Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections
Eirik J. Frland a, *, Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen b, Jon Martin Denstadli b, Martin Lohmann c, d, Inger Hanssen-Bauer a, e, Hans Olav Hygen a, Hans Tmmervik f
a

Climate Department, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, P.O. Box 43 Blindern, NO-0313 Oslo, Norway Institute of Transport Economics, Gaustadallen 21, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway NIT Institute for Tourism Research, Fleethrn 23, DE-24103 Kiel, Germany d Leuphana Universitt Lneburg, Scharnhorststrae 1, DE-21335 Lneburg, Germany e Telemark University College, Gullbringvegen 36, NO-3800 B i Telemark, Norway f Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, NO-9296 Troms, Norway
b c

h i g h l i g h t s
< Tourist weather preferences are uniquely compared with projections of future summer weather. < Tourists main dislikes are overcast sky, frequent rain and low visibility. < Projections indicate more warm summer days, increased cloudiness and more wet days. < Future weather provides both opportunities and challenges for visitors and tourism industry.

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 10 November 2011 Accepted 3 September 2012 Keywords: Weather preference Weather acceptance Weather aversion Weather statistics Climate projection Tourism Sightseeing Outdoor recreation Arctic

a b s t r a c t
This article uniquely compares tourists weather preferences, aversions and acceptances with present and projected future summer weather in Northern Scandinavia. An in situ survey revealed tourist weather preferences (e.g. clear sky, rather warm) and aversions (e.g. frequent rainfall, low visibility). Weather observations and tailored climate projections depict present and future conditions of wet, cool, mild and warm days, and empirical relationships are developed to establish projections for cloudiness and visibility. The projections indicate that tourists preference for rather warm weather will be met by increasing numbers of mild and warm days. However, the number of wet days will increase and prospects for enjoying midnight sun tend to be slightly reduced. The study offers a novel approach for better understanding the base of future tourist behaviour under climate change conditions and vital implications for tourism management are identied. Furthermore, advantageous interrelations between different scientic areas for climate change research are illustrated. 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Tourists choose their destinations and routes for a variety of reasons. Still, climate has some behavioural impact with respect to where, when and how people travel, and activities carried out in destination areas (e.g. Lohmann & Aderhold, 2009). Given this situation, tourism enterprises and travellers are likely to be inuenced by changes in climate variables both in tourists home environments and in their actual and potential destinations.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 47 22963000; fax: 47 22963050. E-mail address: eirikjf@met.no (E.J. Frland). 0261-5177/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

As a consequence of global warming, climate in many areas is likely to alter, causing redistribution of climatic assets between tourism regions (Scott, McBoyle, & Schwartzentruber, 2004; Yu, Schwartz, & Walsh, 2009) and possibly modifying seasonality patterns. Among tourism regions experiencing rapid changes in climatic conditions are Norways northern areas, north of the Arctic Circle (Frland et al., 2009, 2011). Temperature is a principal climate variable in the framework of global warming and the largest temperature increase is projected at high northern latitudes (ACIA, 2005; IPCC, 2007). What is more, it has been assumed that global climate change may lead to a shift of tourism demand to higher latitudes (e.g. Hamilton, Maddison, & Tol, 2005; Scott et al., 2004; Smith, 1990). However, global warming in higher latitudes causes

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

E.J. Frland et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13

not only increasing temperatures but also generates changes in other climate variables such as precipitation, visibility, cloudiness, wind, and sea waves. Future weather conditions will possibly lead to more opportunities for summer season tourism in Northern Norway but may still affect visitor behaviour both positively and negatively (e.g. Denstadli, Jacobsen, & Lohmann, 2011) and might additionally pose challenges to tourism-related enterprises and their operations (e.g. Rauken, Kelman, Jacobsen, & Hovelsrud, 2010). Climate change bearings on tourism are not limited to weather aspects (e.g. Simpson, Gssling, Scott, Hall, & Gladin, 2008), but as direct impacts weather variables are crucial. Since perceptions of good and bad weather are subjective and context-dependent (e.g. Smith, 1993) and human climate thresholds are problematical to dene (e.g. Meze-Hausken, 2007, 2008), it is imperative to measure tourists stated in situ weather preferences, aversions and acceptances up to actual weather statistics and projected changes in tourism-related weather/climate variables. The interest in possible climate change effects for tourism industry planning has apparently increased in the rst decade of the twenty-rst century, while weather and weather changes still do not stand out as a major concern for businesses in many areas (e.g. Rauken et al., 2010). Nonetheless, both tourism businesses and prospective visitors may benet from more comprehensive and easily interpretable information clarifying opportunity sets. Against the background of a rapidly expanding multidisciplinary literature on climate change and resulting impacts as challenges or opportunities for tourism, this paper uniquely combines in situ survey data on tourists subjective and selfreported weather preferences, aversions and acceptances with new customised information on present and future summer season climate conditions at selected destination areas in Northern Norway. The study is guided by three main research questions:  RQ1: What are the preferred and disliked weather variables for summer season leisure travellers in Northern Norway?  RQ2: What are the present states of the preferred and disliked weather conditions specied by summer tourists?  RQ3: How will climate change inuence weather conditions important for leisure travellers? The answer to RQ1 is a necessary input for directing the focus of attention of meteorological variables important to leisure travellers. Answers to RQs 2 and 3 allow for identifying climate change induced opportunities, challenges and responsibilities for tourism management. Moreover, pivotal implications for tourism management are identied. The study also offers a novel approach for better understanding the base of future tourist behaviour under climate change and illustrates benecial interrelations between different scientic areas for climate change research. Following a literature review on destination images and attributes, tourist interests and weather sensations and experiences (Section 2), the paper comprises a background for summer season tourism in Norways Arctic (Section 3), an overview of data and methodology employed in the study (Section 4), results of visitor in situ assessments of weather preferences and dislikes (Section 5), a depiction of present and future summer climate for tourism in Northern Norway (Section 6), nalised by discussion and conclusions (Section 7). 2. Literature review As indicated, climate and weather may affect leisure travel in many ways. While weather is the state of atmospheric elements

