Your search

The thematic cluster ‘‘Human impacts in the Arctic and Antarctic’’ in Polar Research has its origins in the International Polar Year (2007-09) Oslo Science Conference held in Oslo, Norway, from 8 to 12 June 2010. We were the co-convenors of the session ‘‘Human impacts in the Arctic and Antarctic: regulatory and management implications,’’ in which 27 talks and 21 posters were presented over the course of two days. We invited contributors to the conference session to explore all types of impacts of human activities and regional environmental change in the polar regions, with a special focus on highlighting the management priorities for the protection of the landscape (environment and people) of the polar regions in the face of increasing human activity. Exploring a wide range of topics ranging from human wildlife interactions to chemical contamination and from whaling to polar tourism, contributors provided examples of existing environmental management regimes that are working as well as those that are not.

The polar regions are facing a wide range of compounding challenges, from climate change to increased human activity. Infrastructure, rescue services, and disaster response capabilities are limited in these remote environments. Relevant and usable weather, water, ice, and climate (WWIC) information is vital for safety, activity success, adaptation, and environmental protection. This has been a key focus for the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) Polar Prediction Project (PPP), and in particular its “Societal and Economic Research and Applications” (PPP-SERA) Task Team, which together over a decade have sought to understand polar WWIC information use in relation to operational needs, constraints, and decision contexts to inform the development of relevant services. To understand research progress and gaps on WWIC information use during the PPP (2013–23), we undertook a systematic bibliometric review of aligned scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles (n = 43), examining collaborations, topics, methods, and regional differences. Themes to emerge included activity and context, human factors, information needs, situational awareness, experience, local and Indigenous knowledge, and sharing of information. We observed an uneven representation of disciplinary backgrounds, geographic locations, research topics, and sectoral foci. Our review signifies an overall lack of Antarctic WWIC services research and a dominant focus on Arctic sea ice operations and risks. We noted with concern a mismatch between user needs and services provided. Our findings can help to improve WWIC services’ dissemination, communication effectiveness, and actionable knowledge provision for users and guide future research as the critical need for salient weather services across the polar regions remains beyond the PPP. Significance Statement Every day, people in the Arctic and Antarctic use weather, water, ice, and climate information to plan and carry out outdoor activities and operations in a safe way. Despite advances in numerical weather prediction, technology, and product development, barriers to accessing and effectively communicating high-quality usable observations, forecasts, and actionable knowledge remain. Poorer services, prediction accuracy, and interpretation are exacerbated by a lack of integrated social science research on relevant topics and a mismatch between the services provided and user needs. As a result, continued user engagement, research focusing on information use, risk communication, decision-making processes, and the application of science for services remain highly relevant to reducing risks and improving safety for people living, visiting, and working in the polar regions.

The Arctic is affected by global environmental change and also by diverse interests from many economic sectors and industries. Over the last decade, various actors have attempted to explore the options for setting up integrated and comprehensive trans-boundary systems for monitoring and observing these impacts. These Arctic Observation Systems (AOS) contribute to the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of environmental change and responsible social and economic development in the Arctic. The aim of this article is to identify the two-way relationship between AOS and tourism. On the one hand, tourism activities account for diverse changes across a broad spectrum of impact fields. On the other hand, due to its multiple and diverse agents and far-reaching activities, tourism is also well-positioned to collect observational data and participate as an actor in monitoring activities. To accomplish our goals, we provide an inventory of tourism-embedded issues and concerns of interest to AOS from a range of destinations in the circumpolar Arctic region, including Alaska, Arctic Canada, Iceland, Svalbard, the mainland European Arctic and Russia. The article also draws comparisons with the situation in Antarctica. On the basis of a collective analysis provided by members of the International Polar Tourism Research Network from across the polar regions, we conclude that the potential role for tourism in the development and implementation of AOS is significant and has been overlooked. Keywords: Arctic; Antarctic; citizen science; observation systems; tourism; IPTRN

The Antarctic has significant environmental, scientific, historic, and intrinsic values, all of which are worth protecting into the future. Nevertheless, the area is subject to an increasing level and diversity of human activities that may impact these values within marine, terrestrial and cryosphere environments. Threats to the Antarctic environment, and to the aforementioned values, include climate change, pollution, habitat destruction, wildlife disturbance and non-native species introductions. Over time, a suite of legally binding international agreements, which form part of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), has been established to help safeguard the Antarctic environment and provide a framework for addressing the challenges arising from these threats. Foremost among these agreements are the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Many scientists working in Antarctica undertake research that is relevant to Antarctic environmental policy development. More effective two-way interaction between scientists and those responsible for policy development would further strengthen the governance framework, including by (a) better communication of policy makers’ priorities and identification of related science requirements and (b) better provision by scientists of ‘policy-ready’ information on existing priorities, emerging issues and scientific/technological advances relevant to environmental protection. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) has a long and successful record of summarizing policy-relevant scientific knowledge to policy makers, such as through its Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation (GOSEAC) up to 2002, currently the SCAR Standing Committee on the Antarctic Treaty System (SCATS) and recently through its involvement in the Antarctic Environments Portal. Improvements to science-policy communication mechanisms, combined with purposeful consideration of funding opportunities for policy-relevant science, would greatly enhance international policy development and protection of the Antarctic environment.