Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:04:03.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding visitor use in Antarctica: the need for site criteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Pamela B. Davis
Pamela B. Davis
Affiliation:
Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1ER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The landing of visitors in Antarctica presents wilderness managers with several challenges. Foremost among these is ensuring that visitors do not ‘love the wilderness to death.’ This article presents research gathered on Hannah Point, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands during the austral summer of 1993/94. First, an estimation of duration and type of use was conducted to identify where visitors spent the majority of their time, and second, what conditions, such as weather, physical layout, or on-site supervision, influenced this decision. The implications of these results are discussed vis-à-vis the current system of visitor landings, and suggestions are offered to help devise criteria for landing procedures. This paper stresses how the pattern of visitor landings can be altered, as a preventative strategy, to ensure low impact on visitor sites.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 34 , Issue 188 , January 1998 , pp. 45 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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

Codling, R.J. 1982. Sea-borne tourism in the Antarctic: an evaluation. Polar Record 21 (130): 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, P. 1995. Antarctic visitor behaviour: are guidelines enough? Polar Record 31 (178): 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graefe, A., Kuss, R.F., and Vaske, J.J.. 1990. Visitor impact management. Volume 1. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.Google Scholar
Headland, R. 1994. Historical development of Antarctic tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 21 (2): 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendee, J.C., Stankey, G.H., and Lucas, R.C. (editors). 1990. Wilderness management. 2nd edition. Golden, CO: North American Press, Fulcrum Publishing.Google Scholar
Lucas, R.C. 1990. Wilderness use and users: trends and projections. In: Hendee, J.C., Stankey, G.H., and Lucas, R.C. (editors). 1990. Wilderness management. 2nd Edition. Golden, CO: North American Press, Fulcrum Publishing.Google Scholar
Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American mind. 3rd edition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nash, R. 1990. Historical roots of wilderness management. In: Hendee, J.C., Stankey, G.H., and Lucas, R.C. (editors). 1990. Wilderness management. 2nd edition. Golden, CO: North American Press, Fulcrum Publishing: 27–42.Google Scholar
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1997 Seventh Antarctic tour operators meeting: agenda/handouts. Unpublished document prepared by NSF from information supplied by Antarctic tour operators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Nimon, A.J., Schroter, R.C., and Stonehouse, B.S.. 1995. Heat rate of disturbed penguins. Nature 374 (30): 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oelschlaeger, M. 1994. The idea of wilderness as a deep ecological ethic. In: Burks, D.C. (editor). A wildlands anthology: place of the wild. Washington, DC: Island Press; Covelo, CA.: Shearwater Books: 131–148.Google Scholar
Osherenko, G. 1992. Human/nature relations in the Arctic: changing perspectives. Polar Record 29 (167): 277–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, P.L. 1988. The Ulysses factor: evaluating visitors in tourist settings. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar