Facing the elements: analysing trends in Antarctic tourism Machiel Lamers, Daniela Haase and Bas Amelung Machiel Lamers is a PhD researcher and Bas Amelung is a Researcher both based at ICIS, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Daniela Haase is a PhD Researcher at Gateway Antarctica, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Abstract Purpose – Tourism in Antarctica is rapidly growing and diversifying, which raises concerns about its impacts and the robustness of the current regulatory regime. Focusing on the analysis of past developments and trends of Antarctic tourism, this paper aims to describe the future opportunities for tourism in Antarctica. Design/methodology/approach – Using literature on the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) and ecotourism opportunity spectrum (ECOS), the paper analyzes the future opportunities of Antarctic tourism and the key factors that determine the window of opportunity for Antarctic tour operators. Findings – The analysis shows that tourism opportunities in Antarctica are defined by a combination of factors, which the authors integrate into an Antarctic tourism opportunity spectrum (ATOS). The paper argues that the opportunity settings for tourism in Antarctica vary from operations of increasing scale and efficiency to the continued development of smaller scale niche products, both of which will continue to diversify and drive the development of tourism in Antarctica. Research limitations/implications – The paper is an attempt to transfer the concept of ROS, originally designed for the operational level of national park management, to the more strategic level of tourism trends in Antarctica. The research findings are based on stakeholder interaction within a limited number of countries. Practical implications – The paper is a potential source of information and advice for policy makers and managers of Antarctic resources, as well as scholars interested in Antarctic tourism issues. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the regulation of tourism in Antarctica. Keywords Antarctica, Tourism Paper type Research paper Introduction The last two decades have seen a rapid development of tourism in Antarctica with increasing visitor numbers (see Figure 1), and a diversifying supply of transport modes and activities. Traditional small-ship expedition cruises that include landings are now complemented by cruise-only itineraries without landings for large ships, fly-sail operations, and adventure tourism activities such as kayaking, scuba diving or mountain climbing. In view of these developments, tourism management is becoming an increasingly important issue. The current regulatory framework consists of the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) supplemented by external regulations from, e.g. the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and by industry self-regulation through the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) (Molenaar, 2005). Recent policy discussions at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs) have focused on the need for additional legal instruments and measures, such as site-specific guidelines, to mitigate the effects of tourism (ATS, 2004, 2005). Some authors (e.g. ASOC, 2006; Bastmeijer and Roura, 2004; Molenaar, DOI 10.1108/16605370810861017 VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008, pp. 15-27, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1660-5373 j TOURISM REVIEW j PAGE 15 Figure 1 Tourist numbers visiting Antarctica 1965-2007 2005) argue that, in addition to these rather reactive measures, a more proactive, strategic vision for Antarctic tourism development and regulation is warranted. Some of the building blocks needed for such a long-term vision can be provided by integrated scenario analysis, an avenue currently explored by Amelung and Lamers (2006). Integrated scenarios combine knowledge from a range of disciplines, as well as professional insights, to arrive at a more complete analysis of a system. The scenarios that this paper relates to are developed in a multiple-stage iterative process. The first phase consisted of the identification of driving and inhibiting factors for Antarctic tourism development. Past and projected future trends of these factors are analyzed in phase two, the phase that this paper reports on. The results of these factor analyses will be merged to produce integrated scenarios in stage three. The ultimate goal of this research project is to provide insights for managers and decision makers within the ATS and other relevant institutions. The central aim of this paper is to ‘‘face the elements’’ of Antarctic tourism development by exploring how key factors have shaped the past of tourism in Antarctica, and may jointly shape its future. The analysis uses the recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS) approach, developed by Clark and Stankey (1979) and applied to tourism (Butler and Waldbrook, 1991; Boyd and Butler, 1996), which combines an analytical framework with an action-oriented management perspective, making it suitable for our purposes. Our paper is organized as follows: the next section describes the data and methodology used and introduces the ROS framework. The following section three analyses the past and future trends of the main determinants of Antarctic tourism, including an overview of the components of the Antarctic tourism opportunity spectrum (ATOS). The penultimate section discussed the implications for different tourism opportunity settings in Antarctica, and the final section concludes. Methodological and theoretical considerations Our analysis of Antarctic tourism trends and their main drivers is based on a thorough literature review, the interpretation of ‘‘hard’’ Antarctic tourism data and ‘‘soft’’ information elicited through a number of stakeholder workshops. The literature review includes an analysis of empirical research