**4.1 The polar cruise industry: then and now**

Although traces of early entertainment travel (tourism) by ship to Nordic region dates back to 1933 (Norway) and 1941 (Canada's Hudson Bay) [31], polar cruises to the High Arctic and Antarctic is a much recent phenomenon. As a novelty – and highly expensive – travel product, ship-based polar travel attracts wealthy and welltraveled tourists: elderly (over 70 years old) western travelers, mostly. Due to the age of the passengers, and the lack of knowledge of the visited areas by operators and their crews, activities, once at the destination, were long limited to interpretation lectures on board, and a few off ship excursions by inflatable crafts, cruising among small bergs in the hope for wildlife sightings. The inflatibles also made possible shore excursion for travelers to set foot on these rarely if ever explored surroundings through light hiking, under guided supervision. That was then.

With more ships available today, the industry quickly grew from the original seven operators to over 50, with more locations for shore excursions to avoid overcrowding (**Figure 4**). Long-time described by operators as non-invasive because "soft", both ship-based and land-based tourisms did impact on both polar regions (see for summary [32]).

In the absence of legislation regarding tourism, seven operators involved in Antarctica created in 1991 the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO), "a global, non-profit industry alliance dedicated to safe and responsible private-sector travel to the White Continent" [33]. A similar organization – the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise operators (AAECO) supervises cruise operators in the Arctic. In parallel, researchers in tourism develop an interest for this specific industry in the early 1990s and help create the first Code of visit

#### **Figure 4.**

*Two vessels – The Russian Akaemik Ioffe, and the Estonian Lovonia, cross path for a common landing in Antarctica (austral summer 1993–1994). Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

**29**

**Figure 5.**

*Alain A. Grenier.*

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism…*

conduct, largely used by IAATO. The code addresses distances to keep between tourists and wildlife as well as behavioral approach to historical huts and other artifacts. The operators make it clear that the protection of the resources upon which they graze, must be protected for tourism to continue, without depleting the visited areas from the characteristics that make them attractive for visitors. Considering the financial costs and the discomfort of very long journeys to reach the polar regions, the love of nature is a *sine qua non* to the choice of polar tourism for one's vacations. However, the tourists' love of nature does not automatically translate into a demand for ecological activities from their operators. On the contrary, passive activities requiring gas-powered transport vehicles (Zodiacs, submarines and helicopters – see **Figure 1**) are the favorites of a majority of polar cruises customers who never raise the issue of the ecological footprint during exchanges, except to justify it. This is where polar tourism faces its main contradiction: being dedicated to a commercial activity – tourism – while at the same time promoting the protection of highly sensitive environment, symbols of the climate change crisis, by using fossil-fuel 24/day,

including for off-ships excusions by inflatible (**Figures 5** and **6**).

Juvan and Dolnicar [34, 35] have documented the contradictions in behavior from those who self declare to be advocate of environmental conservation, at home, and engage in harmful activities for nature, while on holidays. The explanation brings us back to Jafari's [36] concept of "tourist culture" to the effect that during the vacation period, tourists, in a state of intellectual weightlessness, abandon almost all the rules of common sense, or even ethics, in the name of the right to pleasures so boldly deserved and paid for – the holidaymakers believe. Consequently, any misconduct is self-justified in the name of the exception. "Participants [do] not report changing their behaviour", state Juvan and Dolnicar ([34]: 76) about the environmental activists studied during a tourism holiday. "[I] nstead, they offered a wide range of explanations justifying their tourist activities"

*The operations of refueling inflatable boats with oil are done away from the gaze of tourists, on the stern lower deck. Nature lovers, despite their ecological values, close their eyes once they reach their destination. Source:* 

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

#### *From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

conduct, largely used by IAATO. The code addresses distances to keep between tourists and wildlife as well as behavioral approach to historical huts and other artifacts. The operators make it clear that the protection of the resources upon which they graze, must be protected for tourism to continue, without depleting the visited areas from the characteristics that make them attractive for visitors. Considering the financial costs and the discomfort of very long journeys to reach the polar regions, the love of nature is a *sine qua non* to the choice of polar tourism for one's vacations. However, the tourists' love of nature does not automatically translate into a demand for ecological activities from their operators. On the contrary, passive activities requiring gas-powered transport vehicles (Zodiacs, submarines and helicopters – see **Figure 1**) are the favorites of a majority of polar cruises customers who never raise the issue of the ecological footprint during exchanges, except to justify it. This is where polar tourism faces its main contradiction: being dedicated to a commercial activity – tourism – while at the same time promoting the protection of highly sensitive environment, symbols of the climate change crisis, by using fossil-fuel 24/day, including for off-ships excusions by inflatible (**Figures 5** and **6**).

