betra að geta fundið hluti á ódýrara verði almennt Þurrara veður, minni þoka, meiri sól

7.4 HVERS VEGNA VARÐ HÚSAVÍK FYRIR VALINU SEM ÁFANGASTAÐUR ?20 Af því að við völdum að heimsækja Norðurland og við hittum Íslending sem keyrði okkur hingað frá Akureyri Á ferð með leiðsögumanni Á ferðaáætlun (x5) Á ferðalagi um Ísland Á leið til Mývatns Á leið í gegn (x2) Á leiðinni í gegn, engin sérstök ástæða Áhugaverð náttúra, höfn og hvalir Áhugaverður áfangastaður Áhugaverður staður Áhugavert í ferðahandbókinni Áhugi á hvölum Áhugi á hvölum (aðallega hvalasafnið) Bara til gamans Dýralíf, hvalir, heitir pottar Er að ferðast um Ísland á puttanum og ég heyrði og las um Húsavík í bæklingum og ákvað að stoppa þar Er í nágrenni við hótelið okkar, með matvöruverslun, höfn og hægt að snæða hádegisverð Ég hafði áður komið til Húsavíkur og langaði til þess að koma aftur og vera um tíma Fallegt fiskiþorp, erum á leið til Siglufjarðar Fallegur bær og kannski hvalaskoðun Fallegur staður Fallegur staður í hringferðinni okkar Fallegur staður, fersk loft, fiskur Ferð til Íslands Ferð um Ísland með leiðsögumanni Ferðalag (x2) Fylgja leiðbeiningum/ferðaáætlun (x2)

20 Einungis í spurningakönnun sumarið 2014

Fyrsti sænski landnámsmaðurinn valdi HÚSAVÍK og Hvalaskoðun Góð staðsetning fyrir hvalaskoðun, Heimsækja Mývatn, Ásbyrgi Dettifoss, Tjörnes. Góð staðsetning til göngu og skoða hvali Hafið og Hvalaskoðun Hafnarbær, hvalir Hef aldrei komið hingað áður Heimsókn til kærustu Heimsækja fiskiþorp Heyrði að þetta væri lítið fallegt fiskiþorp, með hvalaskoðun Hitta heimamenn Hluti af ferðaáætlun (x2) Hluti af ferðinni Hluti af ferðinni, skipulagt af BBS ferðaskrifstofu Hluti af hópferð frá Danmörku (x2) Hluti af skipilögðu göngufríi Hópferð Hringferð (x14) Hringferð um Ísland Hringferð um landið með íslensku hópferðafyrirtæki Hringferð, hvalaskoðun (x7) Húsavík er fallegur bær, Mig langar að skoða hvalasafnið og fara í hvalaskoðun Húsavík var kynnt sem vinalegt sjávarþorp, hvalaskoðun, var á ferðaáætlun. Húsavík var partur af ferðalagi okkar í kringum landið (staðsett á hringnum) Hvala og lundaskoðun Hvala og lundaskoðun, og að fara á sjó Hvalasafnið (x12) Hvalasafnið og áhugi á norðurlandi Hvalasafnið, Hringferð Hvalasafnið, hvalaskoðun (x3) Hvalasafnið, hvalaskoðun og skoða bæinn Hvalasafnið, landslag Hvalasafnið, sjórinn Hvalasafnið, útsýnisferð

Hvalaskoðun (x203) Hvalaskoðun (aflýst vegna veðurs) ;( Hvalaskoðun og að sjá bæinn Hvalaskoðun og hestaferðir Hvalaskoðun og hvalasafn (x4) Hvalaskoðun og lundar Hvalaskoðun og Mývatn Hvalaskoðun og nálægð við Akureyri Hvalaskoðun og safn Hvalaskoðun, hellaskoðun Hvalaskoðun, Hestaferð, Húsavík virðist vera áhugaverður bær í norðri með menningardagskrá að auki Hvalaskoðun, hestaferð, höfnin og hafið Hvalaskoðun, hringferð Hvalaskoðun, Húsavík Hvalaskoðun, hvalasafn (x4) Hvalaskoðun, höfnin Hvalaskoðun, lundaskoðun Hvalaskoðun, nálægðin við Mývatn Hvalaskoðun, sagan Hvalaskoðun, skoða svæðið Hvalaskoðun, skoðunarferð um bæinn Hvalaskoðun, söfn Hvalaskoðun, söfn og veitingahús Hvalaskoðun, viðkomustaður á hringferð (x2) Hvalir (x57) Hvalir og bærinn Hvalir og eldfjöll Hvalir og ferðast um ísland Hvalir og höfnin Hvalir og lundar (x2) Hvalir og matur Hvalir og myndataka Hvalir og Mývatn

Hvalir og náttúra (x2) Hvalir og Norðurland Hvalir og skoða bæinn Hvalir, ég elska þennan stað Hvalir, fallegur bær Hvalir, höfnin Hvalir, höfrungar og lundar Hvalir, landslag (x3) Hvalir, lundar Höfnin og fallegur bær Höfnin, kirkjan og söfnin Höfnin, þorpið Höfuðborg hvalaskoðunar Í hvalaskoðun og að keyra upp á Húsavíkurfjall Í leiðinni (x2) Keyrt í gegn Komum til að skoða reðasafnið sem er ekki lengur hér. Einnig til að skoða hvalasafnið Komum vegna reðasafnsins Leið hjá (x3) Lundar (x2) Meðmæli (x2) Meðmæli frá ferðaskrifstofu (x3) Meðmæli frá leiðsögumanni Meðmæli frá leiðsögumanni og námskeið Meðmæli frá syni Meðmæli frá syni mínum sem hefur komið hingað Meðmæli í bók Meðmæli í bók um Ísland Meðmæli í ferðahandbók, hvalaskoðun Meðmæli í handbók og hvalaskoðun Náttúran og Hvalasafnið Okkur langaði að skoða hvali, en því miður var veðrið ekki gott. Sem betur fer bjóðið þið upp á gott kaffi ;) Á leiðinni í Ásbyrgi, Húsavíkurfjall

Ókunnugt land Partur af rannsóknum um hvalaskoðun Reðasafnið (sem er ekki lengur hér), náttúran, hvalasafnið Bíltúr frá Mývatni Rúta Sem rannsóknarferð Skipulögð ferð. Kannski hvalir Skipulögð skoðunarferð Skoðunarferð Skoðunarferðir og hvalir Staðsetning nálægt þjóðgarði þar sem er ekki allt fullt Staðsetningin, hvalasafnið Staðsetninginn, almenningssamgöngur Stærra þorp, við sjóinn, hvalir Sveitabær, hvalir, útreiðatúr Söfn Söfn, hringferð Til að heimsækja Norðurland og sjá hvali Til að skoða bæinn Tjalda Tjaldstæði Ummæli frá öðrum ferðamönnum um Ísland Útsýnisferð, borða úti, hvalir Verslun, höfn, veitingahús Viðkomustaður á hringferð og hvalir Viðkomustaður á hringferð um landið (x5) Vorum að kanna umhverfið í kringum Mývatn Það er nálægt og skoða hvali

Appendix D

Fémæti ferðaþjónustu Rannsókn á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslu

[The value of tourism: Research on the economic effects of tourism in Þingeyjarsýslur]

Lilja B. Rögnvaldsdóttir

Icelandic Tourism Research Centre

November 2013

35 pages

Útgefandi: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála, Borgum v/ Norðurslóð, IS-600 Akureyri Sími: (+354) 460-8930 Fax: (+354) 460-8919 Rafpóstur: [email protected] Veffang: www.rmf.is

Titill: Fémæti ferðaþjónustu. Rannsókn á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslu Höfundur: Lilja Berglind Rögnvaldsdóttir

Kápa: Ásprent-Stíll og Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála Prentun: Stell (www.stell.is)

Númer: RMF-S-06-2013 ISBN: 978-9935-437-21-1 ISSN: 1670-8857

Fémæti ferðaþjónustu Rannsókn á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslu

Lilja Berglind Rögnvaldsdóttir

RANNSÓKNAMIÐSTÖÐ FERÐAMÁLA NÓVEMBER 2013

Efnisyfirlit Efnisyfirlit ...... 2 Myndir og töflur ...... 3 Inngangur ...... 4 Markmið og aðferðir ...... 4 Þróun atvinnugreinarinnar ...... 5 Hagræn áhrif ferðaþjónustu ...... 8 Ferðaþjónustureikningar ...... 12 Svæðisbundnir ferðaþjónustureikningar ...... 16 Rannsóknarsvæði ...... 22 Rannsóknaraðferð ...... 24 Ferðaþjónustureikningar ...... 24 Bein, óbein og afleidd áhrif ferðaþjónustu ...... 25 Áfangar og árekstrar ...... 28 Lokaorð ...... 30 Heimildir ...... 32

Myndir og töflur Mynd 1: Fjöldi erlendra ferðamanna 1949-2012...... 5 Mynd 2: Hlutfall atvinnugreina í gjaldeyristekjum þjóðarinnar 1999-2012...... 6 Mynd 3: Töflur ferðaþjónustureikninga sem nauðsynlegar eru til að mæla þjóðhagsstærðir...... 14 Mynd 4: Meðalhlutfall gistinátta útlendinga eftir landshlutum og árstíma 2003-2012...... 17 Mynd 5: Fjöldi gistinátta útlendinga 2012 eftir landshlutum og árstíðum...... 18 Mynd 6: Þróun íbúafjölda á Norðurlandi eystra 1998-2012...... 22 Mynd 7: Rannsóknarsvæði verkefnisins...... 23 Mynd 8: Heildaráhrif ferðaþjónustu á þjóðarbúskapinn...... 25

Tafla 1: Íslensk rannsóknarverkefni á hagrænum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu...... 8 Tafla 2: Töfluverk ferðaþjónustureikninga...... 13 Tafla 3: Ferðaþjónustuhlutfall atvinnugreina á Íslandi 2008...... 15 Tafla 4: Gini stuðull gistinátta útlendinga á öllum gististöðum 1998-2012...... 19

Inngangur Rannsókn á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslu er yfirskrift þriggja ára samstarfsverkefnis Rannsóknaseturs Háskóla Íslands á Húsavík, Rannsóknamiðstöðvar ferðamála og Þekkingarnets Þingeyinga. Verkefnið er að stærstum hluta fjármagnað með sérstakri fjárveitingu mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytisins sem veitt var til rannsókna í ferðaþjónustu á árunum 2012-2014 í gegnum Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála og er eitt fimm verkefna sem sett voru af stað á þeim grunni. Aðrir hlutar þessa verkefnis eru fjármagnaðir úr Vaxtarsamningi Norðausturlands og af Þekkingarneti Þingeyinga. Í þessari skýrslu verður verkefninu og rannsóknarumhverfinu lýst auk þess sem gerð verður grein fyrir stöðu þess og næstu skrefum.

