New Winds: Tourist Attitudes Toward Wind Energy Projects in Iceland

Abstract

With increasing wind energy infrastructure developments, better understanding of its impacts on tourism is needed. This study examines international visitors’ attitudes toward wind farms in Iceland and investigates how locational factors affect their compatibility with tourism. Based on a survey answered by 1005 departing visitors, this study reveals that 92% are concerned about climate change. However, a lower proportion, 76%, support the use of wind energy in Iceland. Central European visitors are the most likely to be negatively affected by wind energy development, while Asian visitors showed the greatest interest in visiting a wind farm in Iceland. Among visitors from the leading countries of origin, French tourists were the most negative toward wind energy development in Iceland. Wind farms were perceived as most suitable in industrial, offshore, and agricultural areas, whereas their suitability was considered lowest in national parks and other protected natural areas and cultural heritage areas. Positive attitudes toward the use of wind energy positively affected the perceived suitability of wind farms in all of the discussed areas, while a lower perceived compatibility of wind farms with the tourist experience had a negative effect. The study highlights the importance of careful spatial planning and participatory approaches to improve compatibility between tourism and harnessing wind energy.

1. Introduction

Driven by the need to address climate change, technological advancements, and declining costs of wind power generation, global installed wind energy capacity continues to grow [1,2]. By 2023, it had reached 1017 GW, accounting for 26% of global renewable energy capacity [3]. However, the increasing presence of wind energy infrastructure has raised concerns among various stakeholders about its potential impacts on landscapes and consequently on other land uses, including tourism. Wind turbines are often visible from great distances, and their height is continually increasing [4,5]. The rotation of wind turbines causes shadow flicker and noise pollution. Furthermore, wind energy projects are accompanied by extensive road networks that are needed for the construction and maintenance of wind turbines. Concrete foundations are generally built to provide adequate support for each wind turbine, the size of which keeps increasing as the height of wind turbines grows [6]. Additionally, wind farms often need large amounts of land to address the issues related to downwind turbulence and relatively low energy density [7]. Thus, as wind energy developments increase, conflicts with tourism, which relies on high landscape quality, become more likely.

Wind energy developments are increasingly encroaching on rural and natural areas that are expected to supply energy to densely inhabited urban centers [8]. Yet, these areas are often also of value to the tourism industry. In regions where tourism is an important economic sector, wind energy projects tend to be opposed due to concerns about their potential impacts on tourism [9]. Tourism stakeholders frequently mention the visual impacts of wind energy projects as a major issue [10,11]. However, tourists’ perceptions of these impacts and overall experience are not solely based on the degree of visibility of the wind turbines. Previous research [10,12,13] has shown that tourist attitudes toward wind energy projects in areas they visit vary, being influenced by factors such as visitor characteristics, wind energy infrastructure design, and its location [14,15].

Visitor attitudes toward wind energy projects can influence their travel behavior. Negative attitudes may cause people to avoid areas with wind energy infrastructure, leading to reduced tourism demand and economic losses [12,16]. On the other hand, positive attitudes, curiosity, and interest in visiting a wind farm can turn it into a tourist attraction [17,18]. Thus, understanding visitor attitudes toward wind energy development is essential for anticipating its potential impacts on tourism and should be considered in the planning of new wind energy projects. While there is increasing research on the perceptions of tourism stakeholders regarding energy projects, a better understanding of tourists’ attitudes and preferences toward renewable energy installations, and especially wind turbines, is still needed [19]. This study aims to address this need by investigating tourist attitudes toward wind energy development in Iceland.

Iceland, an island country in the North Atlantic Ocean, is characterized by windy conditions and high wind energy potential [20]. The country is actively exploring opportunities for the harnessing of its abundant wind energy resources on a large scale, and both Icelandic and international energy companies have proposed numerous wind energy projects [21,22,23]. Iceland is also a recognized nature-based tourism destination, visited by over 2.2 million international tourists in 2024 [24]. In a country with just under 400,000 inhabitants [25], this level of visitation and associated spending resulted in tourism reemerging as the largest export sector following a swift recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic [26]. Given the significance of tourism for Iceland’s economy, and the fact that most tourists are drawn to the country because of its natural beauty [27], it is necessary to increase the understanding of visitor attitudes toward wind energy development in Iceland, which is essential for sustainable wind energy planning. A questionnaire survey was conducted among departing visitors at Keflavík International Airport to achieve this objective. While most previous studies conducted in Iceland and internationally have focused on visitor attitudes toward specific wind energy projects in particular areas, this study takes a nationwide approach and explores the following research questions:

(1)

What are the attitudes of international visitors toward wind farms in Iceland?

(2)

Which tourist segments will likely be the most affected by wind energy development in Iceland?

(3)

How is the perceived suitability of wind farms in Iceland affected by locational factors?

(4)

How can knowledge of visitor attitudes toward wind energy development and the factors influencing them support sustainable wind energy planning in Iceland and in similar tourism destinations?

2. Tourist Attitudes Toward Wind Energy Infrastructure

The increasing presence of wind energy infrastructure in rural and natural landscapes is leading to reconsideration of the images these landscapes hold for tourism. Concerns about the impacts of wind turbines on tourism are often due to their high visibility [11,28]. However, empirical studies show that visitor attitudes toward the same wind energy project tend to be divergent and depend on a range of factors [10,12,15]. Prince et al. [29] emphasized that tourist attitudes toward wind energy infrastructure are shaped not only by aesthetics, but also by context and value judgement. Different places hold different meanings and values for stakeholders, and the compatibility of these meanings with those embodied by wind energy infrastructure influences stakeholder perceptions of wind energy development [30,31]. Consequently, tourism stakeholders deem some places more suitable for wind energy development than others [32].