Juvan and Dolnicar [34, 35] have documented the contradictions in behavior from those who self declare to be advocate of environmental conservation, at home, and engage in harmful activities for nature, while on holidays. The explanation brings us back to Jafari's [36] concept of "tourist culture" to the effect that during the vacation period, tourists, in a state of intellectual weightlessness, abandon almost all the rules of common sense, or even ethics, in the name of the right to pleasures so boldly deserved and paid for – the holidaymakers believe. Consequently, any misconduct is self-justified in the name of the exception. "Participants [do] not report changing their behaviour", state Juvan and Dolnicar ([34]: 76) about the environmental activists studied during a tourism holiday. "[I] nstead, they offered a wide range of explanations justifying their tourist activities"

#### **Figure 5.**

*The operations of refueling inflatable boats with oil are done away from the gaze of tourists, on the stern lower deck. Nature lovers, despite their ecological values, close their eyes once they reach their destination. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

*Tourism*

**4. Case study: sustainability and ship-based polar tourism**

Although traces of early entertainment travel (tourism) by ship to Nordic region dates back to 1933 (Norway) and 1941 (Canada's Hudson Bay) [31], polar cruises to the High Arctic and Antarctic is a much recent phenomenon. As a novelty – and highly expensive – travel product, ship-based polar travel attracts wealthy and welltraveled tourists: elderly (over 70 years old) western travelers, mostly. Due to the age of the passengers, and the lack of knowledge of the visited areas by operators and their crews, activities, once at the destination, were long limited to interpretation lectures on board, and a few off ship excursions by inflatable crafts, cruising among small bergs in the hope for wildlife sightings. The inflatibles also made possible shore excursion for travelers to set foot on these rarely if ever explored surroundings through light hiking, under guided supervision. That was then. With more ships available today, the industry quickly grew from the original seven operators to over 50, with more locations for shore excursions to avoid overcrowding (**Figure 4**). Long-time described by operators as non-invasive because "soft", both ship-based and land-based tourisms did impact on both polar regions

In the absence of legislation regarding tourism, seven operators involved in Antarctica created in 1991 the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO), "a global, non-profit industry alliance dedicated to safe and responsible private-sector travel to the White Continent" [33]. A similar organization – the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise operators (AAECO) supervises cruise operators in the Arctic. In parallel, researchers in tourism develop an interest for this specific industry in the early 1990s and help create the first Code of visit

*Two vessels – The Russian Akaemik Ioffe, and the Estonian Lovonia, cross path for a common landing in* 

*Antarctica (austral summer 1993–1994). Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

**4.1 The polar cruise industry: then and now**

(see for summary [32]).

**28**

**Figure 4.**

#### **Figure 6.**

*Nature-based tourists using fossil-fuel watercrafts to explore fast-melting Arctic glaciers, due to climate change fossil-fuel emissions. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

starting with "It's not that bad", "It could be worse", "Not my responsibility", "Vacations are an exception", "I am doing more good than bad" (Juvan and Dolnicar ([34]: 86). "I've been a good citizen, now I deserve some pleasure", would justify in their subconscious, the superegos of the tourists. The fact is that behavioral intentions (see the theory of planned behavior – [37]) do not automatically translate into behavior ([34]: 77). The problem is far from getting better.

A growing demand and limited amount of places and vessels means prices constantly going up, cabins getting smaller and more crowded, making polar travel even more exclusive and therefore customers more eager to obtain what they believed they have paid for. Competitions between operators lead to the search for the most outstanding locations for visits – well over 200 in Antarctica. With younger and more active customers, product renewal requires in addition to conventional soft impact activities such as walk ashore and nature photography opportunities for deeper exploration into the sites through trekking, kayaking snorkeling, kayaking, paddleboading, scuba diving, cross-country skiing, mountain biking and mountaineering including ice-wall climbing.

