This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 12 November 2014, At: 11:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Heritage TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjht20

Biodiversity, biosecurity, and cruisingin the Arctic and sub-ArcticC. Michael Hall a , Michael James b & Sandra Wilson aa Management , University of Canterbury , Private Bag 4800,Christchurch, 8140, New Zealandb Independent Researcher, Perth, AustraliaPublished online: 15 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: C. Michael Hall , Michael James & Sandra Wilson (2010) Biodiversity,biosecurity, and cruising in the Arctic and sub-Arctic, Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5:4, 351-364,DOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2010.517845

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2010.517845

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Biodiversity, biosecurity, and cruising in the Arctic and sub-Arctic

C. Michael Halla∗, Michael Jamesb and Sandra Wilsona

aManagement, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand;bIndependent Researcher, Perth, Australia

(Received 22 June 2010; final version received 18 August 2010)

The Arctic and sub-Arctic are increasingly subject to environmental change.An important component of such change is biological invasion in which tourism andrelated transport is increasingly significant. The expansion of the cruise ship andmarine expedition market poses substantial threats as a potential vector of invasivespecies. The study examines cruise operators in the Arctic and high-latitude NorthAtlantic. Many operators are not members of the Association of Arctic ExpeditionCruise Operators. An analysis is provided of the environmental and biosecuritycommunications of cruise operators in the region to identify if appropriate informationto reduce the likelihood of biological invasion is being provided to consumers. It isconcluded that the great variability in information suggests a significant gap in thebiosecurity regime for the region.

Keywords: polar regions; polar tourism; biological invasion; codes of conduct;environmental guidelines; environmental change

Introduction

The world’s polar regions have become a focal point for the concerns of the effects ofenvironmental change (Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment, 2005; Arctic Human Develop-ment Report, 2004). Most attention with respect to ecosystem change has been given to theimpacts of climate change (Anisimov et al., 2007), but a related concern is the changingstructure of polar biodiversity as a result of the loss of existing plant and animal speciesand the introduction of new ones (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Inter-national Secretariat, 2010; Lewis, Hewitt, Riddle, & McMinn, 2003). According to the Sec-retariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010, p. 1): ‘although the majority ofArctic species examined are currently stable or increasing, some species of importance toArctic people or species of global significance are declining. Changes in Arctic biodiversityhave global repercussions and are further creating challenges for people living in theArctic’.

The biodiversity of the polar regions plays a major role in their attractiveness to tourists,whether it be the attraction of individual charismatic megafauna such as whales and polarbears, or polar ecosystems and landscapes (Hall & Johnston, 1995; Hall & Saarinen, 2010a;Luck, Maher, & Stewart, 2010; Stewart, Draper, & Johnston, 2005; Stonehouse & Snyder,2010). However, tourism can also potentially affect biodiversity as a result of either direct

ISSN 1743-873X print/ISSN 1747-6631 online

# 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2010.517845

http://www.informaworld.com

∗Corresponding author. Email: michael.hall@canterbury.ac.nz

Journal of Heritage TourismVol. 5, No. 4, November 2010, 351–364

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

effects, such as disturbance, trampling or the construction of infrastructure (Tin et al., 2009;Wheeler, de Villiers, & Majiedt, 2009), or via acting as a vector for biological invasion(Barnes & Convey, 2005; Crowl, Crist, Parmenter, Belovsky, & Lugo, 2008; Frenotet al., 2005; Hall, 2010). In the Antarctic, cruise ships and yachts (Lewis et al., 2003;Lewis, Riddle, & Smith, 2005), as well as site visitation have been recognized as particu-larly significant avenues of species introduction given that they are the major means oftransport in getting tourists to sites (Clayton, Wiencke, & Kloser, 1997; Lewis Smith &Richardson, 2010; Tavares & De Melo, 2004). Four trends in polar tourism may be ofhigh significance for the introduction and spread of alien organisms to and in the region:

(1) Tourists are disproportionately attracted to sites of relative high/medium diversity(Navareen et al., 2001).

(2) The intensity of visitor use is increasing in both absolute terms and, in general, overtime and space (Hall & Saarinen, 2010c).

(3) Sites of high popularity are not consistent over time (Navareen et al., 2001),meaning that the potential for human impact is not contained to a number ofspecific sites but varies as a result of tourist trends and changing fashions.