such as temperature, precipitation, wind, sunshine, cloudiness, and visibility, climate is the probability of different weather conditions. In a pioneering work, Besancenot (1989) maintains that ideal climate for tourism should provide basic levels of comfort and also enjoyment and safety. However, as perceptions of good and bad weather are subjective and context-dependent (e.g. Jacobsen, Denstadli, Lohmann, & Frland, 2011; Meze-Hausken, 2007, 2008), so are considerations of comfort, discomfort, pleasure, safety and other aspects related to climate that may inuence destination decision-making and tourism enterprise operations. Crucial to tourists pre-trip decision-making are the images of potential destinations, including those based on rst-hand experiences. According to Echtner and Ritchie (1991, 1993), image is constituted by the range of a destination areas various attributes (e.g., climate, landscape) and its holistic mental construct (e.g., mental picture, general atmosphere). Such elements may contain both functional (tangible) and psychological (more abstract) characteristics (e.g. Jacobsen & Dann, 2003). Many destinations attempt to create favourable impressions of their climate conditions (e.g. Perry, 1993), although destination images also depend on many other factors. For instance, Uyarra et al. (2005) have shown that individuals needs and motives regularly determine destination choice and future visitation. Given such wider travel interests, tourists may choose to visit areas with mostly adverse or unpredictable weather, for instance in order to see the sights in places where they have not been previously (e.g. Cohen, 1974; Jacobsen, 2001). In a tourism perspective, the image of climate in a potential destination may be understood as weather anticipation, typically long-term average weather (e.g. Scott & Jones, 2007). Such expectations are mostly part of broader images of destination areas (e.g. Lohmann & Kaim, 1999) and they may partially be based on personal experiences. A number of destination image studies have included climate as an attribute (Gallarza, Gil Saura, & Caldern Garca, 2002; Pike, 2002) although this issue is still underresearched. For instance, a study of outbound international tourists from an area in Germany found that climate was among the most central holiday destination attributes (Hamilton & Lau, 2006). Conversely, several other research projects have not included climate among the most important factors (e.g. Klenosky, 2002). Then again, actual weather in destinations affects tourist on-site behaviour and evaluations (based on expectations) (e.g. Denstadli et al., 2011), and such rst-hand experiences may add to destination impressions. At the same time as climate conditions can be used as a selling proposition for tourism destinations, certain weather aspects might act as demotion in relation to some travellers (e.g. Braun et al., 1999). Moreover, it has been indicated that destination promotion and marketing material often provide limited and crude climate information to prospective visitors (e.g., Scott & Lemieux, 2010), thus making destination choices more uncertain for new arrivals (Fig. 1). Also, in high latitudes a number of tourist interests and activities are dependent on specic weather conditions, indicating the importance of studying specic weather aspects as destination attributes. For instance, summer visitor interest in the midnight sun north of the Arctic Circle implies that a clear sky in the northern horizon at midnight is decisive. To some degree, there are indications that tourism destination areas based on landscape experiences and outdoor activities are affected by weather changes (e.g. Wall, 2007). Connections between weather and tourists landscape experiences and outdoor activities have been specied for a few vicinities where such pursuits are imperative to their promotion (e.g. Coghlan & Prideaux, 2009; Rauken et al., 2010; Scott, Jones, & Konopek, 2007). On the other hand, travellers

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

E.J. Frland et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13

Fig. 1. Mountainous archipelagos are among the highlights for tourists in northern Norway. Photo courtesy of Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen.

pursuing specic place-bound activities (e.g. recreational shing, whale-watching) could be more or less unresponsive to what may generally be perceived as unfavourable but undramatic weather conditions such as rather low temperatures, occasional rain and moderate wind. Particularly if unpleasant weather does not continue over several days, it may have limited effect and primarily result in behaviour adjustments, for instance from outdoor to indoor pursuits (e.g. Denstadli et al., 2011; Perry, 1972). Weather impressions may partly be regarded as bodily experiences. Except for a few studies on beach vacationing, bodily experiences have habitually been ignored or downplayed in tourism research (e.g. Veijola & Jokinen, 1994). Yet, high touch or polysensualism has been mentioned in relation to Arctic tourism. It is maintained that a tour to the Arctic is partly about new tastes, smells, sights, sounds and other feelings, including the rather low summer temperatures of this circumpolar region, and the freshness of the north is often mentioned (e.g. Jacobsen, 1994). Some people actively seek out destinations where they can brave the elements in attempts to experience a sublime attractiveness of nature (e.g. Jacobsen, Grue, & Haukeland, 2002; Nicolson, 1997), that is, mountains, glaciers, oceans and other places that inspire awe and reverence and where one can feel heroic (e.g. Bell & Lyall, 2002) (Fig. 2). Typically, one has distinguished between three main types of direct weather impacts relevant to tourism: aesthetic, thermal, and

physical (de Freitas, 1990; de Freitas, Scott, & McBoyle, 2008). Aesthetic sensations are normally related to cloud cover and visibility. In this instance a central tourism activity is to see for oneself and take photographs (e.g. MacCannell, 1976) e such as landscapeoriented sightseeing and whale-watching e hence vision and visibility are vital. Also for safety reasons, numerous holiday activities like boating and trekking are dependent on visibility, although these pastimes do not concentrate only on eyesight. Thermal sensation is primarily physiological and refers to bodye atmosphere energy balance, being dependent not only on solar heat load but on wind, tourists physical activities and clothing (de Freitas, 1985; de Freitas et al., 2008). Physical sensation refers to precipitation and wind. In tourism climatology, the amount of rain in a day has seemingly only secondary interest compared to ways in which the rain falls, frequencies of showers, duration of downpours, and the time of the day they occur (Besancenot, 1989; Yu et al., 2009). In addition to temperature chilling, wind inuences the state of the sea. For boating, effect of wind on sea waves could impact on safety and wellbeing. Focus on temperature in some expert-based applications of general Tourism Climate Indexes (TCIs) has led to rather negative conclusions regarding tourism possibilities in a high-latitude area such as Northern Europe. An example is Nicholls and Amelung (2008), basing themselves on a pioneering TCI developed by Mieczkowski (1985), stating that climate conditions in most parts of Northern Norway during the summer months are unfavourable or poor for tourism. Analogous conclusions were attained by Hein, Metzger, and Moreno (2009). Neither study encompassed summer season climate data for vicinities north of the Arctic Circle, which in all probability would have been characterised as even poorer areas for summer season leisure travel. However, one should bear in mind that high-latitude regions such as Northern Norway comprise destinations with various weather types in different climatic zones and with a diversity of visitors, activities, and attractions.

3. Background to summer season tourism in Norways Arctic Tourism is vital to the livelihood of considerable parts of the population in Norways Arctic, which in this context is understood as the Norwegian part of Fennoscandia north of the Arctic Circle (cf. Fig. 3), both in towns and in many peripheral and economically marginal communities. It has been estimated that tourism directly and indirectly leads to employment for more than 15,000 persons in the three northernmost counties (Dybedal, 2011). In 2010, foreign visitors spent approximately 3.5 million nights in these counties, while domestic travel in the region constituted about 7.9 million guest nights (Dybedal, 2011). Total visitor consumption in the region in 2010 was NOK 10.427 billion (Dybedal, 2011), which is roughly equal to 1.4 billion Euros. It should be added that Norway and its northern region is mostly experienced as quite expensive (e.g. Farstad & Dybedal, 2010; Farstad & Rideng, 2008), indicating a slightly upmarket prole. Leisure travel to and within this region for the most part takes place during the summer season, with the lions share of guest nights occurring from June to August. July is by far the most popular month for leisure travel in the area (Statistics Norway, 2011). This is to some degree due to the midnight sun, which in clear weather is fully visible all night in the northernmost part of Northern Norway from mid-May to the end of July. The July peak is additionally related to the summer holiday as an institution, that is, established customs in visitors home environments (e.g. Eugenio-Martn & Campos-Soria, 2010; Haukeland & Jacobsen, 1994). Moreover, leisure travel patterns to and within Norways Arctic are to some degree a reection of a low season for business travel from mid-

Fig. 2. Alpine mountains by the sea is a major attraction for holidaymakers in Arctic Norway. Photo courtesy of Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen.

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

E.J. Frland et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13

museum visits (e.g. Jacobsen, 2006, 2011). In relation to climate development, glaciers and snow covered mountain peaks as tourism attractions should be mentioned. Furthermore, leisure travel in the region is related to different types of place attachment such as second homes and visits to relatives and friends.

