What Can Be Considered Contradictory in Arctic and Antarctic Tourism?

Are you curious about the paradoxes within polar tourism? SIXT.VN explores the contradictory elements of Arctic and Antarctic travel, offering insights into sustainable travel options in Vietnam. Discover how responsible travel can create unforgettable memories. Contact SIXT.VN today for expert travel advice and tour packages.

1. Introduction: The Paradox of Polar Tourism

The allure of the Arctic and Antarctic regions is undeniable, drawing travelers to witness pristine landscapes and unique wildlife. Yet, this very act of tourism presents a complex paradox. In essence, What Can Be Considered Contradictory In Arctic And Antarctic Tourism is the tension between the desire to experience these fragile environments and the impact of that experience on the environment itself. According to research from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in 2021, tourism, while providing economic benefits, also contributes to pollution and habitat disturbance in these regions.

This tension is not new. As far back as 1989, the marketing industry understood the power of image, as demonstrated by Andre Agassi’s iconic sunglasses commercial. The concept of “image is everything” extends beyond personal style to encompass how we perceive our travel experiences. Tourism, particularly luxury travel, allows individuals to acquire social and cultural capital, enhancing their identity and sense of distinction. However, this pursuit of distinction can clash with the principles of sustainability.

The industry has struggled to effectively manage its negative impacts. Mass tourism in the mid-1970s sparked criticism, leading to the development of alternative tourism models like ecotourism, community-based tourism, and slow tourism. While these approaches aim to minimize harm to the environment and local communities, they often fall short. Instead of diverting tourists away from sensitive areas, they sometimes exacerbate the problem by bringing visitors to even more vulnerable ecosystems.

The blurring of lines between ecotourism and sustainable tourism further complicates the issue. These terms have become tools for greenwashing, where companies market themselves as environmentally responsible without making significant changes to their practices. The fundamental problem lies not just in the activities chosen at a destination, but also in how tourists access those activities. As Carić (2004) notes, transportation is a major contributor to the ecological unsustainability of mainstream tourism. The ongoing debate about the environmental impact of the flying industry and cruise ships highlights this concern.

Ultimately, tourists may travel to remote corners of the planet in the name of environmentalism, all while contributing to the very problems they seek to admire. As Fletcher (2011) argues, this “Anthropocene tourism” is a form of capitalism that sustains itself by marketing environmental awareness while perpetuating destructive practices. The stark reality is that thousands of tourists travel to the Arctic and Antarctic each summer by planes, ships, and inflatables, using fossil fuels to marvel at polar environments threatened by climate change—a crisis largely caused by human activities and fossil fuel consumption.

Cruise ship in Antarctica, highlighting the accessibility of this remote region to tourists.

2. Nature Tourism as a Response to Mass Tourism and the Environmental Crisis

Nature tourism emerged as a reaction to the negative impacts of mass tourism and a growing awareness of the environmental crisis. Visiting natural environments is a primary motivation for many travelers, seeking respite from the stresses of urban life.

The roots of nature tourism can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution, when the restorative qualities of nature became increasingly valued. The Romantic Movement further fueled this demand for nature-based travel. Today, nature continues to hold a central place in recreational tourism experiences. For those living and working in congested cities, the vastness of natural spaces offers a sense of liberation. As Christin (2011) observes, “In a world where standardized spaces are multiplying, wild spaces constitute a singular potential for experiences despite, and because of, their marginal character in the face of a daily life where artifice and machines play the beautiful role.”

Recreational activities, including tourism, also play a role in defining social classes. Light (2017) emphasizes that tourism is “an important component of the process of identity-building.” Travel allows individuals to acquire social and cultural capital, which enhances their identity and assertiveness. This acquired capital leads to recognition and distinction, as tourists showcase their experiences. Drawing on Bourdieu’s analysis, Boyer (2010) argues that tourism is built on distinction, reinforced by the selfie culture, where tourists document their experiences and share them on social media. This desire for distinction drives tourists to engage with attractions, seeking to capture and broadcast their presence in unique locations.

The environmental crisis of the 1970s, coupled with the more recent climate change crisis and biodiversity loss, has fueled a desire to visit destinations in crisis. This “last-chance tourism” (see Koens, 2010) is driven by a need to experience destinations before their defining characteristics disappear. Nature-based tourism has been particularly aggressive in “opening” new destinations, often promoting them with words like “unspoiled,” “pristine,” “unique,” and “majestic.” These descriptions present remote natural areas as the antithesis of mass tourism, suggesting a paradise due to their distance from human influence.

