impact of tourism in antarctica

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Tourism in Antarctica: Edging Toward the (Risky) Mainstream

Travel to one of the most remote parts of the planet is booming. What does that mean for the environment and visitor safety?

By Paige McClanahan

In January, the Coral Princess, a ship with 2,000 berths and a crew of nearly 900, plowed through the frigid waters off the Antarctic Peninsula, cruising past icebergs, glaciers and mountains clad in snow. The cruise, which had been advertised at less than $4,000 per person, is remarkably cheaper than most Antarctic expeditions, which often charge guests at least three times that amount for the privilege of visiting one of the wildest parts of the planet. Visitors to the region — and the ships that carry them — are growing in number: Antarctica, once accessible only to well-funded explorers, is now edging toward the mainstream.

But managing tourism is a tricky issue in this distant region where no individual government has the power to set the rules, and the challenge is becoming more complex as Antarctica’s popularity grows. During the current austral summer, which runs from roughly November to March, visitor numbers to Antarctica are expected to rise by nearly 40 percent from the previous season. Some observers warn that such rapid growth risks imperiling visitor safety and adding pressure to this fragile region, which is already straining under the effects of climate change, commercial fishing for krill, toothfish and other species, and even scientific research.

Human activity in Antarctica falls under the governance of the Antarctic Treaty system, a model of international cooperation that dates to the Cold War era. But day-to-day management of tourism is regulated by the tour operators themselves, through a voluntary trade association that sets and enforces rules among its members. Observers agree that this system has worked well since it was set up in the 1990s, but some worry that booming tourist numbers could push the old system to a breaking point. They say that the consultative parties to the Antarctic Treaty system — governments like those of the United States, France, New Zealand, Argentina and some two dozen others — must act more quickly to manage tourism, and protect the region’s value as a wilderness.

“The bottom line for us is that there aren’t a lot of hard rules governing tourism. It’s mostly voluntary,” said Claire Christian, executive director of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC), a network of more than 15 conservation groups that serves as an observer to the Antarctic Treaty system. “Right now, there is a lot of good will. But that’s not something you can guarantee.”

A booming industry

Tourism in the Antarctic began with a trickle in the 1950s, but the industry remained exclusive and expensive. Expeditions grew steadily and by the late 1980s, a handful of companies were offering sea- and land-based trips. In 1991, seven private tour operators came together to form the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO). Among other things, the group’s aims were to promote “environmentally safe and responsible travel”; improve collaboration among its members; and create — among the operators’ paying clients — a “corps of ambassadors” who could advocate conservation of the Antarctic region after they returned home from their trips.

Visitor figures soon began to creep up, increasing from roughly 6,700 in the 1992-1993 season to nearly 15,000 by the end of that decade, according to IAATO figures. Apart from a dip after the 2008 financial crisis, numbers have risen steadily ever since. More than 56,000 tourists visited Antarctica during the 2018-2019 season. The figure for the current season is expected to rise to more than 78,500, more than double the total from a decade ago. The vast majority of visitors come by cruise ship, setting sail from ports like Ushuaia in Argentina or Punta Arenas in Chile.

Meanwhile, IAATO has been gaining an average of two to five operators every year, according to Lisa Kelley, IAATO’s head of operations. Its members now include 48 tour operators, as well as five provisional members (Princess Cruises among them) and more than 60 associates — travel agents, marketers and others that work in the industry but don’t run their own tours.

“At the end of the day, we’re all a bunch of competitors,” said Bob Simpson, vice president of expedition cruising at the luxury travel company Abercrombie & Kent and a former chair of IAATO’s executive committee. “But it’s in our best interest to work together and cooperate,” he added, “to ensure this extraordinary place is protected for future generations.”

Mr. Simpson said that IAATO has been “remarkably successful” in promoting sustainable travel to the region, noting that, in his view, the education and experiences that they offer their guests outweigh the negative impact of the carbon emissions associated with the trip.

Abercrombie & Kent and other IAATO members agree to abide by the organization’s bylaws and guidelines, as well as the rules set out by the Antarctic Treaty system. These govern things like the number of passengers allowed ashore during site visits, staff-to-visitor ratios, and the amount of experience required of the crew.

The rules also stipulate that vessels — like the Coral Princess — that carry more than 500 people are not allowed to make landings; they can only “cruise” off the coast. Smaller vessel expeditions — offered by companies such as Abercrombie & Kent, Hurtigruten and Lindblad Expeditions, among others — are allowed to make landings, and their passengers might have the opportunity to disembark with guides to walk, kayak, snowshoe, or even camp or ski onshore.

Membership in IAATO remains voluntary, although all Antarctic tour operators must obtain a permit to travel in Antarctica from one of the parties to the Antarctic Treaty. For now, Ms. Kelley said, every passenger ship operating in the Antarctic is either a member or provisional member of IAATO, apart from some private yachts, defined as vessels carrying 12 or fewer passengers. She is confident that the organization is ready to accommodate the surge in tourist numbers.

“We’ve learned our lesson from the previous two big spurts of growth,” Ms. Kelley said in a recent phone interview. “We’ve really looked at our systems carefully and really worked on trying to make them as robust as we possibly can.”

Safety concerns

Other observers are less confident that rising tourist numbers are sustainable. The risks range from possible damage to sites that tourists visit to the potential growth in non-IAATO tour operators to ensuring visitor safety.

Accidents are rare, but not unheard-of. In November 2007, the MS Explorer, a Liberian-flagged vessel carrying about 100 passengers and 50 crew, cracked its hull on submerged ice, then started to take on water and list severely. Those aboard evacuated to lifeboats around 2:30 a.m., then floated in the cold for more than three hours before another ship, the cruise liner Nordnorge, rescued them. No one was killed or injured, but that was in part because of the weather.