4. Data and methodology 4.1. Survey of visitors assessment of weather conditions In the summer of 2009, a survey of self-reported weather preferences and dislikes was conducted in the archipelago of Vesterlen among domestic and international leisure travellers who do not live in the area. The self-instructing questionnaire was available in the following languages: Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian/Danish and Swedish, since most of the leisure travellers in the case area have a good command of at least one of these languages. The questionnaire design was based on a literature review and personal interviews with tourists in the area during the summer before the survey. Data were collected among passengers waiting for departure at two ferry landings (in Andenes and in Melbu), along a coastal itinerary commercially branded as the Whale Route. The survey was accomplished on six selected days in each place, from 25 June to 6 August. Survey days and time of day for collecting data were varied across weeks in order to reduce potential sampling bias (cf. Rideng & Christensen, 2004). The basis for survey planning was certain previous knowledge of trafc structure. Two thirds of the sample relate to departures in July, reecting the visitation pattern in the area. Questionnaires were distributed to passengers in the target category (individual tourists and other leisure travellers who did not live in the region) as they were queuing up for the ferries. Of the 972 persons identied as belonging to the target population, 847 agreed to participate e providing a response rate of 87%. As most of these leisure travellers also visited other parts of Northern Norway during their trip, the survey gives an indication of tourist weather preferences and dislikes for a wider area. Table 1 shows that 39% of the interviewees were visiting Norway north of the Arctic Circle for the rst time. A majority of 54% of the leisure travellers were foreigners and the greater part of the respondents holds a university or a college degree. Typical visitors are sightseers and as many as 61% had participated in activities such as guided excursions and visits to museums and archaeological sites. Additionally, the survey showed that 57% of the visitors stated that seeing the midnight sun was important.

Fig. 3. Map showing case area north of the Arctic Circle.

June to mid-August, implying cheaper hotel accommodation than at other times of the year. Although many people consider the region to be remote there is comparatively easy and quite speedy tourist access to most parts of Northern Norway, as it is connected to the Scandinavian road and rail networks and there are numerous airports with daily scheduled ights. For instance, regular air travel from Frankfurt in Germany to Troms (the main city in Northern Norway) typically takes about 5 h including one intermediate stop. The greater part of summer season leisure trips to and within Northern Norway is conducted by private car and motorhome/camper. Among foreign visitors, coach travel is a common way of visiting. Sizeable proportions of leisure travellers arrive by air, by cruise ships, and by the express coastal liners (combined cruise and cargo vessels that call daily at numerous ports) (Fig. 4). It should be added that Northern Norway is generally regarded as a safe region for tourists. Tourism attractions include idiosyncratic landscapes and settlements, various natural phenomena and some wildlife. Northern Norways littoral, with numerous small and large islands, mountains and agricultural shores, fjords, sounds and shing hamlets, includes landscapes appreciated by tourists (e.g. Fyhri, Jacobsen, & Tmmervik, 2009) (Fig. 5). A content analysis of foreign guidebooks has identied ve attraction highlights of this northerly region: the Lofoten archipelago (next to Vesterlen), Spmi and the Smi people, the city of Troms, North Cape, and the overall sceneries and landscapes (Jacobsen, Heimtun, & Nordbakke, 1998). Common summer holidaymaker activities in Northern Norway comprise not only landscape sightseeing but also hiking, whale-watching, sea angling, and

Fig. 4. Numerous tourists experience Norways Arctic from the coastal liners. Photo courtesy of Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen.

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

E.J. Frland et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13

Fig. 5. Seeing idiosyncratic settlements is part of the tourist experience in Norway north of the Arctic Circle. Photo courtesy of Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen.

Other central motives include seeing special landscapes (88%), travelling around (68%), and sightseeing from vehicle/ship (53%). Some 16% of the respondents took a considerable interest in salt water shing but many of them pursued this activity in other areas visited during their tour. 4.2. Climate data The period 1981e2010 is used for describing present climate, while scenarios up to year 2100 are employed for future climate
Table 1 Selected respondent characteristics (percentages) (N 787e847). Gender Female Male Educational level Primary school Secondary education University/college Age, years Up to 39 40e49 50e59 60 or Older Country of residence Norway Germany Netherlands Sweden Italy France Finland Switzerland Other countries Experience with Norway north of the Arctic Circle First visit Visited before 50 50

development. On a local scale, high-latitude climate variability is large (Risnen, 2002). Applying scenarios up to the end of this century is therefore advisable in order to improve the signal to noise ratio for local climate change (IPCC, 2007), even if a shorter time horizon might be preferable for the tourism industry. However, as indicated for instance in Fig. 7, the projected changes will gradually appear at an earlier stage, pointing to the value of the study also for the rst half of the twenty-rst century. Some tourist interests may change in the long run, but the present study may still be interesting to tourism sector preparations for the next decades. Most of the climate information is given for the main summer season, from June to August. Climate statistics for current and future summer conditions are presented for three weather stations in the Vesterlen region (Sortland, B, and Andya), supplemented with statistics from the two major towns in Northern Norway (Bod and Troms), one station at Norways northeasternmost coast facing the Barents Sea (Vard), and one site (Karasjok) in the continental part of Northern Norway. Only a small number of tourists visit Vard and its surroundings, and this station is included here in order to give a more complete overview. The locations of the weather stations are shown in Fig. 6. The most sophisticated tools for acquiring information on future climate are comprehensive Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) (IPCC, 2007). However, spatial resolution of state-of-the-art AOGCMs is typically insufcient to capture the ne-scale climatic structure in areas with rugged terrain such as Northern Norway. The climate scenario information in this study is thus based on AOGCM-scenarios, which were downscaled with a Regional Climate Model to give area climate information (Haugen & Iversen, 2008). To establish local climate projections, selected temperature and precipitation scenarios were further postprocessed by a method developed by Engen-Skaugen, Haugen, and Tveito (2007). The post-processed downscalings applied in this study are for the period 2021e2050 based on the ECHAM4 AOGCM (emission scenario IS92a) and for 2071e2100 on HadAM3H AOGCM (emission scenario A2) (IPCC, 2007). 5. Tourist weather preferences, acceptances and dislikes Survey results indicate that 58% of the visitors found the weather to be better than expected, suggesting that tourists in the Arctic generally have fairly low expectations with respect to destination weather conditions. At the same time, Table 2 shows that a sizeable

10 36 54

29 19 26 26

46 11 7 6 5 4 4 4 13

39 61

Activities undertaken during visit in Vesterlen (multiple answers possible) Sightseeing 61 Guided excursion with boat (whale safari, bird-watching, etc.) 30 Self-organised hike/walk (more than 2 h) 35 Outdoor recreation 44 Salt water shing from small (open) boat 8 Visit to friends/relatives 25

Fig. 6. Location of weather stations and regions. Borderlines for temperature regions (4e6) are indicated.

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

E.J. Frland et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13 Table 3 Denition of climate variables used in this study, observation hours are referring to coordinated universal time (UTC). Variable Daily mean temperature Daily minimum temperature Daily maximum temperature Cool day Mild day Warm day Precipitation sum Wet day Heavy rainfall Cloudiness Denition Average of temperature measurements during 06e06UTC Lowest temperature recorded during 06e06UTC Highest temperature recorded during 06e06UTC

majority of the visitors (77%) would like it to be rather warm on a possible future summer season trip to the area, and this was more important for domestic visitors than for international tourists. Moreover, study results display a predominant preference for clear sky. Most tourists are indifferent to occasional rain and a majority accepts frequently changing weather. Main dislikes are frequent rain and low visibility. Only a diminutive proportion of the leisure travellers would like frequent rain, and as many as 92% of international tourists would dislike it. Domestic travellers state slightly higher acceptance towards recurrent precipitation during a possible future summer visit. Some 49% of the tourists express aversion towards high sea waves and the same proportion would not like it to be rather cool. A majority (54%) of foreign arrivals is indifferent to rather cool days. Domestic travellers show a stronger distaste than foreigners for rather cool weather. Besides, nearly half of the respondents (48%) will not like it to be windy on a possible return to the case area. These results point to some clear weather preferences among tourists to such high-latitude destinations. For tourism enterprises involved in strategic planning it is crucial to know the present state of these weather elements, and, most importantly, how climate change will inuence future weather conditions. Although tourist preferences and tolerances may ultimately change and many tourism enterprises are primarily concerned with the near future (e.g. Rauken et al., 2010) the main tourist ideas concerning favourable and unfavourable weather seem quite stable (cf. Lohmann & Kaim, 1999). 6. Present and future tourist climate in Northern Norway 6.1. Overview The variables used to illustrate present and future tourist climate in Northern Norway were chosen basically because of their relevance for tourists (cf. Table 2) but availability of observations and reliability of climate scenario data have also affected the selection (Table 3). Further, in a climate change perspective, the centre of attention will be on variables which are expected to change under global warming. Different temperature indices (Section 6.2) are employed here in order to illustrate warm, mild and cool conditions. Occasional and frequent rain are described by precipitation frequency (Section 6.3), conditions with clear sky and low visibility by observations of cloudiness (Section 6.4) respectively visibility (Section 6.5). Wind and wave conditions are discussed in Section 6.6. 6.2. Temperature Temperature has been one of the most highlighted weather elements in tourism climate studies. Temperature is a primary

