Last Chance Tourism: Effective Ecotourism or the Devil in Disguise?

Following my largely theoretical introduction to sustainable tourism, this post aims to critically assess a particular form of ecotourism, known as “last chance tourism” or “doom tourism”, using the example of cruise tours to Antarctica. Last chance tourism involves marketing destinations particularly vulnerable to climate change, with the selling point of seeing these places before they disappear. Proponents claim last chance tourism raises awareness of climate change and the related vulnerabilities of the destinations, and is thus a form of climate change “adaptation”.

By the late 2000s media outlets such as travel and lifestyle magazines started featuring lists of “must-see” endangered locations, with destinations such as Alaska (melting glaciers), the Great Barrier Reef (bleaching corals) and the Maldives (drowning islands) often featuring – here’s an example. Tourism operators also capitalised on this opportunity, with press releases such as this one by Fresh Tracks Canada instilling a sense of urgency through language like "your last chance to see polar bears", "the future uncertain" and "until it’s too late".

Of all the endangered locations, the sectors' favourites are currently the Arctic and Antarctic, with the number of cruise passengers to Antarctica tripling from 2000-2007. In a 2010 survey of Antarctic cruise passengers, over 1/3 chose the option “see the Antarctic before it is gone” as a travel motive, confirming the “last chance to see” element. 

CO₂ Emissions

Figures 1 compares the per-day emission figures per-passenger for Antarctic cruise tourism with those of a range of other travel types. The results are arresting: the three highest emitters all involve an Antarctic cruise, with a trip to the Antarctic from Europe emitting almost 7 times as much CO₂ than the average international tourist trip of 8 days. Ship travel distances for polar cruise tourism are pretty much always higher than the average for international tourism journeys, due to the remoteness of polar locations. Furthermore, the added long-haul flight increases CO₂ emissions by over a third; the vast majority of Antarctic tourists are from the USA and Europe meaning they first need to take a long-haul flight to their port of departure (commonly Ushuaia in Argentina). Worryingly, a passenger taking an Antarctic cruise can emit more in one journey than the average European in a whole year!

Figure 1. Emissions for each passenger per day for selected tourism trips. Source.

Clearly, this creates a paradoxical situation, whereby ecotourism aiming to make passengers more aware of anthropogenic climate change and sustainable tourism is disproportionately contributing to climate change itself. This is one of the strongly debated problems of ecotourism more generally.

Effectiveness of Environmental Education

Proponents of ecotourism often stress its positive effects on tourists’ environmental attitudes, resulting in “longer term intentions to engage in conservation actions”. It has been argued that polar tourism can be used to form “ambassadors” to help protect the visited areas. However these assertions have been widely criticised in the literature, with little evidence for a link between awareness of global warming and actual changes towards low-emissions tourism and transport choices.

For example, a 2010 survey of passengers travelling to Churchill in Canada for polar bear viewing found that 30% of respondents did not even realise that emissions from air transport add to climate change. Another similar survey of passengers on an eco-tourism based Antarctic cruise found that of even those who did realise travel contributed substantially to climate change, only 1 person planned on using a more sustainable form of travel such as coach or train for their next trip, whilst 61% planned to continue using airplane or cruise-ship. This suggests that even if ecotourism results in raised environmental awareness (which it might not), this may not lead to an increase in pro-environmental decisions.

Thoughts and Alternatives

Reducing the carbon emissions of tourism to the Antarctic is tricky, due to the need for long-distance trips via airplane and ship, which comprise the main source of emissions. Personally, I believe last chance tourism to Antarctica is more a form of mass tourism to polar regions, rather than an effective form of ecotourism. Instead, I would argue that keen ecotourists could alternatively visit cold destinations threatened by climate change closer to home, for example in mountain ranges. Figure 2 highlights the emissions for an "alternative" last-chance holiday from Germany (the third greatest source of tourists to Antarctica) to the Alps. 

Figure 2. Emissions for each passenger per day for selected tourism trips. with the "alternative" last-chance holiday highlighted. Source.

Due to more efficient transport forms and lower travel distances, this particular trip produced 16 x lower CO2 emissions than a trip from Germany to Antarctica, demonstrating that there are forms of last chance tourism that produce far less emissions that polar tourism. These can also be combined with more effectively raising awareness of climate change impacts on the visited destinations through discussions with experts and local communities about sustainable tourism and environmental protection, as demonstrated through the Inuit-owned Cruise North Expeditions’ 2006 program “Polar bears on thin ice”. However, even with reduced emissions and effective education last chance tourism still creates a tricky paradox reflective not only of ecotourism but tourism in general – are the benefits really worth the environmental impact?