studies (e.g. biological and physical impacts of tourism), articles on tourism management and regulation, and policy papers presented at recent j j PAGE 16 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008 ATCMs. Additional literature sources were sought in areas such as climate change, polar logistics, and tourism development. Most of the statistical data on Antarctic tourism development was obtained from IAATO through their web site (www.iaato.org), which provides the only detailed publicly available listing of Antarctic tour operator activity from the early 1990s onwards. Expert knowledge and judgment on the current and future development of Antarctic tourism and its implications were yielded from two stakeholder workshops, in which a wide range of Antarctic tourism stakeholders participated, including tour operators and expedition staff, policy makers, NGO representatives, and scientists. Full details on the workshops held in The Hague (The Netherlands) on September 23, 2005 and Christchurch (New Zealand) on April 7, 2006 can be found in Lamers and Amelung (2006) and Haase and Lamers (2006). Upon review of the material obtained, several clusters of key factors determining the future of Antarctic tourism development were identified inductively. These clusters showed close resemblance to the determinants of the factor categories of the recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS) framework developed by Clark and Stankey (1979), and its derivatives. This natural fit convinced us to use this concept for the analysis of our data and to facilitate the assessment of management and policy options later on. ROS was developed in 1979 to help National Park managers assess the (potential) qualities of their park for recreational purposes. The concept of a recreation opportunity setting is defined as ‘‘the combination of physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place (. . .). By combining variations of these qualities and conditions, management can provide a variety of opportunities for recreationists’’ (Clark and Stankey, 1979, p. 1). Since its conception, the opportunity spectrum concept has been applied and adapted to many other settings, including destinations for ecotourism and adventure tourism (Boyd and Butler, 1996; Butler and Waldbrook, 1991) and tourism in the European Arctic (Kaltenborn and Emmelin, 1993). Davis (1999) and Tracey (2001) proposed to do the same for Antarctic tourism, but never proceeded. In this paper, an Antarctic tourism opportunity spectrum is developed from the application of ROS that resembled the Antarctic case most closely: the ecotourism opportunity spectrum (ECOS), developed by Boyd and Butler (1996). ECOS was developed as a tool for assessing an area’s potential for ecotourism opportunities. Following ROS, care was taken that the factors defining opportunity settings were all observable and manageable, under direct management control, related to recreationists’ preferences, and ‘‘characterised by a range of conditions’’ in order to maximize usefulness for managers (Clark and Stankey, 1979). Based on these criteria, Boyd and Butler (1996) identified eight determining factors: access, other resource users, attractions in the region, presence of existing tourism infrastructure, the level of social interaction, the level of skill and knowledge required, the (acceptability of) visitor impacts, and appropriate regulation required to manage the viability of the opportunity and the resource on a long term basis. In the following section, the ECOS framework is used to structure the discussion on the past and possible future development of opportunities in Antarctic tourism. In view of the specific Antarctic conditions, modifications are made to the original ECOS configuration, resulting in an Antarctic tourism opportunity spectrum (ATOS). In the analysis, regular reference is made to contextual developments, i.e. developments beyond the realm of immediate influence of the Antarctic stakeholders, such as economic growth, demographics, oil prices, and global terrorism. Strictly taken, these factors are no part of ROS-like frameworks as they are less relevant for operational decision-making. The strategic level of management that our work is directed at requires the inclusion of major contextual factors that represent external and global dynamics. Key factors influencing Antarctic tourism development Access Antarctica’s remoteness, extreme climatic conditions, and presence of sea and land ice cause major constraints for any type of human activity. Tourists access the Antarctic in two j j VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 17 basic steps: by air from their home country to a number of gateway cities in the Southern Hemisphere, and from here by sea or air to a number of Antarctic regions (Lamers and Amelung, 2007). Most tourists visit the Antarctic Peninsula region on ship-based itineraries leaving from gateway cities in Southern Argentina and Chile. Small numbers of tourists and adventurers travel to Antarctica by aircraft from Punta Arenas in Chile and Cape Town in South Africa. Also, a small share of tourists visits the Ross Sea region by ship from Australia and New Zealand. Access is almost completely controlled by professional tour operators, who organize the expedition, determine the schedule, and decide which sites are visited. According to industry representatives, this is a daunting task that involve tremendous operational costs, many constraints and uncertainties (Landau and Splettstoesser, 2007). In the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fleet of small passenger ships (, 50 and 51-110 passenger categories) was expanded significantly when Russian research vessels capable of operating in polar waters became available on the free market (Cessford, 1997; Stonehouse, 1994). Over the last few years, cruise-only tourism (large cruise liners making no landings) established itself in