Anthropogenic structures, such as wind turbines, are often perceived as incompatible with nature-based tourism activities. People engaging in such activities typically expect to be surrounded by natural settings without human-made structures, to disconnect from daily life, and to immerse themselves in nature [33]. As a result, tourists perceive wind turbines as less suitable in highly natural areas. According to a study by Frantál and Kunc [10] conducted in the Czech Republic, about 70% of visitors preferred wind turbines to be constructed in agricultural areas, while only 5% viewed them as suitable in pristine natural areas. Similarly, in a study carried out in Iceland by Sæþórsdóttir, Ólafsdóttir, and Smith [12], 65% of surveyed tourists preferred to see wind turbines in agricultural rather than wilderness areas. Furthermore, 81% thought wind turbines should be prohibited in national parks and other protected areas. Various studies suggest that wind energy developments are perceived as more acceptable offshore, further away from land-based tourism and recreational activities [29,34]. However, despite this perception, over 90% of the global installed wind energy capacity is onshore due to the lower cost of onshore wind energy conversion [3,35].

The way visitors interpret wind energy infrastructure and the meanings they associate with it are also important. Wind turbines are often viewed as symbols of green and sustainable energy that contribute to combating climate change [13,29,36]. As a result, visitors tend to be more positive toward them than they are toward coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, industrial buildings, coal mines and quarries, or electricity poles and power lines [10,29]. However, compared to other renewable energy sources, wind energy tends to have less support from tourists due its significant impacts on the landscape and environment [12]. Therefore, the development of wind energy infrastructure often poses a dilemma between addressing climate change and dealing with the local landscape and environmental impacts caused by wind energy infrastructure [37].

Visitor attitudes toward wind turbines are influenced by various visitor characteristics and their travel behavior. Studies examining the relationship between tourist demographic characteristics and attitudes toward wind energy projects have produced varying results, with older tourists generally exhibiting more negative attitudes toward wind energy projects in places they visit [10,38,39]. Repeat visitors tend to have stronger opinions about the presence of wind turbines, while first-time visitors tend to be more neutral [10]. The tourists’ place of origin and previous experience with wind turbines also appear to play a role. However, existing studies present conflicting findings. Some (e.g., [40]) suggest that tourists from countries with more wind energy infrastructure tend to be more accepting of such developments in the destinations they visit, while others (e.g., [39]) reveal more negative attitudes exhibited by tourists from countries where wind turbines are a common sight. Furthermore, individuals from environmentally degraded regions tend to be more supportive of wind turbines in areas visited for tourism and recreation [10].

Tourists’ attitudes toward wind turbines in tourism destinations can influence their behavior and potentially lead to the avoidance of areas where such infrastructure is present [12]. Studies have, though, shown that the impact of wind turbines on tourists’ intention to visit an area tends to be relatively low [10]. However, even a small number of visitors avoiding an area can result in significant economic losses for the local tourism industry [16,41].

Wind farms can also become tourist attractions in their own right [17,42]. Research suggests that this potential is higher in areas without significant natural or cultural tourist attractions [36]. Visits to wind energy projects have been shown to positively affect tourists’ attitudes toward wind energy [43]. Various measures, such as educational and visitor centers, as well as cohesive energy and tourism policies, can help to enhance the compatibility of wind energy infrastructure and tourism [17,44].

3. Harnessing Wind Energy in Iceland

The majority of Iceland’s electricity is generated from hydropower, which accounted for 70.5% of all electricity produced in the country in 2022, followed by geothermal power at 29.4% [45]. Wind power only contributed 0.03% to the total electricity output in 2022. Currently, only a few wind turbines are operational in Iceland. Two experimental wind turbines with a total installed capacity of 1.8 MW are situated at the southern edge of the Central Highlands [46]. Additionally, there is a small 6 kW wind turbine operating on the island of Grímsey in the north, and two wind turbines with a total installed capacity of 1.8 MW near the town of Þykkvibær in South Iceland have been running since Autumn 2023 [47].

However, there is growing interest in harnessing wind energy in Iceland both among Icelandic and international companies and landowners. In Iceland, proposed energy projects with a planned installed capacity of 10 MW or higher must go through an evaluation process of expert committees and the steering committee of the Icelandic Master Plan for Nature Protection and Energy Utilization. The Master Plan is a governmental body that assesses and ranks the proposed power plants in the country based on their social, economic, and environmental impacts and groups them accordingly into utilization, protection, or on-hold categories. The work of the Master Plan began in 1999 and has been progressing in phases. The first two phases focused on evaluating proposed hydropower and geothermal power plants. Two wind farm proposals were assessed in the third phase, which ran from 2013 to 2017. In 2022, the Icelandic Parliament approved a parliamentary resolution placing both proposed wind farms for utilization. In the fourth and fifth phases, the Master Plan received over 30 proposals for wind energy projects, of which 5 were evaluated in the fourth phase [21], and 10 in the fifth phase of the Master Plan.

The current Master Plan evaluation process takes four years. At the end of each phase, the steering committee submits recommendations for categorizing proposed energy projects to the Minister of the Environment, Energy and Climate, who then presents a proposal for a parliamentary resolution to be approved by the Icelandic Parliament [48]. Due to political disputes, there have been delays in passing the parliamentary resolution, further lengthening the categorization process of proposed energy projects. The energy sector has voiced complaints about the delays. In 2024, the preceding Minister of the Environment, Energy and Climate introduced a draft of the Wind Energy Bill, which aimed to simplify the evaluation procedure of proposed wind energy projects. The bill [49] posited that wind energy projects meeting specific criteria could be exempted from the evaluation process by the expert committees of the Master Plan. With the approval of the steering committee, the decision-making authority for each wind energy project would be given to individual municipalities. However, the impacts of wind turbines on tourism can be extensive, affecting multiple municipalities, which indicates the necessity for comprehensive approaches to wind energy planning [50]. The dissolution of the Icelandic Parliament in October 2024 stalled the bill’s advancement. Following the elections, a new government was formed in December 2024, which will be responsible for developing regulations on wind energy planning in Iceland.