Markmið og aðferðir Meginmarkmið rannsóknarinnar er tvíþætt; annars vegar að meta hvernig hægt er að vega bein efnahagsleg áhrif ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslu með hliðsjón af alþjóðlegri forskrift ferðaþjónustureikninga (e. 2008 Tourism Satellite Account – Recommended Methodological Framework) og hins vegar að meta óbein og afleidd efnahagsleg áhrif með aðferðum aðfanga- og afurðagreiningar (e. Input–Output model). Rannsóknin er unnin samhliða rannsókn Rannsóknamiðstöðvar ferðamála á þjóðhagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu (sjá Frenţ, 2013) og munu niðurstöður þessa verkefnis verða notaðar til samanburðar og staðfestingar á því hvað mögulegt er að heimfæra af þjóðhagslegum stærðum uppá einstök svæði. Aðrar rannsóknir sem tengjast verkefninu eru kannanir á ferðavenjum og ferðaneyslu erlendra ferðamanna sem byggðar eru á spurningakönnunum sem framkvæmdar voru sumarið 2013 í Mývatnssveit og á Húsavík og unnar í samvinnu við Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga, Húsavíkurstofu og Mývatnsstofu. Niðurstöður þeirra kannana munu gefa mynd af samsetningu ferðamanna með tilliti til þjóðernis, aldurs, tekna og fleiri þátta auk þess sem þær gefa vísbendingu um neyslu þeirra, dvalarlengd, gisti- og ferðamáta ásamt fleiru. Auk þessara gagna úr tengdum rannsóknum verður gagna aflað sérstaklega fyrir þetta verkefni með tvennum hætti. Annars vegar með rannsókn á fyrirliggjandi greinum, skýrslum og tölulegum gögnum um efnahagsáhrif ferðaþjónustu í alþjóðlegu samhengi og hins vegar með einstaklingsviðtölum við atvinnurekendur á svæðinu og greiningu ársreikninga þeirra. Rannsóknin byggir á úrtaki sem unnið er úr Fyrirtækjaskrá Ríkisskattstjóra eftir aðferðum Hagstofunnar við gerð ferðaþjónustureikninga. Heildarfjöldi rekstraraðila í Þingeyjarsýslu sem flokkast í einkennandi og tengdar ferðaþjónustugreinar og sem rannsóknin beinist að (sjá töflu 3) er samtals 205. Auk viðtala við atvinnurekendur verður rætt við starfsfólk hjá hinu opinbera sem og fólk í klasasamtökum ferðaþjónustunnar í Þingeyjarsýslu. Greining gagna er unnin eftir eigindlegum rannsóknaraðferðum þar sem fyrirliggjandi gögnum og niðurstöðum úr viðtölum er teflt saman með það að markmiði að meta heildaráhrif ferðaþjónustunnar í hagrænum skilningi og bera saman við niðurstöður Hagstofunnar á landsvísu. Verkefnið er nú um það bil hálfnað. Hingað til hefur vinnan að mestu leyti falist í greiningu fyrirliggjandi gagna, en árið 2014 verður helgað öflun frumgagna með viðtölum við ferðaþjónustuaðila sem og aðra tengda aðila. Úrvinnslu og skýrslugerð lýkur samkvæmt áætlun í júní 2015.

Þróun atvinnugreinarinnar Rekja má sögu ferðalaga á Íslandi aftur til landnámsaldar þó eiginleg ferðamennska og samhliða ferðaþjónusta sé vart talin verða til fyrr en með tilkomu millilandaflugs um miðja síðustu öld. Þau þáttaskil mörkuðu í raun fæðingu atvinnugreinarinnar hér á landi sem vaxandi væntingar hafa æ síðan verið bundnar við (Jóhannesson, Huijbens, & Sharpley, 2010). Frá þeim tíma hefur erlendum ferðamönnum fjölgað stöðugt og síðastliðin tíu ár hafa einkennst af miklum vexti þar sem ferðamannafjöldinn hefur rúmlega tvöfaldast, eða vaxið úr 320 þúsund árið 2003 í 670 þúsund árið 2012 (sjá mynd 1). Þessi aukning er langt umfram það sem þekkist annars staðar en árlegur meðalvöxtur ferðamannafjölda í heiminum er 3,6% borið saman við 9,0% hérlendis á sama tíma1 (World Tourism Organisation, 2013, Ferðamálastofa, e.d). Áframhaldandi vexti er spáð á Íslandi og í nýrri skýrslu Boston Consulting Group (2013) er áætlaður fjöldi ferðamanna til landsins árið 2023 ein og hálf milljón, sem er rúm tvöföldun á næstu tíu árum.

700.000

600.000

500.000

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000

0 1949 1952 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Mynd 1: Fjöldi erlendra ferðamanna 1949-2012. Heimild: Ferðamálastofa, e.d.

Samhliða fjölgun gesta hefur velta ferðaþjónustufyrirtækja aukist og var atvinnugreinin árið 2012 orðin önnur mikilvægasta atvinnugrein þjóðarbúsins á eftir sjávarútvegi í öflun gjaldeyristekna. Það ár voru gjaldeyristekjur greinarinnar 239 milljarðar króna eða tæp 24% af heildargjaldeyristekjum þjóðarinnar eins og kemur fram á mynd 2. Hagstofa Íslands gerir í Þjóðhagsspá sinni ráð fyrir áframhaldandi vexti í greininni á meðan reiknað er með samdrætti í sölu sjávarafurða og takmörkuðum vexti í sölu stóriðjuafurða (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013b, bls. 7).

1 m.v. tímabilið 2005-2012.

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Sjávarafurðir Ál og álafurðir Ferðaþjónusta

Mynd 2: Hlutfall atvinnugreina í gjaldeyristekjum þjóðarinnar 1999-2012. Heimild: Byggt á: Hagstofa Íslands, e.d.b, e.d.c, e.d.d

Af myndum 1 og 2 að dæma hefur ferðaþjónustan skipað sér mikilvægan sess í gjaldeyrisöflun og atvinnusköpun þjóðarinnar auk þess að vera eitt helsta mótvægi í samdrætti á öðrum sviðum atvinnulífsins, sér í lagi frumvinnslugreinum á landsbyggðinni s.s. sjávarútvegi, fiskvinnslu og landbúnaði.

Hagræn áhrif ferðaþjónustu Talsverð umræða hefur átt sér stað síðustu ár um mikilvægi rannsókna í ferðaþjónustu og þá sérstaklega hagrænum áhrifum hennar (Ásgeir Jónsson, Njáll Trausti Friðbertsson og Þórhallur Ásbjörnsson, 2006; Edward H. Huijbens og Gunnar Þór Jóhannesson, 2013; Ferðamálastofa, 2011 og 2013; Gunnar Þór Jóhannesson, 2012; Rósbjörg Jónsdóttir, 2013; Samtök ferðaþjónustunnar, 2012). Þörf er á rannsóknum sem byggja á alþjóðlegum stöðlum og gera okkur kleift að meta stöðu atvinnugreinarinnar á Íslandi í samanburði við önnur lönd. Einnig hefur verið bent á mikilvægi svæðisbundinnar fyrirtækjatölfræði svo hægt sé að meta þróun ferðaþjónustu og arðsemi hennar eftir starfsemi og landshlutum (Ferðamálastofa, 2013). Takmarkaðar fjárveitingar til rannsókna og gagnaskortur hafa reynst erfiðar hindranir í þessum efnum, en einnig hefur eðli atvinnugreinarinnar gert mönnum erfitt fyrir þar sem ferðaþjónusta er bæði flókin og margþætt atvinnugrein. Hún hefur ekki verið skilgreind sérstaklega sem atvinnugrein í þjóðhagsreikningum, heldur dreifist umfang hennar á aðra liði þeirra (Hagstofa Íslands, 2008; Rósbjörg Jónsdóttir, 2013; Smeral, 2006). Segja má að ferðaþjónusta tilheyri öllum atvinnugreinum sem eiga viðskipti við ferðamenn með einum eða öðrum hætti. Þjónusta við ferðafólk getur þannig verið hluti af starfsemi fyrirtækja og bæst við önnur umsvif fyrirtækis, en þó að mis miklu leyti. Áskorunin liggur því í því að draga skörp skil á milli þess hvað telst til ferðaþjónustu og hvað telst til þjónustu við aðra viðskiptahópa (Hagstofa Íslands, 2008). Í almennri hagskýrslugerð er atvinnustarfsemi flokkuð eftir framleiðslu og afurðum en í ferðaþjónustu er því öfugt farið þar sem mælingin byggist á því hver það er sem kaupir (Hagstofa Íslands, 2010; Oxford Economics, 2012). Útgjöld og neysla ferðamanna á þjónustu frá ólíkum atvinnugreinum er metin og lögð saman í sérstökum hliðarreikningum við þjóðhagsreikninga, svokölluðum ferðaþjónustureikningum (e. tourism satellite accounts). Þessir reikningar voru fyrst gefnir út á Íslandi árið 2008 og náðu þá aftur til ársins 2000. Hagstofa Íslands hefur í þrígang gefið út ferðaþjónustureikninga fyrir landið (Hagstofa Íslands, 2008, 2010, 2011). Síðasta útgáfan er frá því í desember 2011, en tölulegar upplýsingar eru þó fæstar nýrri en frá 2009. Gerð ferðaþjónustureikninga hefur legið niðri síðan, en Atvinnuvega- og nýsköpunarráðuneytið (2013) hefur nú hafið viðræður við Hagstofuna um hagtölugerð fyrir atvinnulífið í heild þar sem gert er ráð fyrir áframhaldandi útgáfu ferðaþjónustureikninga. Útgáfa Hagstofunnar á ferðaþjónustureikningunum er mikilvægur áfangi í rannsóknarvinnu á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu en nokkur framför hefur þar að auki átt sér stað víðar m.a. vegna aukinna fjárframlaga íslenskra stjórnvalda til rannsóknarvinnu í ferðamálum sem og þátttöku hins opinbera í stefnumótandi aðgerðum innan ferðaþjónustunnar (Atvinnuþróunarfélag Þingeyinga, 2008; Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála, 2012; Samgönguráðuneytið, 2005). Á töflu 1 má sjá samantekt á helstu rannsóknarverkefnunum sem unnin hafa verið í tengslum við hagræn áhrif ferðaþjónustu á Íslandi síðastliðin 10 ár.

Tafla 1: Íslensk rannsóknarverkefni á hagrænum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu.

