Visiting Antarctica or the Arctic? Here's how to minimise your impact
As polar tourism surges, experts warn of its environmental impact. From transport choices to local food, here's how to visit responsibly while protecting fragile ecosystems.
I first learned of Greenland's existence from a world map pinned on my childhood bedroom wall. Decades later, I finally made it to the capital, Nuuk. I'd long been fascinated by pictures of the brightly coloured wooden houses lining its rocky shores – red, yellow, green and blue against an icy backdrop. Small icebergs floated just offshore and the absence of trees gave a stark, otherworldly feel. I looked forward to experiencing the crisp, biting air, exploring Inuit art at the Nuuk Kunstmuseum and maybe, if I was lucky, spotting some seals or a passing whale.
I'm not the only one entranced by Greenland's icy beauty: between 2018-2023, tourism to the country grew by 46%, with 131,767 visitors arriving in 2023. Much of this surge is due to the increasing number of cruise ships navigating Arctic waters.
According to the Arctic Council, ships entering the Arctic Polar Code area – a regulated maritime zone around the North Pole – increased by 37% between 2013 and 2024. Many cruise operators, like Hurtigruten, Swan Hellenic and Ponant, offer routes encompassing Iceland, Svalbard and Greenland, with the latter expecting visitor numbers to keep growing thanks to a 2024 airport expansion in Nuuk and two more international airports set to be built by 2026.
Meanwhile on the opposite side of the planet, Antarctica is seeing a similar tourism boom. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reports a steady rise in visitors since the 1990s. In the 2022-23 season, 104,897 people visited the continent, rising to 124,262 last year. More than 80,000 of those set foot on Antarctic land – an alarming statistic for conservationists who warn that human presence can disrupt fragile ecosystems, alter animal behaviour and unwittingly bring invasive foreign organisms with them.
As polar tourism surges, experts warn of its environmental impact. From transport choices to local food, here's how to visit responsibly while protecting fragile ecosystems.
I first learned of Greenland's existence from a world map pinned on my childhood bedroom wall. Decades later, I finally made it to the capital, Nuuk. I'd long been fascinated by pictures of the brightly coloured wooden houses lining its rocky shores – red, yellow, green and blue against an icy backdrop. Small icebergs floated just offshore and the absence of trees gave a stark, otherworldly feel. I looked forward to experiencing the crisp, biting air, exploring Inuit art at the Nuuk Kunstmuseum and maybe, if I was lucky, spotting some seals or a passing whale.
I'm not the only one entranced by Greenland's icy beauty: between 2018-2023, tourism to the country grew by 46%, with 131,767 visitors arriving in 2023. Much of this surge is due to the increasing number of cruise ships navigating Arctic waters.
According to the Arctic Council, ships entering the Arctic Polar Code area – a regulated maritime zone around the North Pole – increased by 37% between 2013 and 2024. Many cruise operators, like Hurtigruten, Swan Hellenic and Ponant, offer routes encompassing Iceland, Svalbard and Greenland, with the latter expecting visitor numbers to keep growing thanks to a 2024 airport expansion in Nuuk and two more international airports set to be built by 2026.
Meanwhile on the opposite side of the planet, Antarctica is seeing a similar tourism boom. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reports a steady rise in visitors since the 1990s. In the 2022-23 season, 104,897 people visited the continent, rising to 124,262 last year. More than 80,000 of those set foot on Antarctic land – an alarming statistic for conservationists who warn that human presence can disrupt fragile ecosystems, alter animal behaviour and unwittingly bring invasive foreign organisms with them. Snow petrels' stomach oil deposits freeze into solid lumps that contain, when analysed in a lab, data on how their diet has changed over the years, and in turn, what that means about the local ecosystem. "We can tell a lot about past conditions by taking samples from the environment, or from animals," Grecian explains. "For example, the baleen plates of whales can be taken from dead animals, and the chemical signatures will tell you something about the environmental conditions or what the animal was eating." As a fairly frequent polar visitor, he understands the appeal of these environments – and also the impact. He notes there are choices we can make to reduce the damage to these vital but threatened regions. Polar tourism is showing no signs of slowing down, but Grecian hopes that, with increased awareness of its drawbacks, visitors can make the most ethical choices possible. Here are his suggestions on how to do that.
Planes, trains or cruise ships?
First of all, you'll need to weigh up your travel options to reach the polar region of your choice.
The problem with a cruise ship is that you're bringing the hotel and all the services with you," he says. "I've heard stories of towns being quite unhappy about the disruption when lots of people disembark. They get all their meals catered on the ship so they won't go to the local cafes. Contrast that to planes – if you fly into an area, you're going to be staying in local hotels, you're going to be using local tour operators. The communities have a chance to benefit economically. But you need to offset that against the massive carbon emissions of planes."
While ships may seem a greener alternative to flying, global data suggests otherwise. Aviation accounts for 2.5% of CO2 emissions globally, while shipping contributes slightly more at 3% (although most of that is from cargo ships). There's also the noise pollution issue – the hum of ships' engines has been shown to disrupt whales' echolocation ability.
"There's a horrible video – an animation based on real blue whale migration tracking, and it's a blue whale caught in shipping lanes," says Grecian. "It's like a pinball in a machine; it keeps turning around and turning back because of the amount of noise that the ships produce."
So what's the alternative?
"Using trains is about a 90% or 95% reduction in CO2, so from a climate perspective, a train to Norway for the fjords is a better option." It is possible – but takes much longer – to reach parts of the Arctic by train, even if flights are required for some of the journey. There's direct trains to Narvik in the Norwegian Arctic from Stockholm; from Trondheim to Bodø in Norway or from Helsinki to Rovaniemi in the north of Finland.
Or you could – if you have the money – charter a small sailing boat. "I know people in the Falklands who sail to Antarctica fairly regularly," says Grecian. "The cost of [a private charter] probably wouldn't be far off the cost of a berth on a fancy cruise ship."
Think before you selfie
Polar wildlife is a big draw for visitors, but Grecian cautions against disturbing the very animals people come to see.
"You must be appreciative of being a guest in that environment and try to treat it with as much respect as you can," says Grecian. "There can be a tendency these days to try and get selfies with animals and that can cause a lot of disturbance. They're not used to seeing people, so give them space. You shouldn't be trying to chase them down."
Cover photo: Alamy