Ecotourism has proven successful in emerging economies like Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Kenya, prompting operators to seek even more remote locations, including the Arctic and Antarctic regions. With average cruise costs around $10,000 USD, accessing these “last wildernesses” is an exclusive experience. However, this exclusivity has not prevented cruise-based tourism from flourishing at both ends of the planet.

The prestige of wildlife, often promoted through television documentaries, stimulates tourism demand, making wildlife sanctuaries economic magnets for both operators and countries. The breeding and feeding seasons make many species more easily observable, increasing their vulnerability to tourist activity.

Tourism, especially in natural environments, poses risks to ecosystems. The introduction of external organisms via tourists, their equipment, or their pets can disrupt delicate balances. As Carić (2004) notes, “Concerns over the environmental impact of cruise tourism are based on indications that some companies and host destinations are failing to adequately protect the environment.” Critics are often more concerned with cruise ships due to their ability to easily transfer activities elsewhere when a destination’s environment degrades. However, most operators claim to prioritize the ecosystems they visit. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, paradigms like ecotourism and sustainable tourism have been introduced to encourage managers and tourists to consider their impacts.

Tourists observing penguins in Antarctica, an example of wildlife tourism.

3. From Eco- to Sustainable Tourism: A Shift in Focus

Marketing plays a significant role in promoting consumption, including tourism. However, using a concept to sell a product does not guarantee that the label accurately reflects the product’s characteristics. In the environmental context, ecological claims often lead to greenwashing, where a product or service is presented as environmentally virtuous when it is not. Nature-based tourism became known as ecotourism before eventually being equated with sustainable tourism, often incorrectly.

Ecotourism was initially defined as: “Environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy, study and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features – both past and present), that promotes conservation, has low negative visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations” (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996).

When Hector Ceballos-Lascuráin formulated his concept of ecotourism, natural ecosystems were still relatively unknown to the general public. For most people, nature exploration occurred in nearby green spaces. Since the Romantic Movement, little had changed. Aside from a few adventurers, most citizens were content with a superficial approach to nature. However, the environmental crisis of the 1970s, through television reports and magazines, brought remote ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest to the forefront of discussions. Docutainment entertained while raising awareness of unfamiliar environments. Soon, people wanted to experience these places firsthand.

Nature tourism required minimal infrastructure, aside from trail development. Accommodation did not need to be on-site, as long as transportation was available. Because reaching these remote locations was difficult and expensive, tours needed proper interpretation and guiding, leading to visitor awareness programs associated with ecotourism. This gave rise to the concept of ecotourism as a travel product.

Despite the high prices, ecotourism grew rapidly. It spread across the planet, from the Galapagos Islands to the polar regions. Ecotourism became one of the most important tourism development sectors of the 1990s. However, its flaws gradually became apparent.

Ecological tourism was intended to minimize the ecological footprint on fauna and flora. This required awareness of individual and cumulative impacts. Additionally, ecotourism promoted royalties to host communities. However, the pursuit of economic benefits often undermined these principles.

Ecology and economic benefits do not always align in an economic system based on enrichment. Duffy (2002) notes that commodification is a key process through which nature is reconfigured through tourism, creating economic value from landscapes, animals, and experiences. Nature-based tourism, especially when labeled as “good” or “ecotourism,” has the capacity to transform bodies into sites of limitless capital accumulation by promoting a satisfying experience that often delivers a mere “pseudocatharsis,” stimulating a desire for further experiences. While claiming to protect nature, ecotourism sometimes creates nature lovers who become conquerors. They view nature as a theater for activities that dominate and tame the environment.

This has led some destination managers and tour operators to increase visitor numbers, harming conservation efforts. Product renewal, driven by market demands, led to the inclusion of fossil-fueled vehicles to access wildlife, often resulting in harassment, trampling of flora, and defiling of natural spaces. New activities were added, shifting the focus from nature to performances, often framed as a conquest of nature where visitors test their skills. Ecotourism then mutated into adventure tourism.

In short, while claiming to promote the study of nature, ecotourism became a means to access spectacular ecosystems and admire rare species. By highlighting previously undisturbed sites, ecotourism led to the over-visitation of prized natural areas.

