2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102875
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transport geography in Iceland

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, an interesting, though potentially to-be-expected, contrast could be seen between urban and rural sub-groups, where urbanites compensate for the lower vehicle footprints with more leisure travel, reflecting the findings of previous studies in Iceland [72]. Urban dwellers also saw higher Public Transport EFs, though even in urban settings public transit use has historically remained significantly low [73,74], leading to high vehicle energy use for all groups; though, due to the extremely low population density in the countryside, this was particularly high for the rural sub-group.…”
Section: The Geography Of Footprints In Icelandsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…Moreover, an interesting, though potentially to-be-expected, contrast could be seen between urban and rural sub-groups, where urbanites compensate for the lower vehicle footprints with more leisure travel, reflecting the findings of previous studies in Iceland [72]. Urban dwellers also saw higher Public Transport EFs, though even in urban settings public transit use has historically remained significantly low [73,74], leading to high vehicle energy use for all groups; though, due to the extremely low population density in the countryside, this was particularly high for the rural sub-group.…”
Section: The Geography Of Footprints In Icelandsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…We have also largely ignored the global and country-specific structures and structural changes that may channel migration flows. In the Icelandic context, rural migration flows have for instance been affected by neoliberal fisheries management, industry mergers, regional agglomeration and technological innvotion in the fishing industry (Chambers et al, 2017;Gunnlaugsson and Saevaldsson, 2016;Kokorsch and Benediktsson, 2018), the uneven geographies of welfare and austerity in the wake of the 2008 economic meltdown (Huijbens and Thorsteinsson, 2017;Gústafsdóttir et al, 2017), the explosive growth in tourism and the transformation from rural extraction to rural attraction (Cunningham et al, 2012;Lund and Johannesson, 2014), improvements in road infrastructure (Bjarnason, 2014(Bjarnason, , 2021Keeling, 2020) and the growth of regional universities and distance education (Bjarnason and Edvardsson 2017;Bjarnason and Thorarinsdottir, 2018;Edvardsson, 2014). Future research should explore the association of both individual motivations and social structural processes with microurbanisation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%