Daily mean temperature < 10  C Daily mean temperature  15  C Daily mean temperature  20  C Sum of daily precipitation at 06UTC Daily precipitation  1 mm Daily precipitation  20 mm Part of sky (in octas) covered by clouds (0 clear sky, 1 1/8 covered by clouds,., 8 overcast sky) Day with overcast sky Day when sum of cloudiness at observation hours 06, 12 and 18 UTC is >20 Sunny day Day when sum of cloudiness at observation hours 06, 12 and 18 UTC is <9 Day with midnight sun Day during JuneeJuly when cloudiness observation at midnight (00 UTC) has a value < 4 (less than half the sky is covered by clouds) Day with reduced Day when visibility for at least one of the observation visibility hours 00, 06 or 18 UTC is <10 km

climate element in the context of global warming, and the largest temperature increase is projected at high northern latitudes. Fig. 7 shows observed development of the mean summer temperature anomaly for the western coastal part of Northern Norway during the twentieth century, as well as projections for the twenty-rst century. Observations demonstrate a warm period in the 1930s, cooler conditions during the 1960s and 1980s, and warming since the 1990s. The present average summer season temperatures at the sites in Fig. 6 are mainly in the range 8e12  C (Table 4). However, at warm summer days the maximum temperature may be nearly 30  C even at coastal stations like Vard. Based on an ensemble of scenarios, Fig. 7 shows the 10 percentile (L), the average (M) and the 90 percentile (H) projections for summer temperature for western coastal parts of Northern Norway. For the locations in Table 4 the mean summer temperature at the end of this century may be 2e3  C higher than for the present climate. Though mean summer temperature gives some indication of probability for the quite widely preferred warm weather conditions among tourists in the region, changes in frequency distribution of daily temperatures are more important for most visitors (e.g. Yu et al., 2009). Number of days during JuneeAugust with mean temperature below or above threshold values is thus given for the present and future climate (Table 4). The denitions of cool and warm days employed here (cf. Table 3) are in accordance with common climate denitions used elsewhere (Aune, 1993; Hanssen-

Table 2 Visitor assessments of weather conditions on a future summer season trip, by country of residence (percentages). Would like it Norway Clear sky Rather warma Rather coola Windy Occasional rain Frequent raina Low visibility (mist, low clouds, etc.) High sea waves Frequently changing weather
a

Would not care Abroad 87 72 3 4 2 2 2 9 3 Total 88 77 3 4 3 2 2 8 4 Norway 10 18 42 46 73 13 21 41 52 Abroad 12 24 54 50 66 6 17 46 60 Total 11 21 48 48 69 9 19 44 56

Would not like it Norway 1 1 56 51 24 85 76 52 43 Abroad 1 4 43 46 31 92 81 46 37 Total 1 2 49 48 28 89 79 49 40

89 82 2 3 3 2 2 7 5

824 815 733 757 766 755 762 758 762

Statistically signicant difference between Norwegian and international visitors (chi-square (c2); p < 0.051).

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

E.J. Frland et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13

Summer Temperature

Temperature (degrees C)

3 2 1 0 -1 -2 Obs-F10 Obs-F30 H M L HA2 M92

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

Fig. 7. Observed summer temperature (JuneeAugust) in region 4 (cf. Fig. 6) during the 20th century and projections for the 21st century. The values are presented as deviations from observed mean temperature during 1961e1990. Observed temperatures are smoothed and the graphs show variations on a decadal (Obs-F10) and 30-year (Obs-F30) scale. The projections (H, M and L; see Section 6.2) are shown as linear trends. The post-processed downscalings used in this study are marked as M92 (ECHAM4 AOGCM; emission scenario IS92a) and HA2 (HadAM3H AOGCM; emission scenario A2).

Bauer et al., 2009) and may not be optimal with respect to tourist preferences and acceptances. A new denition, mild days, is thus added in this study (Table 3). Most stations have an average of 25e40 cool days during the summer season. The exception is the coastal station Vard; close to the Barents Sea. Table 4 indicates that at the end of the century, the number of cool days at all stations will be less than half the present number. In the present climate, there is just a couple of warm days each summer at sheltered inland locations (Table 4), while at the outermost coastal areas, days fullling the warm day criterion are very rare. Projections for 2021e2050 (Fig. 8a) indicate that some areas in inner parts of fjords and protected coastal valley areas as well as more continental parts of the Finnmark plateau will have up to six warm days each summer. At the end of this century (Fig. 8b, Table 4), large parts of interior regions in Northern Norway will experience several (up to 10) warm days during the summer season. On a warm day, with mean temperature of 20  C or higher, daytime temperature may be well above 25  C. Thus, this threshold may underestimate tourist perceptions of warm days in Northern Norway and one should thus notice that most stations have 10e20 mild days (15  C) during the summer season (Table 4). Implications for tourism of various threshold values are further discussed in Section 7. 6.3. Precipitation Total summer season rainfall in the region has increased by about 20% since year 1900, and the projections indicate a similar

Fig. 8. Number of warm days per year in future climate. The maps have a spatial resolution of 1 1 km. The projections for a). 2021e2050 are based on ECHAM4 AOGCM with emission scenario IS92a (marked as M92 in Fig. 7). b). 2071e2100 are based on the HadAM3H AOGCM with emission scenario A2 (HA2 in Fig. 7).

increase during the twenty-rst century (Hanssen-Bauer et al., 2009). As the crucial precipitation indicator for tourism (Table 2) is not total rainfall amount but rather frequent rainfall, this is illustrated here by number of wet days (Table 5). The threshold value of 1 mm of rainfall for characterizing a wet day is rather low, and will have modest inuence on outdoor activities. In this northerly region, high intensity rainfalls are very rare. Averagely, most locations have just one day during each summer season with daily rainfall exceeding 20 mm (Table 5). It should be noted that because of the high latitude, all the selected weather stations have during 1981e2010 experienced a few days during the summer season with precipitation falling as sleet or snow, mostly in early June. The summer season rainfall totals are projected to be 10e40% higher at the end of this century than during the period 1981e 2010 (Table 5). For most of the western coastal stations there may be an increase of approximately 10 wet days during the summer

