Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:11:48.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Zodiac landings by tourist ships in the Antarctic Peninsula region, 1989–99

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Ron Naveen ,
Steven C. Forrest ,
Rosemary G. Dagit ,
Louise K. Blight ,
Wayne Z. Trivelpiece  and
Susan G. Trivelpiece
Ron Naveen
Affiliation:
Oceanites Inc, PO Box 15259, Chevy Chase, MD 20825, USA
Steven C. Forrest
Affiliation:
9443 Cottonwood Road, Bozeman, MT 59718, USA
Rosemary G. Dagit
Affiliation:
PO Box 1454, Topanga, CA 90290, USA
Louise K. Blight
Affiliation:
Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
Wayne Z. Trivelpiece
Affiliation:
Southwest Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, PO Box 271, La Jolla, CA 92038, USA
Susan G. Trivelpiece
Affiliation:
Southwest Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, PO Box 271, La Jolla, CA 92038, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the location, intensity, and frequency of zodiac landings by passengers on tourist ships in the Antarctic Peninsula region during 10 seasons, 1989/90 through 1998/99. In this period, the number of passengers increased 307%, from 2460 to 10,013. Zodiac landings have occurred at 165 Peninsula region sites, concentrating in the South Shetland Islands and the northwestern part of the Peninsula. From 1989/90 to 1998/99, the number of zodiac landings in the Peninsula region increased 423%, from 164 to 858. The most visited sites are identified, as are sites experiencing increases in the second half of this 10-year period. The 10 and 20 sites experiencing the most zodiac landings each season consistently account for approximately 55% and 75% of that season's landings, respectively. Based on 1998/99 data, sites with high or medium species diversity or with high or moderate sensitivity to potential environmental disturbance account for a significant percentage of landings. Recommendations are presented for improving the assessment of potential environmental impacts at zodiac landing sites, and for improved methods of reporting site visits by the tour operators involved.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 37 , Issue 201 , April 2001 , pp. 121 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

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

Abbott, S., and Benninghoff, W.S.. 1990. Orientation of environmental change studies to the conservation of Antarctic ecosystems. In: Kerry, K.R., and Hempel, G.. Antarctic ecosystems: ecological change and conservation. New York: Springer-Verlag: 394–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ATCPs. 1994. Final report of the Eighteenth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Kyoto, 11–22 April 1994. Kyoto: Government of Japan.Google Scholar
Benninghoff, W.S., and Bonner, W.N.. 1985. Man's impact on the Antarctic environment: a procedure for evaluating impacts and logistic activities. Cambridge: Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.Google Scholar
Emslie, S. 1997. Natural and human-induced impacts to seabird productivity and conservation in Antarctica: a review and perspectives. In: De Poorter, M., and Dalziell, J.C. (editors). Cumulative impacts in Antarctica: minimisation and management. Washington, DC: The World Conservation Union: 32–41.Google Scholar
IAATO. 1991. Bylaws of the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators. IAATO: www.iaato.orgGoogle Scholar
NSF. 1990–1999. Compilations of seasonal Antarctic tourism data. Unpublished documents from annual meetings of Antarctic Tour Operators. Washington, DC, and Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs.Google Scholar
Naveen, R. 1996. Human activity and disturbance: building an Antarctic site inventory. In: Ross, R., Hofman, E., and Quetin, L. (editors). Foundations for ecosystem research in the western Antarctic Peninsula region. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union: 389–400.Google Scholar
Naveen, R. 1997a. Compendium of Antarctic Peninsula visitor sites: a report to the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom. Washington, DC: US Department of State; London: UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.Google Scholar
Naveen, R. 1997b. The Oceanites site guide to the Antarctic Peninsula. Chevy Chase, MD: Oceanites.Google Scholar
Naveen, R., Forrest, S.C., Dagit, R.G., Blight, L.K., Trivelpiece, W.Z., and Trivelpiece, S.G.. 2000. Censuses of penguin, blue-eyed shag, and southern giant petrel populations in the Antarctic Peninsula region, 1994–2000. Polar Record 36 (199): 323–334.Google Scholar
Rubin, J. 1996. Antarctica: a Lonely Planet travel survival kit. Hawthorn, Australia: Lonely Planet Publications.Google Scholar
Trivelpiece, W.Z. 1991. Impacts of tourism on animal populations in the Antarctic Peninsula region. Unpublished synopsis prepared for the Antarctic Tour Operators meeting at the US National Science Foundation, 10 July 1991.Google Scholar