By the late 1990s, the over-visitation of certain sites raised questions about the motivations of “eco” or “ego” tourists. To address these challenges, the concept was reworked. Pursuing too many avenues away from its ecology-centric core led to its dismissal, replaced by the concept of sustainable development.

3.1 Sustainable Tourism: A Balancing Act

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, promoted a new approach to development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). This paradigm focused on raising public awareness about resource limits and promoting the value of intangible resources like ethics and equity. Although the concept’s validity is still debated, it moved the discussion beyond economics to include social, cultural, and ecological well-being. However, the Brundtland report did not provide specific actions for implementation, leading to confusion and the frequent application of “sustainability” solely to environmental conservation.

Building on the popularity of sustainable development, the World Tourism Organization (WTO) transposed it to its field, creating “sustainable tourism,” which “takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities” (WTO, 2004). This definition is accompanied by principles defined in 1995 and updated in 2004.

While the principles are appropriate, the definition presents a contradiction. How can tourism account for its negative impacts and adhere to sustainability principles if operators are simultaneously expected to meet the unlimited needs of beneficiaries, whose desires have caused the damage requiring a rethinking of tourism? This issue has led observers to propose alternative definitions, shifting the focus from individual actors to the relationships between them in the context of respecting a given ecosystem.

Sustainable tourism can be defined as: “A management approach for tourism projects and services that promotes and achieves a balanced stewardship between the development objectives of the destination and its stakeholders and the benefits (social, cultural and economic) for the local community without compromising the integrity of natural ecosystems and the communities that live in or depend on them.”

The discussion around eco- and sustainable tourism reveals that they are meant to be management approaches, not consumption products. A sustainable approach allows for compromise on nature defense and protection to balance human needs in economic development across society, environment, and economy. However, compromise should not invite contradictory actions. The implementation of sustainable development principles is often limited by the fact that “economic growth stimulates environmental degradation” (Stern, 2007).

Solar panels on a hotel in Bora Bora, an example of sustainable tourism practices.

3.2 Transportation and the Fossil-Fuel Issue: A Critical Challenge

CO2 emissions, the primary cause of global warming, largely result from human activity, including tourism (UNEP, 2008). Among the components of tourism (accommodation, restoration, entertainment), transportation is the most polluting, including the transport of supplies, staff, and customers. The fuel consumed to reach a destination often outweighs any conservation efforts made at the destination itself, unless additional actions are taken. When transport becomes the mode of travel, as in cruising, the continuous emissions of fossil fuels raise serious concerns, especially when this “mobile tourism” targets sensitive environments.

Between 2009 and 2013, the tourism sector contributed to 8% of CO2 emissions from human activity, four times more than previously estimated, with transport, shopping, and food being the main contributors (UNWTO, 2015). For tourism to reduce its footprint, it must adopt different strategies, including reducing travel distances and developing low-carbon tourism products (Peeters, 2010). This can be achieved through technological and behavioral changes.

Technological changes include developing more efficient engines and using alternative energies. Efforts to develop low or zero-emission alternative energies for transport are showing promise (IEA, 2021). Reducing packaging is also beneficial for cruise tourism (Hall, 2009). Behavioral changes involve consumer choices in daily activities and lifestyles.

Achieving truly sustainable tourism requires a clear-eyed engagement with the notion of limits, which is often precluded by the current culture of consumerism and pro-growth ideology (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2008). Operators must set limits on the consumption of spaces and the tools used for visits, especially those dependent on fossil fuels. While nature-based tourism should lead the way, especially in sensitive environments like polar ecosystems, the opposite is often observed.

4. Case Study: Sustainability and Ship-Based Polar Tourism

4.1 The Polar Cruise Industry: A Historical Perspective

While traces of early entertainment travel by ship to the Nordic region date back to 1933 (Norway) and 1941 (Canada’s Hudson Bay) (Barr, 1991), polar cruises to the High Arctic and Antarctic are a more recent phenomenon. As a novel and expensive travel product, ship-based polar travel attracts wealthy, well-traveled tourists, primarily elderly Western travelers. Due to the age of the passengers and the limited knowledge of the visited areas, activities were initially limited to onboard interpretation lectures and off-ship excursions by inflatable crafts, cruising among icebergs in search of wildlife. The inflatables also allowed for shore excursions and light hiking under supervision.