Table 4 Temperature (JuneeAugust) for present and future climate. Cool, mild and warm days are dened in Table 3, and are given as average annual number of occurrences. Temperature 1981e2010 Tmean ( C) 82290 86500 86760 87110 90450 97250 98550 Bod Sortland B Vesterlen Andya Troms Karasjok Vard 12.1 11.5 11.3 10.4 10.7 11.6 8.5 Cool days (no. of days) 24 30 34 42 40 32 65 Mild days (no. of days) 16 12 13 7 11 19 2 Warm days (no. of days) 1.5 0.7 1.3 0 0.4 2.0 0.0 Temperature 2071e2100 Tmean ( C) 13.9 13.9 13.5 12.6 12.9 13.9 11.7 Cool days (no. of days) 10 11 12 16 18 14 27 Mild days (no. of days) 32 34 30 19 22 33 14 Warm days (no. of days) 3.1 3.7 2.3 0.4 3.9 7.1 0.5

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

E.J. Frland et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13

Table 5 Rainfall (JuneeAugust) for present and future climate. Wet days and heavy rainfall are dened in Table 3 and are given as average annual number of occurrences. Precipitation 1981e2010 Total sum (mm) 82290 86500 86760 87110 90450 97250 98550 Bod Sortland B Vesterlen Andya Troms Karasjok Vard 226 185 180 195 220 176 159 Wet days (no. of days) 34 29 31 32 35 28 24 Heavy rainfall (no. of days) 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 Precipitation 2071e2100 Total sum (mm) 311 274 228 239 290 193 187 Wet days (no. of days) 43 43 43 42 42 28 27 Heavy rainfall (no. of days) 2.7 1.8 1.2 1.3 2.1 1.7 1.6

season. Occurrence of heavy summer rainfall is projected to be modest also in the future, with averagely just one to three days each summer season with daily rainfall in excess of 20 mm. 6.4. Cloudiness To characterise daily cloudiness, Bruun and Hland (1970) have dened criteria for overcast days and sunny days (cf. Table 3). In addition, in the current study a specic denition of days with midnight sun (clear or partly clouded sky at midnight) is included, since this is an important motivation for many tourist visitations to the case region. In the present climate there are between 40 and 50 days each summer season with overcast sky (Table 6). Corresponding to the overall tourist preference for clear sky, frequencies of sunny days are rather modest; between ve and 12 days during the summer season. Global and regional climate models do not give realistic simulations of local cloudiness for landscapes typical to Northern Norway. Consequently, to assess future changes in local cloudiness, empirical links to climate elements which are fairly robust in postprocessed downscaled values have been studied. Table 7 demonstrates that there is a statistically signicant (1% level) negative

correlation between the seasonal numbers of wet days and sunny days (see denitions in Table 3). By assuming that the linear slopes in Table 7 are valid also in a future climate, an increase of 10 wet days would imply a decrease of three to four sunny days up to the end of the twenty-rst century (Fig. 9). For number of days with overcast sky, correlation with wet days is even stronger than for sunny days (Table 7). The slopes for the western coastal stations imply that an increase of 10 wet days would bring about seven to 10 more summer days with overcast sky during 2071e2100 than for the present climate. Possibilities for watching the midnight sun are appraised by observations of sky conditions at midnight. Table 6 illustrates that in June and July the sky at midnight is clear or partly clouded for 15e20 days. It should be noted that in the northernmost part of Norways littoral (North Cape, 71 N), the midnight sun is visible (in clear weather) from 13 May to 29 July, and in the northernmost part of Vesterlen (Andenes) from 22 May to 20 July. What is more, future prospects for enjoying sun at midnight are assessed. Table 7 shows that for the four stations performing observations of cloudiness at midnight, there are signicant correlations between number of wet days and cloudiness at midnight. For the western coastal stations the regression slopes indicate that

Table 6 Visibility and cloudiness JuneeAugust 1981e2010. Visibility is in percentage of total number of observations. Denitions are given in Table 3. JuneeAugust Sunny (no. of days) 82290 86500 86760 87110 90450 97250 98550 Bod Sortland B Vesterlen Andya Troms Karasjok Vard 9.4 10.9 12.0 10.1 11.3 5.9 5.2 Overcast sky (no. of days) 48.8 46.2 46.4 48.8 44.5 39.7 49.7 Visibility < 1 km (percent of obs.) 0.5 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.8 1.4 5.6 Visibility < 10 km (percent of obs.) 6.8 9.8 6.5 7.3 8.1 9.8 21.1 JuneeJuly Midnight sun (no. of days) 15.6 17.8 NA 16.2 17.4 19.6 16.0

Table 7 Regression coefcients between number of wet days and cloudiness JuneeAugust, and wet days and midnight sun JuneeJuly 1957e2010. For denitions of wet, sunny, overcast and midnight sun days, see Table 3. JuneeAugust No. of years Wet vs. sunny days Slope 82290 86500 86760 87110 90450 97250 98550 Bod Sortland B Vesterlen Andya Troms Karasjok Vard 54 26 41 46 52 52 53 0.35 0.28 0.37 0.30 0.37 0.24 0.12 Corr. coeff. 0.73 0.57 0.66 0.66 0.61 0.36 0.24 Wet vs. overcast days Slope 0.79 0.97 0.67 0.82 0.88 0.52 0.04 Corr. coeff. 0.75 0.80 0.74 0.79 0.79 0.39 0.00 JuneeJuly Wet vs. midnight sun No. of years 54 26 NA 45 38 27 54 Slope 0.58 0.60 NA 0.49 0.60 0.38 0.09 Corr. coeff. 0.71 0.66 NA 0.62 0.66 0.28 0.10

Bold statistically signicant at 1% level.

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

E.J. Frland et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13

wind force stronger than fresh breeze (>11 m/s) occurs just in a few per cent of the time during the summer season and waves higher than 2 m are infrequent. Projections of regional and local summer wind speed, wave heights, and storm surges are not giving robust signals (Debernard & Red, 2008; Haugen & Iversen, 2008). The sea level is expected to rise during this century, mainly caused by melting glaciers and thermal expansion of sea water. Sea level along the coast of Northern Norway has been estimated to rise between 45 and 65 cm towards 2100 (Hanssen-Bauer et al., 2009). These numbers are corrected for land rise. The summer sea temperature along the coast of Northern Norway is projected to increase by 0.5e1.5  C (Hanssen-Bauer et al., 2009) but the sea water in most locations will still be rather cold (about 10  C or lower). However, in protected shallow bays and fjords, locals and some visitors enjoy swimming and bathing on warm summer days, and even a modest increase in sea temperature will improve prospects for bathing during warm periods (Fig. 11).
Fig. 9. More days with overcast sky in Norways Arctic will reduce possibilities for setting eyes on mountain peaks. Photo courtesy of Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen.

7. Discussion and conclusion 7.1. Climate change in relation to tourist preferences, aversions, and acceptances This multi-disciplinary study has employed climate models in order to establish projections of weather conditions that an in situ visitor survey found to be crucial for tourism experiences in Northern Norway. The projections were made for the period 2071e 2100. However, it is imperative to keep in mind that climate change occurs gradually and that impending effects indicated here represent challenges and opportunities to tourism enterprises and prospective visitors also during the rst part of the twenty-rst century. Although tourist weather preferences and tolerances may ultimately change, it is reasonable to assume that the main ndings here are also relevant in a long-term perspective. For instance, it is unlikely that frequent rain and low visibility will be more in demand among the future tourists in this area. Moreover, it seems realistic to presume that the midnight sun will continue to have broad appeal through the subsequent decades. The point of departure for the present research was tourists preferences, acceptances and aversions for different weather conditions (RQ1). Survey results show that leisure travellers in

an increase of 10 wet days would imply four to six more summer days with cloudy conditions at midnight at the end of this century. 6.5. Visibility As noted, ocular impressions of landscape may be hampered by reduced visibility, and low visibility is disliked by 80% of the visitors (Table 2). In Northern Norway, the frequency of observations with fog (horizontal visibility below 1 km) is low (Table 6). Again, the exception is Vard, which is exposed to sea fog from the Barents Sea. However, visual landscape impressions may be diminished also when visibility exceeds 1 km. Table 6 indicates that for more than 90% of the time, horizontal visibility at most locations is excellent, that is, more than 10 km. Visibility is not included in available climate models, and specic scenarios for visibility are not obtainable. Similar regressions as those in Table 7 were performed between number of wet days and number of days with reduced visibility. The regressions indicate a minor (and for most stations not statistically signicant) future decrease in summer days with good horizontal visibility (Fig. 10). 6.6. Other climate elements of relevance for tourism About half of the visitors would not like windy conditions or high sea waves (Table 2). Observations show that in sheltered areas,

Fig. 10. Horizontal visibility along Norways Arctic coast may be quite good even on a partly overcast day. Photo courtesy of Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen.