“Within two hours after the passengers and crew were aboard the Nordnorge, the weather conditions deteriorated with gale force winds,” according to the official investigative report into the incident, which was conducted by the Liberian Bureau of Maritime Affairs. “If the Nordnorge’s speed to the scene had been reduced due to rough sea conditions, there may have been fatalities from hypothermia.”

The environment didn’t fare as well. The MS Explorer slipped beneath the waves carrying more than 55,000 gallons of oil, lubricant and petrol; two days later, an oil slick spread over an area of nearly two square miles near the site of the wreck. A Chilean naval ship passed through to try to speed up the dispersal of the fuel, but the report noted that the “oil sheen” was still visible more than a year later.

Ms. Kelley said that measures have been introduced since the Explorer incident, including the International Maritime Organization’s new “ polar code ,” which, she said, imposes “real limits on where and how vessels can operate and how new ships should be built.” Fuel tanks must now be situated away from the vessel’s hull, for example; navigation officers are required to have more experience and environmental rules have been tightened.

But as visitor numbers grow, so, too, does the risk of an accident. And while all tour operators in the Antarctic are currently IAATO members or provisional members, a status that offers them a degree of support, there is no guarantee that companies new to the region will see the value in joining the organization. If they decide to go it alone, there is nothing to stop them.

“There have been incidents, but we have always been quite lucky in the sense that maybe the weather conditions were right or there were other ships around,” said Machiel Lamers, an associate professor at the Environmental Policy Group of Wageningen University in the Netherlands. “Having a couple of thousands of passengers and crew in Antarctic waters is, of course, another thing than having a couple of hundred.”

A fragile environment

Scientists warn that the rise in tourism also increases the risk of disrupting the fragile environment. The introduction of invasive species — nonnative crabs or mussels clinging to the hull of a ship, foreign plant seeds stuck in the lining of a tourist’s parka — remains an important and ever-present threat . There is also evidence that populations of penguins and other wildlife have been disturbed by human activity in some areas. At the popular Hannah Point, there have been two reported instances of elephant seals falling off a cliff because of visitor disturbance. At other sites , historic structures have been marred by graffiti.

The Antarctic Treaty parties have drawn up “ site visitor guidelines ” for 42 of the most popular landing sites; these govern things like where ships are allowed to land, where visitors are allowed to walk, and how many landings are allowed per day. But the IAATO website lists more than 100 landing sites on the Antarctic Peninsula. Those with no guidelines in place may become more popular as tour operators try to avoid the crowds.

Pollution from ships is another concern. Although the International Maritime Organization’s polar code introduced new measures to control pollution, it still allows ships to dump raw sewage into the ocean if they are more than 12 nautical miles, roughly 13.8 miles, away from the nearest ice shelf or “fast ice” — stationary sea ice attached to the continent or grounded icebergs. It also fails to regulate discharges of “graywater,” runoff from ships’ sinks, showers and laundries that has been shown to contain high levels of fecal coliform as well as other pathogens and pollutants. Concerns about pollution are perhaps all the more worrying given the arrival of Princess Cruise Lines, which — alongside its parent company, Carnival Corporation — has been heavily fined for committing serious environmental crimes in other parts of the world.

A spokeswoman for Princess Cruises stressed in an email that the company is “committed to environmental practices that set a high standard for excellence and responsibility to help preserve the marine environment in Antarctica.” Negin Kamali, Princess Cruises’ director of public relations, added that the company meets or exceeds all regulatory requirements for Antarctica.

Fuel pollution, especially carbon emissions — is another concern, although there have been some positive steps. In 2011, the use of heavy fuel oil in the Antarctic was banned under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Today, ships in the region generally use less-polluting marine diesel, although some — like the MS Roald Amundsen , run by the Norwegian company Hurtigruten — have gone a step further, supplementing their traditional fuel with battery power. Princess Cruises is currently testing similar technologies, said Ms. Kamali.

In the background, warmer temperatures are making the entire continent more vulnerable to external threats.

“It’s important to understand that all of these impacts — climate change, fishing, tourism — are cumulative,” Cassandra Brooks, an assistant professor in environmental studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, wrote in an email. “Given the sheer carbon footprint of Antarctic tourism, and the rapid growth in the industry, these operations will become increasingly difficult to justify.”

The way forward

Antarctic Treaty parties are aware that tourism growth will require a new approach. But it’s not clear what steps they will take, nor how quickly they will act. And reaching consensus — which is what decision-making within the Antarctic Treaty system requires — can be a slow and arduous process.

In April 2019, the government of the Netherlands hosted an informal meeting to discuss how to manage Antarctic tourism. The participants — including representatives of 17 treaty parties, IAATO and ASOC, the civil society group, as well as other experts — identified “key concerns” related to the predicted growth in ship tourism: pressure on sites where tourists visit, the expansion of tourism to new areas, and the possible rise in tour operators who choose not to join IAATO, among other issues.

The group’s recommendations were presented to the Antarctic Treaty’s Committee for Environmental Protection as well as to the most recent annual meeting of the treaty parties in July. The discussions seemed to go in the right direction, said Ms. Christian, but they are still a long way from implementing major changes.

Stronger regulations could come in many forms, including a prohibition on potentially disruptive activities such as heli-skiing or jet-skiing, both of which are currently allowed; a general strengthening of the Antarctic Treaty system’s existing guidelines for visitors , which already instruct people not to litter, take away souvenirs, or get too close to wildlife, among other things. Parties to the Antarctic Treaty system could also establish protected areas that could be made off limits to tourist vessels, or agree to enact domestic laws to enable authorities to prosecute visitors for Antarctic misbehavior (penguin cuddling, for instance) after they return home.

Or the treaty parties could go even further: They could require all passenger vessels to obtain IAATO membership before being granted a permit, or set a cap on the total number of visitors allowed each season. Most observers agree that both steps would be politically very difficult to enact, mainly because treaty parties have diverging views of what Antarctic tourism should look like.