Today, with more ships available, the industry has grown from seven operators to over 50, with more locations for shore excursions to avoid overcrowding. While operators have long described their activities as non-invasive, both ship-based and land-based tourism have impacted both polar regions (see Jabour-Green et al., 2008).

In the absence of tourism legislation, seven operators involved in Antarctica created the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) in 1991, a non-profit industry alliance dedicated to safe and responsible private-sector travel to the White Continent (IAATO, 2023). A similar organization, the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise operators (AAECO), supervises cruise operators in the Arctic. Researchers in tourism developed an interest in this specific industry in the early 1990s and helped create the first Code of Visit Conduct, largely used by IAATO. The code addresses distances to keep between tourists and wildlife and behavioral approaches to historical huts and other artifacts. The operators emphasize the protection of resources for continued tourism, without depleting the visited areas of their attractive characteristics.

Given the financial costs and discomfort of long journeys to the polar regions, a love of nature is essential for choosing polar tourism. However, tourists’ love of nature does not automatically translate into a demand for ecological activities. Passive activities requiring gas-powered transport vehicles (Zodiacs, submarines, and helicopters) are often preferred by polar cruise customers, who rarely raise ecological footprint concerns. This presents a key contradiction in polar tourism: promoting the protection of highly sensitive environments, symbols of climate change, while using fossil fuels continuously, including for off-ship excursions by inflatable.

Juvan and Dolnicar (2014, 2016) have documented contradictions in behavior among those who advocate for environmental conservation at home but engage in harmful activities while on holiday. This relates to Jafari’s (1989) concept of “tourist culture,” where tourists abandon common sense and ethics during vacation. Any misconduct is self-justified in the name of pleasure. “Participants do not report changing their behavior,” state Juvan and Dolnicar (2014), but instead offer justifications like “It’s not that bad,” “It could be worse,” and “Vacations are an exception.” Behavioral intentions do not automatically translate into behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Growing demand and limited space means prices are rising, cabins are getting smaller, and customers are more eager to obtain what they believe they have paid for. Competition between operators leads to the search for outstanding locations for visits, with over 200 in Antarctica. With younger and more active customers, product renewal requires not only soft-impact activities but also opportunities for deeper exploration through trekking, kayaking, snorkeling, scuba diving, cross-country skiing, mountain biking, and mountaineering, including ice-wall climbing.

A polar cruise ship, showcasing the means of transport for this type of tourism.

4.2 The Test of Sustainability: Balancing Conservation and Tourism

Operators address conservation on their websites, but their actions are limited by the capabilities of vessels built before environmental concerns were prioritized. While the age of ecotourism in the 1990s focused on minimizing wildlife disturbance through Codes of Conduct, concerns have since expanded to include the ecological footprint, following the principles of sustainable tourism development.

To analyze this, the author examined the “sustainability” webpages of two operators active in both polar regions (Arctic/Antarctic), assessing their vessel and tour management based on key elements and actions arising from their sustainable policy. This list, summarized in Table 1, provides an overview of adopting a sustainable business model.

Table 1. Actions undertaken by 2 polar-cruise operators toward sustainability.

The table reveals that these operators prioritize environmental protection and conservation, using both behavioral and technological solutions.

4.2.1 Technological Solutions: Innovations for Emission Reduction

Technological solutions involve engineering innovations that offer measurable reductions in resource consumption and waste. These require significant investments, especially in ships. For instance, one operator focuses on reducing fossil fuel use.

Operators claim to offset the negative impacts of flying passengers to polar destinations through ecological management on location and sustainable practices for community well-being. However, actions are often limited. For example, air pollution reduction is limited to “low sulfur fuel,” without reducing fossil-fuel consumption through inflatable cruises and helicopter sightseeing. A conventional cruise ship’s daily emission of air pollutants was equivalent to 12,000 automobiles two decades ago (Lloyd’s Register, 2004).

One polar cruise operator’s 2019 environmental report states that emissions decreased by 28% per guest per day from 2010 values (Oceanwide Expeditions, 2019), including ship, Zodiac, and flight fuel consumption. However, the operator recognizes that these calculations do not include guest transportation to embarkation/debarkation points or emissions from fly cruises, Zodiac operations, staff transportation, and office-related emissions.

These results were achieved by removing wrapping from equipment sold to customers, eliminating individually wrapped food items, and eliminating single-use bottles (Oceanwide Expeditions, 2019). The operator places emphasis on a new vessel equipped with lower fuel-consumption engines, expecting the average daily fuel consumption to be approximately half that of older chartered vessels and capable of collecting energy from exhaust air.