Rannsóknarverkefni Heimild Virðisauki í ferðaþjónustu: Rósbjörg Jónsdóttir (2013) Kortlagning og samstarfsmótun Skýrsla atvinnuvega- og nýsköpunarráðherra um stöðu ferðaþjónustunnar Atvinnuvega- og nýsköpunarráðuneytið (2013)

Rannsóknarverkefni Heimild Northern Sights: The future of tourism in Iceland The Boston Consulting Group (2013) Ferðaþjónustan: Atvinnugrein á unglingsaldri Arion banki (2013) Ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi: Greining Hagfræðideildar Landsbanka Íslands Landsbanki Íslands (2013) The economic impact of hunting reindeer in East Iceland Stefán Sigurðsson (2012) Ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi: Þróun fjárfestingar og reksturs Landsbanki Íslands (2012) Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll: Könnun meðal brottfararfarþega sumarið 2012 Eyrún J. Bjarnadóttir og Edward H. Huijbens (2012) Áhrif þess að hækka virðisaukaskatt á gistiþjónustu. Hagfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands (2012)

Íslensk ferðaþjónusta á afslætti? Arion banki (2012) Fjölgar kreppan krónum? Efnahagsleg áhrif ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík við breyttar Andri Valur Ívarsson og Óli Halldórsson (2011) samfélagsaðstæður Hagvísar í ferðaþjónustu. Gjaldeyristekjur - ferðaneysla Edward Huijbens og Jón Gestur Helgason (2011a) Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll. Könnun meðal brottfararfarþega Iceland Express sumarið 2011 Edward H. Huijbens og Jón Gestur Helgason (2011b) Áhrif tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhússins Hörpu á komur erlendra ferðamanna Hagfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands (2011)

Kortlagning á hagrænum áhrifum skapandi greina Margrét Sigrún Sigurðardóttir og Tómas Young (2011)

Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll. Könnun meðal brottfararfarþega Iceland Express sumarið 2010 Eyrún J. Bjarnadóttir og Edward H. Huijbens (2011)

Efnahagsleg áhrif skotveiða á Íslandi Jón Þ. Heiðarsson og Stefán Sigurðsson (2010)

Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll. Könnun meðal Eyrún J. Bjarnadóttir og brottfararfarþega Iceland Express sumarið 2009 Jón Gestur Helgason (2010) Hagvísir Vesturlands. Staða ferðaþjónustu á Vesturlandi Torfi Jóhannesson (2009) Efnahagsleg áhrif ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík. Tilkoma hvalaskoðunar Rannveig Guðmundsdóttir og Andri Valur Ívarsson (2008)

Samanburður á rekstrarumhverfi ferðaþjónustu á Samgönguráðuneytið (2007) Íslandi, Noregi, Svíþjóð og Danmörku Hagræn áhrif ferðaþjónustu. Ásgeir Jónsson, Njáll Trausti Friðbertsson, og Þórhallur Greint eftir svæðum á Íslandi Ásbjörnsson (2006)

Áhrif raungengis á ferðaþjónustu Hagfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands (2006)

Að græða á gestakomum: Þjóðhagslegur ábati ferðaþjónustu og hlutverk ríkisins Ásgeir Jónsson (2004)

Lax- og silungsveiði á Íslandi. Efnahagsleg áhrif Hagfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands (2004)

Flug- og ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi: Umfjöllun í tilefni af beiðni Ryanair um lækkun gjalda á Keflavíkurflugvelli Hagfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands (2004)

Ofangreind rannsóknarverkefni eru unnin af ýmsum aðilum og eftir margvíslegum aðferðum. Til viðbótar þessum lista má nefna árlega útgáfu Ferðamálastofu á „Ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi í tölum“ þar sem helstu tölulegar staðreyndir um íslenska ferðaþjónustu eru settar fram í myndrænu formi. Einnig eru gistináttaskýrslur Hagstofunnar gefnar út árlega og þrisvar sinnum hafa ferðaþjónustureikningar Hagstofunnar verið gefnir út eins og áður var sagt. Aðrar smærri útgáfur eru t.a.m. Hagsjá Landsbankans, Markaðspunktar Arion banka og Morgunkorn Íslandsbanka. Fæst þessara verkefna byggja á alþjóðlegum stöðlum og enn síður forskrift ferðaþjónustureikninga Hagstofunnar. Skýrsluhöfundur hefur ekki fundið neina íslenska rannsókn á svæðisbundnum hagrænum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu á landsbyggðinni sem byggir á aðferðafræði hliðarreikninga svo nýnæmi þessa verkefnis mun því að einhverju leyti felast í þróun aðferðar við gagnaöflun og úrvinnslu.

Ferðaþjónustureikningar Eins og fram hefur komið hefur Hagstofan í þrígang gefið út sérstaka hliðarreikninga við þjóðhagsreikninga, s.k. ferðaþjónustureikninga. Með þeim gefst kostur á að mæla beint framlag ferðaþjónustunnar til þjóðarbúsins. Reikningarnir byggja á grunnkerfi þjóðhagsreikninga (e. System of National Accounts) (Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, 2004; Eurostat, 2011; Frechtling & Smeral, 2010; Zhou, Yanagida, Chakravorty, og Leung, 1997) og eru unnir eftir alþjóðlegri forskrift ferðaþjónustureikninga. Tveimur meginritum er fylgt í því tilliti: 1. 2008 Tourism Satellite Account – Recommended Methodological Framework (TSA:RMF 2008) 2. 2008 International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics (IRTS 2008) (United Nations, 2010a; 2010b).

Þessi rit eru gefin sameiginlega út af Efnahags og framfarastofnuninni (OECD), Hagstofu Sameinuðu Þjóðanna (UNSD), Hagstofu Evrópusambandsins (Eurostat) og Alþjóðaferðamálasamtökum Sameinuðu Þjóðanna (UNWTO). Megintilgangur ferðaþjónustureikninga er að greina ítarlega alla þætti eftirspurnar eftir vörum og þjónustu sem tengjast ferðamennsku sem og að kanna hver tengsl eftirspurnarinnar eru við framboð þessara vara og þjónustu innan hagkerfisins auk þess að lýsa samspili framboðsins við aðrar tegundir atvinnustarfsemi (United Nations, 2010b, bls. iii). Í grunninn byggja reikningarnir á samspili 10 taflna sem gerðar eru til samræmis við sk. uppruna- og ráðstöfunartöflur (e. supply and use tables) þjóðhagsreikninga (United Nations, 2010b, bls. 31). Tafla 2 tekur saman yfirlit yfir þessar töflur.

Tafla 2: Töfluverk ferðaþjónustureikninga. Heimild: Hagstofa Íslands, 2008, bls. 17; United Nations, 2010b, bls. 37-44

Neysla erlendra ferðamanna innanlands (e. inbound tourism expenditure by products and categories of Tafla 1 visitors) Neysla innlendra ferðamanna innanlands (e. domestic tourism expenditure by products, by types of trips Tafla 2 and categories of visitors) Neysla innlendra ferðamanna erlendis (e. outbound tourism expenditure by products, by types of trips Tafla 3 and categories of visitors)

Tafla 4 Ferðaneysla innanlands alls (e. internal tourism consumption by products and types of items)

Heildarframboð í ferðatengdum atvinnugreinum (e. production accounts of tourism industries and other Tafla 5 industries)

Tafla 6 Ferðaþjónustuhlutfall (e. domestic supply and internal tourism consumption by products)

Tafla 7 Störf í ferðaþjónustu (e. employment in the tourism industries)

Fjárfesting í ferðaþjónustu (e. tourism gross fixed capital formation of tourism industries and other Tafla 8 industries) Ferðaþjónusta og stjórnsýsla (e. tourism collective consumption by CPC products and levels of Tafla 9 government)

Tafla 10 Aðrar vísbendingar í ferðaþjónustu (e. non-monetary indicators)

Töflur 1-4 snúa að eftirspurnarhlið ferðaþjónustunnar þar sem neysla ferðamanna er mæld frá ýmsum sjónarhornum og flokkuð eftir þáttum eins og heimilisfesti ferðamanna. Um getur verið að ræða einkaneyslu eða aðfangakaup og ferðamaðurinn getur ýmist verið fulltrúi heimilis, hins opinbera, fyrirtækis eða velferðarsamtaka (Hagstofa Íslands, 2008; United Nations, 2010b, bls. 37- 39). Við gerð þessara taflna notaðist Hagstofan við ýmsar kannanir, s.s. rannsóknir á útgjöldum heimilanna, samræmt skattframtal rekstraraðila, gistináttaskýrslur, könnun á ferðavenjum erlendra ferðamanna á Íslandi o.fl. Þar sem ekki liggja fyrir jafn umfangsmiklar kannanir á Íslandi og í þeim löndum sem komin eru hvað lengst í gerð ferðaþjónustureikninga, þurfti að áætla stærðir í mörgum tilvikum út frá ofangreindum könnunum við gerð ferðaþjónustureikninga hérlendis (Hagstofa Íslands, 2008). Töflur 5-6 ná yfir framboðshlið ferðaþjónustunnar, en þar er lögð áhersla á vörur og þjónustu sem helstu atvinnugreinar ferðaþjónustunnar framleiða eða selja. Upplýsingarnar í þessum töflum eru m.a. byggðar á samræmdu skattframtali rekstraraðila og virðisaukaskattskýrslum Ríkisskattstjóra (Hagstofa Íslands, 2008; United Nations, 2010b, bls. 39-40). Í töflu 7 er tilgreindur starfsmannafjöldi í ferðaþjónustu en erfitt getur verið að greina hann sökum árstíðasveiflna í atvinnugreininni og í einhverjum tilfellum óformlegra samninga hjá smærri rekstraraðilum sem og svartri atvinnustarfsemi (United Nations, 2010b, bls. 42). Tölfræði um störf og vinnutíma eftir atvinnugreinum er ekki fyrir hendi hér á landi svo þær upplýsingar sem birtar hafa verið um vinnuafl í ferðaþjónustu byggja á upplýsingum úr staðgreiðsluskrám Ríkisskattstjóra (Hagstofa Íslands, 2008).