#### **4.2 The test of sustainability**

Operators address the issue of conservation in their WebPages, for their customer to see. Yet, their actions remain limited, dictated by the limitations imposed by the vessels built at a time when environmental concerns were not on the agenda of the day. While in the age of ecotourism in the 1990s, the operators' actions were solely oriented toward minimizing disturbance of wildlife through their Code of Conduct, concerns have been up-dated to include among other the ecological footprint according to the principles of sustainable tourism development.

For the purpose of this qualitative study, the author chose to analyze the webpage content associated with "sustainability" of two operators active in both polar regions (Arctic/Antarctic) to see how they address the management of their vessels and tours, on the basis of the main elements. From their main objectives, actions that arise from their sustainable policy (summarized in **Table 1**). It should

**31**

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism…*

• Environmental policy

Waste and pollution

objects)

• noise pollution

initiatives

Equity and ethics

(Financial) Support

Fuel

• regarding travel equipment and passengers'

• regarding supplies and partners' actions (policies)

• Investment in technology to use of low sulfur fuel

• Initiatives to reduce waste ahead of consumption (by reducing material and selecting multiple-use

• Waste collection and triage for recycling • Investment in technology to help vessel(s):

• for environmental research/conservation

• Promoting inclusivity and equity with labour

• Hires local people (artists –storytellers, musicians, elders) for talks and cultural performances

• Advocates equity and ethics with partners (stresses promoting changes with partners and suppliers'

• Financial support to communities initiatives

(training, working conditions)

• Invests in training local staff

policies and operations)

Support to communities

• Promotes local (indigenous) cultures

• reduce their carbon emissions

behaviors on board the vessels

**Operator A Operator B**

• regarding travel equipment and passengers' behaviors on board

• More efficient use of charter planes and vessels to provide occasional transport for cargo to villages (when possible)

• Waste collection and triage for

Society Employment

• Promotes local (indigenous)

• Hires local people (artists –storytellers, musicians, elders) for talks and cultural performances • Advocates equity and ethics with partners (stresses promoting changes with partners and suppliers' policies and

Waste and pollution

(Financial) Support • for environmental research/ conservation initiatives

Equity and ethics

cultures

operations)

Support to communities • Provides occasional transportation for locals between villages

• Financial support to communities and youth initiatives

• Stresses diversity in customers (no age discrimination)

• operates in compliance with governmental special hygiene measures (COVID-19) (both on the ship and for community

• air regeneration onboard

(when possible)

Customer care:

• Health:

visits)

recycling

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

the vessels

Environment • Environmental policy

Fuel

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*


*Tourism*

**Figure 6.**

starting with "It's not that bad", "It could be worse", "Not my responsibility",

behavior ([34]: 77). The problem is far from getting better.

mountaineering including ice-wall climbing.

**4.2 The test of sustainability**

*fossil-fuel emissions. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

"Vacations are an exception", "I am doing more good than bad" (Juvan and Dolnicar ([34]: 86). "I've been a good citizen, now I deserve some pleasure", would justify in their subconscious, the superegos of the tourists. The fact is that behavioral intentions (see the theory of planned behavior – [37]) do not automatically translate into

*Nature-based tourists using fossil-fuel watercrafts to explore fast-melting Arctic glaciers, due to climate change* 

A growing demand and limited amount of places and vessels means prices constantly going up, cabins getting smaller and more crowded, making polar travel even more exclusive and therefore customers more eager to obtain what they believed they have paid for. Competitions between operators lead to the search for the most outstanding locations for visits – well over 200 in Antarctica. With younger and more active customers, product renewal requires in addition to conventional soft impact activities such as walk ashore and nature photography opportunities for deeper exploration into the sites through trekking, kayaking snorkeling, kayaking, paddleboading, scuba diving, cross-country skiing, mountain biking and

Operators address the issue of conservation in their WebPages, for their customer to see. Yet, their actions remain limited, dictated by the limitations imposed by the vessels built at a time when environmental concerns were not on the agenda of the day. While in the age of ecotourism in the 1990s, the operators' actions were solely oriented toward minimizing disturbance of wildlife through their Code of Conduct, concerns have been up-dated to include among other the ecological footprint according to the principles of sustainable tourism development. For the purpose of this qualitative study, the author chose to analyze the webpage content associated with "sustainability" of two operators active in both polar regions (Arctic/Antarctic) to see how they address the management of their vessels and tours, on the basis of the main elements. From their main objectives, actions that arise from their sustainable policy (summarized in **Table 1**). It should

**30**


#### **Table 1.**

*Actions undertaken by 2 polar-cruise operators toward sustainability.*

be stressed that this list is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. It is only intended to provide an overview of the implications of adopting a sustainable business model for any company.