Antarctica, and figures and projections indicate that these large vessels are there to stay. In fact, most growth has occurred in the largest ship segment with the number of small ships stabilizing (see Table I). Large cruise vessels travel at higher speeds and cause less turbulence for the passengers than smaller expedition ships when traversing the notorious Drake Passage. Growth in small-scale expedition cruising is expected to stabilize in the coming decade as a result of the limited supply of suitable expedition ships and the cost-effectiveness of building larger vessels (IAATO, 2004a). Only a small number of commercial air links have been developed for expedition logistics, adventure tourism, day trips, and over flights. However, national Antarctic programs (NAPs) have established air connections between gateway cities and various Antarctic regions and non-governmental operators (mostly independent expeditions) have been allowed to use these air links (IAATO, 2006). Physical and geographical constraints might diminish as infrastructure, logistics and technology improves; for example, the airstrip on King George Island (in the Peninsula region) will be upgraded and become capable of handling larger passenger aircrafts in all-weather conditions (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2007). Infrastructural developments in gateway city ports are believed to greatly influence the opportunities for tourism in Antarctica. Bertram et al. (2007) argue that in particular the increase of ship-based tourism in Antarctica in the last decade can be related to public Table I Number of ships active in Antarctic tourism (by passenger capacity), 1990-2006 Year 1989/1990 1990/1991 1991/1992 1992/1993 1993/1994 1994/1995 1995/1996 1996/1997 1997/1998 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 , 50 passenger ships 51-110 passenger ships 111-200 passenger ships 201-500 passenger ships . 500 passenger ships Total 1 1 2 2 1 5 6 5 3 4 6 6 6 8 5 6 9 7 1 2 1 3 4 5 4 4 4 6 6 7 6 6 9 11 13 12 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 7 0 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 4 1 2 4 6 6 6 9 4 7 9 12 12 16 15 13 14 15 20 18 18 23 27 30 36 40 Source: (Headland, 1999; IAATO, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004b, 2005a, 2006, 2007) j j PAGE 18 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008 policy and infrastructural developments in Antarctic gateway cities, particularly Ushuaia. Because of the economic benefits from port charges, airport taxes and expenditure of the undoubtedly affluent visitors, these gateway cities have clear reasons for promoting Antarctic tourism in the future. Increasing global demand for Antarctic experiences constitutes an ‘‘opportunity’’ for the tour operator to create access, and itself is influenced by a myriad of contextual factors. Currently, the main Antarctic tourist markets are found in North America, Europe and Australia. Not surprisingly, given the costs involved in Antarctic tourism, these regions also represent some of the richest countries in the world. Demand for Antarctic tourism is expected to increase in these traditional markets as a result of growing media attention, growing affluence, spare time, urbanization, ageing, and the growing global interest in ecotourism and adventure tourism (WTO, 2001). Further, it is argued that Antarctic tour companies continue to merge or are taken over by larger travel companies with access to extensive resources for marketing Antarctic itineraries. Demand for global tourism products is expected to grow considerably in Russia, China, India and other expanding economies as well. On the other hand, being so energy intensive (e.g. dependence on long haul air travel from Northern Hemisphere societies and shipping), any increase in global energy prices or international greenhouse gas mitigation policy will affect the travel costs and operational costs of Antarctic tour operators (Lamers and Amelung, 2007). Another important contextual factor influencing the access of especially the larger ship based companies concerns the popularity of other destinations in the region, such as the East and West coast of South America. Since repositioning an empty cruise vessel to the Antarctic is economically unfeasible, cabins have to be sold along the way. Developments in the Arctic region are also believed to be an important factor for providing polar technology, business opportunities during the off-season, and for the promotion of polar destinations in general. Other non-tourist resource uses The compatibility with other resource uses is considered to be crucial in creating opportunities for recreational and tourism activities (Clark and Stankey, 1979; Boyd and Butler, 1996). In the Antarctic context, scientific activities have clear precedence over the commercial use of Antarctic resources. However, mutual benefits can be derived from the cooperative operations of different users, and pro-active management in cases of undesired effects. Moreover, as a result of global developments other industries might become active in the Antarctic in the future. With regard to tourism development, scientific operations are particularly important as activities tend to occur in the same regions and cooperation with tour operators frequently occurs in the field of transport, facility use, and station visits (COMNAP, 2004; IAATO, 2005b). In some regions, the presence of science programs provides opportunities (e.g. in the Antarctic Peninsula region), while in other regions tourism developments are discouraged. Besides fruitful cooperation NAPs have raised concerns regarding one-off expeditions, such as private expeditions and yachts, as they demand search and rescue (SAR) facilities in case of misadventure (Lamers et al., 2007; Murray and Jabour, 2004). By the same token, increasing numbers of large cruise vessels are a cause for similar concerns as larger groups of tourists