Tafla 8 snýr að fjárfestingu í ferðaþjónustu, en hún hefur ekki verið unnin í ferðaþjónustureikningunum hér á landi hingað til. Upplýsingar um fjárfestingu í ferðaþjónustu eru afar mikilvægar, ekki síst vegna umræðu um aukna fjárfestingu í greininni hérlendis næstu ár. Tafla 9 greinir samneyslu hins opinbera í ferðaþjónustu (Hagstofa Íslands, 2008; United Nations, 2010b, bls. 44). Þessi tafla hefur ekki verið unnin sérstaklega í ferðaþjónustureikningunum hérlendis, en mikilvægt er að leggja mat á aðkomu hins opinbera að greininni. Framlag skattgreiðenda til greinarinnar, framboð menntunar í ferðaþjónustu, laga- og reglugerðaumhverfi greinarinnar, staða upplýsinga- og kynningarmála, útgjöld hins opinbera til öryggismála á ferðamannastöðum og fleiri þætti væri mikilvægt að taka saman og meta. Í töflu 10 eru tilgreindar vísbendingar sem hafa ekki peningalegt gildi en skipta máli við mat á ferðaþjónustu. Dæmi um það er talning á fjölda ferðamanna sem heimsækja landið og gistinátta þeirra, en Hagstofan hefur tekið tillit til þessara þátta í útreikningum sínum (United Nations, 2010b, bls. 44). Hvað varðar töflur 7 og 9 sérstaklega eru bundnar vonir við að þær verði til svo ferðaþjónusta geti staðið jafnfætis öðrum atvinnugreinum varðandi skýrslugerð um atvinnuvegi hérlendis. Mynd 3 sýnir samspil sex af þessum tíu töflum sem nauðsynlegar eru til að meta umfang atvinnugreinarinnar. Töflur 1, 2, 4 og-5 liggja til grundvallar því að hægt sé að reikna út töflu 6, sem jafnan er talin vera kjarninn í ferðaþjónustureikningunum. Í þeirri töflu er lagt mat á hlutfall ferðaþjónustu af öðrum atvinnugreinum, svokallað ferðaþjónustuhlutfall sem sýnir þann virðisauka er stafar af gestakomum fyrir hverja þá atvinnugrein sem talin er (Frechtling, 2010).

Framboð ferðaþjónustu Eftirspurn eftir ferðaþjónustu

Tafla 1. Neysla erlendra ferðamanna innanlands Tafla 6. Tafla 5. Tafla 4. Ferðaþjónustuhlutfall: Heildarframboð í Ferðaneysla Ferðaneysla og ferðatengdum innanlands alls framboð innanlands atvinnugreinum Tafla 2. Neysla innlendra ferðamanna innanlands Önnur ferðaneysla innanlands, t.d: (a) Gistiþjónusta önnur en í töflu 1 og 2, s.s. sumarhús, húsaskipti, Tafla 7. heimsóknir o.fl.; Störf í (b) aðrar sérstaklega ferðaþjónustu fjármagnaðar ferðir s.s. námsferðir og sjúkraferðir (c) önnur áætluð neysla

Vinnsluvirði í Vinnsluvirði í ferðaþjónustu Neysla ferðamanna ferðaþjónustu (v. ferðaneyslu Störf í Heildarvirði töflu: innanlands að viðbættri (allar ferða- innanlands); ferðaþjónustu annarri ferðaneyslu þjónustutengdar Framlag ferðaþjónustu atvinnugreinar) til VLF Mynd 3: Töflur ferðaþjónustureikninga sem nauðsynlegar eru til að mæla þjóðhagsstærðir. Heimild: Frechtling, 2010, bls. 142

Mynd 3 lýsir ferðaþjónustuhagkerfi ákveðins lands og skýrir m.a. hvernig framboð og eftirspurn eftir ferðaþjónustu mætast í töflu 6 sem skapar sk. ferðaþjónustuhlutfall atvinnugreina. Þetta hlutfall er undirstöðustærð. Miklu skiptir að skilja í samhengi hvers lands og svæðis hvað þetta hlutfall er og hvernig það er ólíkt eftir atvinnugreinum. Atvinnugreinarnar sem þetta hlutfall er svo heimfært uppá eru flokkaðar í ferðaþjónustureikningunum eftir því hve mikið af umsvifum innan hverrar greinar megi ætla að stafi frá þjónustu við ferðafólk. Atvinnugreinar sem vega þungt í ferðaþjónustu, það er hafa mest af sínum umsvifum af þjónustu við gesti, s.s. gisti- og veitingaþjónusta eða farþegaflutningar, eru kallaðar einkennandi ferðaþjónustugreinar (e. tourism characteristic activities). Greinar sem snúa að afþreyingu, menningarstarfsemi, sölu á eldsneyti, verslun tengdri ferðaþjónustu o.fl. falla undir flokkinn aðrar tengdar ferðaþjónustugreinar (Hagstofa Íslands, 2008). Í töflu 3 er sýnt hvaða hlutföll voru notuð í útreikningum á heildarframleiðsluvirði atvinnugreinarinnar árið 2010, sem náði þá yfir árin 2000-2008.

Tafla 3: Ferðaþjónustuhlutfall atvinnugreina á Íslandi 2008. Heimild: Hagstofa Íslands, 2010, bls. 27 Ferðaþjónustu Einkennandi ferðaþjónustu atvinnugreinar hlutfall 1. Gistiþjónusta 98,9% 1.1 Hótelgisting 98,7% 1.2 Önnur gistiþjónusta 99,1% 2. Veitingaþjónusta 33,1% 3. Farþegaflutningar 48,3% 3.1 Farþegaflutningar á landi 34,8% 3.2 Farþegaflutningar á sjó 2,7% 3.3 Farþegaflutningar með flugi 62,7% 3.4 Leiga flutningatækja, bílaleiga o.fl. 91,5% 4. Ferðaskrifstofur 100,0%

Ferðaþjónustutengdar atvinnugreinar Ferðaþjónustu hlutfall 5. Smásala bensíns, viðgerðir og viðhald bifreiða 24,4% 6. Önnur þjónusta tengd farþegaflutningum 31,8% 7. Menningarstarfsemi 21,0% 8. Afþreying og tómstundastarfsemi 32,5% 9. Ýmis önnur þjónusta við ferðamenn 11,9% 10. Ýmis verslun tengd ferðaþjónustu 10,0%

Það er ljóst að útgáfa ferðaþjónustureikninga Hagstofunnar hefur skipt sköpum í mati á hagrænum áhrifum atvinnugreinarinnar á Íslandi. Mikil vinna hefur verið lögð í að nálgast upplýsingar sem byggja má útreikninga á. Vegna skorts á rannsóknum og könnunum í ferðaþjónustu á Íslandi, sem afla gagna eftir alþjóðlegum stöðlum hefur ekki verið til talnaefni í heildstæða ferðaþjónustureikninga eins og lagt er upp með í alþjóðlegum forskriftum (Hagstofa Íslands, 2008).

Svæðisbundnir ferðaþjónustureikningar Vægi ferðaþjónustu er misjafnt eftir landsvæðum. Mismunur á framboði og eftirspurn ferðaþjónustu milli svæða skapar nauðsyn á mælingum á atvinnugreininni sem tryggir gæði ákvarðanatöku ferðaþjónustuaðila og opinberra aðila og er í raun ein meginforsendan fyrir því að hægt sé að byggja upp atvinnugreinina og fjárfesta í henni með markvissum og skynsamlegum hætti (Ferðamálastofa, 2013; Jones, Munday, & Roberts, 2003; United Nations, 2010b). Gæta þarf samhæfingar og samfellu í slíkum mælingum bæði á landsvísu og á einstökum svæðum (United Nations, 2010b). Svæðisbundnir ferðaþjónustureikningar (e. regional tourism satellite accounts) hafa verið gefnir út víða í Evrópu og byggja í grunninn á sömu aðferðum og almennir ferðaþjónustureikningar. Í þeim löndum sem þeir hafa verið gerðir hafa þeir nýst við ákvarðanatöku í ferðaþjónustu, en einnig við uppbyggingu og skipulagningu svæða, byggðaþróunarverkefni og auðlindastjórnun (United Nations, 2010b). Með svæðisbundnum ferðaþjónustureikningum má greina áhrif ferðaþjónustu á hagkerfi valinna landsvæða og bera saman við heildaráhrif atvinnugreinarinnar á þjóðarbúskapinn. Samkvæmt Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework (TSA:RMF 2008) eru tvær leiðir mögulegar til að leggja mat á vægi svæðisbundinnar ferðaþjónustu: Annars vegar svokölluð víxlsvæðanálgun (e. interregional approach) sem felur í sér að sömu aðferð er beitt á öllum svæðum og er þessi aðferð því stundum kölluð „top-down“ nálgunin. Hins vegar er svæðisbundin nálgun (e. regional approach) sem þýðir að þróa þarf sérstaka aðferð fyrir hvert svæði, og hefur hún því verið kölluð „bottom-up“ nálgunin (United Nations, 2010b). Fyrri aðferðin hentar ekki á Íslandi þar sem hún krefst þess að hægt sé að keyra út úr kerfum þjóðhagsreikninga sambærilegar upplýsingar fyrir hvert svæði og vinna svæðisbundna ferðaþjónustureikninga upp úr þeim. Þar sem það er ekki mögulegt hérlendis verður að nota seinni nálgunina og vinna gagnaöflun frá grunni. Þessar aðferðir eru ekki gallalausar. Ekki er hægt að heimfæra allar breytur í ferðaþjónustureikningunum yfir í svæðisbundna reikninga. Að auki getur reynst erfitt að meta hlut ferðaskrifstofa, samgöngufyrirtækja og fleiri aðila sem hafa starfssvæði í fleiri en einum landshluta. Einnig er erfiðara að rekja ferðir fólks á milli landsvæða en á milli landa þar sem eftirlit og vegabréfaskoðun er ekki til staðar. Mestu takmarkanirnar eru þó eftirspurnarmegin þar sem erfitt getur verið að skilgreina hluti eins og tilgang ferðar, tegund ferðamennsku, hversdagsumhverfi og fleiri þætti sem nauðsynlegir eru til að vinna greininguna (United Nations, 2010b). Engu að síður er mikilvægt að hefja þróun á svæðisbundnum ferðaþjónustureikningum hérlendis og er það verkefni sem hér er lýst innlegg inn í þá vinnu. Líkt og þjóðhagslegir ferðaþjónustureikningar byggja svæðisbundnir ferðaþjónustureikningar á reiknuðu vægi ferðaþjónustu í hinum ýmsu atvinnugreinum. Ljóst er að það getur verið misjafnt eftir ólíkum svæðum, sem ræðst meðal annars af því hversu vinsæl svæðin eru hjá ferðafólki og hve margir heimamenn eru þar fyrir. Sem dæmi má nefna þá geta veitingastaðir í Mývatnssveit sem opnir eru hluta úr ári varla verið með sama ferðaþjónustuhlutfall og veitingastaðir á höfuðborgarsvæðinu sem opnir eru allt árið. Til að skýra nánar þessi nokkuð augljósu sannindi má sjá á mynd 4 hvernig hlutfall gistinátta dreifist eftir landshlutum og árstíma. Glögglega má sjá hve hlutfall höfuðborgarsvæðisins er langtum meira yfir vetrartímann en sumartímann. Að sama skapi er hlutfallið á Norðausturlandi fjórum sinnum hærra yfir sumartímann en yfir vetrartímann. Þessi mynd er því nokkuð lýsandi fyrir það ójafnvægi sem ríkir milli höfuðborgarsvæðisins og landsbyggðarinnar í gestafjölda eftir árstíðum.