(4) The range of tourist activities is expanding. In addition to being able to land onbeaches and observe immediately accessible wildlife, options now include exten-sive walks and kayaking trips (Frenot et al., 2005; Hall & Saarinen, 2010a).

Biosecurity refers to the protection of a country, region or location’s economic, environ-mental and/or human health from harmful organisms, including pests and disease (Hall,in press). Although tourism is a major focal point for biosecurity measures, for example,at border controls, there is little discussion of the significance of biosecurity measures inthe tourism studies literature (Hall, 2005, 2007; Hall & Harkonen, 2006). This researchnote discusses the threats to Arctic biodiversity as a result of the growing potential of bio-logical invasion from expansion of the cruise ship and expedition market. An analysis isthen conducted of the environmental and biosecurity communications of cruise operatorsin the region. It is concluded that the great variability in information suggests a significantgap in the biosecurity regime for the region.

Biological invasion and biosecurity

In the Antarctic and the sub-Antarctic Islands, there is a reasonably strong biosecurityregime in place to try and restrict biological invasion. The Agreed measure for the conven-tion on the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora (1964) states that Parties will: ‘avoidharmful interference with the normal living conditions of native mammals and birds, tocontrol the introduction of non-indigenous species of plants and animals into the AntarcticaTreaty area, and to take precautions to prevent the introduction of parasites and diseases intothe area’ (Para. 25). Many of the management plans for the sub-Antarctic islands placea great deal of attention to biosecurity and quarantine procedures (Australian Antarctic Div-ision, 2005a; Department of Conservation, 1998; Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service,2006), while codes of conduct have been developed for both operators and visitors(Australian Antarctic Division, 2005b; Department of Conservation, 2008; FalklandIslands Government Environmental Planning Department, 2008; Tasmanian Parks andWildlife Service, 2005). The International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators(IAATO) also have guidelines for members and tourists that have a biosecurity dimension(Fortune, 2006).

352 C.M. Hall et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Arctic is regarded as being, especially vulnerable to the introduction of invasivespecies via increased international trade and tourism. In the northern part of mainlandEurope and in some parts of Canada and Alaska, road transport will provide a major mech-anism for biological invasion. However, in much of the Arctic, the growth in shipping,including cruise ships, is expected to play a major role in introducing marine and terrestrialinvasives (Molnar, Gamboa, Revenga, & Spalding 2008; Pyke et al., 2008), especiallygiven the substantial growth in Arctic tourism. For example, the number of cruise shipsoperating in Greenland waters has grown from 13 in 2003 to 39 in 2008 with thenumber of port arrivals increasing from 164 to 375 in the same period, with growth incruise ship visits also occurring in Alaska, Iceland, Nunavut, and Svalbard (Hall & Saari-nen, 2010a). Hull fouling (Drake & Lodge, 2007) and ballast water (Endresen, Behrens,Brynestad, Anderson, & Skjong, 2004) are identified as major sources of alien maritimespecies. New Arctic locations are opening up to tourist visitation creating opportunitiesfor the introduction of alien species. On Svalbard ‘warming has allowed access to areasthat were once impossible to reach’ (Round, 2008, p. 47) and is promoted as such in thetourism media (Hall & Saarinen, 2010b).

Although not completely within the Arctic and sub-Arctic, drawing on the NOBANISalien species database, Hall (2009) noted not only the role of greater transport connectivityfor species transfer, but also the direct potential of tourism to act as a vector for alien speciesin the Nordic region (Tables 1 and 2). Such species movement may be a significant threatfor areas with high natural ecological values as well as the maintenance of marine and land-scape values. However, Hall (2009) also reported that Nordic ecotourism businesses gen-erally appeared to have little knowledge of biosecurity issues and the threats posed bytourism as a potential vector for alien species.

The combination of climate change and increased tourism and transport, especiallyshipping, is therefore presenting itself as a major challenge to Arctic biodiversity withconsequent implications for the different pathways that invasive species may take andlocations they may potentially establish themselves in (Hellmann, Byers, Bierwagen, &Dukes, 2008). Five main issues can be identified (Hall, 2010), which are discussed below.

Altered mechanisms of transport and introduction

New polar shipping routes provide opportunities for the introduction of species in ballastwater and on ship’s hulls while the growth in polar tourism also increases the opportunitiesand likelihood of the dispersal of invasive species outside of their natural range. InSeptember 2009, two German merchant ships sailed the North East Passage from Asia to

Table 1. Number of alien species in Nordic countries.

