Protection of Wilderness and Aesthetic Values in Antarctica


The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, the “Madrid Protocol,” came into force in 1998. Included in its provisions is the protection of wilderness and aesthetic values. Despite the passage of 12 years, implementation of protection of these values has been slow. The history of the desire to protect these values is reviewed, which reveals that they have actually been discussed and promoted by a number of working groups under the auspices of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) since 1980. Protection was included in the failed Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA) and before being included in the Madrid Protocol.

One of the reasons for the delay in implementation of protection has been the lack of internationally acceptable definitions. The proposition that all Antarctica could be considered as wilderness except for those areas that have been degraded by human activities is consistent with protection measures elsewhere in the world. Aesthetic value encompasses not just scenic beauty but, perhaps more importantly in Antarctica, the sublime. The inclusion of intrinsic value as an additional consideration in the Madrid Protocol is also discussed.

To measure the extent of the current impact on wilderness and aesthetic values by human activities, the human footprint in Antarctica needs to be determined. A number of methods of determining the baseline are canvassed, with the least bounding rectangle being favored. Visibility and sound modeling in a geographical information system can then determine the extent of the footprint. A large-scale Internet survey was set up to test a series of hypotheses on definitions of wilderness and aesthetic values, and the impact of human activities on these values and preliminary results are described. The chapter concludes with some proposed implementation measures to achieve better protection for the Antarctic ecosystem.