Fig. 11. In protected shallow bays and fjords in Norways Arctic, locals and visitors enjoy swimming and bathing on warm summer days. Photo courtesy of Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen.

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

10

E.J. Frland et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13

Northern Norway express a predominant preference for clear sky, while main dislikes are frequent rain and low visibility. In addition, results indicate an unambiguous fondness for rather warm weather and quite widespread aversion towards cool weather, particularly among domestic visitors. Climate statistics show that the present states of some of these weather variables are not congruent with tourist preferences (RQ2). Between 30 and 70% of summer season days from June to August in the study area are cool (mean temperature < 10  C), with average daily maximum varying from 11  C in Vard to 16  C in Karasjok. Daily mean temperatures of 20  C or higher are infrequent, while daily mean temperatures  15  C for most areas are observed between 10 and 20 days in a normal year. On the other hand, precipitation is fairly modest and high intensity rainfalls are rare. Additionally, most summer season tourists in Northern Norway are likely to experience clear sky during their stay in the region. Climate projections indicate signicant changes in weather conditions throughout this century (RQ3). Two changes stand out as particularly important with respect to tourism. Firstly, radical temperature increase is likely. In many areas, one third of future summer days (JuneeAugust) will have daily mean temperatures of 15  C, which meets a preference, particularly among domestic visitors. Correspondingly, the number of future cool days is expected to be less than half of the present, using a threshold level of 10  C. Secondly, in the future there will be a few more days with heavy rainfall and the number of wet days will increase in most areas. The latter might turn out to be a problem, depending on the time of the day when the rain will fall (e.g. Besancenot, 1989). While occasional rain is disliked only by 28% of the visitors, there is an overall distaste for frequent rain and as many as 92% of the international tourists detest recurrent precipitation during their tour. Further, the analyses here indicate that more wet days are accompanied by reduction in days with clear or partly clouded sky and increase in days with overcast sky, a development that does not correspond with visitor preferences (Fig. 12). More days with overcast sky will not only reduce possibilities for setting eyes on mountain peaks. What is more, weather changes might impact an extraordinary spectacle appreciated by many visitors: At the various weather stations included here, there are possibilities for watching sun at midnight for 15e20 days during June and July. Prospects for catching sight of midnight sun in the future will be reduced by a few days, making experience of this natural phenomenon even more a stroke of good luck. The paper has discussed dynamics of different weather aspects and outlined for each aspect possible impacts on tourists. These impacts may affect in situ visitor behaviour and may possibly also have knock-on effect on pre-travel destination decision-making and trip planning. All the same, one can assume that tourists do not base their pre-travel destination choices or their en route decisions on just one weather variable (e.g. temperature). Instead, one can expect prospective and actual tourists to attempt to create more comprehensive images, including crucial weather aspects as well as possibilities for preferred activities, taking into account necessary clothing and equipment. 7.2. Implications for tourism management Other research has shown that quite a few tourism managers in Northern Norway do not consider the summer weather conditions to be important for their business (Rauken et al., 2010). However, results from the present study indicate that the tourism industry in high-latitude destinations should pay attention to climate change as it brings about novel opportunities as well as negative consequences for future visitations.

Increase in temperatures is likely to stimulate tourism demand. More mild days and a few more warm days will positively impact tourists thermal comfort. Furthermore, the general image of Norways Arctic outside of Scandinavia might indicate that some prospective visitors with no experience from high northern latitudes might consider temperatures in this region below their comfort range (e.g. Jacobsen, 1994). Thus, higher temperatures can potentially create a pull effect for non-regional arrivals. At the same time, regional residents might want to spend more of their holidays and weekend trips within Northern Norway (cf. Eugenio-Martn & Campos-Soria, 2010). A warmer climate will ease some challenges related to seasonality. Leisure travel in this region displays clear seasonality patterns with roughly half of the total number of leisure guest nights occurring in the period from June to August (Statistics Norway, 2011). Concentration of holidaymaker arrivals in these months suggests that a lengthened summer season would provide opportunities for Northern Norway and other Arctic destinations to expand their leisure travel markets, contributing to a more protable and stable tourism industry. Accordingly, a warmer climate can improve the perceived quality of the peak season for many tourists as well as contribute to possibilities for prolonging the summer season. For instance, a vital attraction such as the midnight sun can be seen already from mid-May, indicating the possibility for more early arrivals. In order to bring the potential of warmer climate to fruition, it is crucial for the tourism industry to increase market knowledge about summer temperatures in various high-latitude areas. Research has shown that many high-latitude visitors prior expectations are not congruent with actual weather conditions e they expect temperatures to be lower and weather to be harsher than what they experience in the destination area (e.g. Denstadli et al., 2011). Numerous prospective visitors may thus have too negative perceptions of summer weather in high northern regions, preventing these areas from entering peoples consideration set when holiday decisions are made. In the longer term, tourism managers should consider the fact that a temperature increase might attract new categories of tourists with different travel motives and preferences than current visitors. It has been indicated that climate change, for instance, will make many Mediterranean destinations too hot for tourism during the present peak summer holiday season, suggesting a geographical redistribution of tourist ows (Amelung & Viner, 2006). An increased number of tourists may

Fig. 12. Many tourists take pleasure in driving along the alpine shorelines. Photo courtesy of Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen.

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

E.J. Frland et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13

11

therefore seek out more northerly destinations. However, some of these new tourist categories will most likely have other interests and motives than the current segments. The point to be made is that the tourism industry in high-latitude regions should gain more insight into how a warmer climate can create new markets and facilitate tourism products and promotion accordingly. More wet days is clearly a potential downside of climate change for tourism in these regions. At the millennium, key destination attributes here were landscape sightseeing, specic naturebased attractions and various types of outdoor recreation. The combination of more wet days and a continued tourist interest in open-air activities might imply that certain al fresco activities become less attractive in the future, both due to individuals perceived discomfort of getting wet and feelings of reduced safety (e.g. hiking in slippery terrain). It has previously been shown that poor weather may lead some prospective tourists to leave northerly regions earlier than planned (Denstadli et al., 2011). This makes it essential to develop more weather-independent activities in order to retain a sustainable tourism industry in years to come. Additionally, one should consider how to better facilitate outdoor recreation. Given that increased precipitation reduces tourists perceptions of safety when trekking and being in nature, it seems vital to pay more attention to trail development. Although this is not consistent with a Nordic emphasis on traditional, undeveloped trails in nature areas, research has shown that such measures are in demand and are positively valued by many visitors (Denstadli, Lindberg, & Vistad, 2010; Jacobsen, 2006, 2011) (Fig. 13). Destination marketing organisations could also promote feasible self-organised holiday pursuits that newcomers might not be aware of. Besides, prospective visitors may benet from more