Various studies conducted in Iceland [32,50] have shown that tourism service providers are concerned about the potential impacts of proposed wind farms on the experience of their customers and, consequently, on the tourism industry. It was found that tourism service providers operating in Iceland have significantly more negative attitudes toward wind energy development in the country compared to the development of hydropower or geothermal power plants [51]. The significant impacts of wind turbines on the surrounding landscape and the relatively low perceived potential for wind energy projects to attract tourists in Iceland are among the main reasons for that, as they look similar in most countries [51]. According to tourism service providers, minimizing the impacts of wind farms on tourism in Iceland involves avoiding their placement in areas where they would be highly visible, areas with a high number of tourists, important tourist attractions, low perceived local need for more energy, and areas characterized by high naturalness [32]. This study provides insights into visitor perspectives and factors shaping their attitudes, contributing to the knowledge needed for wind energy planning in Iceland.

4. Methods

Quantitative research methods were employed to answer the research questions posed, and a questionnaire survey was conducted at the Keflavík International Airport targeting the passengers departing from Iceland. The face-to-face approach was used in this study, which typically yields a higher response rate compared to other data collection methods [52]. Maskína, a company specializing in market, service, and employee research in Iceland, collected the data at the airport. The questionnaire was available in five languages: English, German, French, Spanish, and Italian. Participants in the study were provided with tablets to complete the survey.

The survey consisted of 12 questions, some composed of multiple items. The questions were based on a literature review on tourism and wind energy development. Initially, the study was introduced to the visitors who were approached, and their informed consent to participate in the survey was obtained. Participants were then asked if they lived in Iceland. In the instance of a positive answer, the interview was terminated. If the answer was negative, participants were asked a series of questions covering the following topics:

• Visitor demographics;
• Travel behavior in Iceland;
• Attitudes toward wind energy development in Iceland;
• Perceived suitability of wind farms in various types of areas in Iceland;
• Level of concern about climate change.

The data were gathered over one month, from September 6 to October 6, 2023. A total of 1005 responses were received. The data were weighted by age, gender, and nationality according to the count of departing passengers at Keflavik Airport conducted by the Icelandic Tourist Board.

Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 29.0.2.0 (20). Independent t-tests and one-way independent ANOVA tests were used to compare the mean attitude scores among different groups of visitors. Due to the unequal sizes of groups, post hoc Hochberg’s GT2 pairwise tests were performed following the ANOVA to identify differences between each two groups. When the data violated t-test and ANOVA assumptions, Mann–Whitney U tests were used for comparing differences between two groups and non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis tests [53] with Dunn’s post hoc tests were undertaken for comparing differences between three or more groups. Exploratory factor analysis was used to explore the dimensionality of the variables related to visitor attitudes toward wind farm development in Iceland and the perceived compatibility of wind farms with the tourist experience. The Friedman test, followed by Wilcoxon post hoc tests, was employed to analyze differences in visitor attitudes toward wind farms in various locations. The relationships between attitudes toward the use of wind energy in Iceland, the perceived compatibility of wind farms with the tourist experience, and visitors’ attitudes toward wind farms in various locations were investigated using multiple linear regression.

5. Results

5.1. Visitor Demographic Characteristics and Travel Behavior

The gender distribution among visitors to Iceland was similar between male (50%) and female (49%) visitors, with over 1% identifying themselves as other gender (

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of visitors participating in the study.

Visitor Characteristics		N	%
Gender	Male	496	50.1
	Female	480	48.5
	Other	13	1.4
Age	<18	13	1.3
	18–24	135	13.4
	25–34	344	34.2
	35–44	178	17.7
	45–54	150	14.9
	≥55	185	18.4
Citizenship	USA	312	31.1
	German	95	9.5
	French	60	5.9
	UK	54	5.4
	Italian	48	4.7
	Polish	44	4.4
	Danish	37	3.7
	Canadian	35	3.5
	Other European	237	23.5
	Other non-European	67	6.7

). Visitors represented various age groups, with the largest group (34%) aged 25–34. Visitors came from a wide range of countries. Around one-third were from the USA, followed by Central Europe and other European countries (Table 1).

Most tourists, or 82%, came to Iceland for holidays, leisure, or recreation. Around 5% came to attend a conference, congress, seminar, trade fair, or another event, while 4% came to visit relatives or friends (

Table 2. Visitor motivation and travel behavior in Iceland.

Travel Motivation and Behavior		N	%
Main reason for the visit	Holidays, leisure, or recreation	820	81.8
	Conference, congress, seminar, trade fair, or event	49	4.9
	Visiting relatives or friends	39	3.9
	Educational study	21	2.1
	Short term or seasonal work	21	2.1
	Business meeting	21	2.1
	Other	30	3.0
Length of stay	1 night	44	4.3
	2–3 nights	135	13.4
	4–5 nights	194	19.3
	6–8 nights	237	23.6
	9–12 nights	219	21.8
	≥13 nights	176	17.5
Visited regions	Reykjavík capital area	893	91.2
	South	726	74.1
	West	440	44.9
	East	440	44.9
	North	396	40.4
	Reykjanes Peninsula	381	38.9
	Westfjords	213	21.7
	Highlands	175	17.9
Main means of transport	Rented car	649	65.1
	Coach—organized tour	167	16.7
	Private car	69	6.9
	Taxi	38	3.8
	Coach—regular routes	34	3.4
	Other	41	4.1
Been to Iceland before	Yes	183	18.2
	No	822	81.2

). The highest proportion, 24% of visitors, stayed 6–8 nights, 22% spent 9–12 nights in the country, and 19% spent 4–5 nights. The vast majority (91%) visited the Reykjavík capital area. The second most visited region was South Iceland (74%), followed by West and East Iceland, each of which were visited by 45% of tourists (Table 2). Around 19% of tourists visited only one region during their stay in Iceland, the same proportion visited three regions, 16% visited two regions, 11% visited five regions, and the same proportion visited six. Furthermore, 10% of tourists visited four regions, 8% visited seven regions, while 7% reported visiting all eight regions of the country during their stay in Iceland. Most tourists (81%) were visiting the country for the first time. The most common means of transport among tourists was a rented car, used by 65%, while 17% relied on organized bus tours when travelling in Iceland (Table 2).

