Ready to Pack Your Suitcase?

Last time we had a look at your responses to my polar tourism poll, and I was quite surprised at the general enthusiasm it revealed...Of course, it's brilliant that people want to learn about these regions, but what's the real impact of tourism at the poles?

Throughout this blog we've been making comparisons between the Arctic and Antarctica. In terms of tourism - just as with many of the topics we've discussed - there are similarities and differences between the two regions. Let's start off with a bit of history...

Tourism in the Arctic began MUCH earlier than in Antarctica, with people journeying to the far north as long ago as the early-1800s (GRID-Arendal, 2014). In the mid-1800s there was a boom in the market, with the rapid expansion of Arctic transportation networks, and tourism here has been increasing ever since (GRID-Arendal, 2014). In contrast, the first tourists did not arrive in Antarctica until over a century later, in 1957 (GRID-Arendal, 2014). Mind you, they've been doing a bit of catching-up lately, with a 430% increase in ship-borne tourists between 1993-2007, and a 757% increase in the number of visitors making landfall between 1997-2007 (UNEP, 2007).
                                                                                   

People want to visit the Arctic for a range of reasons, including
participation in activities such as this...
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

So how exactly does this tourism affect the polar regions? According to GRID-Arendal, it has environmental, cultural and economic implications, some of which vary between the two regions. The following is discussed in their report on polar tourism (GRID-Arendal, 2014):

The Arctic:

Tourist ships pose a threat to the Arctic environment, in terms of the potential for an accident and resultant oil-spill. Even without such a drastic scenario, increased ocean traffic leads to noise and water pollution, with implications for marine wildlife. On land, groups of tourists can also have an environmental impact, for example through trampling of vegetation and noise-disturbance. The noise produced by helicopters can also be disruptive, and is particularly damaging to bird populations, with panic-flights sometimes causing egg loss. 

Economic implications can be both positive and negative. For example, local people often benefit from the increased employment opportunities associated with tourism, and see it as a reliable form of income. Furthermore, local businesses profit when visitor numbers are high. However, the cost of maintaining the facilities used by tourists should not be underestimated. These include the more obvious examples of transport and accommodation, but also requirements such as the emergency services and waste-disposal facilities. What needs to be considered is if the financial benefits outweigh the costs. It is also important to remember that a significant amount of the money spent by tourists goes to external companies, as opposed to the local people.

Culturally, tourism can again be both beneficial and harmful. On the one hand, tourism could be integral in the preservation of many traditions, with visitors keen to hear native languages and experience local customs. On the other hand, vast numbers of tourists can overwhelm small communities, and limited resources may lead to friction between local and visiting hunters.

Looks pretty nice? But what are the consequences of this form
of tourism? Source: www.coolgeography.co.uk

The Antarctic:

One of the main differences between the Arctic and Antarctica, as previously discussed, is that nobody lives permanently on Antarctica. As such, tourism here has no impact - positive or negative - on local people. Nevertheless, those that do live on the southernmost continent (namely scientific researchers) can be affected by tourism. For example, they can be called upon in emergency situations, such as search-and-rescue missions. This is obviously dangerous, and disturbs research projects.

Financially, tourism in Antarctica is unsupported. The same facilities as discussed above (such as waste-disposal and the emergency services) are still required, yet there are no permanent sources of funding to maintain them. Money spent by tourists generally goes to the tour operators, yet money is required to lay the foundations for sustainable tourism.

Lastly, tourism in the Antarctic has a profound environmental impact. Just as in the Arctic, ships can cause noise and water pollution; here, cetaceans are particularly under threat from human activity. Again, tourists can have a detrimental effect on bird colonies and vegetation cover. Nevertheless, under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (that we looked at before Christmas), tour operators must provide environmental impact assessments before their journeys. 

So, would you still go?

After all that, would you consider a trip to the poles? There seem to be quite a few benefits associated with Arctic tourism - particularly for local people - and, if people are respectful of the environment and local communities (i.e. if it is ecotourism) it could be a good idea. Furthermore, tourism is an excellent way of educating people about an area, which could encourage them to become involved in conservation initiatives (GRID-Arendal, 2014). This obviously applies to both the Arctic and Antarctica. However, as much as I'd love to visit Antarctica, I don't think I would as a tourist. There, in my opinion, the environmental and economic costs seem to outweigh the benefits. 

For your information, here's a link to a document about Arctic tourism produced by WWF. It's got some useful advice about how the region can be visited in a way that benefits local communities, and has minimal impact on the environment.