Mynd 4: Meðalhlutfall gistinátta útlendinga eftir landshlutum og árstíma 2003-2012. Heimild: Byggt á Hagstofa Íslands, e.d.a; Landmælingar Íslands, 2013

Heildarfjöldi gistinátta á Íslandi árið 2012 var 3.738.511. Þar af voru gistinætur útlendinga 2.888.951 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013a). Þegar rýnt er betur í fjölda gistinátta útlendinga má sjá á mynd 5 hvernig hlutfall þeirra dreifist um landið eftir árstíðum og landshlutum í magntölum. Árstíðirnar eru skilgreindar á eftirfarandi hátt (Ferðamálastofa, 2011):

Vor: apríl og maí Sumar: júní, júlí og ágúst Haust: september og október Vetur: nóvember, desember, janúar, febrúar og mars

Glöggt má sjá hve árstíðasveiflan er mikil á landsbyggðinni, en um 80% af heildargistináttafjölda útlendinga á sér yfirleitt stað þar yfir sumarmánuðina á meðan sama tala er einungis 40% á höfuðborgarsvæðinu árið 2012.

600.000

500.000

400.000

300.000 Vor Sumar 200.000 Haust

100.000 Vetur

Mynd 5: Fjöldi gistinátta útlendinga 2012 eftir landshlutum og árstíðum. Heimild: Hagstofa Íslands, 2013a

Til að sýna þetta með eilítið öðrum hætti og með áreiðanlegri reikningsaðferðum hefur Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála notað sk. Gini stuðul við útreikninga á dreifingu gistinátta yfir mánuði ársins eftir mismunandi svæðum. Stuðullinn, sem reiknaður er á bilinu 0-1, sýnir hve jöfn dreifing er, í þessu tilfelli eftir mánuðum. Þannig stendur 0 fyrir alveg jafna dreifingu gistinátta á alla mánuði ársins. Eftir því sem stuðullinn hækkar er gistináttadreifingin ójafnari og við gildið 1 eru allar gistinætur ársins á einum mánuði. Þrátt fyrir stöðugt vaxandi ferðamannafjölda til landsins þróast dreifing gistinátta hægt í rétta átt. Á töflu 4 má sjá útreikninga Rannsóknamiðstöðvar ferðamála á Gini stuðlinum á árabilinu 1998-2012.

Tafla 4: Gini stuðull gistinátta útlendinga á öllum gististöðum 1998-2012. Heimild: Edward Huijbens, tölvupóstur 12.12.2013 Höfuðborgar- Suðurnes Vesturland Vestfirðir Norðurland Norðurland Austurland Suðurland svæði vestra eystra 1998 0,32 0,44 0,66 0,75 0,78 0,75 0,77 0,72 1999 0,29 0,49 0,70 0,74 0,77 0,74 0,76 0,73 2000 0,28 0,46 0,71 0,75 0,77 0,73 0,76 0,72 2001 0,25 0,36 0,68 0,74 0,76 0,71 0,75 0,72 2002 0,27 0,44 0,70 0,73 0,76 0,73 0,73 0,71 2003 0,27 0,42 0,70 0,74 0,74 0,73 0,73 0,68 2004 0,28 0,41 0,69 0,75 0,75 0,73 0,72 0,68 2005 0,29 0,44 0,65 0,74 0,74 0,72 0,73 0,66 2006 0,27 0,43 0,65 0,71 0,73 0,70 0,69 0,67 2007 0,26 0,42 0,66 0,69 0,75 0,70 0,68 0,66 2008 0,24 0,44 0,65 0,70 0,74 0,71 0,70 0,65 2009 0,27 0,43 0,68 0,70 0,71 0,72 0,71 0,65 2010 0,26 0,43 0,69 0,71 0,71 0,70 0,71 0,62 2011 0,26 0,44 0,66 0,71 0,71 0,70 0,68 0,62 2012 0,20 0,39 0,64 0,66 0,71 0,64 0,67 0,59 Meðaltal 0,27 0,43 0,67 0,72 0,74 0,71 0,72 0,67

Áherslur Ferðamálastofu og stjórnvalda á lengingu ferðamannatímabilsins og jafnari dreifingu ferðamanna um landið hafa verið áberandi í umræðunni undanfarið, auk þess sem bent hefur verið á mikilvægi þess að stilla saman byggðastefnu, arðsemi og náttúruvernd við ofangreinda þætti, m.a. með markvissri uppbyggingu áfangastaða og öflugri vöruþróun og kynningarstarfi (Ásgeir Jónsson, 2004; Ferðamálastofa, 2011). Útgáfa svæðisbundinna ferðaþjónustureikninga getur tekið á þessum atriðum heildstætt. En eins og fram kom hér að framan er útgáfa þeirra flókin í framkvæmd af ýmsum ástæðum. Á Íslandi getur verið erfitt að ná utan um hvað telst til atvinnu- og/eða ferðaþjónustusvæðis. Með því er átt við hvar draga skuli mörk hinna svæðisbundnu hagkerfa sem greina skal og hafa arð af ferðaþjónustu. Ýmsar stofnanir og félög hafa skipt landinu eftir svæðum. Sem dæmi má nefna eru til í dag sk. vinnusóknarsvæði Byggðastofnunar, hagskýrslu- og gistináttasvæði Hagstofunnar, ferðaþjónustusvæði Ferðamálastofu, markaðssvæði markaðstofa landshlutanna og landsvæðaskipting Sóknaráætlunar 20/20 (Byggðastofnun, 2012; Ferðamálaráð Íslands, 2002; Hagstofa Íslands, 2013a; Ómar Harðarson og Jórunn Íris Sindradóttir, 2012). Öll nema tvö (ferðaþjónustusvæðin og vinnusóknarsvæðin) byggja hinsvegar á skiptingu Sambands íslenskra sveitarfélaga (SÍS) sem aftur byggir á kjördæmaskipan frá 1959 (Kjördæmaskipan 1959- 1999, e.d.; Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, e.d.). Auk þess vanda sem við blasir við að ákveða hvað telst vera það svæði sem ferðaþjónustureikningarnir skulu ná til ber einnig að hafa í huga að nokkur stærri fyrirtæki í ferðaþjónustu, s.s. hótel, ferðaskrifstofur og afþreyingarfyrirtæki geta haft talsverða veltu á mörgum landsvæðum en skila ársreikningum án svæðisbundinnar sundurliðunar og mögulega allt

eyrnamerkt höfuðstöðvum, hvar svo þær er að finna. Það sem einkum þarf því að huga að við gerð svæðisbundinna ferðaþjónustureikninga er þrennt:

a) við hvaða svæði er átt, b) hvaða fyrirtæki er þar að finna sem hafa umsvif á svæðinu og hvar þau skrá sína veltu, c) hvaða hlutfall af veltu þessara fyrirtækja er hægt að rekja til ferðaþjónustu á þessu svæði.

Þannig getur því verið talsverð handavinna að útbúa svæðisbundna ferðaþjónustureikninga gegnum hina svæðisbundnu nálgun og á Íslandi þarf í mörgum tilvikum að nálgast tölur frá fyrstu hendi þar sem þær eru ekki aðgengilegar hjá opinberum aðilum. Engu að síður eru slíkir reikningar mikilvægir þar sem þeir gefa vísbendingar um stöðu atvinnugreinarinnar eftir landsvæðum og hverju staðbundin markaðsátök og fjárfestingar í greininni skila í raun (United Nations, 2010b).

Rannsóknarsvæði Í kaflanum hér að framan voru nefnd nokkur dæmi um landsvæðaskiptingu á Íslandi þar sem í flestum tilvikum er um að ræða átta landshluta samkvæmt skiptingu SÍS. Rannsóknarsvæðið í verkefninu tilheyrir Norðausturlandi sem nær frá Tröllaskaga í vestri til Bakkafjarðar í austri. Norðausturland samanstendur af 13 sveitarfélögum sem teljast til Eyþings, Samtaka sveitarfélaga á Norðurlandi eystra. Á ýmsum sviðum stjórnsýslu og þjónustu er svæðinu skipt í tvennt, annars vegar Eyjafjarðarsvæði með 7 sveitarfélög og 24.165 íbúa og hins vegar Austursvæði (Þingeyjarsýslu) með 6 sveitarfélög og 4.853 íbúa. Aðstæður og byggðaþróun á þessum tveimur svæðum hafa verið með nokkuð ólíkum hætti auk þess sem þéttleiki byggðar er töluvert meiri á Eyjafjarðarsvæðinu (5,7 íbúar á hvern ferkílómeter á móti 0,3 íbúum á Austursvæðinu). Mannfjöldaþróun (mynd 6) hefur verið neikvæð á Austursvæðinu þar sem íbúum hefur fækkað um tæp 18% síðustu 15 ár á móti fjölgun um 7% á Eyjafjarðarsvæðinu (Byggðastofnun, 2012; Eyþing, e.d.; Óli Halldórsson, 2013).

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0 1998 2002 2007 2012 Eyjafjarðarsvæðið Austursvæðið

Mynd 6: Þróun íbúafjölda á Norðurlandi eystra 1998-2012. Heimild: Byggðastofnun, 2012

Þróun atvinnulífs hefur verið nokkuð stöðug á Eyjafjarðarsvæðinu undanfarin ár á meðan atvinnulíf í Þingeyjarsýslu hefur einkennst af samdrætti sem leitt hefur til brottflutnings af svæðinu. Störfum í fiskvinnslu hefur fækkað sem og í mjólkurvinnslu, kísilgúrvinnslu, verslun og annarri þjónustu, m.a. hjá hinu opinbera (Byggðastofnun, 2009). Það var því ótvírætt mótvægi þegar ferðaþjónustan tók kipp sem varð til þess að ný fyrirtæki spruttu upp með nýjum störfum. Í þessu verkefni er horft til austursvæðisins og Þingeyjarsýsla valin sem rannsóknarsvæði. Er það m.a. gert á grunni þess munar sem blasir við á milli svæðanna tveggja, einnig vegna þeirra hræringa sem orðið hafa í atvinnulífinu á svæðinu undanfarin ár, s.s. með framangreindum samdrætti í frumvinnslugreinum á sama tíma og miklar framtíðarvæntingar eru bundnar við ferðaþjónustu á svæðinu. Einnig skiptir sérstaða og saga Þingeyjarsýslu sem ferðamannasvæðis

máli, þar sem Mývatn hefur löngum verið öflugur segull (Margrét Hólm Valsdóttir, 2011) og umfang hvalaskoðunar er orðið verulegt á Húsavík. Sveitarfélögin sex sem rannsóknin nær þá yfir eru sýnd á mynd 7 og eru: Þingeyjarsveit, Skútustaðahreppur, Norðurþing, Tjörneshreppur, Svalbarðshreppur og Langanesbyggð, eða Austursvæðið allt eins og það er skilgreint í Sóknaráætlun Norðurlands eystra (Byggðastofnun, 2012).