Country Invasive Potentially invasive Not invasive Not known

Denmark 17 63 2015 561Faroe Islands 2 – – 144Finland 98 66 32 44Greenland – – – 131Iceland 7 17 83 19Norway 28 59 752 15Svalbard – 4 7 –Sweden 174 60 827 1020

Source: Derived from NOBANIS European Network on Invasive Alien Species (2009).

Journal of Heritage Tourism 353

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Europe via Russia’s Arctic coast as part of a promotion of the safety and efficiency of theroute as a commercial alternative to the Suez Canal in summer (BBC, 2009).

Altered climatic and environmental constraints on invasive species

Climate change may provide more favourable environmental conditions, such as increasedtemperature, for species survival (Rahel & Olden, 2008). In the polar context, climate changewill also increase the area of ice-free land and sea in both time and space therefore also pro-viding opportunities for invasive species. For example, newly ice-free areas in Glacier BayNational Park and Preserve have high numbers of invasive plant species (Rapp, 2008), withthe park having the highest number of invasive species of any Alaskan national park.

Altered distribution of existing invasive species

Cold-temperature constraints on invasive species will be reduced at their higher-latitude orupper-elevation range limits while conversely warm-temperature constraints on invasivespecies will increase at their lower-latitude or lower-elevation range limits (Bystromet al., 2007).

Altered impact of existing invasive species

Byers (2002) argues that the speed, persistence, and ubiquity of anthropogenic habitatalterations may suddenly put even previously well-adapted native species at a competitivedisadvantage with alien species as anthropogenic disturbance may so drastically alterenvironments that a native species finds itself in an environment that is in many keyways just as novel as it is to an invasive species.

The altered effectiveness of management strategies and the institutions

The laws and regulations, agencies and international agreements that have been developedto manage biosecurity and biodiversity may become obsolete as environmental changeoccurs. Hellmann et al. (2008) focus on the altered effectiveness of management strategiesprimarily in the context of control. However, strategies should also be understood in a widercontext of the regulatory and institutional context which may affect the invasion pathwaysof alien species.

In the case of the Arctic, cruise ships, as well as other forms of tourist transport, pose asignificant biosecurity threat not only because they are starting to visit previously little orunvisited areas but also because the frequency of visits is increasing. Biosecurity and

Table 2. Tourism related species introduction pathways in Nordic countries.

Country Ballast water and sediments Hull fouling Hunting Angling/sport Transport

Denmark 51 3 7 6 61Faroe Islands 2 – 1 – 2Finland 10 5 5 1 21Greenland 1 – – 2 3Iceland 2 – – – 21Norway 23 3 2 4 4Svalbard – – – – 2Sweden 80 18 9 8 58

Source: Derived from NOBANIS European Network on Invasive Alien Species (2009).

354 C.M. Hall et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

environmental management strategies that may have been suitable even a decade previouslymay therefore become significantly challenged, as – in contrast to the Antarctic – the bio-security regime is extremely patchy with regulations or guidelines primarily concentratedon national parks and reserves.

Cruise operations and environmental communication

In the Antarctic context, IAATO covers the great majority of cruise operations in the region.The Arctic equivalent is the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators (AECO)which has also developed guidelines for expedition cruise operations in the Arctic.Founded in 2003, as of June 2010, the AECO had 14 member companies operating withinAECO’s geographical range of Svalbard, Jan Mayen, and Greenland, with craft sizesranging from small sailing yachts to expedition cruise ships with up to 320 passengers.AECO has produced guidelines both for members (AECO, 2007) and visitors (AECO,undated). The guidelines for visitors being ‘a few basic rules’ selected from the morecomprehensive guidelines for members. Although the visitor guidelines do not specificallyfocus on biosecurity, they do note the importance of ‘leaving no lasting signs of yourvisit’, no souveniring of natural material including flowers, and no disturbance of animalsand birds (AECO, undated).

The AECO members’ guidelines do not have specific a biosecurity section. However, itdoes provide a clear set of guidelines with respect to the environment. Particularly relevantis that statement that ‘Even if different parts of the area in question have different legal protec-tion status through national and local legislation, it is the policy of AECO to regard all land andmarine areas as protected and act according to the highest protection status, which includes’:

. Do not remove anything. The regulations are relatively complex on what can beremoved and where (plants, bones, driftwood, dead animals/skeletons, fossils, stones,bones, etc). The expedition staff must know the regulation. Visitors or staff fromAECO-ships should, however, not move or remove any objects that are not clearlygarbage, and thus avoid degradation of the landing sites and their wilderness value.