Tour operators and some academics maintain that tourism in Antarctica is vital because it creates awareness and builds a network of people who will go home to fight for stronger protections in the region. but — as with scientific research, or any human activity in Antarctica — the risks and potential negative impacts of tourism must be weighed against its benefits.

Whatever policy steps might be on the table, self-regulation in the tourism industry is no longer sufficient, said Ms. Brooks, who adds that Antarctica is already straining under its many pressures.

“IAATO is truly amazing in what they have accomplished, but it’s difficult to imagine how they will manage to control this burgeoning industry,” she wrote in an email. “It’s equally difficult to imagine how more than 78,000 people visiting Antarctica as tourists won’t have a negative impact on the region.”

52 PLACES AND MUCH, MUCH MORE Discover the best places to go in 2020, and find more Travel coverage by following us on Twitter and Facebook . And sign up for our Travel Dispatch newsletter : Each week you’ll receive tips on traveling smarter, stories on hot destinations and access to photos from all over the world.

Come Sail Away

Love them or hate them, cruises can provide a unique perspective on travel..

 Cruise Ship Surprises: Here are five unexpected features on ships , some of which you hopefully won’t discover on your own.

 Icon of the Seas: Our reporter joined thousands of passengers on the inaugural sailing of Royal Caribbean’s Icon of the Seas . The most surprising thing she found? Some actual peace and quiet .

Th ree-Year Cruise, Unraveled:  The Life at Sea cruise was supposed to be the ultimate bucket-list experience : 382 port calls over 1,095 days. Here’s why  those who signed up are seeking fraud charges  instead.

TikTok’s Favorite New ‘Reality Show’:  People on social media have turned the unwitting passengers of a nine-month world cruise  into  “cast members”  overnight.

Dipping Their Toes: Younger generations of travelers are venturing onto ships for the first time . Many are saving money.

Cult Cruisers: These devoted cruise fanatics, most of them retirees, have one main goal: to almost never touch dry land .

• Environment
• Road to Net Zero
• Art & Design
• Film & TV
• Music & On-stage
• Pop Culture
• Fashion & Beauty
• Home & Garden
• Things to do
• Combat Sports
• Horse Racing
• Beyond the Headlines
• Trending Middle East
• Business Extra
• Culture Bites
• Year of Elections
• Pocketful of Dirhams
• Books of My Life
• Iraq: 20 Years On

Will Antarctica be the next victim of overtourism as visitor numbers continue to climb?

Balance between travel and preservation in world’s most remote wilderness is a fragile one.

As more travellers flock to Antarctica, the world's most protected wilderness faces an increasing conservation risk. Unsplash / Cassie Matias

Last year, for the first time, more than 100,000 tourists visited Antarctica. That figure is expected to increase in 2024.

It is in stark contrast to visitor numbers during the global pandemic when only two ships and 15 people ventured to the southern wilderness in the name of tourism .

Leslie Hsu, a freelance journalist and award-winning photographer, understands why. She had one of her most memorable holidays in the region.

She recounts a story of camping on the Kerr Point of Ronge Island, where she could hear the iceberg-laden waters of the Errera Channel lapping against the shore.

“I make my way towards the shoreline until I can hear waves striking rocks,” she tells The National . “Turning off my headlamp, I am engulfed in darkness, barely able to see my fingers in front of my face. At first, I feel exposed, vulnerable – unusual for someone who grew up camping, hiking, spelunking, climbing mountains and crossing rivers. Someone who came to Antarctica precisely to be alone with the coldest , driest, windiest, most hostile place on Earth.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Leslie Hsu Oh | Writer + Photographer + Editor (@lesliehsuoh)

“A series of glaciers calving, one after another like dominoes, ripples towards me. I feel the ground trembling. Water rushes towards me and I cringe, expecting to be swept away into the channel. After things settle down, I sit down on the soft snow. Surprisingly, I don’t feel cold at all, cosy in my wind and water-resistant parka and boots. I doze. I listen. I breathe. Out of the darkness, blacks brighten to greys. There is no sunrise, just a gradual increase in contrast.

“I hear a whale surface for air. Kelp gulls tweet a morning greeting. And just when I start to worry that maybe I shouldn't be sitting out here by myself, I see six Gentoo Penguins take form not a stone’s throw away. They are all sleeping with their necks tucked into their backs, perfectly camouflaged in the austere black and white landscape.”

It's precisely this type of once-in-a-lifetime experience that has so many travellers flocking to Antarctica.

Unique journeys across the White Continent

This polar region is roughly twice the size of Australia and 98 per cent covered in ice. It is the largest wilderness on Earth unaffected by large-scale human activities and, as the only continent without an indigenous population, it is also one of the most protected places on the planet.

Winter in Antarctica is from March until October, and when daylight hours disappear, temperatures plunge to minus 30-60°C and the physically remote destination becomes even more inhospitable. But by autumn, as the country’s unique wildlife begins to emerge from hibernation, so too do the zealous tourists.

Antarctica is also the only continent with no terrestrial mammals, but it does have millions of penguins, thousands of seals and eight different species of whale. The allure of seeing these creatures in the wild is one of the main reasons people keep coming to the remote land.

Google data comparing search traffic from 2019 to 2022 showed a 51 per cent rise in interest around Antarctica cruises, and a 47 per cent rise in interest for Arctic cruises. Other trips are on the rise, too. These include luxury travel company Black Tomato’s nine-night Antarctic adventure that sailed to the White Continent at the same time the region witnessed a rare solar phenomenon. Or Elite Expeditions' new voyage that will see travellers conquer the glacial beauty of Antarctica's Vinson Massif.