5.2. Attitudes Toward Wind Energy Development in Iceland

The surveyed visitors to Iceland were highly concerned about climate change. Around 23% of them agreed and almost 70% strongly agreed with the statement “Climate change needs to be urgently addressed”. However, a lower proportion were positive (29%) or very positive (47%) toward the use of wind energy in Iceland, with 8% being negative, 4% very negative, and 12% neutral (mean = 4.06). The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed significant differences between the attitudes of visitors from different regions (H(8) = 48.705, p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons showed that visitors from Central Europe (here: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, and Switzerland) expressed the least positive attitudes toward the use of wind energy in Iceland (mean rank = 405.49), which were significantly less positive than the attitudes of visitors from North America, Eastern Europe (here: Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia), Asia, and Australia/New Zealand. Visitors from the latter were the most positive toward the use of wind energy in Iceland (mean rank = 634.67). Furthermore, a comparison of the attitudes of visitors from the top eight countries of origin (listed in Table 1), for which sufficient responses were collected, revealed significant differences (H(7) = 29.663, p < 0.001). Polish visitors were the most positive toward the use of wind energy in Iceland (mean rank = 370.55), followed by British visitors (mean rank = 346.77), Americans (mean rank = 345.41), Italians (mean rank = 339.68), and Canadians (mean rank = 332.91). The attitudes of French visitors were significantly more negative compared to all of these groups (mean rank = 213.14), while no significant differences were observed between the attitudes of Danish (mean rank = 316.02) and German visitors (mean rank = 303.00) and visitors from the other countries mentioned. The study found that other demographic characteristics did not significantly affect visitor attitudes toward the use of wind energy in Iceland.

Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with four statements about wind energy development in Iceland and the compatibility of wind farms with the tourist experience. Around 29% agreed and 20% strongly agreed with the statement “For outdoor activities I prefer areas which do not contain wind turbines”, while 15% disagreed and 6% strongly disagreed with it (

Table 3. Tourists’ climate change concern and attitudes toward wind energy development in Iceland.

Agreement with the Following Statements	N		%		Mean	SD
(1 = Strongly Disagree → 5 = Strongly Agree)		1 and 2	3	4 and 5
Climate change needs to be urgently addressed	985	2.7	5.1	92.2	4.59	0.726
For outdoor activities I prefer areas which do not contain wind turbines	953	20.4	30.5	49.1	3.42	1.134
Wind farms would reduce the quality of my experience of Icelandic nature	951	39.6	23.6	36.8	3.00	1.233
I would be interested in visiting a wind farm in Iceland	957	35.7	23.1	41.2	3.00	1.213
Wind farms in Iceland would make the country a less interesting destination for me to visit	956	60.5	21.0	18.5	2.37	1.163
Suitability of Wind Farms in the Following Areas in Iceland (1 = not suitable at all → 5 = highly suitable)
Industrial areas	950	5.5	8.1	86.4	4.24	0.914
Offshore	918	14.7	12.8	72.5	3.89	1.173
Agricultural areas	906	14.5	13.5	71.9	3.80	1.103
Recreational areas	927	33.6	21.8	44.6	3.08	1.221
Residential areas	919	42.1	19.5	38.3	2.93	1.194
Wilderness areas	939	44.7	14.6	40.8	2.91	1.416
Areas containing cultural heritage	923	64.2	13.3	22.5	2.37	1.247
National parks and other protected natural areas	947	69.1	9.8	21.1	2.22	1.313

). Agreement with the statement “Wind farms would reduce the quality of my experience of Icelandic nature” was somewhat lower, with 23% agreeing and 14% strongly agreeing with the statement, 28% disagreeing, and 11% strongly disagreeing. Approximately 32% agreed and 9% strongly agreed with the statement “I would be interested in visiting a wind farm in Iceland”, while 21% disagreed and 14% strongly disagreed with it. Around 13% of visitors agreed and 5% strongly agreed with the statement “Wind farms in Iceland would make the country a less interesting destination for me to visit”. Meanwhile, 34% disagreed and 27% strongly disagreed with this statement.

The data showed that gender did not influence agreement with the four statements. However, age did affect agreement with the statement “Wind farms in Iceland would make the country a less interesting destination for me to visit” (H(5) = 19.516, p = 0.002). Visitors aged 18–24 years old (mean rank = 455.45) agreed with the statement significantly less compared to visitors who were 45–54 years old (mean rank = 563.80). Travel motivation and having visited the country before did not affect visitor attitudes toward wind energy development in Iceland. Nonetheless, visitors staying only one night in Iceland (mean = 3.44) were significantly more interested in visiting a wind farm in the country compared to those staying longer (mean = 2.87–3.10) (F(5, 951) = 2.229, p = 0.049).

The study found that visitors’ place of origin influenced their attitudes toward wind energy development in Iceland (

Table 4. Tourists’ climate change concern and attitudes toward wind energy development in Iceland by region of origin.