Mynd 7: Rannsóknarsvæði verkefnisins. Heimild: Sýslumannavefurinn, e.d.

Þingeyjarsýsla og sér í lagi Mývatnssveit eiga sér langa sögu í ferðaþjónustu enda skarta svæðin mörgum af fjölsóttustu náttúruperlum landsins, sem mörg eru nú innan Vatnajökulsþjóðgarðs. Auk hins hefðbundna aðdráttarafls náttúrufegurðar hafa sprottið upp afþreyingarfyrirtæki á síðari árum sem hafa aukið aðsókn ferðamanna enn frekar. Þessi fyrirtæki hafa skapað þjónustu um og gert að aðdráttarafli hvalaskoðun, fuglaskoðun, gönguferðir, jeppaferðir og jarðböð. Nýjast í þessu úrvali afþreyingar og þjónustu er áhersla á ferðir að vetri til þar sem ferðamenn geta tekið þátt í vetrarsporti af ýmsu tagi, séð norðurljósin eða jafnvel heimsótt jólasveinana í Dimmuborgum á aðventunni. Árlegur fjöldi allra ferðamanna í Þingeyjarsýslu er talinn vera á bilinu 200-300 þúsund þrátt fyrir stutt ferðamannatímabil, þó erfitt sé að henda reiður á þessum fjölda. Vísbendingar liggja þó hjá helstu afþreyingarfyrirtækjum. Gert er ráð fyrir yfir 60 þúsund gestum í hvalaskoðun árið 2013 auk þess sem gestafjöldi Jarðbaðanna í Mývatnssveit fór yfir 100.000 sama ár, þar af voru um 75 þúsund erlendir gestir. Áhrifa ferðamanna gætir víða um hagkerfi sýslunnar þar sem þeir nýta sér ýmsa þjónustuþætti, hvort sem þeir eru einkennandi ferðaþjónustugreinar eða aðrar atvinnugreinar tengdar ferðaþjónustu.

Rannsóknaraðferð Rannsóknaraðferðin í verkefninu verður tvíþætt. Í fyrsta lagi verður leitast við að spegla ferðaþjónustureikninga Hagstofunnar í staðbundnu hagkerfi Þingeyjarsýslu eftir alþjóðlegri forskrift ferðaþjónustureikninga. Í öðru lagi verður lagt mat á hver óbein og afleidd áhrif ferðaþjónustunnar eru í sýslunni með aðferðum aðfanga- og afurðagreiningar.

Ferðaþjónustureikningar Til að reikna umfang ferðaþjónustu á afmörkuðu landsvæði þarf í meginatriðum að beita sömu aðferðum og gert er við gerð ferðaþjónustureikninga á landsvísu. Það er hins vegar nokkrum vandkvæðum bundið þar sem ekki er alltaf ljóst hvar þjónustukaup ferðamanna eiga sér stað auk þess sem stærri rekstraraðilar í ferðaþjónustu geta verið með starfsstöðvar víða um landið en einn ársreikning. Það veldur því að ekki er hægt að nota opinberar tölur án þess að aðlaga þær staðháttum í einhverjum tilvikum. Gagnaöflun mun því að mestu leyti fara fram með viðtölum við rekstraraðila í Þingeyjarsýslu og ársreikningagreiningu.

Atvinnugreinaflokkun Hagstofu Íslands – ISAT 2008 Til grundvallar ársreikningagreiningu þarf að ná utan um starfsemi lögaðila. Hagstofa Íslands og Fyrirtækjaskrá Ríkisskattstjóra hafa frá 1. janúar 2008 flokkað atvinnugreinar eftir ISAT 2008 kerfinu sem byggt er á atvinnugreinaflokkun Evrópusambandsins (NACE Rev. 2) og gildir í öllum ríkjum Evrópska efnahagssvæðisins (Hagstofa Íslands, 2009). Hver atvinnugrein hefur sérstakt ISAT2008 númer hjá Hagstofu Íslands sem er fyrirfram skilgreint og staðsett í ferðaþjónustureikningum í IRTS 2008 (United Nations, 2010a). Út frá þessari flokkun er fyrirtækjunum stillt upp í töflum eftir því hvaða atvinnugrein þau tilheyra. Í töflu 3 hér að framan má sjá yfirlit yfir hvernig Hagstofa Íslands flokkar helstu ferðaþjónustuatvinnugreinar og tengdar greinar eftir vægi ferðaþjónustu í rekstri þeirra. Listi ferðaþjónustufyrirtækja í Þingeyjarsýslu var útbúinn með þeim hætti að keyrð var út fyrirtækjaskrá hjá Credit Info með öllum skráðum lögaðilum og einstaklingum með vsk númer í Þingeyjarsýslu. Þessi listi var yfirfarinn af starfsmönnum fyrirtækjasviðs hjá Hagstofu Íslands þar sem kennitölur án veltu og launagreiðslna árin 2011 og 2012 voru teknar út. Eftir stóð listi með 401 lögaðila og 382 einstaklingum. Þessum aðilum var raðað upp í flokka eftir ISAT2008 atvinnugreinanúmerum. Ljóst var að inn í þennan lista vantaði fyrirtæki með lögheimili utan Þingeyjarsýslu en starfsemi innan sýslunnar. Til þess að taka ferðaþjónustuaðila með lögheimili utan Þingeyjarsýslu inn í útreikningana var prentaður út sérstakur listi með veitinga- og gistileyfum á rannsóknarsvæðinu af vef ríkislögreglustjóra auk leyfislista Ferðamálastofu fyrir ferðaskrifstofur og ferðaskipuleggjendur. Einnig voru allir rekstrar- og þjónustuaðilar á svæðinu sem skráðir voru hjá Markaðsstofu Norðurlands og Atvinnuþróunarafélagi Þingeyinga taldir með. Þar sem rannsóknin einskorðast við rekstrarárið 2013 verða ferðaþjónustuaðilar heimsóttir þegar rekstrartölur ársins 2013 liggja fyrir. Velta verður skráð eftir tegund þjónustu sbr. töflu 3 hér að framan. Fjöldi starfsmanna og stöðugilda verður kannaður auk þess sem hlutfall veltu sem tilkomin er vegna ferðaþjónustu verður metin af ferðaþjónustufyrirtækjunum sem og tengdum aðilum. Þessi þáttur rannsóknarinnar snýr þannig að beinum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu. Leitast verður hinsvegar við

að endurspegla heildaráhrif ferðaþjónustu á svæðinu. Með heildaráhrifum er átt við bein, óbein og afleidd áhrif (sjá mynd 8).

Bein, óbein og afleidd áhrif ferðaþjónustu Bein áhrif Aðferðir við gerð ferðaþjónustureikninga einskorðast við bein efnahagsleg áhrif ferðaþjónustu á svæðinu, þ.e. áhrif sem eru tilkomin vegna tekna eða starfa sem skapast vegna ferðaþjónustu. (Cooper, 2012; Hagstofa Íslands, 2008; Oxford Economics, 2012; United Nations, 2010b).

Óbein áhrif Þegar óbein áhrif eru metin er horft til þess hvernig beinum tekjum vegna ferðamanna er eytt aftur á svæðinu við aðfanga- og þjónustukaup sem skapa tekjur utan ferðaþjónustu (Cooper, Fletcher, Fyall, Gilbert, & Wanhill, 2008). Einnig getur verið um að ræða fjárfestingar í ferðaþjónustu s.s. byggingu húsnæðis, sem og samneyslu hins opinbera s.s. ýmsar samgöngur, markaðsmál, öryggismál o.fl. (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2013). Þetta skapar ákveðin margföldunaráhrif sem erfitt getur verið að leggja mat á og verður lýst betur síðar.

Afleidd áhrif Afleiddu áhrifin eru tilkomin vegna beinna og óbeinna áhrifa og skapast þegar tekjur vegna ferðaþjónustu valda aukningu í eftirspurn og neyslu sem kallar á aukið vinnuafl sem síðan eykur tekjur heimilanna og þar af leiðandi neyslu og svo koll af kolli (Cooper o.fl., 2008; Hagfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands, 2004). Þessu ferli er lýst á mynd 8.

Mynd 8: Heildaráhrif ferðaþjónustu á þjóðarbúskapinn. Heimild: World Travel and Tourism Council, 2013, bls. 2.

Aðfanga- og afurðagreining Við mat á óbeinum og afleiddum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu verður notast við aðferðir aðfanga- og afurðagreiningar (e. input-output analysis). Þessi aðferð hefur verið notuð töluvert lengi í rannsóknum á ferðaþjónustu og stundum er sagt að hún lýsi ferðalagi vöru í gegnum svæði eða hagkerfi (Frechtling & Horváth, 1999; Zhou o.fl., 1997; Wagner, 1997). Aðferðin felur í sér skoðun á innbyrðis tengslum atvinnugreina á afmörkuðu svæði og hvernig afurð einnar atvinnugreinar getur verið aðföng annarrar atvinnugreinar (United Nations, 2010b). Gert er ráð fyrir að hver atvinnugrein framleiði það sem þarf til að fullnægja eftirspurn annarra atvinnugreina til viðbótar við einkaneyslu, samneyslu, fjárfestingar og útflutning. Heildarvirði afurða atvinnugreinarinnar á að jafngilda virði aðfanga sem keypt eru af öðrum atvinnugreinum á svæðinu að viðbættum launagreiðslum, hagnaði, skatti og öðrum aðföngum sem fengin eru með innflutningi inn á svæðið (Briassoulis, 1991). Í aðfanga- og afurðatöflum er ferðaþjónusta ekki sérstaklega skilgreind sem atvinnugrein frekar en í öðrum hagskýrslum (Cai, Leung, & Mak, 2006). Í eðli sínu er aðfanga- og afurðagreining því bæði flókin og víðfeðm og krefst mikillar nákvæmni og fjölda gagna sem sjaldnast eru til á smærri svæðum (Archer, 1996; Vífill Karlsson, 2007). Aðferðin er ekki gallalaus og hefur m.a. verið gagnrýnd fyrir að einfalda umhverfið um of t.d. með því að gera ráð fyrir að vinnuafl, fjármagn og land sem notað er í ferðaþjónustu geti ekki verið notað af öðrum atvinnugreinum á sama tíma (Dwyer, Forsyth & Spurr, 2004). Hér á landi er ekki til tölfræði sem hægt er að byggja aðfanga- og afurðagreiningu á. Gagnaöflun rannsóknarinnar fer því fram gegnum viðtöl og með ársreikningagreiningu rekstraraðila. Rekstraraðilar áætla hversu hátt hlutfall aðfangakaupa á sér stað innan Þingeyjarsýslu og hversu mikið er flutt inn á svæðið annars staðar frá. Út frá þeim upplýsingum verður hægt að leggja mat á leka af svæðinu. Þar að auki er hlutfall ferðaþjónustu í veltu fyrirtækja sem hvorki teljast til einkennandi eða tengdra ferðaþjónustufyrirtækja kannað. Dæmi um slík fyrirtæki eru ýmis iðnaðar- og þjónustufyrirtæki, s.s. rafvirkjaþjónusta, pípulagnir eða trésmíði.