What the table reveals is that these two operators, well aware of the three dimensions of sustainable development/tourism, put forward the importance of the responsibility they feel toward the protection and conservation of the environment (the words "conservation" and "preservation" are usually used as synonyms in the industry's literature, although they meanings imply different management philosophies and practices). The means put forward to meet the sustainability include, as seen earlier, behavioral and technological solutions.

## *4.2.1 Technological solutions*

Technological solutions are brought in by engineering innovations. They offer quantitative data to measure at the source of the reduction of resource consumption (fuel, for instance) or waste discarded. Technological solutions require major investments in the infrastructures and equipment used in tourism, starting with the ships themselves – hence, the reduction of fossil fuel, which is addressed by only one polar cruise operators.

Operators claim to work toward offsetting the negative impacts from flying passengers across the world to reach the polar destinations through the ecological management on location. They also stress adopting sustainable practices toward the wellbeing of the communities they visit. But beyond those principles, actions are limited. For instance, the means deployed to reduce air pollution are limited to "low sulfur fuel" – without mention of reducing fossil-fuel consumption through activities such as inflatable (Zodiac) cruises and helicopter sightseeing or transport for heli-skiing. A conventional cruiseship's daily emission of air pollutant was already that of 12 000 automobiles, two decades ago ([38]: 1, quoted in [39]) (**Figure 7**).

One polar cruise operators produced an environmental report in 2019, available to the public on from its webpage. It states that "an analysis of our historical fuel consumption data shows that we've decreased emissions from our vessels by 28 % per guest per day from 2010 values ([41]: 27). The emissions "include ship, zodiac

**33**

**Figure 7.**

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism…*

and flight fuel consumption" ([41]: 27). The operator does recognize that their calculation of fuel-related carbon emissions for their activities do not include "guest transportation to embarkation/debarkation points" and "emissions generated from fly cruises, Zodiac operations, staff transportation, and office-related emissions,

*Conventional cruiseship's daily emissions of air pollutant compare to that of tens of thousand of cars. Although 80% of polar vessels use lighter fuels ([40]: 341), their ecological impact is arguably even worst, considering the* 

Those results were obtain through actions such as removing wrapping from equipment sold to customers (such as parkas), the elimination of individually wrapped food (such as yogurt containers) and the elimination of single-use bottles ([41]: 38). The operator puts much hope (and emphasis) on a new vessel equipped with lower fuel-consumption engines coming into service. "We expect the average daily fuel consumption to be approximately half the consumption of our older chartered vessels of similar size", stated the operator ([41]: 36). The new vessel is able to collect "energy from the exhaust air to reduce energy demand for maintain-

Other oeprators do not provide more detailed indicators than the adjective "low" to show the actions they take. Yet, if nature-tourists are not inclined to ask – based on Juvan and Dolnicar's ([34]: 86) findings –, how can operators work toward effective solutions? Wu and Geng ([42]: 6–7) underline in their study that the negative effects of air pollution "adds an even heavier environmental burden [on the nature tourists] (by decreasing tourists' pro-environmental behavior), which in turn,

Behavioral solution focuses on actions that can be taken by staff and customers to minimize their footprint on the environment, and increase awareness and empathy toward the members of the communities they visit. This includes all initiatives taken by the operator and their staff to help their customers reduce and avoid the production of unnecessary waste. Disposable water bottles are increasingly being replaced by reusable ones with refilling stations (a challenge since tap water on these vessels in usually not suited for human consumption). Daily distribution of

which we recognize are not insignificant" ([41]: 27).

*sensitivity of polar ecosystems in the climate change crises. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

ing a comfortable environment" onboard ([41]: 36).

harms the sustainable development of tourism".

*4.2.2 Behavioral solutions*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

#### **Figure 7.**

*Tourism*

Economy Chain of supplies

for any company.