	Climate Change Needs to Be Urgently Addressed *		For Outdoor Activities I Prefer Areas Which Do Not Contain Wind Turbines		Wind Farms Would Reduce the Quality of my Experience of Icelandic Nature *		I Would Be Interested in Visiting a Wind Farm in Iceland *		Wind Farms in Iceland Would Make the Country a Less Interesting Destination for Me to Visit *
Region	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Central Europe	4.67	0.604	3.56	1.170	3.28	1.278	2.35	1.208	2.40	1.311
Southern Europe	4.71	0.560	3.56	1.001	3.19	1.147	3.00	1.094	2.66	1.125
Eastern Europe	4.26	0.932	3.36	1.134	3.01	1.194	3.06	1.154	2.48	0.970
Nordic countries	4.55	0.624	3.44	0.979	3.17	1.151	2.96	1.159	2.28	1.118
UK and Ireland	4.66	0.616	3.38	1.341	2.79	1.255	3.26	1.202	2.37	1.174
North America	4.58	0.790	3.32	1.151	2.77	1.225	3.20	1.156	2.29	1.136
Asia	4.27	0.954	3.29	1.102	2.85	1.041	3.90	0.868	2.37	1.132
Australia and New Zealand	4.85	0.366	3.12	1.053	2.46	1.129	2.82	0.962	1.80	0.951
Other	4.68	0.637	3.57	1.066	3.16	1.209	3.56	1.124	2.41	1.153

* Groups are significantly different at p < 0.05.

). However, a Kruskal–Wallis test indicated no significant differences between tourists from different regions when considering the statement “For outdoor activities I prefer areas which do not contain wind turbines” (H(8) = 11.861, p = 0.158). Among the visitors from the top eight countries of origin, French visitors (mean rank = 454.39) agreed significantly more with the statement than visitors from all other countries except Poland (mean rank = 348.97) (H(7) = 35.588, p < 0.001).

Significant differences were observed regarding agreement with the statement “Wind farms would reduce the quality of my experience of Icelandic nature” among visitors from different regions (H(8) = 37.308, p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons demonstrated that visitors from North America (mean rank = 435.11) expressed significantly lower agreement with the statement compared to visitors from Central Europe (mean rank = 548.35). Analysis of visitor answers from the top eight countries of origin showed that French visitors (mean rank = 455.59) agreed with the statement significantly more than German (mean rank = 330.70), American (mean rank = 311.21), British (mean rank = 297.53), and Canadian visitors, whose agreement with the statement was the lowest (mean rank = 241.14). Significant differences were also found between the answers of Canadian and Polish visitors (mean rank = 397.28) (H(7) = 44.876, p < 0.001)

The interest in visiting a wind farm in Iceland was rather low among visitors from Central Europe, Australia/New Zealand, and the Nordic countries, with the mean of responses to this statement being below 3.00 on a Likert Scale. It equaled 3.00 among Southern Europeans and was above 3.00 among visitors from other regions (Table 4). The interest in visiting a wind farm was significantly higher among visitors coming from Asia (mean rank = 686.83) compared to all other regions except the UK and Ireland (mean rank = 550.18) (H(8) = 109.724, p < 0.001). Conversely, it was the lowest among visitors from Central Europe (mean rank = 340.10), significantly lower than all other regions except Australia and New Zealand (mean rank = 427.36). Significant differences were also observed when analyzing the answers of visitors from the top eight countries of origin (H(7) = 64.003, p < 0.001). French tourists (mean rank = 206.81) were significantly less interested in visiting a wind farm in Iceland than tourists from all other countries except Germany (mean rank = 248.28) and Poland (mean rank = 316.56). Furthermore, German visitors were significantly less interested in wind farms as tourist attractions compared to visitors from the UK (mean rank = 376.72) and the USA (mean rank = 369.76).

Southern Europeans were significantly more likely to agree with the statement “Wind farms in Iceland would make the country a less interesting destination for me to visit” (mean rank = 562.41) compared to Australians and New Zealanders (mean rank = 365.20) (H(8) = 17.632, p = 0.024). Among the visitors from the top eight countries of origin, French visitors (mean rank = 445.40) agreed with the statement significantly more than visitors from all other countries except Poland (mean rank = 387.06) and Italy (mean rank = 369.39). Polish visitors agreed with the statement significantly more than German visitors, whose agreement with the statement was the lowest (mean rank = 270.23) (H(7) = 38.428, p < 0.001).

There were also significant differences in agreement with the statement “Climate change needs to be urgently addressed” (H(8) = 32.886, p < 0.001). Tourists from Eastern Europe (mean rank = 395.00) were significantly less likely to agree with the statement than visitors from Australia and New Zealand (mean rank = 586.76), Southern Europe (mean rank = 538.18), Central Europe (mean rank = 523.88), and North America (mean rank = 511.04). Agreement with the statement among Polish visitors (mean rank = 222.85) was significantly lower compared to visitors from all the other top eight countries of origin except Denmark (mean rank = 309.59) (H(7) = 26.533, p < 0.001). No significant differences were identified between the answers of visitors from other countries.

Principal component analysis showed that these different attitude statements about climate change and wind energy development could be summarized into one component with an explained variance of over 50% (52.92%).

Table 5. Results of the principal component analysis of statements about climate change and wind energy development in Iceland.

Attitude Item	Principal Component
1. Climate change needs to be urgently addressed	−0.342
2. For outdoor activities I prefer areas which do not contain wind turbines	0.795
3. Wind farms would reduce the quality of my experience of Icelandic nature	0.892
4. I would be interested in visiting a wind farm in Iceland	−0.647
5. Wind farms in Iceland would make the country a less interesting destination for me to visit	0.826

shows the component loadings, which indicate that those who prefer tourist areas that do not contain wind turbines are less climate-conscious and think that wind farms would generally make the country a less interesting destination and would reduce the quality of the experience in Iceland. On the other hand, the more climate-conscious visitors would be more likely to be interested in visiting wind farms and they do not mind having wind turbines around when they undertake their outdoor activities.