are much more difficult to retrieve in case of an accident (ASOC, 2007). Tourist facilities and site modifications are a separate category in ECOS but almost non-existent in Antarctica. Since existing facilities and infrastructure are largely owned and managed by NAPs, this factor will be dealt with under the current category. With the exception of a number of frequently visited landing sites or sites near scientific stations, no clear walking trails are marked or signposted (Crosbie, 2005). The only onsite facilities are a guesthouse operated by the Chilean Antarctic program and a number of visitor centers and tourist gift shops at various scientific stations. Nevertheless, infrastructure and facilities for tourism in Antarctic may be established in the future as the industry grows and diversifies. For instance, on a number of sub-Antarctic islands, the option to develop boardwalks is being explored, as they are believed to protect the vegetation and wildlife at frequently visited sites (McKee, 2006). j j VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 19 Attractions According to Boyd and Butler (1996) area-specific characteristics functioning as site attractions constitute an important factor in creating the opportunities sought by different types of visitors. In the case of expedition cruising in the Antarctic, the main attractions are the presence of wildlife (e.g. penguins, seals) at landing sites, the dramatic scenery, heritage sites (featuring remains of whalers’ activities, explorer huts and former scientific stations), and sometimes station visits. Large-scale cruise operations generally do not land tourists ashore and are content to admire the polar landscape from the ship. It is believed that tourists mainly visit Antarctica because of its reputation as one of the last untouched wilderness areas on earth (Haase and Lamers, 2006; Lamers and Amelung, 2006). It is believed that due to contextual factors such as urbanization the attraction of Antarctica as a remote and extreme destination will not fade in the future. However, global environmental changes can have a detrimental effect on wildlife populations in fragile Antarctic ecosystems (Crosbie, 2005; Frenot et al., 2005), particularly the Antarctic Peninsula is one of the regions in the world most heavily touched by global warming (Vaughan et al., 2003). In recent years, the range of activities undertaken as part of Antarctic tourism operations have greatly diversified and now include kayaking, running marathons, scuba diving, camping, climbing, and helicopter flights as well as a number of others (Bastmeijer, 2003). This diversification of activities reflects the increasing levels of specialization and competition among tour operators globally offering quality ecotourism and adventure experiences (WTO, 2001). Operational factors ECOS presents the level of social interaction and the level of skill and knowledge as two important factors determining different kinds of tourism opportunities. In the Antarctic, social interaction and the level of skill, knowledge and experience are largely apparent at an operational level, facilitated through the tour operators. Hence, we refer to these factors jointly as operational factors. Any specific opportunity setting is linked to an expected level of use, for instance, very low expected levels of use in a largely untouched wilderness area. Should the actual level of use exceed the expected level of use, the social carrying capacity is reached and overcrowding is experienced (Clark and Stankey, 1979, p. 11). Social interaction in Antarctic tourism largely takes place between the tourists traveling in the same group or on the same ship, the crew and expedition staff, and base personnel, with the social carrying capacity being low as intrinsic wilderness values tend to dominate acceptable use of the resources (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2004; De Poorter, 2000; Haase and Lamers, 2006). Since tour operators sell the Antarctic as a pristine and unique destination, interaction between different tourist vessels is kept to a minimum. However, more tour operators are active, and more voyages are organized every season, motivating Antarctic tour operators to collaborate in order to maintain the picture of pristine and untouched wilderness. By means of an integrated ship scheduling system, managed by IAATO, most tour operators maintain the ‘‘one ship, one place, one moment’’ principle, which dictates that individual operators do not interfere with each other in the Antarctic but rather have allotted times for visiting previously specified sites. Besides maintaining the illusion of emptiness, operators also continuously stay in contact to minimize environmental impacts and safety risks by providing backup in case of incidents. Depending on the mode of transport and the activities scheduled a sufficient level of skill, knowledge and experience is of utmost importance for operating in a continent as extreme and remote as Antarctica. Aside from skills and knowledge for safe and responsible transportation, additional skills are needed for adventure activities and landings as well as for educational programs scheduled on board. Hiring experienced and qualified staff is considered increasingly problematic, especially for new operators with specialized requirements. j j PAGE 20 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008 Acceptability of visitor impacts In the opportunity spectrum literature, it is acknowledged that ‘‘any use creates some impact’’ (Clark and Stankey, 1979, p. 13) and argued that it is the duty of the managers to maintain the integrity and quality of the resource. Acceptable levels of impacts describe an appropriate magnitude and environmental value for a specific opportunity setting. The concept of acceptable impacts is of great significance for the Antarctic setting, where emotiveness and sensitivity prevail towards patterns