While the pause in tourism during the pandemic allowed wildlife to thrive, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators estimates that 106,000 visitors travelled to the region in the 2022-2023 tourist season, meaning those who work to protect the White Continent and its environment are wary of this increasing interest.

A wilderness that belongs to no nation

Seven countries – New Zealand, Australia, France, Norway, the UK, Chile, and Argentina – have all laid claim to different parts of Antarctica, but the destination is governed by an international partnership to which more than 56 countries have acceded, making it a wilderness that belongs to no nation.

Its tourism board is also unique. In 1991, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) was set up not to encourage more visitors, but to regulate the sector and ensure the pristine environment remains so. Since 2009, concerns about the impact of tourism on the environment have been a recurring hot topic at the continent’s annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.

Several measures are already in place. As most visitors venture to the seventh continent via ship, better practices have been adopted to reduce the carbon footprint and environmental impact of any cruises sailing in these waters. There are also restrictions on how many people are allowed ashore, and strict regulations for planned activities, wildlife watching, and pre and post-visit activity reporting.

These rules are carefully followed by Black Tomato on all of its voyages. “We demand the highest standards from our partners, in everything from sustainability to safety, creativity to delivery,” says Tom Marchant, co-founder of the luxury tour operator. “In Antarctica, those standards mean we only work with a small selection of hand-picked IAATO-approved operators, and have seen us advocate light-touch, small-scale experiences where we can be assured that guidelines are being followed.”

In a post-pandemic world, the tourism company sees travellers seeking one-off adventures, something Antarctica is perfectly poised to offer. “A burgeoning trend we’ve seen since the pandemic is a strong pursuit of [what we call] the 'opposite', be it a safari, the wilderness, volcanic ranges or rugged islands – the flip side of big buildings and noisy cars in everyday life,” Marchant explains.

“Now, more than ever, travellers are seeking out the world untainted by crowds and queues. A world more ancient than our own, and with deeper roots. Antarctica is a great example of where dramatic and unfamiliar landscapes offer inimitable encounters that are all about experiencing the unknown. The opposite of our own daily lives.”

Will overtourism be Antarctica's downfall?

But as a destination that has long been sheltered from mass tourism, could this recent spike in traveller interest be the continent’s downfall? Could Antarctica be on track to become overtourism’s next victim, going the way of Mount Everest, with overcrowding and environmental pollution? Or of Italy’s Venice, which constantly struggles with the impact of visitors flocking in from visiting ships?

The IAATO says it is unlikely this will happen, saying the region's strict protection protocols are its saving grace.

“Antarctica is one of the most protected locations – if not the most protected location – on Earth when it comes to managing human activity,” a representative for the organisation tells The National . “All human activity there must be authorised by a competent authority and is subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment before proceeding.

“There is still a misconception that visitors to Antarctica are permitted to explore as they like, picking up souvenirs from the coastline and disturbing wildlife. IAATO’s rigorous rules and guidelines explained and enforced by expert field staff, coupled with robust policies laid out by the Antarctic Treaty, ensures this is not the case.”

White Desert, an ultra-luxury travel operator that specialises in zero-impact trips to Antarctica, has been a member of IAATO for nearly two decades. “We take just 250 people yearly – a maximum of 12 guests per trip travel to our camps during season, which runs from mid-November until February,” says chief executive and founder Patrick Woodhead.

“We have five key steps in place to minimise our impact, including using sustainable aviation fuel , carbon offsetting, an environmentally conscious supply chain that ensures we use no single-use plastic and responsibility for waste disposal. We also use solar energy to heat our pods and minimise use of fossil fuels. And we support and contribute to both the local scientific community and the Antarctic community.”

It's common for Antarctica operators to use tourism dollars to help fund scientific research that can help the world better understand the White Continent. Viking Cruises, for example, uses both of its Antarctic ships to host scientists, wet labs and detailed research programmes, all funded by holidaymaker’s money. And Ponant uses tourism revenue to offer science expedition grants for studies in the region.

IAATO says contributions like these are “fundamental to achieving research objectives in different fields of knowledge, going from the understanding of polar tourists’ behaviour and learning to the evaluation of environmental changes in places threatened by global warming”.

But for the conservation-focused Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, the measures adopted by tour operators may not be enough.

“In the absence of a comprehensive plan for managing tourism and tourist activities, adding new trips, inland activities and off-the-beaten-path excursions in Antarctica is a risky trend,” says the NGO's executive director Claire Christian.

“Ideally, any expansion in the areas that tourists visit or diversification of activities that tourists participate in should only take place as part of a management plan that has fully considered whether these activities are consistent with the environmental protection goals of the Environment Protocol. However, right now, there is no such plan.”

A delicate balance

While the majority of people visiting the region do so on vessels and never step foot on the ice, as more travel companies go out of their way to offer unique journeys that take travellers on land, the risk to the destination increases.

No matter how regulated the industry is, if the tourists snowshoeing through Antarctica’s ice-covered wilderness don’t adhere to the same ethos, damage could be inevitable.

To pre-empt this, IAATO publishes a series of general guidelines that visitors are expected to follow. These include everything from not touching wildlife to responsibly discarding rubbish and being aware of protected areas. However, membership to the association is not compulsory and if there are 106,000 visitors heading to Antarctica in a single season, how realistic is it that every tourist’s actions can be controlled?

Hsu questioned this on her dream trip to Antarctica last year. “Hurginten Expeditions was very careful about marking all the places that travellers were allowed to hike with cones whenever we left the ship, but even though they marked it off, it wasn’t always 100 per cent clear what areas we were supposed to stay away from,” she explains.

“I did wonder if all of these people walking around were affecting the landscape. We also saw many empty research stations as we ventured across the continent and this made me wonder whether these abandoned buildings are environmentally safe.”

Some tour operators, including White Desert, believe that by offering these life-changing expeditions, they will help “create a community of Antarctic Ambassadors who will share the importance of conserving the planet for future generations”.