**Table 1.**

*4.2.1 Technological solutions*

one polar cruise operators.

be stressed that this list is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. It is only intended to provide an overview of the implications of adopting a sustainable business model

(Financial) Support

data

Advocacy

• To science: offers logistics to researchers to collect

• Partnership with a variety of organizations

**Operator A Operator B**

• Favors sustainable growth while advocating equity and ethics

• Provides occasional transport for cargo to villages (when

• To science: offers logistics to researchers to collect data

• Partnership with a variety of

*Actions undertaken by 2 polar-cruise operators toward sustainability.*

with partners

possible) (Financial) Support

Advocacy

organizations

*Source: Author's compilation from 2 operator's websites.*

What the table reveals is that these two operators, well aware of the three dimensions of sustainable development/tourism, put forward the importance of the responsibility they feel toward the protection and conservation of the environment (the words "conservation" and "preservation" are usually used as synonyms in the industry's literature, although they meanings imply different management philosophies and practices). The means put forward to meet the sustainability include, as

Technological solutions are brought in by engineering innovations. They offer quantitative data to measure at the source of the reduction of resource consumption (fuel, for instance) or waste discarded. Technological solutions require major investments in the infrastructures and equipment used in tourism, starting with the ships themselves – hence, the reduction of fossil fuel, which is addressed by only

Operators claim to work toward offsetting the negative impacts from flying passengers across the world to reach the polar destinations through the ecological management on location. They also stress adopting sustainable practices toward the wellbeing of the communities they visit. But beyond those principles, actions are limited. For instance, the means deployed to reduce air pollution are limited to "low sulfur fuel" – without mention of reducing fossil-fuel consumption through activities such as inflatable (Zodiac) cruises and helicopter sightseeing or transport for heli-skiing. A conventional cruiseship's daily emission of air pollutant was already that of 12 000 automobiles, two decades ago ([38]: 1, quoted in [39])

One polar cruise operators produced an environmental report in 2019, available to the public on from its webpage. It states that "an analysis of our historical fuel consumption data shows that we've decreased emissions from our vessels by 28 % per guest per day from 2010 values ([41]: 27). The emissions "include ship, zodiac

seen earlier, behavioral and technological solutions.

**32**

(**Figure 7**).

*Conventional cruiseship's daily emissions of air pollutant compare to that of tens of thousand of cars. Although 80% of polar vessels use lighter fuels ([40]: 341), their ecological impact is arguably even worst, considering the sensitivity of polar ecosystems in the climate change crises. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

and flight fuel consumption" ([41]: 27). The operator does recognize that their calculation of fuel-related carbon emissions for their activities do not include "guest transportation to embarkation/debarkation points" and "emissions generated from fly cruises, Zodiac operations, staff transportation, and office-related emissions, which we recognize are not insignificant" ([41]: 27).

Those results were obtain through actions such as removing wrapping from equipment sold to customers (such as parkas), the elimination of individually wrapped food (such as yogurt containers) and the elimination of single-use bottles ([41]: 38). The operator puts much hope (and emphasis) on a new vessel equipped with lower fuel-consumption engines coming into service. "We expect the average daily fuel consumption to be approximately half the consumption of our older chartered vessels of similar size", stated the operator ([41]: 36). The new vessel is able to collect "energy from the exhaust air to reduce energy demand for maintaining a comfortable environment" onboard ([41]: 36).

Other oeprators do not provide more detailed indicators than the adjective "low" to show the actions they take. Yet, if nature-tourists are not inclined to ask – based on Juvan and Dolnicar's ([34]: 86) findings –, how can operators work toward effective solutions? Wu and Geng ([42]: 6–7) underline in their study that the negative effects of air pollution "adds an even heavier environmental burden [on the nature tourists] (by decreasing tourists' pro-environmental behavior), which in turn, harms the sustainable development of tourism".

#### *4.2.2 Behavioral solutions*

Behavioral solution focuses on actions that can be taken by staff and customers to minimize their footprint on the environment, and increase awareness and empathy toward the members of the communities they visit. This includes all initiatives taken by the operator and their staff to help their customers reduce and avoid the production of unnecessary waste. Disposable water bottles are increasingly being replaced by reusable ones with refilling stations (a challenge since tap water on these vessels in usually not suited for human consumption). Daily distribution of

soap is also being replaced by soap dispensers in bathrooms, refueled on need by the staff – eliminating again plastic bottles. One operator requires suppliers to stop wrapping individually material aimed at the passenger. A similar approach is used to eliminate individual packaging for food items mainly used for breakfast (jams, honey, etc.) and seasonings.