of resource use, crowding, pressures on the environment, or changing habitats (Davis, 1999). So far, empirical studies have hardly proven observable impacts of tourism visitation (Hofman and Jatko, 2000). Following the Madrid Protocol, IAATO has stipulated that impacts from member companies may not exceed a minor or transitory nature. However, the risks to human safety and the environment can never be totally eliminated. Furthermore, cumulative impacts, which have been neither extensively researched nor subjected to specific and more stringent regulation, may occur at intensely used landing sites. New landing sites are utilized every season (Crosbie, 2005), which may lead to the geographical spread of impacts. Recently, it was argued that environmental impacts that are less easily observable, such as damage to the marine environment (Molenaar, 2005) and greenhouse gas emissions as a result of tourist transport (Lamers and Amelung, 2007), have not been taken into account. Finally, in a region as unique as Antarctica, people might consider tourism to have an impact on the intrinsic value of Antarctica (De Poorter, 2000). These last three types of impacts are not easily observable and are difficult to consider in decision-making. Regulation and management frameworks Regulation and management of an opportunity setting may be indispensable where the natural character and integrity of a resource have to be assured. The latter is of great significance for the Antarctic with environmental principles enshrined in the ATS in form of the Protocol on Environmental Protection. In addition to the regulations imposed by the ATS, external regulatory frameworks, such as the self-imposed rules and guidelines of IAATO, constrain opportunities for tourism in Antarctica. In the following paragraphs, we will briefly describe these two regulatory frameworks. Many authors have argued that the current level of formal ATS regimentation is not sufficient, as it seems to lag behind the level of growth and diversification that Antarctic tourism has experienced over the last decade (Amelung and Lamers, 2006; Bastmeijer and Roura, 2004; Molenaar, 2005; Scott, 2001). The ATS is characterized by a lack of undisputed sovereignty and not every nation in the world is a party to the Antarctic Treaty, making it difficult to effectively regulate global tourism activities (Beck, 1990, 1994; Molenaar, 2005; Richardson, 2000). A major criticism of the ATS relates to the fact that it does not represent a single, unified, comprehensive regime including real restrictions (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2004; Molenaar, 2005), but a rather fragmented collection of recommendations, measures, resolutions and decisions which leave some significant loopholes (Molenaar, 2005, p. 31). Within the ATS there are considerable national differences and inconsistencies with respect to the implementation of regulatory procedures (Kriwoken and Rootes, 2000; Richardson, 2000). Nevertheless, the environmental protocol requires that tourism activities are pre-notified and that an environmental impact assessment is filed. Tour operators are advised to follow a range of guidelines (most of which were developed by IAATO). Acquiring insurance and back-up planning has become mandatory and site-specific guidelines are being developed to minimize the impacts on frequently visited landing sites and improve onsite management. A more recent discussion is the adoption of precautionary restrictions on particular tourism developments, such as permanent land-based tourism facilities and infrastructure (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2004). IAATO, on the other hand, has been very successful in developing and enforcing high operational standards as well as convincing tour operators and other actors to join (Molenaar, 2005). For more than a decade, IAATO has managed to anticipate official j j VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 21 regulation and solve managerial issues raised by tourism (Landau and Splettstoesser, 2007). However, with new operators with different aims, operational scales, and origins entering the market, pressure on IAATO increases with regard to maintaining its operational standards. Consequently, IAATO has to carefully define its bylaws and guidelines in order to keep everyone on board and avoid free-riding among operators (United Kingdom, 2004). Overview The factor areas and external factors, discussed above, jointly determine the future development of tourism in Antarctica. These key factors shape the Antarctic tourism opportunity spectrum (ATOS) and are schematically presented in Figure 2, which captures the dynamic nature of Antarctic tourism development. ATOS represents the ‘‘window of opportunity’’ for various actors in the Antarctic, including tour operators and policy makers. In the following discussion we will mainly focus on the future opportunities of ATOS for different types of tourism operations. Future opportunities and trends in Antarctic tourism Developments in sub-sectors of ATOS will influence the window of opportunity for Antarctic tour operators. It is also likely that this window is larger than is currently exploited, either because of lack of awareness or because of perceptions of risk and ethical considerations. Until recently the opportunities for tourism in Antarctica were largely organized and managed towards (smaller scale) sea-borne expedition-style cruises and niche tourism products, while latterly, the market has been supplemented by operators focusing on economies of scale (e.g. large cruise liners). In Table II, the future opportunities for both operational strategies are summarized under influence of the factors discussed. Table II suggests that the opportunities for operators at both ends of the spectrum are increasing. Growth trends in the larger ship segments indicate that shifts in the market are underway and that access for larger