Neyslukönnun meðal starfsmanna ferðaþjónustufyrirtækja Hluti af mati á heildaráhrifum eru hin afleiddu áhrif sem snúa að neyslu starfsfólks sem hefur tekjur af ferðaþjónustu. Könnun meðal starfsmanna ferðaþjónustufyrirtækja var framkvæmd sumarið 2013 þar sem neysla þeirra í Þingeyjarsýslu var könnuð, auk starfshlutfalls og lögheimilis. Könnunin byggir í grunninn á rannsókn Hagstofunnar á útgjöldum heimilanna 2009-2011. Þar sem ekki var hægt að framkvæma jafn ítarlega könnun og hjá Hagstofunni var aðeins notast við sömu yfirflokka útgjaldaliða. Síðan voru valdir þjónustuþættir, sem gefa möguleika á mati á margfeldisáhrifum, teknir út úr yfirflokkum og metnir sérstaklega. Dæmi um það er þjónusta iðnfyrirtækja sem áður flokkaðist undir húsnæðiskostnað.

Tekjur sveitarfélaga í Þingeyjarsýslu Eins og áður sagði nær rannsóknin til sex sveitarfélaga í Þingeyjarsýslu: Skútustaðahrepps, Þingeyjarsveitar, Norðurþings, Tjörnesshrepps, Svalbarðshrepps og Langanesbyggðar. Sérstaklega verður skoðað hvaða tekjur þessi sveitarfélög hafa af ferðaþjónustu m.a. í formi fasteignagjalda og hafnargjalda ferðaþjónustufyrirtækja sem og útsvarsgreiðslna starfsmanna þeirra.

Ruðningsáhrif Að lokum og sem liður í mati heildaráhrifa ferðaþjónustu verður kannað hvort ferðaþjónusta hafi í för með sér einhvers konar ruðningsáhrif á svæðinu. Í viðtölum við rekstraraðila verður sérstaklega spurt út í þann þátt og m.a. kannað hvort starfsfólk hætti sérstaklega störfum í öðrum atvinnugreinum fyrir ferðaþjónustu til að meta möguleg áhrif í samfélaginu og hagkerfinu.

Áfangar og árekstrar Fram til þessa hefur verkefnið að mestu leyti snúist um greiningu fyrirliggjandi gagna og framkvæmd tveggja spurningakannana um ferðavenjur og ferðaneyslu erlendra ferðamanna í Mývatnssveit og á Húsavík. Töluverð vinna hefur legið í að útfæra aðferðafræði ferðaþjónustureikninga á afmörkuðu svæði á landsbyggðinni. Ferðaþjónustureikningar byggja að hluta til á gögnum og upplýsingum sem sóttar eru beint í uppruna- og ráðstöfunartöflur þjóðhagsreikninga en óhjákvæmilegt er að afla frekari gagna með öðrum hætti eins og fram hefur komið (United Nations, 2010b). Hagstofan hefur við gerð ferðaþjónustureikninganna til að mynda sótt upplýsingar í staðgreiðsluskrár Ríkisskattstjóra, samræmd skattframtöl rekstraraðila, rannsóknir Hagstofunnar á útgjöldum heimilanna, virðisaukaskattskýrslur, kannanir á ferðavenjum erlendra ferðamanna á Íslandi, ferðamannatalningar Ferðamálastofu, gistináttaskýrslur Hagstofunnar og erlenda greiðslukortaveltu hérlendis svo eitthvað sé nefnt (Hagstofa Íslands, 2008). Fæst þessara gagna eru fáanleg með sundurliðun niður á landshluta. Fyrir því liggja ýmsar ástæður, s.s. hætta á að upplýsingarnar séu beinlínis rangar þar sem fyrirtæki geta verið með starfsstöðvar víða um land en skráð lögheimili annars staðar þar sem velta þeirra og skattgreiðslur eru gefnar upp. Önnur ástæða er hætta á rekjanleika, en Hagstofan vinnur eftir upplýsingalögum og lögum um persónuvernd og getur þar af leiðandi ekki sundurliðað gögnin eftir smærri svæðum. Varðandi veltu greiðslukorta, þá hefur Hagstofan ekki heimild til að breyta eða vinna upplýsingar um kortaveltu fyrir þriðja aðila vegna samnings við kortafyrirtækin. Tekist hefur að afla upplýsinga um fjölda gistinátta hjá í Þingeyjarsýslu hjá Hagstofunni, auk þess sem unnin var skýrsla um fjölda ferðamanna í sýslunni. Önnur gögn flokkast sem frumgögn og þeirra verður aflað með viðtölum á árinu 2014.

Lokaorð Í þessu verkefni er fólgin töluverð áskorun í að aðlaga rannsóknaraðferðina að staðbundnu hagkerfi Þingeyjarsýslu. Sambærileg rannsókn hefur ekki verið framkvæmd áður á íslenskri ferðaþjónustu og því er óhjákvæmilegt að hindranir verði á veginum. Þær hafa hingað til helst snúið að gagnaöflun og falist í því að opinberar upplýsingar sem og rannsóknir til grundvallar hagskýrslugerð í ferðaþjónustu eru af skornum skammti og illmögulegt að fá hagtölur sundurliðaðar niður á svæði. Með góðu samstarfi við rekstraraðila eru vonir bundnar við að ná fullnægjandi upplýsingum til að byggja rannsóknina á og að niðurstaðan geti gefið mynd af ferðaþjónustuhagkerfi Þingeyjarsýslu með vísbendingum um sjálfbærni þess, tengslum við önnur fyrirtæki og stofnanir svæðisins sem og mati um efnahagsleg áhrif þess á svæðinu. Væntingar eru um að vörður þessa verkefnis leiði til niðurstöðu sem nýtist við framtíðarskipulag í rannsóknum á ferðaþjónustu á landsbyggðinni.

Heimildir Andri Valur Ívarsson og Óli Halldórsson. (2011). Fjölgar kreppan krónum? Efnahagsleg áhrif ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík við breyttar samfélagsaðstæður. Húsavík: Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga. Archer, B. H. (1996). Economic impact analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), bls. 704-707. Arion banki. (2012) Íslensk ferðaþjónusta á afslætti?Sótt 15. ágúst 2013 frá: http://www.arionbanki.is/library/Skrar/Greiningar/onnur-efnahagsmal/250612_ferdam.pdf Arion banki. (2013). Ferðaþjónustan: Atvinnugrein á unglingsaldri. Sótt 15. ágúst 2013 frá: http://www.arionbanki.is/library/Skrar/Greiningar/Markadspunktar- /Ferðaþjónusta_Atvinnugrein%20á%20unglingsaldri%20-%20Copy%20(2).pdf Atvinnuvega- og nýsköpunarráðuneytið. (2013). Skýrsla atvinnuvega- og nýsköpunarráðherra um stöðu ferðaþjónustunnar. Sótt 14. apríl 2013 frá: http://www.atvinnuvegaraduneyti.is/media/Acrobat/Skyrsla-Atvinnuvega--og- nyskopunarradherra.pdf Atvinnuþróunarfélag Þingeyinga. (2008). Stefnumótun í ferðaþjónustu á Norðausturlandi: Áætlun til fimm ára 2009-2014. Húsavík: Atvinnuþróunarfélag Þingeyinga. Ásgeir Jónsson. (2004). Að græða á gestakomum: Þjóðhagslegur ábati ferðaþjónustu og hlutverk ríkisins. Landabréfið, 20(1), 51-67. Ásgeir Jónsson, Njáll Trausti Friðbertsson og Þórhallur Ásbjörnsson. (2006). Hagræn áhrif ferðaþjónustu - greint eftir svæðum á Íslandi. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála, 1- 53. Briassoulis, H. (1991). Methodological issues: Tourism input-output analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 18, 485-495. Byggðastofnun. (2009). Byggðaþróun: Ástand og horfur. Sótt 20. ágúst 2013 frá: http://www.byggdastofnun.is/static/files/Byggdaaetlun1013/Fylgirit_Byggdaaaetlunar_11.0 9.pdf Byggðastofnun. (2012). Sóknaráætlun Norðurlands eystra: Stöðugreining 2012. Sótt 14. ágúst 2013 frá: http://www.byggdastofnun.is/static/files/Skyrslur/Soknaraaetlun/Soknaraaetlun_Nordurlands_eyst ra_2012.pdf Cai, J., Leung, P., & Mak, J. (2006). Tourism's Forward and Backward Linkages. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 36-52. Cooper, C. (2012). Essentials of Tourism. London: Prentice Hall. Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D., & Wanhill, S. (2008). Tourism: Principles and Practice (4 útg.). Essex: Prentice Hall. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2004). Evaluating tourism's economic effects: new and old approaches. Tourism management, 25(3), 307-317. Eyþing. (e.d.). Eyþing. Sótt 28. ágúst 2013 frá: http://eything.is/hvad.php Edward H. Huijbens og Gunnar Þór Jóhannesson. (2013). Ferðamál á Íslandi. Reykjavík: Mál og Menning. Edward H. Huijbens og Jón Gestur Helgason. (2011a). Hagvísar í ferðaþjónustu: Gjaldeyristekjur - ferðaneysla. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála. Edward H. Huijbens og Jón Gestur Helgason. (2011b). Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll. Könnun meðal brottfararfarþega hjá Iceland Express sumarið 2011. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála. Eurostat. (2011). Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSA) in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Eyrún J. Bjarnadóttir og Edward H. Huijbens. (2012). Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll: Könnun meðal brottfararfarþega sumarið 2012. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála.