. Do not allow cairn-building, graffiti creation of any kind or other such disturbances tothe physical environment.

. Ensure that visitors, staff or crew do not leave anything behind onshore (or in the water).

. Make every effort to remove garbage found on the shores (and support the ‘Clean upSvalbard’ project).

. Be considerate to other people or activities: Avoid landings near camps, trappers orothers unless contact is established and the landing is agreed to (AECO, 2007, p. 8).

Furthermore, visitors are informed about environmental impacts as part of the pre-landing information. Such guidelines ‘are in addition to company policy and internalroutines. The guidelines are directed to operational staff and to some extent the ship’screw’ (AECO, 2007, p. 7). In addition, ‘Preparation for cruise operations must includethe following steps . . . Communicate relevant AECO policy and guidelines to visitors,agents and the market place, as well as to authorities, Arctic research communities andthe interested general public’ (AECO, 2007, p. 6). However, AECO members are not theonly cruise ship operators in high-latitude waters. In order to gauge the environmental infor-mation available to cruise travellers in the high latitude, North Atlantic and the ArcticOcean, an analysis was undertaken in late 2009 of cruise ship company websites foundto be advertising cruises in the region for either 2009 or 2010 (Table 3).

Journal of Heritage Tourism 355

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table 3. Analysis of biosecurity and environmental aspects of polar cruising on company websites.

Name of Cruise Line

Numberof shipsused instudyregion

Ships (Arcticand sub-Arctic)

AECOmembership

IAATOmembership

Guidelinesfor

passengerbiosecuritymeasures

Separateenvironmental

policyISO

14001

Wastewater

disposal

Wastedisposalon ship

Wastedisposalon land Biodiversity

Aurora Expeditions 1 Polar Pioneer Full Yes – – – – – – –GAP Adventures 1 Expedition Full Yes – Statement on

sustainabletravel

– – – – –

Hapag LloydKreuzfahrten

2 Hanseatic,Bremen

Full Yes Y – – – Y – –

Hurtigruten 12 MS Trollfjord,MSMidnatsol,MSFinmarken,MS Polarlys,MS Lofoten,MS KongHarald, MSNordlys, MSNordkapp,MSNordnorge,MS RichardWith, MSNordstjernen,MSVesteralen

Full Yes – Y – – – – –

Lindblad Expeditions 1 NationalGeographic

Full Yes Y Y – – – – –

356C

.M.

Hall

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

OceanwideExpeditions

4 ProfessorMolchanov,AntarcticDream,Noorderlicht,ProfessorMultanovskiy

Full Yes – – – – – – –

Origo Expeditions 1 Stockholm Full – – Y – – – – –Quark Expeditions 4 Kapitan

Khlebnikov,AkademikShokalski,AkademikSergeyVavilov,AkademikIoffe

Full Yes – QuarkExpeditions

and the polarenvironment

statement

– – – – –

Polar QuestExpeditions

3 Origo,Stockholm,Quest

Full – – – – – – – Y

Polar Star Expeditions 1 Polar Star Full Yes Y Y – – – – –Spitsbergen Travel 2 Expedition,

Polar StarFull – – – – – – – –

69 Nord 1 Southern Star Full – – – – – – – –Silversea Cruises 1 Prince Albert II Provisional Yes – – – – – – –

(Continued )

Journalof

Heritage

Tourism357

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table 3. Continued.

Name of Cruise Line

Numberof shipsused instudyregion

Ships (Arcticand sub-Arctic)

AECOmembership

IAATOmembership

Guidelinesfor

passengerbiosecuritymeasures

Separateenvironmental

policyISO

14001

Wastewater

disposal

Wastedisposalon ship

Wastedisposalon land Biodiversity

Peregrine Adventures 4 KapitanKhlebnikov,AkademikSergeyVavilov(PeregrineVoyager),AkademikIoffe(PeregrineMariner) and50 years ofvictory

Full Yes – Statement on‘travelling

responsibly’

– – – Y –

Cruise NorthExpeditions

1 Lyubov Orlova – – Y – – – – – Y

Adventure Canada 3 The ClipperAdventurer,MV PolarStar, OceanNova

– – Y Y – – – – –

Arctic Odysseys 2 KapitanKhlebnikov,LyudbovOrlova

– – Y – – – – – –

358C

.M.