In regards to the economy, the transformation of a conventional profit-seeking activity into a sustainable one requires among other things, a fair financial return from the entrepreneur to the community upon which it grazes resources from. Here, little if anything is said on the operators' webpages about their contribution to the host communities. One operator refers in its sustainability report to charity auctions held during the cruises and different non-profit community-based project where the money obtained from their passengers might be directed. Operators will not release financial data as to contributions coming either from them or their customers to this effect. One must therefore rely on other sources. In 2015, for instance, cruise passengers accounted for 16% of the total number of visitors to Nunavut, in Arctic Canada, an increase of 46% since 2011 ([43]: 10). Yet cruise tourists left only 5% of the \$38 million (CAD) in tourism revenues ([43]: 10). Arctic cruise ship passengers have a reputation for leaving less in communities than other types of tourists ([44]: 18). Nunavut Tourism ([44]: 18) stressed that the average tourist pays \$17,000 (CAD) for a cruise. Yet, cruise tickets do not earn a return to the territory visited, unlike airline tickets, since Inuit are the main shareholders of the two major airlines serving their territory. Considering that cruise passengers travel with their own hotels and restaurants (their ship) and their own guides, the souvenirs visitors may purchase are all that is left in terms of economical input to the communities, during the excursions. In the absence of paying activities during village visits, tourists leave little behind to help the local economy.

Of the ship, in addition to the interest toward local cultures, showing empathy by refraining abusing the communities' hospitality (imposing oneself in homes or community buildings, in peoples' yard, visiting cemeteries and other sacred sites). In wildlife tours, it also means accepting not to get close to wildlife, and not pressuring guides and inflatable drivers to do so, not to trample all over the location simply because it is temporarily made available– all actions that are easier said than done (**Figure 8**).

**35**

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism…*

The sustainability approaches brought foreword by the operators, do not directly refer to tourism management on site during the excursions. Ship-based polar operators are all 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 for their members, inspired by those develop in the early 1990s for Antarctic cruises [45]. They address actions to take to minimize negative tourism impacts such as disturbance to flora and wildlife, and sites of historical values. The Arctic code also

Already, in spite of the code of conduct, we know that tourists have negative impacts on the fauna and flora of the sites visited and that indigenous communities have reported cultural conflicts with their guests. Yet, 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, a situation this author observed many times at both ends. Considering that the most lasting impacts are the result of their addition, the numbers of visits conducted per site (see IAATO's online pages) are sticking. In Antarctica, for instance, the Chinstrap penguin colony located on the beach and lower cliff of Half Moon Island can receive over 20 000 visitors during the short 3-months tourism season – equivalent to 222 people/day [46], with an average of 2 hours/visit. Hence, while the efforts of the operators to implement codes of conducts must be recognize, the density of the

The end of the polar cruise operators' dependence on (mostly) Russian vessels, aging, is in sight. At least two operators opted to build their own ice-rated vessels – the USD 85 million *m/v Hondius* (2019) and the 106 million Euros *Ultramarine* [47] – the way Linblad had done it in the late 1960s, with new amenities and up-to-date

Having been made specifically for polar tourism purpose, both vessels' new designs address not only the scope of safety issues, new facilities, atmosphere, and comfort they offer their passengers, including up-dated facilities for tourism which the previous Russian research vessels did not have. But equally – if not even more – important, the technological features of these two new vessels will allow reducing

While the *Hondius* "uses LED lighting, flexible power management systems, and steam heat in order to reduce fuel consumption and minimise CO2 emissions" [48], the *Ultramarine* features "a micro auto gasification system (MAGS) which is capable of converting onboard waste into energy, eliminating the need for transportation of waste" [49]. In addition for the *Ultramarine*, "environmentallyfriendly innovations such as dynamic positioning, […] will eliminate the need to drop anchor in sensitive seabed areas" which will enable to "minimize the ship's environmental footprint to an extend previously unseen for a vessel of this size",

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" [48]. 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", states one operator [50].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

visiting rate casts a shadow on their efforts.

their foot print on the environment [48, 49].

technological innovations.

states its operator [50, 51].

*4.2.3 The promises of new up-dated vessels coming in*

promotes respect of indigenous people and their cultures.

**Figure 8.** *Polar tourists stepping unsupervised on artefacs. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

#### *From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

The sustainability approaches brought foreword by the operators, do not directly refer to tourism management on site during the excursions. Ship-based polar operators are all 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 for their members, inspired by those develop in the early 1990s for Antarctic cruises [45]. They address actions to take 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.