Respondents were also asked to share their opinions about the suitability of wind farms in various types of areas in Iceland (Table 3). The results of a Friedman test showed significant differences in visitor perceptions regarding the suitability of wind farms in different areas (χ²(7) = 2097.602, p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons revealed that the areas fall into four categories based on the perceived suitability of wind farms. The first category includes industrial areas, where wind farms were viewed as significantly more suitable than in all the other areas (mean rank = 6.35). The second group consists of offshore areas (mean rank = 5.73) and agricultural areas (mean rank = 5.58), where wind farms were perceived as significantly less suitable than in industrial areas but significantly more suitable than in all the other areas. The third group comprises areas in which perceptions regarding the suitability of wind farms were the most divergent: recreational areas (mean rank = 4.31), residential areas (mean rank = 3.98), and wilderness areas (mean rank = 4.15). Regarding recreational areas, 45% of visitors viewed wind farms as suitable, with 34% considering them unsuitable. In wilderness areas, 41% perceived wind turbines as suitable, with 45% considering them unsuitable. The attitudes toward wind farms in residential areas were similarly divided, with 38% viewing them as suitable and 42% as unsuitable. The last group includes areas containing cultural heritage (mean rank = 3.06) as well as national parks and other protected natural areas (mean rank = 2.84), where wind farms were viewed as significantly least suitable.

The suitability of wind farms in industrial areas was perceived positively by visitors from all regions (

Table 6. Perceived suitability of wind farms in various types of areas in Iceland by visitors from different regions.

	Industrial Areas		Offshore		Agricultural Areas *		Recreational Areas *		Residential Areas *		Wilderness Areas *		Cultural Heritage Areas *		NPs and Other Protected Natural Areas *
Region	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Central Europe	4.25	0.931	3.66	1.357	3.35	1.287	2.57	1.209	2.40	1.176	2.20	1.244	1.89	1.055	1.63	0.939
Southern Europe	4.38	0.693	3.93	1.159	3.84	0.969	3.32	1.207	3.15	1.239	2.65	1.461	2.32	1.271	2.09	1.330
Eastern Europe	4.28	0.734	3.90	0.989	3.90	0.883	3.36	1.245	3.45	1.111	3.14	1.484	2.77	1.456	2.41	1.547
Nordic countries	4.21	0.892	4.00	0.935	3.56	1.051	2.80	1.063	2.99	0.991	2.95	1.409	2.12	1.038	2.03	1.172
UK and Ireland	4.16	1.047	4.08	1.097	3.84	1.070	3.34	1.119	3.17	1.185	3.27	1.281	2.48	1.293	2.36	1.275
North America	4.24	0.963	3.90	1.214	3.99	1.048	3.19	1.199	2.94	1.138	3.05	1.358	2.46	1.182	2.37	1.286
Asia	3.96	1.144	4.04	0.795	4.14	0.827	3.78	0.910	3.65	1.022	4.05	1.183	3.39	1.239	3.48	1.317
Australia and New Zealand	4.38	0.868	4.46	0.738	4.33	0.695	3.13	0.984	2.49	0.959	3.95	0.987	2.39	1.085	2.31	1.063
Other	4.19	0.923	4.01	0.996	4.03	0.995	3.34	1.242	3.21	1.287	3.43	1.353	2.83	1.451	2.89	1.526

* Groups are significantly different at p < 0.05.

). The Kruskal–Wallis test did not reveal significant differences between the visitor groups (H(8) = 6.523, p = 0.589). Likewise, no significant differences were observed between visitors from different regions regarding the suitability of wind farms offshore (H(8) = 14.526, p = 0.069).

Visitors from all regions tended to see wind farms as appropriate in agricultural areas, with an average score exceeding 3.00. However, there were significant differences in the perceptions of visitors from different regions (H(8) = 56.044, p < 0.001). Visitors from Central Europe (mean rank = 371.81) and Nordic countries (mean rank = 386.60) considered wind farms significantly less suitable in agricultural areas compared to visitors from Australia/New Zealand (mean rank = 575.06) and North America (mean rank = 508.99). Additionally, significant differences were observed in the perceptions of visitors from Central Europe (mean rank = 371.81) and Asia (mean rank = 526.76).

Visitors from Central Europe (mean rank = 364.22) viewed wind farms as rather unsuitable in recreational areas and rated them as significantly less suitable than visitors from all other regions except Nordic countries (mean rank = 401.77) and Australia/New Zealand (mean rank = 451.72) (H(8) = 70.822, p < 0.001). Furthermore, visitors from Nordic countries considered wind farms as significantly less suitable in recreational areas than visitors from Asia (mean rank = 631.57).

The perceptions of wind farms in wilderness areas varied among visitors from different regions. Central Europeans saw them as significantly less suitable (mean rank = 343.30) in wilderness areas than visitors from all other regions except Southern Europeans (mean rank = 414.92) and visitors from Nordic countries (mean rank = 479.09) (H(8) = 111.660, p < 0.001). Southern Europeans had significantly different views from visitors from Australia/New Zealand (mean rank = 663.69) and Asia (mean rank = 695.39). Additionally, visitors from Asia perceived wind turbines as significantly more suitable in wilderness areas than visitors from Nordic countries and North America (mean rank = 504.00).

Wind farms in residential areas were also contested (Table 6). Central Europeans (mean rank = 359.25) considered them as significantly less suitable in residential areas than visitors from all other regions except Australia and New Zealand (mean rank = 358.88) (H(8) = 74.922, p < 0.001). Moreover, visitors from Australia and New Zealand perceived wind farms as significantly less suitable in residential areas than visitors from Eastern Europe (mean rank = 583.64) and Asia (mean rank = 619.36). North Americans (mean rank = 471.94) saw them as significantly less suitable in residential areas than Eastern Europeans.