Hsu is a living example of this. “The first thing I did when I got home was Google 'Antarctica Ambassadors' to find out more about this collaboration of people who care passionately about Antarctica and protecting its unique landscape. I had never heard of it before and I immediately signed up.”

Despite these initiatives, a question mark hangs over how Antarctica may fare as tourism continues to rise, especially as the Antarctic treaty that preserves the continent will only remain in place until 2048. After that, any treaty party can request a review, which could lead to crucial elements being changed.

“The treaty is up for renewal in 25 years and it’s vital that it’s upheld,” says White Desert founder Woodhead. “The protocol contains a number of tools, including environmental impact assessments and protected areas, that are extremely effective. Parties simply must use them, and it is critical for Antarctica's future.”

It may not yet be on course to rival Mount Everest as one of tourism's nature playgrounds, but as of now the balance of travel and preservation in the world’s most remote wilderness remains as fragile as the ice-covered sheets that surround it.

Checking In

Travel updates and inspiration from the past week

How much snow does each visitor 'melt' in the Antarctic? The answer may surprise you

In affected areas near human settlements on the Antarctic Peninsula, human-produced black carbon may be causing surface snow to melt by up to 23mm every summer.

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Matthew Harris

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Antarctica is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:.

• During the 2019-20 season, 74,000 people visited Antarctica, with the majority traveling by ship.
• This activity, which is projected to increase in the future, leaves a physical footprint that includes rising waste and black carbon.
• Black carbon has been found to increase the rate of ice and snowmelt, accelerating the effects of climate change.
• Between 2016 and 2020, each visitor was effectively melting around 83 tonnes of snow, due largely to emissions from cruise ships.

Every summer, as the sea ice surrounding Antarctica retreats, tens of thousands of tourists and scientists flock to the landmass by boat and plane. The remote continent is becoming increasingly accessible – during the 2019-20 season, the number of sightseeing visitors reached 74,000, with the vast majority travelling by ship. Scientific activities on the continent are also significant, with more than 70 research stations collectively housing thousands of researchers .

This activity, which is projected to increase in future, leaves a physical footprint with lasting consequences . In seeking to study or marvel at one of the last (nearly) undisturbed places on earth, humans are having a growing impact that can be measured and quantified.

Under the Antarctic Treaty, tourist and scientific operators are required to remove waste from the continent. Trash and human waste are flown or shipped off the continent for disposal at warmer latitudes. But some forms of waste are not so easily squirrelled off the continent. All activity in Antarctica – be it powered drills for scientific ice coring or vehicles for transport – burns fuel. As we burn fuel to keep warm, or to move around, our activities release microscopic particles of “ black carbon ” (smoke and soot).

Elsewhere in the world, black carbon is released in enormous quantities by forest fires and human activity. It travels great distances – the soot from the Australian bushfires in 2019-20 travelled around the world . Yet in Antarctica, which is isolated from the rest of the world by a strong “barrier” of circumpolar winds, the sources of black carbon are typically more local.

New research in the journal Nature Communications has extensively quantified the levels of black carbon in the snow near human settlements. Scientists first collected samples from 28 locations across a 2,000km stretch of the most-travelled section of Antarctica, stretching from the Antarctic Peninsula to the interior of the West Antarctic ice sheet.

By analysing the quantity and type of light-absorbing particles in snow samples, the researchers document how soot emitted by humans is affecting the properties of Antarctic snow near high-traffic areas.

Samples were passed through filters and analysed for their optical properties to identify the quantity and type of particulates. Many types of impurities that absorb light exist in Antarctic snow, though in minuscule quantities – the background level of black carbon in Antarctic snow is around 1 nanogram (one billionth of a gram) per gram of snow.

To differentiate between dust and black carbon, the researchers used the “angstrom exponent”. Put simply, smaller particles will absorb a greater band of light than larger ones – so the type of particles in the snow samples could be inferred from how the filtered particles interacted with light in the laboratory.

All samples from near human settlements showed black carbon levels greatly above the typical Antarctic background levels, a clear sign of human emissions. Elevated levels of black carbon will influence how snow absorbs light, a property known as “albedo”. Snow with a lower albedo will melt faster. As a result, the black carbon content in the collected snow samples could be used to infer whether snow melt rates might have increased due to human activity.

Scientists emit even more per capita than tourists

The results are sobering. In affected areas near human settlements on the Antarctic Peninsula, human-produced black carbon may be causing surface snow to melt by up to 23mm every summer. When examining tourist activities specifically, the authors calculate that each visitor between 2016 and 2020 was effectively melting around 83 tonnes of snow, due largely to emissions from cruise ships.

Scientific activities are not exempt – in fact, scientific research stations contribute to an order of magnitude higher per capita snow melt rate through the operation of fuel-intensive equipment and vehicles, sometimes year-round.

This research confirms similar studies elsewhere around the role of black carbon emissions in accelerating ice and snow melt. For instance, fires in the Amazon rainforest were found to have increased the melting rate of glaciers in the Andes . In Antarctica, the documentation of black carbon near settlements echoes other research on microscopic pollution, such as microplastics being found in sea ice and penguins . These findings show that human impacts may be more pervasive and insidious than they appear from a distance.

As human activity in Antarctica increases, so will the accompanying effects. Research on these real and potential harms provides vital information on how they might be best mitigated or avoided altogether. To minimise harm to wildlife and the environment, we need to ensure both research and tourism are carefully managed.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Climate Action .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Trust in voluntary carbon markets has been consistently low: What needs to change?

Antoine Rostand

June 12, 2024

Risks to Earth systems are rising. The good news? Businesses are taking action

Johan Rockström and Gill Einhorn

June 11, 2024

What are the 'positive tipping points' that could help us accelerate out of climate disaster?

