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