Visitors from all regions except Asia viewed wind farms as rather unsuitable in areas containing cultural heritage (Table 6). However, visitors from Central Europe (mean rank = 367.50) perceived wind farms as significantly less suitable in such areas than visitors from all other regions except Nordic countries (mean rank = 429.67), Southern Europe (mean rank = 460.61), and Australia/New Zealand (mean rank = 488.52) (H(8) = 70.665, p < 0.001). Furthermore, those from Nordic countries, Southern Europe, and North America (mean rank = 495.83) perceived wind farms as significantly less suitable in areas containing cultural heritage than visitors from Asia (mean rank = 671.41).

Similarly, visitors from all regions except Asia viewed wind farms as unsuitable in national parks and other protected natural areas (Table 6). Visitors from Central Europe (mean rank = 358.76) perceived wind farms as significantly less suitable in such areas than visitors from all other regions except Southern Europe (mean rank = 453.34) and Nordic countries (mean rank = 457.59) (H(8) = 98.669, p < 0.001). The perceptions of Asian visitors (mean rank = 721.15) toward wind farms in national parks and other protected areas were significantly more favorable compared to perceptions of visitors from Central Europe, Southern Europe, Nordic countries, Eastern Europe (mean rank = 497.77), the UK and Ireland (mean rank = 517.41), and North America (mean rank = 518.76).

Furthermore, the study investigated how the perceived suitability of wind farms in each of the eight areas related to the overall attitudes of visitors toward the use of wind energy in Iceland and to the four statements about wind farm development and their compatibility with the tourist experience (Table 3). Exploratory factor analysis conducted for the four statements showed that they all load on one factor, with the first factor explaining 64% of the variance, suggesting that the statements measure the same construct. Therefore, the factor score for the four statements was used in a multiple linear regression. The relationship between climate change concern and the perceived suitability of wind farms in various types of areas was shown not to be significant, possibly due to the ceiling effect, since 92% of respondents agreed with the statement “Climate change needs to be urgently addressed”. Therefore, this factor was excluded from the multiple linear regression. The results showed a significant relationship between overall attitudes toward the use of wind energy in Iceland, the perceived compatibility of wind farms with the tourist experience, and the perceived suitability of wind farms in all eight locations (

Table 7. Relationship between attitudes toward the use of wind energy in Iceland, the perceived compatibility of wind farms with the tourist experience, and the perceived suitability of wind farms in eight types of areas in Iceland.

	Test Statistics			Attitudes Toward the Use of Wind Energy			Perceived Compatibility of Wind Farms and the Tourist Experience
Areas	F	R2	p	Standardized β	t	p	Standardized β	t	p
Industrial areas	107.612	0.202	<0.001	0.358	9.606	<0.001	0.138	3.707	<0.001
Offshore	195.361	0.320	<0.001	0.399	11.465	<0.001	0.236	6.790	<0.001
Agricultural areas	249.580	0.380	<0.001	0.497	14.848	<0.001	0.182	5.430	<0.001
Recreational areas	180.568	0.302	<0.001	0.407	11.523	<0.001	0.206	5.815	<0.001
Residential areas	53.502	0.113	<0.001	0.281	7.094	<0.001	0.091	2.296	0.022
Wilderness areas	145.565	0.257	<0.001	0.314	8.709	<0.001	0.261	7.241	<0.001
Areas containing cultural heritage	70.957	0.145	<0.001	0.321	8.258	<0.001	0.097	2.484	0.013
National parks and other protected natural areas	62.492	0.130	<0.001	0.256	6.560	<0.001	0.148	3.808	<0.001

). Positive attitudes toward the use of wind energy in Iceland led to a higher perceived suitability of wind farms in all eight areas, while a lower perceived compatibility of wind farms with the tourist experience in Iceland led to a lower perceived suitability of wind farms in all eight areas. The overall attitudes toward the use of wind energy in Iceland were shown to be a stronger predictor of the perceived suitability of wind farms in all eight areas than the perceived compatibility of wind farms with the tourist experience (Table 7).

Notably, the predicting power of the two factors varied with different areas. Regarding residential areas, overall attitudes toward the use of wind energy and the perceived compatibility of wind farms with the tourist experience explained only 11.3% of the variance in perceived suitability of wind farms in these areas. Similarly, in areas containing cultural heritage as well as national parks and other protected areas, where the perceived suitability of wind farms was the lowest, the two predictors explained 14.5% and 13% of the total variance, respectively (Table 7).

6. Discussion and Conclusions

This study showed that the vast majority, or 92%, of tourists visiting Iceland are concerned about climate change and see an urgent need to mitigate it. However, a much lower proportion, 76% of tourists, have a positive attitude toward harnessing wind energy in Iceland. This suggests that the high visibility of wind turbines and impacts on the surrounding landscape are persistent concerns not only among local communities but also among tourists. Addressing these concerns when planning wind energy developments is essential for improving their social acceptability.

In line with previous research [5], this study emphasizes the importance of careful spatial planning for enhancing the compatibility between wind energy development and tourism. The study revealed that overall attitudes toward the use of wind energy in Iceland and the perceived compatibility of wind farms with the tourist experience are significant predictors of their perceived suitability in all discussed areas. However, different degrees of perceived suitability of wind farms in various settings were also demonstrated. Visitors perceived wind farms as being the least suitable in national parks and other protected natural areas, as well as cultural heritage areas. Such findings are supported by previous research [12,54] and emphasize the need to protect these areas from energy developments to preserve their significance and the values they hold for the tourism industry. Wind farms were considered most suitable in industrial areas, followed by offshore and agricultural areas. Choosing these locations for wind energy development will likely minimize conflicts between the energy and tourism sectors. However, other stakeholder groups, especially those who use these areas, might have different perceptions regarding the suitability of wind farms in such settings. Furthermore, due to the high visibility of wind turbines, their landscape impacts may extend beyond designated development areas into previously pristine natural settings or areas that hold important values to stakeholders, which might be affected by wind energy developments [32,50]. This highlights the need to consider multiple stakeholder perspectives when planning wind energy projects.