Diesel Generator Scenic Beauty Aesthetic Preference Antarctic Station Antarctic Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Arriaza M, Canas-Ortega JF, Canas-Madueno JA, Ruiz-Aviles P (2004) Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plann 69:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ATS (2010) Antarctic Treaty Secretariat. Accessed 30 October 2010
  3. Bastmeijer KI (2008) Protecting polar wilderness: just a western philosophical idea or a useful concept for regulating human activities in the polar regions?. Paper presented at “Looking Beyond the International Polar Year: Emerging and Re-emerging Issues in International Law and Policy in the Polar Year,” University of Akureyri, Iceland, 7–9 September 2008Google Scholar
  4. Benninghoff WS (1974) Macrobiology and ecology in polar deserts. In: Smiley TL, Zumberge HH (eds) Polar deserts and modern man. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 91–97Google Scholar
  5. Benninghoff WS, Bonner WN (1985) Man’s impact on the Antarctic environment: a procedure for evaluating impacts from scientific and logistic activities. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Scott Polar Research Institute, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonner WN, Benninghoff WS, Gallardo VA, Kerry KR, Parker BC, Prevost J (1986) A visitor’s introduction to the Antarctic and its environment. Australian Antarctic Division, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradley AC (1950) The sublime. In: Oxford lectures on poetry. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke E (1998 [1759]) A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and the beautiful. In: Womersley D (ed) Penguin, London, pp 50–199Google Scholar
  9. Carrick R (1964) Problems of conservation in and around the southern ocean. Paper presented at the Biologie Antarctique, 1st SCAR biology symposium, Paris, 1962Google Scholar
  10. CEP (2010). Committee for Environmental Protection Five Year Work Plan. Accessed 9 September 2010
  11. Clark L, Wishart E (1993) 66° South: tales from an Antarctic station. Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, LauncestonGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook G (ed) (1990) The future of Antarctica: exploitation versus preservation. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  13. Cronon W (1995) The trouble with wilderness, or, getting back to the wrong nature. In: Callicott JB, Nelson MP (eds) The great new wilderness debate. The University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniel TC, Boster RS (1976) Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. Research paper RM-187. U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Dufek GJ (1960) Through the frozen frontier, First British edition. Brockhampton Press, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  16. Enzenbacher DJ (1992) Tourists in Antarctica: numbers and trends. Polar Rec 28:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fogg GE (1992) A history of Antarctic science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Forsey J (2007) Is a theory of the sublime possible? J Aesthetics Art Criticism 65:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. GERG (2003) Spatial and temporal scales of human disturbance at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Geochemical and Environmental Research Group and Department of Geography, Texas A&M University – Marine Science Institute, University of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  20. Giaever J (1954) The white desert (EM Huggard, transl.). Chatto Windus, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffiths T (2007) Slicing the silence. University of New South Wales Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  22. Guyer P (1998) Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb. In: Kelly M (ed) Encyclopedia of aesthetics, vol 1. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Headland RK (1989) Chronological list of Antarctic expeditions and related historical events. Studies in polar research. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Herr RA, Hall HR, Haward MG (eds) (1990) Antarctica’s future: continuity or change? Australian Institute of International Affairs, HobartGoogle Scholar
  26. IUCN (1980) World Conservation Strategy: living resource conservation for sustainable development. International Union for the Conservation of Nature with United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). MorgesGoogle Scholar
  27. Jabour J (2009) National Antarctic programs and their impact on the environment. In: Kerry KR, Riddle M (eds) Health of Antarctic wildlife. A challenge for science and policy. Springer, London, pp 211–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kant I (1987 [1776]) Critique of judgment (translated by W.S. Pluhar. Hackett, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1995) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Ulrich’s Bookstore, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  30. Knight W (1903) The philosophy of the beautiful, being outlines of the history of aesthetics, vol 1. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Kormos CF (ed) (2008) A handbook on international wilderness law and policy. Fulcrum, GoldenGoogle Scholar
  32. Lamers M (2009) The future of tourism in Antarctica: challenges for sustainability. University of Maastricht, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee K (1996) The source and locus of intrinsic value: a reexamination. Environ Ethics 18:297–309Google Scholar
  34. Lochte K (2009) The SCAR Lecture – Marine Life and Change in the Southern Ocean. SCAR
  35. Martin S (1996) A history of Antarctica. State Library of New South Wales Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  36. McShane K (2007) Why environmental ethics shouldn’t give up on intrinsic value. Environ Ethics 29:43–61Google Scholar
  37. Morgan M (2006) Regarding beauty. In: Jones A (ed) A companion to contemporary art since 1945. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 164–187Google Scholar
  38. Morgan F, Barker G, Briggs C, Price R, Keys H (2007) Environmental domains of Antarctica. Version 2.0. Final report (2nd edn). Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  39. Morito B (2003) Intrinsic value: a modern albatross for the ecological approach. Environ Values 12(3):317–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morris K, Jeffries MO (1992) Ice thickness variability of the McMurdo Sound landfast ice runway. Antarctic J U S 27:83–86Google Scholar
  41. Morris K, Jeffries MO, Li S (eds) (1998) Sea ice characteristics and seasonal variability of ERS-1 SAR backscatter in the Bellinghausen Sea. Antarctic Research Series, vol 74. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Mosley G (2009) Saving the Antarctic wilderness. Envirobook, CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  43. Nash R (1975) Wilderness and the American mind (revised edn). Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  44. OED (1989) The Oxford English dictionary, 2nd edn. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Neill J (1992) The varieties of intrinsic value. Monist 75:119–133Google Scholar
  46. Piercy JE, Daigle GA (1991) Sound propagation in the open air. In: Harris CM (ed) Handbook of acoustical measurements and noise control, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 3.1–3.26Google Scholar
  47. Plumwood V (1991) Ethics and instrumentalism: a response to Joanna Thompson. Environ Ethics 13:139–149Google Scholar
  48. Poland JS, Riddle MJ, Zeeb BA (2003) Contaminants in the Arctic and the Antarctic: a comparison of sources, impacts, and remediation options. Polar Rec 39:369–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reich RJ (1980) The development of Antarctic tourism. Polar Rec 20:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Riddle MJ (2009) Human-mediated impacts on the health of Antarctic wildlife. In: Kerry KR, Riddle MJ (eds) Health of Antarctic wildlife:a challenge for science and policy. Springer, London, pp 241–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roth M (2006) Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment – an empirical study from Germany. Landsc Urban Plann 78:179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rudmose Brown RN, Mossman RC, Harvey Pirie JH (1906) The voyage of the “Scotia”. William Blackwood and Sons, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  53. Sanchez RA, McIvor E (2007) The Antarctic Committee for Environmental Protection: past, present, and future. Polar Rec 43:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. SCAR (2010) Accessed 1 November 2010
  55. SCAR ad hoc Group on Additional Protective Measures (1987) The Protected Area System in the Antarctic. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Sircello G (1993) How is a theory of the sublime possible? J Aesthetics Art Criticism 51:541–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Snape I, Cole CM, Gore DB, Riddle MJ, Yarnall M (1998) A preliminary assessment of contaminants at the abandoned Wilkes Station, East Antarctica, with recommendations for establishing an environmental management strategy, vol Internal Report. Australian Antarctic Division, KingstonGoogle Scholar
  58. Stolnitz J (1965) Aesthetics. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Summerson R, Bishop ID (2011) Aesthetic value in Antarctica: beautiful or sublime? Polar J 1(2):225–250Google Scholar
  60. Summerson R, Bishop ID (in press) Aesthetic value in Antarctica: beautiful or sublime? Polar JGoogle Scholar
  61. R, Riddle MJ (2000) Assessing wilderness and aesthetic values in Antarctica. In: Davison W, Howard-Williams C, Broady P (eds) Antarctic ecosystems: models for wider understanding. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ, pp 303–307Google Scholar
  62. Suter K (1991) Antarctica. Private property or public heritage? Pluto Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  63. Taylor PW (1986) Respect for nature. A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  64. Thomas K (ed) (1984) Man and the natural world, First Penguin Edition edn. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  65. Thompson J (1995) Aesthetics and the value of nature. Environ Ethics 17:291–305Google Scholar
  66. Townsend D (2006) Sublime. Historical dictionary of aesthetics, vol 72. Scarecrow Press, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  67. Vest JHC (1985) Will-of-the-land: wilderness among primal Indo-Europeans. Environ Rev 9:323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our ecological footprint. Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola IslandGoogle Scholar
  69. Walton DWH, Shears J (1994) The need for environmental monitoring in Antarctica: baselines, environmental impact assessments, accidents and footprints. Int J Environ Anal Chem 55:77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wherrett JR (1999) Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research. Landsc Urban Plann 45:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wherrett JR (2000) Creating landscape preference models using Internet survey techniques. Landsc Res 25:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. White L (1967) The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155:1203–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inform Control 8:338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Architecture, Building and PlanningThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations