Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:27:23.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An assessment of tundra degradation resulting from the presence of a field camp in Kongsfjorden, Svalbard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

M. H. West  and
A. P. Maxted
M. H. West
Affiliation:
School of the Built Environment, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS
A. P. Maxted
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the last two decades the archipelago of Svalbard has evolved as a focal point for tourism and scientific research in the Arctic. In 1995 the Norwegian authorities inaugurated a management plan in order to conserve Svalbard and to minimise environmental degradation resulting from increased anthropogenic activity. However, the potential for accelerated modification of the tundra, as a result of field camps, was not addressed. Parameters, such as percentage vegetation cover, soil compaction, and soil infiltration rate were measured before and after a four-week period of field-camp activity, under controlled conditions, during July 1997. The study site was located near Ny-Ålesund, Kongsfjorden, Spitsbergen. Statistical analysis showed that where no significant differences in the parameters were recorded at the control site, the presence of a field camp did cause a significant impact on the Arctic heath tundra surface. For example, mean soil compaction, increased from 1.16 kg cm-2 to 2.57 kg cm-2. The use of good practice procedures, such as moving tents regularly and utilising a groundsheet, did not prevent an impact on the environment. Key parameters at the main study sites were reassessed in July 1999, revealing that no significant recovery from the impact caused in 1997 had occurred. An established campsite at Ny-Ålesund was also studied in 1997, and the results support the findings of the main survey: a significant difference recorded for the parameters measured at the campsite, compared to negligible or no changes at the control site. In order to achieve a sustainable tourism and science-based community in Svalbard, i t is proposed that the existing management plan be expanded to incorporate a set of guidelines for wilderness camping, with the aim of mitigating the impact of field camps on the tundra.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 36 , Issue 198 , July 2000 , pp. 203 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BjØrdal, A. 1997. Research in Svalbard 1997. Oslo: Norsk Polarinstitutt.Google Scholar
Brattbakk, I. 1981. Brøggerhalvøya, Svalbard, Vegetasjonskart 1:10,000. Oslo: Norsk Polarinstitutt.Google Scholar
Campbell, I. B., Balks, M. R., and Claridge, G.C.C.. 1993. A simple visual technique for estimating the impact of fieldwork on the terrestrial environment in ice-free areas of Antarctica. Polar Record 29 (171): 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaturvedi, S. 1996. The polar regions: a political geography. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Davis, P. 1995. Antarctic visitor behaviour: are guidelines enough? Polar Record 31 (178): 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elvebakk, A. 1994. A survey of plant associations and alliances from Svalbard. Journal of Vegetative Science 5: 791–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, D., and Price, M. F.. 1996. Fragile environments, fragile communities. In: Price, M. F. (editor). People and tourism in fragile environments. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons: 1–18.Google Scholar
Hisdal, V. 1985. The geography of Svalbard. Oslo: Norsk Polarinstitutt (Polar handbook 2).Google Scholar
Hisdal, V. 1998. Svalbard: nature and history. Oslo: Norsk Polarinstitutt (Polar handbook 12).Google Scholar
Ives, J. D. 1970. Arctic tundra: how fragile? A geomorphologist's point of view. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada 4 (8): 401–404.Google Scholar
Ives, J. D., and Webber, P. J.. 1978. Damage and recovery of tundra vegetation. Environmental Conservation 5 (3): 171–182.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. E. 1997. Polar tourism regulation strategies: controlling visitors through codes of conduct and legislation. Polar Record 33 (184): 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenborn, B. P., and Hindrum, R.. 1996. Opportunities and problems associated with the development of Arctic tourism: a case study from Svalbard in the Norwegian Arctic. Report prepared for the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) Task Force on Sustainable Development and Utilisation.Google Scholar
Kristian, J., and Jacobson, S.. 1994. Arctic tourism and global tourism trends. Thunder Bay: Lakehead University Centre for Northern Studies (Research report 37).Google Scholar
Krzyszowska, A. J. 1985. Tundra degradation in the vicinity of the Polish polar station, Hornsund, Svalbard. Polar Research 3: 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzyszowska, A. J. 1989. Human impact on tundra environment at the Ny-Ålesund station, Svalbard. Polar Research 7: 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuss, F. R., and Graefe, A. R.. 1985. Effects of recreation trampling on natural area vegetation. Journal of Leisure Research 17 (3): 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. 1995. Management plan fortourism and outdoor recreation in Svalbard. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of the Environment (Ministry of the Environment publication T-1097).Google Scholar
Norwegian Ministry of Justice. 1993. Regulations relating to tourism and other travel in Svalbard. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Justice (Ministry of Justice publication G-0167).Google Scholar
Pounder, E. J. 1985. The effects of footpath development on vegetation at the Okstindan research station in Arctic Norway. Biological Conservation. 34: 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, M. F. (editor). 1996. People and tourism in fragile environments. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Prokosch, P. 1999. All of Svalbard: one national park. Arctic Bulletin 4.Google Scholar
Rønning, O. I. 1996. The flora of Svalbard. Oslo: Norsk Polarinstitutt (Polar handbook 10).Google Scholar
Scott, J. J., and Kirkpatrick, J. B.. 1994. Effects of human trampling on the sub-Antarctic vegetation of Macquarie Island. Polar Record 30 (174): 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 1999. Where to ‘go’ in the great outdoors. Perth: Scottish Environment Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Shears, J. R. 1993. British Antarctic Survey waste management handbook. Second edition. Cambridge: British Antarctic Survey.Google Scholar
Shears, J. R., Theisen, F., Bjørdal, A., and Norris, S.. 1998. Environmental impact assessment, Ny-Ålesund International Science Research and Monitoring Station, Svalbard. Tromso: Norsk Polarinstitutt (Meddelelser 157).Google Scholar
Tedrow, J. C. F. 1977. Soils of the polar landscape. New Bunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, S. T. 1983. Weathering and erosion, sources and methods in geography. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Viken, A., and Jørgensen, F.. 1998. Tourism on Svalbard. Polar Record 34 (189): 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M. 1997. Polar experience. The Geographical Magazine 04 1997: 44–45.Google Scholar