Already, in spite of the code of conduct, we know that tourists have negative impacts on the fauna and flora of the sites visited and that indigenous communities have reported cultural conflicts with their guests. Yet, 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, a situation this author observed many times at both ends. Considering that the most lasting impacts are the result of their addition, the numbers of visits conducted per site (see IAATO's online pages) are sticking. In Antarctica, for instance, the Chinstrap penguin colony located on the beach and lower cliff of Half Moon Island can receive over 20 000 visitors during the short 3-months tourism season – equivalent to 222 people/day [46], with an average of 2 hours/visit. Hence, while the efforts of the operators 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 up-dated vessels coming in*

The end of the polar cruise operators' dependence on (mostly) Russian vessels, aging, is in sight. At least two operators opted to build their own ice-rated vessels – the USD 85 million *m/v Hondius* (2019) and the 106 million Euros *Ultramarine* [47] – the way Linblad had done it in the late 1960s, with new amenities and up-to-date technological innovations.

Having been made specifically for polar tourism purpose, both vessels' new designs address not only the scope of safety issues, new facilities, atmosphere, and comfort they offer their passengers, including up-dated facilities for tourism which the previous Russian research vessels did not have. But equally – if not even more – important, the technological features of these two new vessels will allow reducing their foot print on the environment [48, 49].

While the *Hondius* "uses LED lighting, flexible power management systems, and steam heat in order to reduce fuel consumption and minimise CO2 emissions" [48], the *Ultramarine* features "a micro auto gasification system (MAGS) which is capable of converting onboard waste into energy, eliminating the need for transportation of waste" [49]. In addition for the *Ultramarine*, "environmentallyfriendly innovations such as dynamic positioning, […] will eliminate the need to drop anchor in sensitive seabed areas" which will enable to "minimize the ship's environmental footprint to an extend previously unseen for a vessel of this size", states its operator [50, 51].

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" [48]. 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", states one operator [50].

*Tourism*

honey, etc.) and seasonings.

soap is also being replaced by soap dispensers in bathrooms, refueled on need by the staff – eliminating again plastic bottles. One operator requires suppliers to stop wrapping individually material aimed at the passenger. A similar approach is used to eliminate individual packaging for food items mainly used for breakfast (jams,

In regards to the economy, the transformation of a conventional profit-seeking activity into a sustainable one requires among other things, a fair financial return from the entrepreneur to the community upon which it grazes resources from. Here, little if anything is said on the operators' webpages about their contribution to the host communities. One operator refers in its sustainability report to charity auctions held during the cruises and different non-profit community-based project where the money obtained from their passengers might be directed. Operators will not release financial data as to contributions coming either from them or their customers to this effect. One must therefore rely on other sources. In 2015, for instance, cruise passengers accounted for 16% of the total number of visitors to Nunavut, in Arctic Canada, an increase of 46% since 2011 ([43]: 10). Yet cruise tourists left only 5% of the \$38 million (CAD) in tourism revenues ([43]: 10). Arctic cruise ship passengers have a reputation for leaving less in communities than other types of tourists ([44]: 18). Nunavut Tourism ([44]: 18) stressed that the average tourist pays \$17,000 (CAD) for a cruise. Yet, cruise tickets do not earn a return to the territory visited, unlike airline tickets, since Inuit are the main shareholders of the two major airlines serving their territory. Considering that cruise passengers travel with their own hotels and restaurants (their ship) and their own guides, the souvenirs visitors may purchase are all that is left in terms of economical input to the communities, during the excursions. In the absence of paying activities during village visits, tour-

Of the ship, in addition to the interest toward local cultures, showing empathy by refraining abusing the communities' hospitality (imposing oneself in homes or community buildings, in peoples' yard, visiting cemeteries and other sacred sites). In wildlife tours, it also means accepting not to get close to wildlife, and not pressuring guides and inflatable drivers to do so, not to trample all over the location simply because it is temporarily made available– all actions that are easier said than done (**Figure 8**).

**34**

**Figure 8.**

*Polar tourists stepping unsupervised on artefacs. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

ists leave little behind to help the local economy.

But 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", continues the operator [50].