scale tour operations is improving. Moreover, the cruise industry has recently identified Antarctica as an important growth destination Figure 2 The integrated nature of the Antarctic tourism opportunity spectrum (ATOS) j j PAGE 22 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008 Table II Future opportunities for small scale and large-scale Antarctic tourism operations Antarctic tourism opportunities Small scale operations (niche markets) Large scale operations (economies of scale) (1) Access Remoteness and extremeness Availability of suitable ships Ship building Availability of aircraft Global environmental change Infrastructural development Compatibility with global itineraries Information channels/media Marketing resources Major constraint Stagnation: limited supply Decrease: less cost-beneficial Increase Not known at this stage Increase: gateway cities/airstrips Increase Increase Increase Major constraint (somewhat less) Increase: relative large supply Increase: more cost-beneficial No real opportunity at this stage Not known at this stage Increase: gateway cities Increase Increase Increase (2) Other users: science Logistical cooperation Infrastructure sharing Facility sharing and visits Increase Increase Increase No real opportunity at this stage Increase No real opportunity at this stage (3) Attractions/activities Available landing sites Wildlife Dramatic scenery Heritage sites Adventure activities Increase: exploration Increase/growing challenge Increase Increase Increase No real opportunity at this stage No real opportunity at this stage Increase No real opportunity at this stage Limited opportunity (4) Operational factors Interaction in the field Qualified staff and crew Increase/growing challenge Growing challenge Increase/growing challenge No real constraints (5) Acceptance of impacts Environmental impacts Human safety Intrinsic value Stagnate: low acceptance Increase: higher acceptance Growing challenge Increase: higher acceptance Stagnate: low acceptance Growing challenge (6) Regulation/management Antarctic treaty system IAATO self-regulation No real constraints at this stage No real constraints at this stage No real constraints at this stage No real constraints at this stage (Budget Travel Online, 2005). Cost-effectiveness in operations, economies of scale in ship building, and growing demand for comfortable cruising as a result of an ageing and affluent population in traditional markets and the development of new markets, are creating a momentum for larger scale operations in the Antarctic. As tourism develops, some operators will continue to specialize and focus on specific niche markets, such as small groups, high-quality information, luxury, adventure, resulting from opportunities provided by infrastructural developments, cooperation with other users, and global demand for special interest tourism products. In other words, high-quality niche products provide opportunities for small-scale operators to remain active in an industry where economies of scale and efficiency are increasingly dominating. The improvement of air access is most likely to provide initial opportunities for smaller scale operations but, as time goes by, these operations might increase in scale. As a result, visitor numbers are likely to continue growing in the future as will the diversity of tourism products and operations. Much depends on the acceptance of visitor impacts by various stakeholder groups and the resulting regulatory and managerial developments. As more and larger tour operators enter the market with increasingly different aims and activities, it becomes more difficult for IAATO to self-regulate. At the same time, a loosening grip on the behavior and operational standards of tour operators will expand the opportunities for any of the abovementioned trends. Clark and Stankey (1979) argue for consistency of settings in any tourism opportunity spectrum. In other words, settings of different factor areas need to develop alongside to safeguard opportunities and controlled development. In this paper, we present a similar argument. As tourism in Antarctica develops as a result of any of the key factors analysed in j j VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 23 the previous section, constraints in the form of regulations and restrictions have to be set if the current balance, i.e. current level and style of tourism operations, is to remain. ATOS can provide assistance towards active management of Antarctic tourism and regulatory options, for instance identifying locations or activities with specific restrictions or science operators who wish to gain understanding about the influence of their activities on tourism, which we hope to explore in a separate paper. Conclusion Tourism has grown rapidly over the past two decades and diversified in different market segments in terms of both, transport types and activities. Our analysis has shown that the development of tourism in Antarctica is the result of a range of factors, each with their own direction, belonging to six tangible factor areas: factors influencing access, other resource related users, attractions and activities, operational factors, acceptable impacts, and regulation and management frameworks. Factors influencing access, such as logistical and infrastructural developments, prove to be particularly important, which is no surprise in a region as remote as Antarctica. Related to this, the compatibility with science operations can provide both opportunities and limit actions for tourism development. Each of the factor areas is influenced by a range of contextual factors that occur on a global scale, out of reach of the Antarctic institutions and regulatory bodies (e.g. energy prices, climatic changes, etc). These factors are joined in the Antarctic tourism opportunity spectrum and collectively define the opportunities for tour operators to organize tourism itineraries in Antarctica. Overall, the