The study showed that visitor opinions concerning the appropriateness of wind farms in certain areas used for tourism, such as wilderness and recreational areas, vary widely. This suggests that these areas contain different meanings for various visitors, and that the perceived potential impacts of wind farms on these meanings differ, as supported by Devine-Wright and Wiersma [31]. As shown by Sæþórsdóttir and Hall [55], some visitors assign meanings and expectations to these areas that relate to the absence of anthropogenic structures and opportunities to experience peace and quiet. They are likely to be disturbed by wind turbines and could choose to visit other areas that would meet their expectations [28]. As revealed by this study, these tourists tend to be somewhat less climate-conscious than those interested in visiting wind farms as touristic destinations. Almost half of the visitors in the study mentioned that they prefer areas that do not contain wind turbines for their outdoor activities, highlighting the need for further research to estimate the potential decline in tourism in areas used for tourism and recreation due to the construction of wind turbines. However, such infrastructure does not necessarily lead to a reduction in tourism demand. Tourists who are sensitive to the presence of wind turbines could be replaced by visitors who are not bothered by wind energy infrastructure or who even view it as a positive addition to the landscape and are interested in visiting it. This may result in changes in the type of tourism in areas containing wind turbines.

When planning wind energy developments in regions that rely on tourism, it is essential to consider the tourist segments a region or a country wants to attract and ensure their expectations are met. Business Iceland [56], an institution responsible for branding the country and its export industries, has published a target group analysis for Icelandic tourism, presenting two main tourist target groups. The first target group consists of young, affluent, tech-savvy travelers, mostly under 40, who are interested in adventure and “prioritizing vacations with natural beauty, hiking, and eco-tourism” [56]. The second group includes experienced visitors 40 years old or older, who prefer independent travel in smaller groups, off-the-beaten-track experiences, and getting in touch with nature. The importance of nature in promoting a unique visitor experience in Iceland and the balance between the utilization and conservation of nature are also considered in the tourism policy framework until 2030 [57]. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how the presence of wind turbines affects people’s experience of nature. This study found that 37% of visitors believed that wind farms would reduce the quality of their experience of Icelandic nature, with Central Europeans, especially French visitors, agreeing most strongly with the statement. They also showed the least positive attitude toward using wind energy in Iceland and expressed the lowest interest in visiting a wind farm while traveling the country. This suggests that Central European visitors are likely to be the most negatively affected by wind energy developments in Iceland. This particular tourist segment has been visiting Iceland for several decades [24] and represents around 20% of all tourists, making them a significant market group. According to the study, 65% of them stayed in the country for nine days or longer, leading to lower environmental impacts of tourism compared to shorter stays and more significant benefits to local communities [58]. To continue attracting this tourist segment, Iceland needs to ensure high-quality recreational opportunities without the disturbance of wind turbines.

On the other hand, visitors from Asia seem to be more positive toward wind farms in Iceland. They were particularly interested in visiting a wind farm in the country. Enhancing the experience of tourists interested in wind energy infrastructure in Iceland by creating visitor centers, information boards, and educational trails could enrich their experience and positively shape tourist attitudes toward wind energy [17,43]. Other tourist segments that expressed interest in visiting a wind farm in Iceland include visitors from Eastern Europe, the UK and Ireland, and North America, with the latter accounting for around one-third of all international visitors to Iceland [24]. This study also revealed that visitors who stayed only one night in the country were more interested in visiting a wind farm in Iceland than those who stayed longer. This group likely consists of tourists on layover flights. Further research on the preferences of this visitor segment and their compatibility with wind energy development in the country is needed.

In this study, around 19% of visitors stated that the presence of wind farms in Iceland would make the country less appealing for them to visit. This indicates that wind energy development could negatively impact the country’s image and reputation as a nature-based tourism destination. Until now, tourism marketing strategies have predominantly focused on Iceland’s pristine nature and unique landscapes, leveraging these qualities as critical competitive advantage. To ensure that wind energy development in the country does not pose a significant risk to Iceland’s image as a nature-based tourism destination and does not reduce its international competitiveness, a holistic and well-coordinated wind energy policy is essential. It should be grounded in careful spatial planning and take into consideration the perceptions and preferences of multiple stakeholders, including those from the tourism sector. Such participatory planning helps to identify and preserve the values and meanings places hold for various stakeholders, thereby increasing the likelihood of enhancing public acceptance of wind energy projects.

The current interest in harnessing wind energy in Iceland is very high, with over 30 wind farms being proposed by energy companies. Uncoordinated development of multiple wind energy projects could potentially force the tourism industry to target new market segments as the quality of the natural landscape declines. To fully understand the potential consequences, further research is needed to assess how large-scale wind energy development might alter Iceland’s image as a tourism destination and whether it could lead to a decline in tourist arrivals. Such research, together with the continuous monitoring of visitor perceptions, is necessary to inform adaptive policy strategies that aim to balance wind energy development with tourism.

This study has a few limitations that could be addressed in future research. Although the sample size was relatively large, comprising 1005 responses, a larger sample size would enable a more detailed analysis of the factors shaping visitor attitudes toward wind energy projects. Additionally, incorporating qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews with visitors from different regions and backgrounds would offer deeper understanding of the reasons behind their attitudes and preferences related to wind energy projects in tourism destinations.

Currently, Iceland only has a few wind turbines, and this study focuses on prospective wind energy development. Previous studies [50,59,60] have shown that acceptance of energy projects among tourism stakeholders tends to increase once they are built. Future studies examining visitor attitudes after the construction of the first wind farms would enhance understanding of the impacts of wind energy infrastructure on tourism in Iceland. Longitudinal research conducted before, during, and after the construction of a wind farm would be especially valuable, capturing perceptional and attitudinal changes over time. Additionally, further research is necessary to identify the factors that determine the suitability of locations for wind energy projects in relation to tourism. Such insights are crucial for supporting sustainable wind energy planning.