complete, accurate and easily interpretable information clarifying opportunity sets in relation to local climate, rather than simple overviews of monthly average temperature and rainfall that typically have appeared in traditional destination brochures and online information (cf. de Freitas, 2003; Yu et al., 2009). If this kind of information were included in more or less independent sources procured by outsiders, such as guidebooks and news media, it would most likely be perceived as credible by prospective visitors. 7.3. Limitations and future research The present study exemplies a novel approach for better understanding of the foundation of future tourist behaviour under climate change conditions by combining visitor research data with tailored climate projections. Thus, the study illustrates indispensable interrelations and collaboration between researchers in different scientic areas for climate change research. Results allow for a quite vivid picture of future weather conditions nearly as if it were with the eyes of tourists in Arctic Norway. This depiction may serve as a base for determining future tourist behaviour. A limitation with climate projections presented here is that they do not specify time of the day for future precipitation. Furthermore, projections of future daytime temperature might have been more benecial than daily mean (e.g. de Freitas, 2003), as most temperature-sensitive al fresco holiday activities in northerly areas customarily take place from morning until early evening. Given the commonly strong emphasis on eyesight in tourism, it is a disadvantage that visibility is not described by available climate models. Yet another shortcoming is the lack of applicable local wind and wave projections. Results presented here and elsewhere (e.g. Scott et al., 2007) indicate that employment of tourism climate indexes habitually have been too narrow or too vague in their approaches in relation to the normally wide scope of leisure traveller activities and interests. Regional tourism climate indexes must not only relate to generally subjective and context-specic tourist weather perceptions and acceptances. Future research might include customised tourism climate indexes attuned to regional visitors, including area-specic weather preferences, dislikes and acceptances, connecting to the commonly extensive range of visitor motives and activities. In order to determine whether projected changes in climate variables in Northern Norway will be perceived as important and/ or different from today, new tourist behaviour studies may be helpful. In both qualitative and quantitative approaches, one could present climate scenarios to tourists in different segments (e.g. rst-timers/repeaters and different source markets) and analyse reactions. Future research should explore variations between tourism activity segments, analysing for instance adaptive strategies for coping with favourable or adverse weather. Additionally, impending research might comprise more detailed studies of possibilities for the tourism industry to extend the summer season, taking advantage of global warming in this rather cool region. With respect to tourism management, a main challenge will not only be the impacts of climate change but also coping with them, together with a multitude of other interdependent aspects (e.g. Lohmann, 2009) as well as taking into account competitors in global tourism. Here again, further research may be helpful. Acknowledgements This study was funded by the Research Council of Norway through the project ACTOR (Arctic Climate Change, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation), which is part of the programme NORKLIMA e Climate change and impacts in Norway. The authors thank the

Fig. 13. Some tourists appreciate developed trails. Photo courtesy of Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen.

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

12

E.J. Frland et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13 Haukeland, J. V., & Jacobsen, J. K. S. (1994). Staggering of holidays and extension of the holiday season: EU project in the plan of action for tourism: Norwegian conditions and experiences. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics. Hein, L., Metzger, M. J., & Moreno, A. (2009). Potential impacts of climate change on tourism: a case study for Spain. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1(2), 170e178. IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, et al. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobsen, J. K. S. (1994). Arctic tourism and global tourism trends. Research report 37. Thunder Bay, Ontario: Lakehead University, Centre for Northern Studies. Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2001). Nomadic tourism and eeting place encounters: exploring different aspects of sightseeing. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1(2), 99e112. Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2006). Reiser i unike landskaper: opplevelser og vurderinger av nasjonale turistveger [Journeys through unique landscapes: Experiences and assessments of national scenic roads]. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics. Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2011). Unike natur- og kjreopplevelser: trakantvurderinger av Nasjonale turistveger [Unique nature and driving experiences: Visitor assessments of national scenic roads in Norway]. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics. Jacobsen, J. K. S., & Dann, G. M. S. (2003). Images of the Lofoten islands. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 3(1), 24e47. Jacobsen, J. K. S., Denstadli, J. M., Lohmann, M., & Frland, E. J. (2011). Tourist weather preferences in Europes Arctic. Climate Research, 51(1), 31e42. Jacobsen, J. K. S., Grue, B., & Haukeland, J. V. (2002). P veg mot drmmeferien? aktiviteter, interesser og opplevelser blant utenlandske bilturister i utvalgte omrder i Norge [On the road towards the dream holiday? Activities, interests and experiences among foreign motorists in selected areas of Norway]. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics. Jacobsen, J. K. S., Heimtun, B., & Nordbakke, S. T. D. (1998). Det nordlige Norges image [The image of Northern Norway]. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics. Klenosky, D. B. (2002). The pull of tourism destinations: a means-end investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 40(4), 396e403. Lohmann, M. (2009). Coastal tourism in Germany: changing demand patterns and new challenges. In R. Dowling, & C. Pforr (Eds.), Coastal tourism development: Planning and management issues (pp. 321e342). Elmsford, N.Y.: Cognizant. Lohmann, M., & Aderhold, P. (2009). Urlaubsreisetrends 2020: Die RA Trendstudie. Kiel: Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen. Lohmann, M., & Kaim, E. (1999). Weather and holiday destination preferences: image, attitude and experience. Revue de Tourisme, 54(2), 54e64. MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist. New York: Schocken. Meze-Hausken, E. (2007). Grasping climate perceptions as an issue of measuring climate impacts on society. International Journal of Biometeorology, 52(1), 1e2. Meze-Hausken, E. (2008). On the (im-)possibilities of dening human climate thresholds. Climatic Change, 89(3e4), 299e324. Mieczkowski, Z. (1985). The tourism climatic index: a method of evaluating world climates for tourism. Canadian Geographer, 29(3), 220e233. Nicholls, S., & Amelung, B. (2008). Climate change and tourism in North-Western Europe: impacts and adaptation. Tourism Analysis, 13, 21e31. Nicolson, M. H. (1997). Mountain gloom and mountain glory: The development of the aesthetics of the innite. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Perry, A. (1972). Weather, climate and tourism. Weather, 27, 199e203. Perry, A. (1993). Weather and climate information for the package holiday maker. Weather, 48, 410e414. Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis: a review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tourism Management, 23(5), 541e549. Risnen, J. (2002). CO2-induced changes in interannual temperature and precipitation variability in 19 CMIP2 experiments. Journal of Climate, 15, 2395e2411. Rauken, T., Kelman, I., Jacobsen, J. K. S., & Hovelsrud, G. K. (2010). Who can stop the rain? perceptions of summer weather effects among small tourism businesses. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 21(2), 289e304. Rideng, A., & Christensen, P. (2004). En route surveys. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3), 242e258. Scott, D., & Jones, B. (2007). A regional comparison of the implications of climate change for the golf industry in Canada. Canadian Geographer, 51(2), 219e232. Scott, D., Jones, B., & Konopek, J. (2007). Implications of climate and environmental change for nature-based tourism in the Canadian Rocky Mountains: a case study of Waterton Lakes National Park. Tourism Management, 28, 570e579. Scott, D., & Lemieux, C. (2010). Weather and climate information for tourism. Proceedia Environmental Sciences, 1, 146e183. Scott, D., McBoyle, G., & Schwartzentruber, M. (2004). Climate change and the distribution of climatic resources for tourism in North America. Climate Research, 27(2), 105e117. Simpson, M. C., Gssling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C. M., & Gladin, E. (2008). Climate change adaptation and mitigation in the tourism sector: Frameworks, tools and practices. Paris: UNEP, University of Oxford, UNWTO, WMO. Smith, K. (1990). Tourism and climate change. Land Use Planning, 7(2), 176e180. Smith, K. (1993). The inuence of weather and climate on recreation and tourism. Weather, 48, 398e404.

anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and Bente Heimtun for contributing to the survey design.