Other operators provide less detailed indicators. If nature tourists are not inclined to ask questions, how can operators work toward effective solutions? Wu and Geng (2017) emphasize that air pollution negatively impacts nature tourists and harms the sustainable development of tourism.

4.2.2 Behavioral Solutions: Fostering Awareness and Empathy

Behavioral solutions focus on actions taken by staff and customers to minimize their environmental footprint and increase awareness and empathy towards local communities. This includes initiatives to reduce unnecessary waste. Disposable water bottles are replaced by reusable ones with refilling stations, and soap dispensers replace daily soap distribution. One operator requires suppliers to stop wrapping material aimed at passengers and uses a similar approach to eliminate individual food packaging.

Transforming a conventional profit-seeking activity into a sustainable one requires a fair financial return to the community providing the resources. However, little is said on operators’ webpages about their contribution to the host communities. One operator mentions charity auctions and non-profit community-based projects funded by passengers. Financial data is not released. In 2015, cruise passengers accounted for 16% of visitors to Nunavut, Canada, but contributed only 5% of tourism revenue (Government of Nunavut, 2017). Arctic cruise ship passengers are known for leaving less in communities than other tourists (Saarinen & Roue, 2009). Nunavut Tourism stresses that the average tourist pays $17,000 (CAD) for a cruise, but cruise tickets do not earn a return to the territory like airline tickets. Cruise passengers travel with their own hotels, restaurants, and guides, limiting economic input to souvenirs. In the absence of paying activities during village visits, tourists leave little to help the local economy.

Showing empathy means refraining from abusing the communities’ hospitality, imposing oneself in homes or community buildings, or visiting cemeteries. In wildlife tours, it means accepting not to get close to wildlife and not pressuring guides to do so, avoiding trampling over sites.

The sustainability approaches brought forward by the operators, do not directly refer to tourism management on site during the excursions. Ship-based polar operators are members of the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO) and its Arctic equivalent, the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators (AECO). Both organizations have adopted a code of conduct inspired by those developed in the early 1990s for Antarctic cruises. They address actions to minimize negative tourism impacts such as disturbance to flora and wildlife, and sites of historical values. The Arctic code also promotes respect of indigenous people and their cultures.

However, despite the code of conduct, tourists have negative impacts on the fauna and flora of the sites visited and that indigenous communities have reported cultural conflicts with their guests. Those disturbances are often impossible for tourists to recognize and acknowledge, since they have no way to compare with the situation that prevailed on a site prior to their arrival. The numbers of visits conducted per site are often high. In Antarctica, the Chinstrap penguin colony on Half Moon Island can receive over 20,000 visitors during the short tourism season, equivalent to 222 people/day (IAATO, 2023). While the operators’ efforts to implement codes of conducts must be recognize, the density of the visiting rate casts a shadow on their efforts.

4.2.3 The Promises of New Vessels Coming In

The end of polar cruise operators’ dependence on aging (mostly) Russian vessels is in sight. At least two operators opted to build their own ice-rated vessels, like Linblad did in the late 1960s, with new amenities and up-to-date technological innovations.

Having been made specifically for polar tourism purpose, the new designs address not only safety issues, new facilities, atmosphere, and comfort but also the technological features of these two new vessels will allow reducing their footprint on the environment.

The Hondius uses LED lighting, flexible power management systems, and steam heat to reduce fuel consumption and minimize CO2 emissions (Oceanwide Expeditions, 2023). The Ultramarine features a micro auto gasification system (MAGS) capable of converting onboard waste into energy, eliminating the need for waste transportation (Quark Expeditions, 2023). The Ultramarine also features environmentally-friendly innovations such as dynamic positioning, which eliminates the need to drop anchor in sensitive seabed areas.

Improvements on these vessels are not only technological. Emphasis has also been placed on the comfort of the passengers and the efficiency of the operations, both onboard and off the vessels, such as when conducting excursions. Some of the ships’ decks have been redesigned specifically for off-ship-excursion, offering proper “sheltered zodiac boarding zone, where passengers can board boats to take them to the shore”. Such launching decks do not exist on any other vessels used for polar tourism. These updated decks allow passengers getting off the ship “in less than 20 minutes – which is half the industry average”.