Hall

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Steppes Discovery 6 AntarcticDream,AkademikIoffe,AkademikSergeyVavilov,Plancius, MSQuest, PolarPioneer

– – – – – – – – –

Princess Cruises(CarnivalCorporation)

1 Crown Princess – Yes – – – – – – –

Cruise West 1 Spirit ofOceanus

– – – Y Y – – – –

Regent Seven SeasCruises

1 Seven SeasVoyager

– – – – – – – – –

Seabourn Cruise Line(CarnivalCorporation)

1 SeabournSojourn

– – – – – – – – –

Fred Olsen CruiseLine

1 Black Watch – – – – – – – – –

P & O (CarnivalCorporation)

6 Ventura,Arcadia,Artemis,Oriana,Azura, Aurora

– – – Y – – – – –

Holland America Line(CarnivalCorporation)

3 ms Maasdam,ms Eurodam,msPrinsendam

– – – – – – Y – –

Crystal Cruises 1 CrystalSymphony

– Yes – – Y Y Y – –

Carnival Cruise Line 1 Carnival Spirit – – Y Y Y Y Y – –

(Continued )

Journalof

Heritage

Tourism359

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table 3. Continued.

Name of Cruise Line

Numberof shipsused instudyregion

Ships (Arcticand sub-Arctic)

AECOmembership

IAATOmembership

Guidelinesfor

passengerbiosecuritymeasures

Separateenvironmental

policyISO

14001

Wastewater

disposal

Wastedisposalon ship

Wastedisposalon land Biodiversity

Celebrity Cruises 2 CelebrityInfinity,CelebrityMillennium

– Yes – Y Y Y Y – –

Norwegian CruiseLines

3 Norwegian Star,NorwegianPearl,NorwegianJewel

– – – Y Y Y Y – –

Royal CaribbeanInternational

2 Radiance Of TheSeas,Rhapsody OfThe Seas

– – – Y – Y Y Y –

Costa Cruises(CarnivalCorporation)

n/a n/a – – – Y Y Y Y – –

Note: Website review undertaken late September-early October, 2009.

360C

.M.

Hall

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Several of the ships are used by more than one company. For example, the Stockholm isused by both Origo Expeditions and Polar Quest Expeditions and the Polar Star is used byPolar Star Expeditions and Spitsbergen Travel (all AECO members). Other ships, such asthe Kapitan Khlebnikov and the Akademik Sergey Vavilov, are used by both AECOmembers (Quark Expeditions and Peregrine Adventures) and non-AECO members(Arctic Odysseys). This situation also occurs with the Akademik Ioffe, Akademik SergeyVavilov, and the Quest. Then there are a substantial number of ships that are not used byAECO members. Overall, it is estimated that approximately half of the ships used forArctic cruises and expeditions are offering cruises to tourists in full or part in conjunctionwith AECO members.

Table 3 also indicates the environmental information that was available to consumers ontheir websites at the time of the analysis. The table highlights the patchy nature of thecommunication of the environmental measures adopted by cruise companies. It is not therole of this note to evaluate the extent to which cruise companies actually enforce goodenvironmental practice, as important as that is, rather it is highlighting the extent towhich environmental procedures are communicated. Although there are numerous gapsin the AECO businesses, it should be stressed that they list AECO guidelines or providea link to them. Quark Expeditions (2008, p. 2) provides an environmental statement inwhich a photograph caption states ‘We wash all boots before and after going ashore toensure there are no soil or seed contaminants’. In addition they note

On all our expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic, we follow strict guidelines drawn up by theAssociation of AECO and the IAATO. These guidelines, designed to ensure the continuedenvironmental protection of the polar regions, spell out strict codes of conduct while visitingthese unspoiled areas. We adhere to IAATO’s guidelines when travelling in the Antarctic,while Arctic travel is overseen by various government bodies whose rules and regulationsare, in many instances, adopted from original guidelines set up by AECO. (Travel guidelinesfor the Arctic are even more complex and stringent because of the additional concerns of indi-genous Arctic cultures and sensitive archaeological sites. (Quark Expeditions, 2009, p. 2)

There is also substantial variability in the information provided by non-AECObusinesses even if they are also IAATO members. Some cruise operators, such as theRegent Seven Seas and the Fred Olsen Line provided no environmental or biosecurity infor-mation, while others such as Celebrity Cruises and Royal Caribbean provide substantialinformation. Perhaps one of the most interesting elements is that in the case of the CarnivalCorporation different cruise operations within the same business group provide differentsets of information to consumers with respect to the environmental dimensions of theircruises.