References
ACIA. (2005). Arctic climate impact assessment (ACIA). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amelung, B., & Viner, D. (2006). Mediterranean tourism: exploring the future with the tourism climatic index. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14, 349e366. Aune, B. (1993). Climate in Norway. National atlas of Norway. Hnefoss: Norwegian Mapping Authority, (p. 29). Bell, C., & Lyall, J. (2002). The accelerated sublime. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Besancenot, J. P. (1989). Climat et tourisme. Paris: Masson. Braun, O. L., Lohmann, M., Maksimovic, O., Meyer, M., Merkovic, A., Messerschmidt, E., et al. (1999). Potential impact of climate change on preferences for tourism destinations: a psychological pilot study. Climate Research, 11, 247e254. Bruun, I., & Hland, L. (1970). Climatological summaries for Norway. Oslo: Norwegian Meteorological Institute. Coghlan, A., & Prideaux, B. (2009). Welcome to the wet tropics: the importance of weather in reef tourism resilience. Current Issues in Tourism, 12, 89e104. Cohen, E. (1974). Who is a tourist? A conceptual clarication. Sociological Review, 22, 527e555. Debernard, J., & R, L. P. (2008). Future wind, wave and storm surge climate in the Northern Seas: a revisit. Tellus A, 60, 427e438. de Freitas, C. R. (1985). Assessment of human bioclimate based on thermal response. International Journal of Biometeorology, 29(2), 97e119. de Freitas, C. R. (1990). Recreation climate assessment. International Journal of Climatology, 10(1), 89e103. de Freitas, C. R. (2003). Tourism climatology: evaluating environmental information for decision making and business planning in the recreation and tourism sector. International Journal of Biometeorology, 48, 45e54. de Freitas, C. R., Scott, D., & McBoyle, G. (2008). A second generation climate index for tourism (CIT): specication and verication. International Journal of Biometeorology, 52(5), 399e407. Denstadli, J. M., Jacobsen, J. K. S., & Lohmann, M. (2011). Tourist perceptions of summer weather in Scandinavia. Annals of Tourism Research, 38, 920e940. Denstadli, J. M., Lindberg, K. A., & Vistad, O. I. (2010). Stakeholder consensus regarding trail conditions and management responses: a Norwegian case study. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3), 358e374. Dybedal, P. (2011). Fylkesvise konomiske ringvirkninger av reiseliv i Nord-Norge og Trndelag 2010 [Economic impacts of tourism in Northern Norway and Trndelag 2010]. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics. Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2e12. Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: an empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 3e13. Engen-Skaugen, T., Haugen, J. E., & Tveito, O. E. (2007). Temperature scenarios for Norway: from regional to local scale. Climate Dynamics, 29, 441e453. Eugenio-Martn, J. L., & Campos-Soria, J. A. (2010). Climate in the region of origin and destination choice in outbound tourism demand. Tourism Management, 31, 744e753. Farstad, E., & Dybedal, P. (2010). Nasjonal ferie- og forbruksunderskelse sommeren 2008 [Norwegian domestic holiday and expenditure survey 2008]. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics. Farstad, E., & Rideng, A. (2008). Utenlandske turisters forbruk i Norge 2007 [Expenditures by foreign tourists to Norway in 2007]. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics. Frland, E. J., Benestad, R. E., Flaty, F., Hanssen-Bauer, I., Haugen, J. E., Isaksen, K., et al. (2009). Climate development in North Norway and the Svalbard region during 1900e2100. Report series no. 128. Troms: Norwegian Polar Institute. Frland, E. J., Benestad, R. E., Hanssen-Bauer, I., & Haugen, J. E. (2011). Future climate development in the NorACIA-region: Combined results from simulations with various climate models. Brief report series no. 023. Troms: Norwegian Polar Institute (in Norwegian). Fyhri, A., Jacobsen, J. K. S., & Tmmervik, H. (2009). Tourists landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(4), 202e211. Gallarza, M. G., Gil Saura, I., & Caldern Garca, H. (2002). Destination image: towards a conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 56e78. Hamilton, J. M., & Lau, M. A. (2006). The role of climate information in tourist destination choice decision making. In S. Gssling, & C. M. Hall (Eds.), Tourism and global environmental change (pp. 229e250). New York: Routledge. Hamilton, J. M., Maddison, D. J., & Tol, R. S. J. (2005). Climate change and international tourism: a simulation study. Global Environmental Change Part A, 15(3), 253e266. Hanssen-Bauer, I., Drange, H., Frland, E. J., Roald, L. A., Brsheim, K. Y., Hisdal, H., et al. (2009). Klima i Norge 2100: bakgrunnsmateriale til NOU Klimatilpassing [Climate in Norway 2100]. Oslo: Norsk klimasenter. Haugen, J. E., & Iversen, T. (2008). Response in extremes of daily precipitation and wind from a downscaled multi-model ensemble of anthropogenic climate change scenarios. Tellus A, 60(3), 411e426.

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002

E.J. Frland et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2012) 1e13 Statistics Norway. (2011). 10.11 Overnattingar [Overnight stays]. Oslo: Statistics Norway, Accessed 26.09.11. http://www.ssb.no/emner/10/11/overnatting/arkiv/. Uyarra, M., Ct, I., Gill, J. A., Tinch, R., Viner, D., & Watkinson, A. (2005). Island-specic preferences of tourists for environmental features: implications of climate change for tourism-dependent states. Environmental Conservation, 32(1), 11e19. Veijola, S., & Jokinen, E. (1994). The body in tourism. Theory, Culture & Society, 11, 125e151. Wall, G. (2007). The tourism industry and its adaptability and vulnerability to climate change. In B. Amelung, K. Blazejczyk, & A. Matzarakis (Eds.), Climate change and tourism: Assessment and coping strategies (pp. 5e19). Freiburg: University of Freiburg. Yu, G., Schwartz, Z., & Walsh, J. E. (2009). A weather-resolving index for assessing the impact of climate change on tourism related climate resources. Climatic Change, 95, 551e573.

13 Martin Lohmann, Professor. Leuphana University Lneburg, Germany. Research interests: Consumer behaviour in tourism; impacts on tourism; information behaviour; research methods.

Eirik J. Frland, Senior Scientist, Head Norwegian Climate Service Center, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway. Research interest: Spatial and temporal climate variability; Past and future climate; impacts of climate variations on local environment and communities.

Inger Hanssen-Bauer, Professor, Telemark University College, B, Norway and Senior Scientist, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo Norway. Research interests: Climate variability and change; impacts of climate change on ecosystems and societies.

Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen, Research Professor, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway. Research interests include destination images, traveller perceptions and experiences of landscapes and other holidaymaking environments, tourist behaviour and decision-making.

Hans Olav Hygen, Senior Scientist, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway. Research interest: Climate variations and impact of climate variations on local environment and communities.

Jon Martin Denstadli, Senior Research Economist, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway. Research interests: Destination choice; tourism and climate change; research methods.

Hans Tmmervik, Senior Research Scientist, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, FRAM e High North Research Centre for Climate and the Environment (Fram Centre), Troms, Norway. Research interests: Vegetation ecology, vegetation monitoring, remote sensing, disturbances, climate change impacts and wildlife research.

Please cite this article in press as: Frland, E. J., et al., Cool weather tourism under global warming: Comparing Arctic summer tourists weather preferences with regional climate statistics and projections, Tourism Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.002