Anna Bruce-Lockhart and Sophia Akram

June 10, 2024

Climate crisis costs the world 12% in GDP for every 1°C temperature rise, and other nature and climate stories you need to read this week

Michael Purton

June 6, 2024

Why climate finance is pivotal to alleviating harm from South Asia's extreme heat

Aarti Lila Ram

June 5, 2024

7 energy and climate good-news stories to give you hope

Johnny Wood

What are the real environmental impacts of Antarctic tourism? Unveiling their importance through a comprehensive meta-analysis

Affiliations.

• 1 Grupo de Investigación ECOPOLAR - Biología y Ecología en Ambientes Polares, Departamento de Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, C/Darwin 2, E-28049, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 Grupo de Investigación ECOPOLAR - Biología y Ecología en Ambientes Polares, Departamento de Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, C/Darwin 2, E-28049, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 3 Grupo de Investigación ECOPOLAR - Biología y Ecología en Ambientes Polares, Departamento de Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, C/Darwin 2, E-28049, Madrid, Spain; Instituto de Ecología Aplicada ECOLAP-USFQ, Universidad de San Francisco de Quito, P.O. Box 1712841, Diego de Robles y Pampite, Cumbayá, Ecuador. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 4 Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management and Center for Geospatial Analytics, North Carolina State University, 5107 Jordan Hall, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 5 Laboratorio de Estudios Métricos de la Información (LEMI), Departamento de Biblioteconomía y Documentación, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, E-28903, Getafe, Spain; Research Institute for Higher Education and Science (INAECU) (UAM-UC3M), E-28903, Getafe, Spain. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 6 Gateway Antarctica, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand. Electronic address: [email protected].
• PMID: 35151103
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114634

Human activities in Antarctica were increasing before the COVID-19 pandemic, and tourism was not an exception. The growth and diversification of Antarctic tourism over the last few decades have been extensively studied. However, environmental impacts associated with this activity have received less attention despite an increasing body of scholarship examining environmental issues related to Antarctic tourism. Aside from raising important research questions, the potential negative effects of tourist visits in Antarctica are also an issue discussed by Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties. This study presents the results of a meta-analysis of scholarly publications that synthesizes and updates our current knowledge of environmental impacts resulting from Antarctic tourism. A first publication database containing 233 records that focussed on this topic was compiled and subjected to a general bibliometric and content analysis. Further, an in-depth content analysis was performed on a subset of 75 records, which were focussed on showing specific research on Antarctic tourism impacts. The main topic, methods, management proposals, and research gaps highlighted by the respective authors of these 75 publications were assessed. The range of research topics addressed, the methods used - including the application of established research designs from the field of environmental impact assessment -, and the conclusions reached by the study authors are discussed. Interestingly, almost one third of the studies did not detect a direct relationship between tourism and significant negative effects on the environment. Cumulative impacts of tourism have received little attention, and long-term and comprehensive monitoring programs have been discussed only rarely, leading us to assume that such long-term programs are scarce. More importantly, connections between research and policy or management do not always exist. This analysis highlights the need for a comprehensive strategy to investigate and monitor the environmental impacts of tourism in Antarctica. A first specific research and monitoring programme to stimulate a debate among members of the Antarctic scientific and policy communities is proposed, with the ultimate goal of advancing the regulation and management of Antarctic tourism collaboratively.

Keywords: Adaptive Management; Bibliometric analysis; Cumulative impacts; Monitoring; Natural protected areas; Strategic conservation.

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Publication types

• Meta-Analysis
• Antarctic Regions
• Anthropogenic Effects*
• Environment

Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development of Antarctic Tourism: The Chinese Tourists’ Perspectives

• Open Access

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Yueyi He &
• Claire Liu  

Part of the book series: Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Instituts für Tourismusforschung ((DITF,volume 1))

356 Accesses

This chapter presents the findings of a study on exploring the environmental impacts brought about by Antarctic tourism and issues for developing sustainable tourism in the Antarctic. This qualitative study collected data from the Chinese social media platforms Zhihu and Mafengwo. The target samples were people who had been on an Antarctica tour and posted comments online that were relevant to the research questions. The tourists’ comments on Antarctic experiences were analysed using thematic analysis. The results showed the perceived situation and the impacts of Antarctic tourism on Antarctica, such as disturbing wildlife, increasing global warming, adding pressure caused by the popularity of Antarctic tourism. Combining secondary information and the stories shared by the Chinese tourists online, this study contributes to knowledge and understanding of the impacts of Antarctica tourism and the challenges in developing sustainable tourism in Antarctica.

Download to read the full chapter text

Chapter PDF

• Antarctic Tourism
• Environmental Protection
• Antarctic Tourist Experiences
• Sustainable Tourism

Abdullah, C. & Shah, M. (2018). Guidelines for Antarctic tourism: An evaluation. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 3 (7), 177. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v3i7.1313

Article   Google Scholar  

Altvater, S., Lehmann, F. & Sperber, E. (2011). A sustainable (individual) tourism concept for Antarctica. Ecologic Institute: Science and Policy for A Sustainable World. https://www.ecologic.eu/4234

Google Scholar  

Amelung, B. & Lamers, M. (2006). Scenario development for Antarctic tourism: Exploring the uncertainties. Polarforschung 2-3, 133–139.

Ames, H., Glenton, C. & Lewin, S. (2019). Purposive sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: A worked example from a synthesis on parental perceptions of vaccination communication. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19 (26), 1–9, https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0665-4

Barrington, J. (2004). Better management of Antarctic tourism: Antarctic and International Policy. Australian Antarctic Division. http://www.antarctica.gov.au/magazine/2001-2005/issue-7-spring-2004/policy/better-managementof-antarctic-tourism

Bastmeijer, K. (2003): Tourism in Antarctica: Increasing diversity and the legal criteria for authorisation. New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law 7, 85–118.