Conclusions

This research note has highlighted some of the biological invasion and associated biosecur-ity issues connected with the growth of cruise tourism in the Arctic and in the high latitudeNorth Atlantic, areas in which the attractiveness of the region’s biodiversity is one of themain promotional points of the cruise experience. However, unlike Antarctica and thesub-Antarctic, where there are substantial biosecurity protocols in place (Hall & Wilson,2010), including among cruise businesses, the Arctic has a patchwork quilt of nationaland commercial biosecurity and environmental standards. This is despite the high latitudenorth being no less susceptible to tourism-related biological invasion than the south. Indeed,the far greater number of visitor arrivals and tourism mobility in the north arguably make

Journal of Heritage Tourism 361

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

the Arctic and sub-Arctic much more susceptible to the introduction of new species (Hall,2010).

The guidelines of the AECO provide a very useful start in reducing the risk of biologicalinvasion, but there is a need for the biosecurity dimension to be given more prominence inthe guidelines and in the information that is communicated. The strict regulations developedin the Antarctic context for the conduct of visitors to landing sites and precautions againstthe accidental introduction of non-indigenous species provide a useful benchmark for thedevelopment of an Arctic biosecurity regime while the IAATO (undated) guidelines onbiosecurity for visitors ‘Don’t Pack a Pest’ and small boat operators (IAATO, 2007) arean excellent model that can be adopted by AECO and non-AECO members alike forArctic and sub-Arctic cruises.

As climate and environmental change increasingly affect high-latitude areas, Arctic andsub-Arctic ecosystems are coming under increased pressure from biological invasion. Suchpressures are exacerbated by the growth in tourism not only with respect to numbers (Hall& Saarinen, 2010a, 2010c; Luck et al., 2010; Stonehouse & Snyder, 2010), but also in timeand space (Hall, 2010; Hall & Saarinen, 2010b). The potential opening of northern sea pas-sages on an annual basis would only exacerbate such trends. Although reduced sea ice andgreater access for marine transport is often seen positively with respect to Arctic economicdevelopment, it nevertheless simultaneously poses new environmental challenges in aregion already undergoing major change (Anisimov et al., 2007; Arctic Climate ImpactsAssessment, 2005; Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) International Sec-retariat, 2010). In this context, there is therefore a need for much greater attention to begiven to the potential role of marine cruises and expeditions as vectors for invasivespecies and the development and implementation of appropriate biosecurity and environ-mental protocols, guidelines, and communications.

ReferencesAECO (Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators). (2007). AECO’S guidelines for

expedition cruise operations in the Arctic. Longyearbyen: AECO.AECO (Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators). (undated). Guidelines for visitors to the

Arctic. Longyearbyen: AECO.Anisimov, O.A., Vaughan, D.G., Callaghan, T.V., Furgal, H., Marchant, H., Prowse, T.D., . . .

Walsh, J.E. (2007). Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic). In M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P.Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, & C.E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adap-tation and vulnerability (pp. 653–685). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment. (2005). Impacts of a warming Arctic: Arctic climate impactsassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arctic Human Development Report. (2004). Arctic human development report. Akureyri: StefanssonArctic Institute.

Australian Antarctic Division. (2005a). Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve:Management plan. Kingston: Australian Antarctic Division.

Australian Antarctic Division. (2005b). Environmental code of conduct for visitors to Heard Island.Kingston: Australian Antarctic Division.

Barnes, D.K.A., & Convey, P. (2005). Odyssey of stow-away noctuid moths to southern polar islands.Antarctic Science, 17, 307–311.

BBC. (2009, September 11). German ships blaze Arctic trail. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8251914.stm

Byers, J.E. (2002). Impact of non-indigenous species on natives enhanced by anthropogenic alterationof selection regimes. Oikos, 97, 449–458.

Bystrom, P., Karlsson, J., Nilsson, P., Van Kooten, T., Ask, J., & Olofsson, F. (2007). Substitution oftop predators: Effects of pike invasion in a subarctic lake. Freshwater Biology, 52, 1271–1280.