The update covers as well other amenities starting with the inclusion of 2 twin-engine helicopters, designed for sightseeing which “will allow passengers to experience epic aerial perspectives of the Polar Regions and landings only accessible by air” which will render possible new activities never offered before, including heli-hiking and heli-skiing.

The arrival of these new amenities impacts the type of experience offered to passengers. The fact that the exits for the excursions are located on a lower deck of the ship, closer to its waterline with openings on both sides of the deck, not only saves time but also extends the excursion time. Operators also increasingly offer kayak excursions, on demand, a fuel-free activity that helps generate ecological experience and good marketing image, but that overall cannot compensate for the footprint of the tours. One operator also adds helicopters sightseeing and transportation for inland excursions, contradicting its own effort to reduce its environmental footprint.

Far from being a miscalculation, the design of the new Ultramarine vessel, “equipped with two twin-engine helicopters,” operated from two helidecks allow more passengers to simultaneously experience new destinations accessible only by air, and to enjoy more unique aerial perspectives of the polar regions than on any other trip, invites potential clients to the “most robust portfolio of adventure activities in the industry.”

While engineering calculations could demonstrate that the ship’s technological upgrades compensate for the pollutants emitted by the watercrafts fleet and the two helicopters to its environmental balance sheet, the use of helicopters to satisfy entertainment needs contradicts the sustainable efforts put forward by the operator – all of this, at the very heart of polar ecosystems, which embody more than any other, the negative impacts of human activity on the climate.

Many operators stress advocating environmental, human and cultural issues in partnerships with other organizations. Some of these initiatives take the form of “ambassadorship” programmes where former passengers committed to the conservation of the polar environment to take actions in their communities by promoting the cause, in the name of the operator. To which extend the activities of the “ambassadors” work for the environment versus promoting the destinations and the operators remains unclear. But those labels become more and more criticized, as emerges the paradoxes of those claiming to want to save the planet contributing to major greenhouse gas emissions through their last chance tourism.

A new polar vessel, showcasing advancements in technology for sustainable travel.

5. Discussion and Conclusion: Reconciling Tourism and Sustainability

The public’s enthusiasm for nature has grown since the Romantic Movement and in response to industrialization. Technological advances have pushed back nearly every obstacle to the human quest to explore the planet. Every region, except the deepest seas, now sees tourists venturing as far as the polar regions to satisfy their curiosity, reconnect with nature, or simply “because it’s there.” Ecosystems, especially those of the polar regions, are promoted as consumption products through nature-based tourism, including the polar cruise sector.

Criticized for their negative impacts, operators adopted a common Code of Conduct in the early 1990s. Understanding that promoting their products with the controversial concept of ecotourism was not serving their interest, so long as their operations are so deeply dependent on fossil fuel, they opted in the years 2000s for the new fashionable concept of sustainability.

At first a word without roots, operators eventually translated the concept into actions applied both through behavioral and technological changes. The concept of sustainability was therefore a blessing allowing them to redirect their customers’ attention to initiatives that were less spectacular than saving the ecosystems, yet, that are equally important and more accessible like reducing water consumption and that of other resources – electricity, food, plastics, paper, etc.

A major part of the actions required to “save the environment” shifted from the tourists’ responsibilities to that of the operators since apart from supplies, the most important efforts to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the cruises are almost exclusively linked to the performance of the ships and the transport back and forth of crew and passengers from home to the vessel and destination. The arrival of new vessels, up-dated to nowadays environmental norms in terms of energy efficiency, is therefore welcomed. The major investments made by at least two operators in this direction are commendable. They bear witness to the genuine ambitions of these companies to reduce their ecological footprints. It is therefore surprising to see them enlarging the range of activities offered during the cruise to include helicopter transfer and sightseeing between the ship and the locations visited, allowing tourists to penetrate even deeper into the pristine environment they claim to want to protect.

Prior to mobility technology, the experience of nature required “psycho-corporal engagement, based on the combined movement of body and mind”, closer to the original pursue of ecological tourism. However, this engagement is dissipating as tour operators interpose technological gadgets between nature and the tourists – encouraging the conquest of nature rather than a harmonious experience with it, in contradiction with sustainability.

Yet the discourse in favor of concern for the environment and fragile human populations still clashes with the actions of consumers who claim the right to travel, to discovery – perhaps – but above all to self-affirmation. “Conventional wisdom of current societies sees consumption as an expression of individuality and freedom”, stresses Higgins-Desbiolles. As Klein points out, “it is easy to think about sustainability in terms of shipboard operations, but¸when considering the interaction of cruise tourism with local communities [and the ecosystems] the concept of responsible tourism may be more useful”. On this level, “progress in transitioning from concepts and principles to pan-industry practice is limited”.