Bastmeijer, K., Lamers, M., Harcha, J. (2008). Permanent land-based facilities for tourism in Antarctica: The need for regulation. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 17 (1), 84–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1766407

Bastmeijer, K. & Roura, R. (2004). Regulating Antarctic tourism and the precautionary principle. The American Journal of International Law, 98 (4), 763–781. https://doi.org/10.2307/3216699

Beerli-Palacio, A., & Martín-Santana, D. (2019). Explaining the gap in the image of tourist destinations through the content of and exposure to secondary sources of information. Current Issues in Tourism, 23 (20), 2572–2584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1658726

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Cajiao, D., Albertos, B., Tejedo, P., Muñoz-Puelles, L., Garilleti, R., Lara, F., Sancho, L., Tirira, D., Simón-Baile, D., Reck, G., Olave, C., & Benayas, J. (2020). Assessing the conservation values and tourism threats in Barrientos Island, Antarctic Peninsula. J Environ Manag, 266, 1–13. https://doi-org.ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110593

Campos L.S., Montone R.C., Moura R.B., Yoneshigue-Valentin Y., Kawall H.G., Convey P. (2012) Anthropogenic impacts on sub-Antarctic and Antarctic islands and the adjacent marine environments. In: C. Verde & G.D. Prisco (Eds.), Adaptation and Evolution in Marine Environments, (Vol. 2, pp. 177–203). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27349-0_10

China Global Television Network (2019). Antarctica: An increasingly popular destination for Chinese tourists. https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-11-01/Antarctica-An-increasingly-popular-destination-for-Chinese-tourists-LgcSykrSuY/index.html

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social science research. Sage.

Denzin, K., & Lincoln, S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Sage.

Engelbertz, S., Liggett, D., & Steel, G. (2015). Values underlying the management of ship-borne tourism in the Antarctic Treaty area. The Polar Journal, 5 (2), 334–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2015.1080492

Farreny, R., Oliver-Solà, J., Lamers, M., Amelung, B., Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall, J., & Benayas, J. (2011). Carbon dioxide emissions of Antarctic tourism. Antarct Sci, 23 (6), 556–566. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954102011000435

Goff, H. (2003, 24 May). NZ backs stronger management of Antarctic tourism [Media statement]. The official website of the New Zealand Government. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-backs-stronger-management-antarctictourism

Haase, D. (2005). Too much pressure on thin ice? Antarctic tourism and regulatory considerations. Polarforschung, 75 (1), 21–27.

Hanifah, N., Shah, R., & Hashim, R. (2012). Impact of human activities in Antarctica: Dissecting the concepts of ecologically sustainable development and natural reserve for peace and science. APCBEE Procedia, 1, 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcbee.2012.03.028

He, H., Yang, H., & Xiang, T. (2020). Study on the influencing factors of Chengdu residents’ travel decision-making to Thailand: Take the tourists’ perception of Thailand travel blogs from Mafengwo website as an example. Proceedings of the International Academic Conference on Frontiers in Social Sciences and Management Innovation (IAFSM 2019). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200207.039

Headland, K. (1994). Historical development of Antarctic tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (2), 269–180. https://hdl.handle.net/10182/3749

International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators. (2009). Tourism overview . www.iaato.org/tourism_overview.html

International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (2020a). Data & Statistics. https://iaato.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IAATO-and-Tourism-Growth-FOR-WEB-FINAL.pdf

International Association of Anctica Tour Operators (2020b). Antarctica tour operators introduce new measures to manage for tourism growth. https://iaato.org/antarctica-tour-operators-introduce-new-measures-to-manage-fortourism-growth/

Kozinets, R. (2017). Netnography: Radical participative understanding for a networked communications society. In: C. Willig (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology (pp. 374–380). Wendy Stainton Rogers. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526405555.n22

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kruczek, Z., Kruczek, M., & Szromek, A. (2018). Possibilities of Using the tourism area life cycle model to understand and provide sustainable solutions for tourism development in the Antarctic region. Sustainability, 10 (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010089

Leung, Y. (2020). What is MaFengWo? Where long-form content meets Chinese OTA. Dragon Social. https://www.dragonsocial.net/blog/what-is-mafengwocontent-ota/

Maher, P., Johnston, M., Dawson, J., & Noakes, J. (2011). Risk and a changing environment for Antarctic tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 14 (4), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2010.491896

McClanahan, P. (2020). Tourism in Antarctica: Edging toward the (risky) mainstream. The New Daily. https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/travel/2020/03/02/tourism-antarctica/

Molenaar, J. (2005). Sea-borne tourism in Antarctica: avenues for further intergovernmental regulation. International Journal of Marine Coastal Law, 20 (2), 247–295. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180805775094454

Pfeiffer, S., & Peter, U. (2004). Ecological studies towards the management of an Antarctic tourist landing site (Penguin Island, South Shetland Islands). Polar Rec, 40 (215), 245–252.

Qi, T., Wang, T., & Chen, N. (2020). Analysis of sponsorship networks and crossdomain knowledge exchange: An empirical study on Zhihu. International Journal of Crowd Science, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcs-11-2019-0035

Rubin, J. (1996). Antarctica: A lonely planet travel survival. Lonely Planet.

Smith, A. (2015). Qualitative psychology. Sage.

Thomas, R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analysing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27 (2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

Tisdell, C. (2010). Antarctic tourism: Environmental concerns and the importance of Antarctica’s natural attractions for tourists. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uqseee/97469.html

Williams, R., & Crosbie, K. (2007). Antarctic whales and Antarctic tourism. Tourism in Marine Environments, 4 (2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.3727/154427307784772039

World Tourism Organization (1993). Sustainable tourism development: Guide for local planners. World Tourism Organization.