362 C.M. Hall et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Clayton, M.N., Wiencke, C., & Kloser, H. (1997). New records and sub-Antarctic marine benthicmacroalgae from Antarctica. Polar Biology, 17, 141–149.

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) International Secretariat. (2010). Arctic biodiversitytrends 2010 – selected indicators of change. Akureyri: CAFF International Secretariat.

Crowl, T.A., Crist, T.O., Parmenter, R.R., Belovsky, G., & Lugo, A.E. (2008). The spread of invasivespecies and infectious disease as drivers of ecosystem change. Frontiers of Ecology andEnvironment, 6, 238–246.

Department of Conservation. (1998). Conservation management strategy, Subantarctic Islands.Invercargill: Author.

Department of Conservation. (2008). Subantarctic Islands minimum impact code. Invercargill:Southland Conservancy, Department of Conservation.

Drake, J.M., & Lodge, D.M. (2007). Hull fouling is a risk factor for intercontinental species exchangein aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic Invasions, 2, 121–131.

Endresen, O., Behrens, H.L., Brynestad, S., Anderson, A.B., & Skjong, R. (2004). Challenges inglobal ballast water management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48, 615–623.

Falkland Islands Government Environmental Planning Department. (2008). The Falkland Islandscountryside code. Retrieved from http://www.epd.gov.fk/?page_id=167

Fortune, A.L. (2006). Biosecurity at the extreme: Pathways and vectors between New Zealand andScott Base, Antarctica. Unpublished Master of Forestry Science Thesis, University of Canterbury.

Frenot, Y., Chown, S.L., Whinam, J., Selkirk, P.M., Convey, P., Skotnicki, M., & Bergstrom, D.M.(2005). Biological invasions in the Antarctic: Extent, impacts and implications. BiologicalReview, 80, 45–72.

Hall, C.M. (2005). Biosecurity and wine tourism. Tourism Management, 26, 931–938.Hall, C.M. (2007). Biosecurity and ecotourism. In J. Higham (Ed.), Critical issues in ecotourism

(pp. 102–116). Oxford: Elsevier.Hall, C.M. (2009). Changing environments in changing times: Sustaining the natural capital of

Nordic tourism. Presentation at Nordic Symposium in Tourism and Hospitality Research,University of Southern Denmark, Ejsberg, October. Retrieved from http://canterbury-nz.academia.edu/CMichaelHall

Hall, C.M. (2010). Tourism and environmental change in polar regions: Impacts, climate change andbiological invasion. In C.M. Hall & J. Saarinen (Eds.), Tourism and change in polar regions:Climate, environments and experiences (pp. 42–70). London: Routledge.

Hall, C.M. (in press). Biosecurity, tourism and mobility: Institutional arrangements for managing bio-logical invasions. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3(3).

Hall, C.M., & Harkonen, T. (2006). Research agendas and issues in lake tourism: From global to localconcerns. In C.M. Hall & T. Harkonen (Eds.), Lake tourism: An integrated approach to lacustrinetourism systems (pp. 223–233). Clevedon: Channelview Press.

Hall, C.M., & Johnston, M.E. (Eds.). (1995). Polar tourism: Tourism in the Arctic and Antarcticregions. Chichester: John Wiley.

Hall, C.M., & Saarinen, J. (2010a). Tourism and change in the polar regions: Introduction – defi-nitions, locations, places and dimensions. In C.M. Hall & J. Saarinen (Eds.), Tourism andchange in polar regions: Climate, environments and experiences (pp. 1–41). London: Routledge.

Hall, C.M., & Saarinen, J. (2010b). Last chance to see? Future issues for polar tourism and change. InC.M. Hall & J. Saarinen (Eds.), Tourism and change in polar regions: Climate, environments andexperiences (pp. 301–310). London: Routledge.

Hall, C.M., & Saarinen, J. (2010c). Polar tourism: Definitions and dimensions. Scandinavian Journalof Hospitality and Tourism, 10(4), doi: 10.1080/15022250.2010.521686.

Hall, C.M., & Wilson, S. (2010). Tourism, conservation and visitor management in the sub-AntarcticIslands. In C.M. Hall & J. Saarinen (Eds.), Tourism and change in polar regions: Climate,environments and experiences (pp. 263–287). London: Routledge.

Hellmann, J.J., Byers, J.E., Bierwagen, B.G., & Dukes, J.S. (2008). Five potential consequences ofclimate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology, 22, 534–543.