The arrival of these new amenities is not without impact on 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 [52, 53]. Operators also increasingly offer kayak excursions, on demand, a fuel-free activity that helps generate ecological experience and good marketing image, but that over all 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, "[e] quipped with two twin-engine helicopters", "operated from two helidecks allow more passengers to stimultaneously experience news 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" [52].

While it from an ecological point of view, engineering calculations of the ecological footprint could demonstrate that the ship's technological upgrades more than 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 on all level 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 (see [40]).

#### **5. Discussion and conclusion**

The public's enthusiasm for nature, since the Romantic Movement and in response to industrialization, continues to grow. The advances brought by technology, especially on the modes of transportation, have pushed back nearly every obstacle to the human quest of its planet. No region on Earth, except the deepest seas, is nowadays void of tourists, venturing as far as the polar regions to satisfy their curiosity and need to reconnect with nature, or simply "because it's there" (paraphrasing Hillary's answer about his motivation to climb the Everest in 1953). Pushed forward into the public's attention with the environmental crisis, ecosystems – especially those of the polar regions, are now promoted as consumption products through nature-based tourism, including the fast-growing polar cruise sector. Criticized for their negative impacts on the destinations, operators adopted in the early 1990s a common Code of conducts, which was the only management tool at the beginning on the 1990s. Understanding that promoting their products

**37**

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism…*

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

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, like with so-called "ecotourism", yet, that are equally important and more accessible like reducing water consumption and that of other resources – electricity, food, plastics,

In this respect, a major part of the actions required to "save the environment"

Prior to mobility technology, the experience of nature required "psycho-cor-

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 [30]. As Klein [39] 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" ([54]: 402). On this level, 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. I share Williams and Ponsford's ([54]: 403) 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

<sup>3</sup> "[un] engagement psychocorporel, fondé sur le mouvement associé du corps et de l'esprit" ([7]: 94).

, recalls

poral engagement, based on the combined movement of body and mind"<sup>3</sup>

ous experience with it, in contradiction with sustainability.

Christin [7], 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 harmoni-

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 environ-

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

ment they claim to want to protect.

paper, etc.

2000s for the new fashionable concept of sustainability.

#### *From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

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, like with so-called "ecotourism", yet, that are equally important and more accessible like reducing water consumption and that of other resources – electricity, food, plastics, paper, etc.

In this respect, 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"<sup>3</sup> , recalls Christin [7], 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 [30]. As Klein [39] 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" ([54]: 402).

On this level, 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. I share Williams and Ponsford's ([54]: 403) 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

*Tourism*

But 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

The arrival of these new amenities is not without impact on 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 [52, 53]. Operators also increasingly offer kayak excursions, on demand, a fuel-free activity that helps generate ecological experience and good marketing image, but that over all cannot compensate for the footprint of the tours. One operator also adds helicopters sightseeing and transportation for inland excursions, contradicting its own effort to

Far from being a miscalculation, the design of the new *Ultramarine* vessel, "[e] quipped with two twin-engine helicopters", "operated from two helidecks allow more passengers to stimultaneously experience news 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

While it from an ecological point of view, engineering calculations of the ecological footprint could demonstrate that the ship's technological upgrades more than 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 on all level the sustainable efforts put forward by the operator –all of this, at the very heart of polar ecosystems, which embody more

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 (see [40]).

The public's enthusiasm for nature, since the Romantic Movement and in response to industrialization, continues to grow. The advances brought by technology, especially on the modes of transportation, have pushed back nearly every obstacle to the human quest of its planet. No region on Earth, except the deepest seas, is nowadays void of tourists, venturing as far as the polar regions to satisfy their curiosity and need to reconnect with nature, or simply "because it's there" (paraphrasing Hillary's answer about his motivation to climb the Everest in 1953). Pushed forward into the public's attention with the environmental crisis, ecosystems – especially those of the polar regions, are now promoted as consumption products through nature-based tourism, including the fast-growing polar cruise sector. Criticized for their negative impacts on the destinations, operators adopted in the early 1990s a common Code of conducts, which was the only management tool at the beginning on the 1990s. Understanding that promoting their products

than any other, the negative impacts of human activity on the climate.

heli-hiking and heli-skiing", continues the operator [50].

reduce its environmental footprint.

activities in the industry" [52].

**5. Discussion and conclusion**

**36**

<sup>3</sup> "[un] engagement psychocorporel, fondé sur le mouvement associé du corps et de l'esprit" ([7]: 94).

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.