resulting ATOS has proven to be a useful framework to assess the window of opportunity for tourism in the Antarctic and discuss future trends. With regard to future opportunities and trends, we conclude that there are more opportunities than those currently exploited. Antarctic tourism development is driven by an increasing operational scale, increasing efficiency and continuous innovation and diversification. Therefore, we expect to see more and larger cruise liners entering Antarctic waters, air-cruise operations and land-based tourism developing, and niche operations offering various activities, from more adventurous to more luxurious, continuing. In the absence of extensive sovereign governance in Antarctica the tourism industry has taken on the ambitious role of being both organizer and manager of Antarctic tourism. Future developments may entail unacceptable levels of impact and undermine the position of the industry association and jeopardize self-regulation. Therefore, we recommend that a cautious approach is taken by both the industry and regulators within the ATS. References Amelung, B. and Lamers, M. (2006), ‘‘Scenario development for antarctic tourism: exploring the uncertainties’’, Polarforschung, Vol. 75 Nos 2/3, pp. 133-9. ASOC (2006), ‘‘Strategic issues posed by commercial tourism in the Antarctic treaty area’’, Information paper (IP120) presented by the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXIX, Edinburgh, available at: www.asoc.org/what_tourism.htm ASOC (2007), ‘‘The case against tourism landings from ships carrying more than 500 passengers’’, Information paper (IP79) presented by the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXX, New Delhi, available at: www.asoc.org/what_tourism.htm ATS (2004), ‘‘Final report of the twenty-seventh Antarctic treaty consultative meeting’’, ATS, Cape Town, available at: www.ats.aq ATS (2005), ‘‘Final report of the twenty-eight Antarctic treaty consultative meeting’’, Stockholm, available at: www.ats.aq Bastmeijer, C. (2003), ‘‘Tourism in Antarctica: increasing diversity and the legal criteria for authorisation’’, New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 7, pp. 85-118. Bastmeijer, C. and Roura, R. (2004), ‘‘Regulating Antarctic tourism and the precautionary principle’’, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98 No. 4, pp. 763-81. j j PAGE 24 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008 Bastmeijer, C. and Roura, R. (2007), ‘‘Environmental impact assessment in Antarctica’’, in Bastmeijer, C. and Koivurova, T. (Eds), Theory and Practice of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment, Martinus Nijhof, Den Haag. Beck, P.J. (1990), ‘‘Regulating one of the last tourism frontiers: Antarctica’’, Applied Geography, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 243-356. Beck, P.J. (1994), ‘‘Managing Antarctic tourism: a front-burner issue’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 375-86. Bertram, E., Muir, S. and Stonehouse, B. (2007), ‘‘Gateway ports in the development of Antarctic tourism’’, in Snyder, J. and Stonehouse, B. (Eds), Prospects for Polar Tourism, CABI, Wallingford. Boyd, S. and Butler, R. (1996), ‘‘Managing ecotourism: an opportunity spectrum approach’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 557-66. Budget Travel Online (2005), ‘‘The 10 big trends in cruise ship vacations’’, available at: http:// budgettravelonline.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400670_2.html Butler, R. and Waldbrook, L. (1991), ‘‘A new planning tool: the tourism opportunity spectrum’’, Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Cessford, G. (1997), ‘‘Antarctic tourism: a frontier for wilderness management’’, International Journal of Wilderness, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 7-11. Clark, R.N. and Stankey, G.H. (1979), ‘‘The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for planning, management, and research’’, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, US Department of Agriculture and Forest Service. COMNAP (2004), ‘‘Information paper on the interaction between national antarctic programs and non-government and tourism operations’’, paper ATME#25 presented by the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes at the Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts on Tourism and Non-governmental Activities, Tromso. Crosbie, K. (2005), ‘‘Site guidelines analysis’’, Information paper (IP81) presented by IAATO at the Antarctic Treaty Consultancy Meeting XXVIII, Stockholm, available at: www.iaato.org Davis, P. (1999), ‘‘Beyond guidelines: a model for Antarctic tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 516-33. De Poorter, M. (2000), ‘‘Tourism risks from an environmental perspective’’, Proceedings of the Antarctic Tourism Workshop, Antarctica New Zealand, 23 June 2000, Christchurch. Enzenbacher, D. (1993), ‘‘Tourists in Antarctica: numbers and trends’’, Tourism Management, April, pp. 142-6. Frenot, Y., Chown, S., Whinam, J., Selkirk, P., Convey, P. and Skonicki, M. (2005), ‘‘Biological invasions in the Antarctic: extent, impacts and implications’’, Biological Review, Vol. 80, pp. 45-72. Haase, D. and Lamers, M. (2006), ‘‘The future governance of Antarctic tourism’’, workshop report ICIS/Gateway Antarctica, Maastricht/Christchurch. Headland, R. (1994), ‘‘Historical development for Antarctic tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 269-80. Headland, R. (forthcoming), Chronological List of Antarctic Expeditions and Related Historical Events, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hofman, R. and Jatko, J. (2000), ‘‘Assessment of the possible cumulative environmental impacts of commercial ship-based tourism in the Antarctic peninsula area’’, Proceedings of a Workshop, La Jolla, California, 7-9 June 2000, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. IAATO (1997), ‘‘Overview of Antarctic tourism activities: a summary of 1996-1998 