Eyrún J. Bjarnadóttir og Edward H. Huijbens. (2011). Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll: Könnun meðal brottfararfarþega Iceland Express sumarið 2010. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála. Eyrún J. Bjarnadóttir og Jón Gestur Helgason. (2010). Millilandaflug um Akureyrarflugvöll: Könnun meðal brottfararfarþega Iceland Express sumarið 2009. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála. Ferðamálaráð Íslands. (2002). Auðlindin Ísland: Ferðaþjónustusvæði. Sótt 18. ágúst 2013 frá: http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files-/upload/ files/audlindin_e.pdf Ferðamálastofa. (2011). Ferðamálaáætlun 2011-2020. Reykjavík: Ferðamálastofa. Ferðamálastofa. (2013). Þörfin fyrir rannsóknir í íslenskri ferðaþjónustu: Greining Hagsmunaaðila. Sótt 5. nóvember 2013 frá: http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/ ferdamalastofa/tolur_utgafur/Skyrslur/lokaskjal-16.pdf Ferðamálastofa. (e.d.). Fjöldi ferðamanna: Heildarfjöldi erlendra gesta 1949-2012. Sótt 15. október 2013 frá: http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/is/tolur-og-utgafur/fjoldi-ferdamanna Frechtling, D. C. (2010). The tourism satellite account. A primer. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 136-153. Frechtling, D., & Smeral, E. (2010). Measuring and Interpreting the Economic Impact of Tourism: 20/20 Hindsight and Foresight. Í D. G. Pearce, & R. W. Butler (Ritstj.) Tourism Research: A 20-20 Vision, Oxford: Goodfellow Publishing, bls. 67-79. Frechtling, D. C., & Horváth, E. (1999). Estimating the multiplier effects of tourism expenditure on a local economy through a regional input-output model. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 324-332. Frenţ, C. (2013). The Economic Benefits of Tourism in Iceland: Boosting the Icelandic Tourism Satellite Account Development - Icelandic Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) – A Conformity Assessment with United Nations standards for TSA – Part I. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála. Gunnar Þór Jóhannesson. (2012). Tími til að tengja? Af stefnumótun í ferðaþjónustu á Íslandi. Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla, 8(1), 173-193. Hagfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands. (2004). Flug- og ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi: Umfjöllun í tilefni af beiðni Ryanair um lækkun gjalda á Keflavíkurflugvelli. Reykjavík: Háskóli Íslands. Hagfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands. (2004). Lax- og silungsveiði á Íslandi. Efnahagsleg áhrif. Reykjavík: Háskóli Íslands. Hagfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands. (2006). Áhrif raungengis á ferðaþjónustu. Reykjavík: Háskóli Íslands. Hagfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands. (2011). Áhrif tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhússins Hörpu á komur erlendra ferðamanna. Reykjavík: Háskóli Íslands. Hagfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands. (2012). Áhrif þess að hækka virðisaukaskatt á gistiþjónustu. Reykjavík: Háskóli Íslands. Hagstofa Íslands. (2008). Ferðaþjónustureikningar 2000-2006. Hagtíðindi: Ferðamál, samgöngur og upplýsingatækni, 93(59), 1-44. Hagstofa Íslands. (2009). ISAT2008. Íslensk atvinnugreinaflokkun. Sótt 3. maí 2013 frá: http://www.hagstofa.is/Pages/1830 Hagstofa Íslands. (2010). Ferðaþjónustureikningar 2000-2008. Hagtíðindi: Ferðamál, samgöngur og upplýsingatækni, 95(71), 1-32. Hagstofa Íslands. (2011). Ferðaþjónustureikningar 2009-2011. Hagtíðindi: Ferðamál, samgöngur og upplýsingatækni, 96(66), 1-28. Hagstofa Íslands. (2013a). Gistiskýrslur 2012. Hagtíðindi: Ferðamál, samgöngur og upplýsingatækni, 98(11) 1-24. Hagstofa Íslands. (2013b). Þjóðhagsreikningar. Þjóðhagsspá, sumar 2013. Hagtíðindi, 98(24) 1-20.

Hagstofa Íslands. (e.d.a). Gistinætur, gestakomur og meðaldvalarlengd á öllum tegundum gististaða 1998-2012. Sótt 12. maí 2013 frá: http://hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Ferdamal-samgongur- UT/Ferdathjonusta Hagstofa Íslands. (e.d.b). Gjaldeyristekjur af erlendum ferðamönnum 1969-2008. Sótt 2. september 2013 frá: http://hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Ferdamal-samgongur-UT/Ferdathjonusta Hagstofa Íslands. (e.d.c). Helstu liðir útflutnings vöru og þjónustu 2009-2013. Sótt 2. september 2013 frá: http://hagstofa.is/pages/2271 Hagstofa Íslands. (e.d.d). Útflutningur eftir vöruflokkum (Hagstofuflokkun). Sótt 2. september 2013 frá: http://hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Utanrikisverslun/Utflutningur Jones, C., Munday, M., & Roberts, A. (2003). Regional tourism satellite accounts: A useful policy tool? Urban Studies, 40(13), 2776-2794. Jóhannesson, G. Þ., Huijbens, E., & Sharpley, R. (2010). Icelandic tourism: Opportunities and threats. Tourism Geographies, 12(2), 278-301. Jón Þorvaldur Heiðarsson og Stefán Sigurðsson. (2010). Efnahagsleg áhrif skotveiða á Íslandi. Í I. Hannibalsson (ritstj.) Rannsóknir í Félagsvísindum XI. Reykjavík: Félags-vísindadeild Háskóla Íslands, bls. 1-10. Kjördæmaskipan 1959-1999. (e.d.). Sótt 4. september 2013 frá: http://althingi.is/vefur/gamlakjordam.html. Landmælingar Íslands. (2013). Einföld kort. Sótt 14. apríl 2013 frá: http://www.lmi.is/wp‐ content/uploads/2013/10/heradsdomsstolar.pdf Landsbankinn. (2013). Ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi: Greining Hagfræðideildar Landsbankans. Sótt 14. apríl 2013 frá: http://www.landsbankinn.is/uploads/documents/frettir/Ferdathjonusta-a- Islandi-Greining.pdf Landsbankinn. (2012). Ferðaþjónusta á Íslandi: Þróun fjárfestingar og reksturs. Sótt 1. febrúar 2013 frá: http://www.landsbankinn.is/library/Documents/Hagfraedideild/Serrit/LB_Ferdatjonusta_Sk yrsla_netid.pdf Margrét Hólm Valsdóttir. (2011). Hvað finnst Mývetningum um ferðaþjónustu? . Óbirt BS-ritgerð: Háskólinn á Akureyri. Viðskipta- og raunvísindasvið. Margrét Sigrún Sigurðardóttir og Tómas Young. (2011). Kortlagning á hagrænum áhrifum skapandi greina. Sótt 10. desember 2013 af: http://www.uton.is/wp- content/uploads/2011/05/Kortlagning_2011.pdf Oxford Economics. (2012). Methodology for producing the 2012 WTTC / Oxford Economics Travel & Tourism Economic Impact Research. Oxford: Oxford Economics. Óli Halldórsson. (ritstjóri). (2013). Mannfjöldaþróun á starfssvæði Þekkingarnets Þingeyinga. Húsavík: Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga. Ómar Harðarson og Jórunn Íris Sindradóttir. (2012). Íslensk hagskýrslusvæði á hérðasstjórnarstigi. Reykjavík: Hagstofa Íslands. Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála. (2012). Verkefni styrkt af verkefnasjóði RMF 2012-2015. Stutt lýsing á markmiðum og tilgangi hvers verkefnis. Akureyri: Rannsóknamiðstöð ferðamála, 1-31. Rannveig Guðmundsdóttir og Andri Valur Ívarsson (2008). Efnahagsleg áhrif ferðaþjónustu á Húsavík: Tilkoma hvalaskoðunar. Húsavík: Þekkingarnet Þingeyinga. Rósbjörg Jónsdóttir. (ritstjóri). (2013). Kortlagning og samstarfsmótun íslenskrar ferðaþjónustu: Virðisauki í ferðaþjónustu. Reykjavík: Gekon. Samgönguráðuneytið. (2005). Ferðamálaáætlun 2006-2015. Sótt 09. október 2012 frá: http://www.innanrikisraduneyti.is/media/Skyrsla/Ferdamalaaatlun_2006- 2015_LOKA_03_2005.pdf Samgönguráðuneytið. (2007). Samanburður á rekstrarumhverfi ferðaþjónustu á Íslandi, Noregi, Svíþjóð og Danmörku. Reykjavík: Samgönguráðuneytið, 1-35. Sótt 14. apríl 2013 af:

http://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/upload/files/Samanb%20rekstrarumhv%20i%20fer %20_3_.pdf Samtök ferðaþjónustunnar. (2012). Ársskýrsla 2011-2012. Sótt 3. maí 2013frá: http://www.saf.is/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/files/a_dofinni/adalfundur_2012/saf_2012_net.pdf Smeral, E. (2006). Tourism Satellite Accounts: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 92-98. Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga. (e.d.). Sveitarfélög. Sótt 4. september 2013 frá: http://www.samband.is/sveitarfelogin/ Stefán Sigurðsson. (2012). The economic impact of hunting reindeer in East Iceland. Í I. Hannibalsson (ritstj.) Rannsóknir í Félagsvísindum XIII. Reykjavík: Félagsvísindadeild Háskóla Íslands, bls. 1-14. Sýslumannavefurinn. (e.d.). Embætti sýslumanna. Sótt 2. september 2013 frá: http://www.syslumenn.is/syslumenn/ The Boston Consulting Group. (2013). Northern Sights: The future of tourism in Iceland. Boston: The Boston Consulting Group. Torfi Jóhannesson. (2009). Hagvísir Vesturlands: Staða ferðaþjónustu á Vesturlandi. Samtök sveitarfélaga á Vesturlandi. Sótt 4. apríl 2013 af: http://www.ssv.is/files/Skra_0035913.pdf United Nations. (2010a). The conceptual framework for tourism statistics - International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008. New York: United Nations Publication United Nations. (2010b). Tourism satellite account: Recommended methodological framework 2008. Luxemburg: United Nations Publication. Vífill Karlsson. (2007). Staðbundin margfeldisáhrif: Yfirlit kenninga og rannsókna. Tímarit um félagsvísindi, 1, 56-71. Wagner, J. E. (1997). Estimating the economic impact of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 592-608. World Tourism Organisation. (2013). UNWTO Highlights. 2013 Edition. Madrid: UNWTO. World Travel and Tourism Council. (2013). Travel & Tourism: Economic impact 2013: Iceland. London: World Travel and Tourism Council. Zhou, D., Yanagida, J. F., Chakravorty, U., & Leung, P. (1997). Estimating economic impacts from tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), 76-89.

Fémæti ferðaþjónustu Rannsókn á efnahagslegum áhrifum ferðaþjónustu í Þingeyjarsýslu

Lilja Berglind Rögnvaldsdóttir

RANNSÓKNAMIÐSTÖÐ FERÐAMÁLA NÓVEMBER 2013 www.rmf.is