The commissioning of new and more environmental friendly vessels, to reduce the industry’s footprint and other negative impacts on the environment, is commendable. On the other hand, the promotion of activities that are not always putting nature in the foreground but rather in the background raises a red flag. Williams and Ponsford share the pessimistic view that “current business and destination level environmental initiatives generally fail to address tourism-induced contributions to broader global climatic and environmental changes. This is ironic and shortsighted given that the threat of global climate change is considerable for all of tourism’s stakeholders”. Nature-tourism can be an indispensable tool to provide people with an opportunity for rejuvenation through a contact with the living environment – the biophilia theory. Yet, when the activities offered to polar tourists include opportunities to challenge nature by encouraging performances of conquest of nature, one cannot help but wonder if all the efforts put into making the logistics of getting people to the far end of the world to place them on a more ecological boat yet again to use more fossil-fuel dependent vehicles to cruise and fly around, for the fun of it, will have been in vain.

Because in the end, having the most sustainable entrepreneurship, and the most environmental-friendly vessels, will mean nothing if the reduction of the footprint of the technology is only use to compensate an increase in nature-consuming and other abusive tourism practices. As the principles of ecotourism were repeatedly abused 3 decades ago until the concept became a caricature of itself, sustainable tourism now faces the same threat. A glance at the direction some tour operators are taking with highly technology-dependent and motor vehicle-dependent call products bears witness to this.

Two schools of thoughts continue to challenge the future of nature-based tourism: nature as a foreground for boosting one’s egocentricity for distinction and self esteem, versus a more care-taking approach where nature is preserved for the rejuvenation of the soul.

Ready to explore Vietnam sustainably? Contact SIXT.VN today for eco-friendly travel options, including:

• Consultations for personalized itineraries
• Airport transfer
• Hotel bookings
• Hanoi tours

SIXT.VN offers convenient and reliable services to ensure your travel experience is both enjoyable and responsible.

Address: 260 Cau Giay, Hanoi, Vietnam
Hotline/WhatsApp: +84 986 244 358
Website: SIXT.VN

FAQ: Contradictions in Arctic and Antarctic Tourism

1. What are the main contradictions in Arctic and Antarctic tourism?
   The main contradiction is the tension between the desire to experience these fragile environments and the impact of that experience on the environment itself.

2. How does transportation contribute to the contradictions of polar tourism?
   Transportation, especially by fossil-fuel-powered ships and aircraft, is a major source of pollution in these remote regions, contributing to the climate change that threatens the polar environments.

3. What is “last-chance tourism” and how does it relate to the contradictions?
   “Last-chance tourism” is the desire to visit destinations before they disappear due to climate change. This urgency paradoxically increases the environmental impact through increased travel.

4. What is greenwashing and how does it apply to polar tourism?
   Greenwashing is when companies market themselves as environmentally responsible without making significant changes to their practices. In polar tourism, this can involve promoting sustainability while continuing to use fossil fuels.

5. How do the new, more sustainable polar vessels address the contradictions?
   New vessels with advanced technology aim to reduce fuel consumption and waste, but the addition of amenities like helicopters can undermine these efforts.

6. What is the role of IAATO and AECO in addressing the contradictions?
   IAATO and AECO are organizations that set codes of conduct for tour operators, aiming to minimize negative impacts on the environment and local communities.

7. How can tourists minimize their impact on polar environments?
   Tourists can choose eco-friendly tour operators, participate in responsible activities, respect wildlife, and reduce their consumption of resources.

8. What are the economic impacts of cruise tourism on Arctic communities?
   While cruise tourism can generate revenue, it often leaves less money in local communities compared to other types of tourism.

9. What is the importance of balancing sustainability with the desire for unique experiences in polar tourism?
   Finding a balance between protecting fragile environments and offering unique experiences is crucial for ensuring the long-term viability of polar tourism.

10. How can SIXT.VN help travelers make more sustainable choices when planning a trip to Vietnam?
    SIXT.VN offers personalized travel consultations, eco-friendly tour options, and reliable services to ensure a responsible and enjoyable travel experience in Vietnam.

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
• Barr, W. (19