New Approaches to Modelling Wilderness Quality in Iceland

Abstract

Much of Europe’s remaining wilderness areas are found in Iceland, yet few are formally protected despite ongoing threats from renewable energy exploitation and 4 × 4 usage. Robust and repeatable approaches are required to map wilderness landscape qualities in support of developing policy on designations that meet international standards. We present an approach to mapping wilderness that is based on internationally recognised methods and customised to suit the unique nature of Icelandic landscapes. We use spatially explicit models of wilderness attributes that measure human impact from vehicular access, land use and visible human features rather than relying on proxy measures such as buffer zones. Seventeen wilderness areas are identified across the Central Highlands and surrounding areas, totalling some 28,470 km2. These are compared to existing mapping projects. The character of these areas is described using additional spatial data models on openness, ruggedness and accessibility from settlements, together with information on mobile phone coverage and grazing patterns. This is the most detailed mapping of wilderness in Iceland to date and an important step towards the formal definition of boundaries of wilderness areas meeting IUCN Category 1b and Wild Europe Working Definition in Iceland.

Developing a Wilderness Quality Index for Continental Europe

“…Iceland is at the top of this list, with 37% of the country falling into the high wilderness index category. This confirms the existing work on mapping wilderness in Iceland, which, based on WQI 1.0, shows 43% of Europe's top 1% wildest areas to be in Iceland [26]. Other Scandinavian countries are also present in the top 20 including Norway, Sweden, and Finland.…”

“…Several national and local level WQI mapping programmes exist for selected European countries and areas. For example, national maps exist for Scotland [29], Iceland [26], Germany [30], Denmark [31], France [32], Switzerland [33], etc. These have been able to incorporate national datasets and more locally nuanced models taking local culture and landscape into account and, as such, could serve as tools for calibrating the accuracy and reliability of the regional level models presented here.…”

Unveiling Sri Lanka’s Wilderness: GIS-Based Modelling of Wilderness Attributes

“…Notably, the Australian National Wilderness Inventory (NWI) was an early adopter of geographic information system (GIS) technology in mapping wilderness quality, employing four specific criteria for assessing the wilderness attributes [9,10]. Over time, numerous research initiatives have worked to map existing wilderness areas at different geographical scales, leveraging GIS and remote sensing technologies to improve the accuracy and reliability of the maps produced [4,8,[11][12][13].…”

“…Furthermore, there have been many other research projects on mapping wilderness characteristics at a global scale [6,14,15]. Despite advancements in mapping approaches [16], global projects often rely on proxy measures that can be criticised for not fully embodying the wilderness definition or using direct measurement of human impacts on wildness [12]. In addition, the use of low-resolution global data for modelling the human footprint often misses the local-and regional-level details that are crucial in reliably and accurately representing spatial variations in wilderness quality on the ground.…”

“…At the continental level, Henry and Husby [17] measured Euro-Arctic Barents region wilderness quality based on remoteness and naturalness, while Ceausu et al [18] mapped Europe's wilderness using metrics like artificial light and human accessibility. Nationallevel projects, exemplified by Carver et al's [12] Iceland-specific approach, emphasise robust models over simple proxies, employing attributes like remoteness from mechanised access and lack of visual intrusion from human artefacts.…”