and five year projection 1997-2002’’, Information Paper (IP75) presented at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXI, Christchurch, available at: www.iaato.org IAATO (1998), ‘‘Overview of Antarctic tourism activities’’, Information paper (IP86) presented at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXII, Tromso, available at: www.iaato.org IAATO (1999), ‘‘Overview of Antarctic tourism activities’’, Information paper (IP98) presented at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXIII, Lima, available at: www.iaato.org j j VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 25 IAATO (2000), ‘‘Overview of Antarctic tourism’’, Information paper (IP33) presented at the Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XII, The Hague, available at: www.iaato.org IAATO (2001), ‘‘Overview of Antarctic tourism’’, Information paper (IP73) presented at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXIV, St Petersburg, available at: www.iaato.org IAATO (2002), ‘‘Overview of tourism’’, Information paper (IP73) presented at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXV, Warsaw, available at: www.iaato.org IAATO (2003), ‘‘IAATO overview of tourism’’, Information paper (IP71) presented at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXVI, Madrid, available at: www.iaato.org IAATO (2004a), ‘‘Six year survey of the dominant tourist activities and trends since the ratification of the environmental protocol and a five year estimated forecast of upcoming activities’’, Paper (ATME#11) presented at the Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts on Tourism and Non-governmental Activities, Tromso, available at: www.iaato.org IAATO (2004b), ‘‘IAATO overview of Antarctic tourism 2003-2004 Antarctic season’’, Information paper (IP63) presented at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXVII, Cape Town, available at: www.iaato. org IAATO (2005a), ‘‘IAATO overview of Antarctic tourism 2004-2005 Antarctic season’’, paper presented at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXVIII, Stockholm, available at: www.iaato.org IAATO (2005b), ‘‘Report of the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators’’, paper presented at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXVIII, Stockholm, available at: www.iaato.org IAATO (2006), ‘‘IAATO overview of Antarctic tourism 2005-2006 Antarctic season’’, paper presented at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXIX 2006, Edinburgh, available at: www.iaato.org IAATO (2007), ‘‘IAATO overview of Antarctic tourism 2006-2007 Antarctic season’’, Information paper (IP121) presented at the XXX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, New Delhi, available at: www.iaato. org Kaltenborn, B. and Emmelin, L. (1993), ‘‘Tourism in the high north: management challenges and recreation opportunity spectrum planning in Svalbard, Norway’’, Environmental Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 41-50. Kriwoken, L.K. and Rootes, D. (2000), ‘‘Tourism on ice: environmental impact assessment of Antarctic tourism’’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 138-50. Lamers, M. and Amelung, B. (2006), ‘‘The future of tourism in Antarctica’’, Workshop Report Maastricht University, ICIS, Maastricht. Lamers, M. and Amelung, B. (2007), ‘‘The environmental impacts of tourism in Antarctica: a global perspective’’, in Peeters, P. (Ed.), Tourism and Climate Change Mitigation: Methods, Greenhouse Gas Reductions and Policies, NHTV Academic Studies, Breda. Lamers, M., Stel, J. and Amelung, B. (2007), ‘‘Antarctic adventure tourism and private expeditions’’, in Snyder, J. and Stonehouse, B. (Eds), Prospects for Polar Tourism, CABI, Wallingford. Landau, D. and Splettstoesser, J. (2007), ‘‘Antarctic tourism: what are the limits?’’, in Snyder, J. and Stonehouse, B. (Eds), Prospects for Polar Tourism, CABI, Wallingford. McKee, R. (2006), ‘‘South Georgia government update 2006’’, paper presented at the 17th Annual General IAATO Meeting, Washington, DC. Molenaar, E.J. (2005), ‘‘Sea-borne tourism in Antarctica: avenues for further intergovernmental regulation’’, International Journal for Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 247-95. Murray, C. and Jabour, J. (2004), ‘‘Independent expeditions and Antarctic tourism policy’’, Polar Record, Vol. 40 No. 215, pp. 309-17. Richardson, M. (2000), ‘‘Regulating tourism in the Antarctic: issues of environment and jurisdiction’’, in Vidas, D. (Ed.), Implementing the Environmental Protection Regime for the Antarctic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Scott, S. (2001), ‘‘How cautious is precautious? Antarctic tourism and the precautionary principle’’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 50, October, pp. 963-71. j j PAGE 26 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008 Stonehouse, B. (1994), ‘‘Ecotourism in Antarctica’’, in Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (Eds), Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option?, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Tracey, P.J. (2001), ‘‘Managing Antarctic tourism’’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart. United Kingdom (2004), ‘‘Tourism and self-regulation: a commentary on IAATO’’, paper (ATME#04) presented at the Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts on Tourism and Non-governmental Activities, Tromso. Vaughan, D.G., Marshall, G.J., Connolley, W.M., Parkinson, C., Mulvaney, R. and Hodgson, D.A. (2003), ‘‘Recent rapid regional climate warming on the Antarctic Peninsula’’, Climatic Change, Vol. 60, pp. 243-74. WTO (2001), Tourism 2020 Vision: Global Forecasts and Profiles of Market Segments, Vol. 7, World Tourism Organisation, Madrid. Corresponding author Machiel Lamers can be contacted at: machiel.lamers@icis.unimaas.nl To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints j j VOL. 63 NO. 1 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 27