IAATO (International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators). (2007). Boot, clothing and equipmentdecontamination guidelines for small boat operations. Retrieved from www.iaato.org/docs/Boot_Washing07.pdf

IAATO (International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators). (undated). Don’t pack a pest toAntarctica!. Guidelines and pamphlet. Retrieved from http://www.iaato.org/do_not_pack_a_pest.html

Journal of Heritage Tourism 363

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Lewis, P.N., Hewitt, C.L., Riddle, M., & McMinn, A. (2003). Marine introductions in the SouthernOcean: An unrecognized hazard to biodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46, 213–223.

Lewis Smith, R.I., & Richardson, M. (2010). Fuegian plants in Antarctica: Natural or anthropogeni-cally assisted immigrants? Biological Invasions, doi: 10.1007/s10530-010-9784-x.

Lewis, P.N., Riddle, M.J., & Smith, S.D.A. (2005). Assisted passage or passive drift: A comparison ofalternative transport mechanisms for non-indigenous coastal species into the Southern Ocean.Antarctic Science, 17(2), 183–191.

Luck, M., Maher, P.T., & Stewart, E. (Eds.). (2010). Cruise tourism in polar regions. Promotingenvironmental and social sustainability? London: Earthscan.

Molnar, J.L., Gamboa, R.L., Revenga, C., & Spalding, M.D. (2008). Assessing the global threat ofinvasive species to marine biodiversity. Frontiers of Ecology and Environment, 6, 485–492.

Navareen, R., Forrest, S.C., Dagit, R.G., Blight, L.K., Trivelpiece, W.Z., & Trivelpiece, S.G. (2001).Zodiac landings by tourist ships in the Antarctic Peninsula region, 1989–99. Polar Record, 37,121–132.

NOBANIS European Network on Invasive Alien Species. (2009). Country statistics. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nobanis.org/

Pyke, C.P., Thomas, R., Porter, R.D., Hellmann, J.J., Dukes, J.S., Lodge, D.M., & Chavarria, G.(2008). Current practices and future opportunities for policy on climate change and invasivespecies. Conservation Biology, 22, 585–592.

Quark Expeditions. (2008). Quark expeditions & the polar environment. Norwalk, CT: QuarkExpeditions, retrieved from http://www.quarkexpeditions.com

Quark Expeditions. (2009). Quark expeditions & the polar environment. Norwalk, CT: QuarkExpeditions, retrieved from http://www.quarkexpeditions.com

Rahel, F.J., & Olden, J.D. (2008). Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species.Conservation Biology, 22, 521–533.

Rapp, W. (2008). Exotic plant management in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Gustavus,Alaska, Summer 2007 field season report. Gustavus: National Park Service.

Round, A. (2008). A question of perspective. Destinations of the World News, 21, 47–49.Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2010). The Arctic biodiversity assessment

another wake up call for action. Press Release 27 May 2010. Montreal: Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity.

Stewart, E.J., Draper, D., & Johnston, M.E. (2005). A review of tourism research in the polar regions.Arctic, 58, 383–394.

Stonehouse, B., & Snyder, J.M. (2010). Polar tourism. An environmental analysis. Bristol, UK:Channel View Publications.

Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service. (2005). Guidelines for tourist operations and visits toMacquarie Island Nature Reserve World Heritage Area. Hobart, Tasmania: Tasmanian Parksand Wildlife Service, Department of Tourism, Parks, Heritage and the Arts.

Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service. (2006). Macquarie Island Nature Reserve and World HeritageArea Management Plan 2006. Hobart, Tasmania: Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service,Department of Tourism, Parks, Heritage and the Arts.

Tavares, M., & De Melo, G.A.S. (2004). Discovery of the first known benthic invasive species in theSouthern Ocean: The North America spider Hyas araneus found in the Antarctic Peninsula.Antarctic Science, 16, 129–131.

Tin, T., Fleming, Z.L., Hughes, K.A., Ainley, D.G., Convey, P., Moreno, C.A., . . . Snape, I. (2009).Impacts of local human activities on the Antarctic environment. Antarctic Science, 21, 213–233.

Wheeler, M., de Villiers, M.S., & Majiedt, P.A. (2009). The effect of frequency and nature of ped-estrian approaches on the behaviour of wandering albatrosses at sub-Antarctic Marion Island.Polar Biology, 32, 197–205.

364 C.M. Hall et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

01 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014