Wright, A. (2008). Southern exposure: Managing sustainable cruise ship tourism in Antarctica. California Western International Law Journal, 39 (1), 43–86. https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwilj/vol39/iss1/3

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access. Creative Commons-Lizenz 4.0 (BY-NC-ND).

Weitere Informationen finden Sie unter https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH & Co. KG

About this chapter

He, Y., Liu, C. (2023). Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development of Antarctic Tourism: The Chinese Tourists’ Perspectives. In: Köchling, A., Seeler, S., van der Merwe, P., Postma, A. (eds) Towards Sustainable and Resilient Tourism Futures. Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Instituts für Tourismusforschung, vol 1. Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.37307/b.978-3-503-21195-1.04

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.37307/b.978-3-503-21195-1.04

Publisher Name : Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin

Online ISBN : 978-3-503-21195-1

eBook Packages : Business and Management

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Tourism in Antarctica

Disclaimer: Some posts on Tourism Teacher may contain affiliate links. If you appreciate this content, you can show your support by making a purchase through these links or by buying me a coffee . Thank you for your support!

Tourism in Antarctica is big business. But why is this industry so important and what does it all mean? Read on to find out…

The geography of Antarctica 

The tourism industry in antarctica, statistics about tourism in antarctica , the most popular tourist attractions in antarctica, the most popular types of tourism in antarctica, impacts of tourism in antarctica, faqs about tourism in antarctica, to conclude: tourism in antarctica.

Antarctica, the last great wilderness on Earth, remains a frontier of unparalleled allure and mystique. With its pristine landscapes and untouched ecosystems, it draws intrepid travellers and researchers alike. This article examines the intricacies and challenges of the evolving tourism industry in this frozen realm.

Antarctica is a vast and unique continent located at the southernmost part of the Earth. It is often referred to as the “White Continent” due to its extensive ice cover. Here is an overview of the geography of Antarctica:

• Antarctica is situated almost entirely within the Antarctic Circle, surrounded by the Southern Ocean. It is the southernmost continent and is geographically isolated from other landmasses.

Size and Landmass:

• Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent, covering approximately 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles). It is larger than Europe and almost twice the size of Australia. The continent is divided into two regions: East Antarctica and West Antarctica, separated by the Transantarctic Mountain Range.

Climate and Weather:

• Antarctica is known for its extreme cold and harsh weather conditions. It holds the record for the lowest natural temperature ever recorded on Earth, reaching as low as -89.2 degrees Celsius (-128.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The continent experiences strong winds, frequent snowfall, and long periods of darkness during the winter months.

Ice and Glaciers:

• Antarctica is covered by a massive ice sheet, averaging about 2.3 kilometers (1.4 miles) in thickness. This ice sheet holds around 90% of the world’s freshwater. The ice extends beyond the continent’s land borders, forming floating ice shelves that surround Antarctica. The most famous of these is the Ross Ice Shelf.

Mountains and Peaks:

• The Transantarctic Mountain Range runs across the continent, separating East and West Antarctica. This mountain range includes peaks such as Mount Kirkpatrick and Mount Craddock, reaching elevations of over 4,000 meters (13,000 feet). Mount Vinson, located in the Ellsworth Mountains of West Antarctica, is the highest peak on the continent, standing at 4,892 meters (16,050 feet).

Lakes and Rivers:

• Antarctica has numerous lakes and rivers, although most are covered by ice. Lake Vostok, one of the largest subglacial lakes, lies beneath the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. Lake Whillans and Lake Ellsworth are other notable subglacial lakes. The continent also has ephemeral rivers that flow during the summer months, primarily fed by melting ice and snow.

Wildlife and Biodiversity:

• Despite its harsh conditions, Antarctica is home to a surprising array of wildlife. Various species of seals, whales, and penguins inhabit the coastal regions. The continent also hosts several bird species, including the majestic albatross. Marine life, such as krill and fish, thrives in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica.

Research Stations:

• Antarctica serves as an important hub for scientific research. Several countries operate research stations on the continent, primarily focused on climate studies, geology, biology, and astrophysics. These stations provide valuable insights into Earth’s climate system and help monitor changes in the region.

Antarctic Treaty System:

• To preserve Antarctica’s unique environment and promote scientific cooperation, the Antarctic Treaty System was established in 1959. This international agreement prohibits military activities, mineral mining, and nuclear testing on the continent, while allowing peaceful scientific research and promoting environmental protection.

Tourism and Visitor Guidelines:

• Tourism in Antarctica has grown in recent years, offering visitors a chance to experience the continent’s awe-inspiring landscapes and wildlife. However, strict guidelines are in place to protect the environment, including restrictions on the number of visitors and guidelines for waste management and wildlife interactions.

As one of the world’s most remote and pristine regions, Antarctica’s geography and environmental significance continue to captivate scientists, explorers, and visitors alike.

The tourism industry in Antarctica represents a unique and specialized sector within the global travel and hospitality domain. As one of the world’s last frontiers, Antarctica attracts a select group of adventurous travelers seeking to explore its pristine landscapes, witness its diverse wildlife, and immerse themselves in its extreme and captivating environment. The tourism industry in Antarctica operates under strict regulations and guidelines to ensure the protection of the continent’s fragile ecosystem and to preserve its scientific and environmental values.

Antarctic tourism is primarily facilitated through cruise ships, which serve as the primary means of transportation for visitors to reach the continent. These cruises often depart from ports in South America, such as Ushuaia in Argentina or Punta Arenas in Chile, and traverse the stormy waters of the Southern Ocean to reach the Antarctic Peninsula or nearby islands. Due to the extreme environmental conditions and the need to preserve the pristine nature of Antarctica, the number of tourists allowed to visit the continent is strictly controlled.

The industry’s focus lies in providing travelers with unique experiences and educational opportunities while ensuring minimal impact on the environment. The itineraries typically involve guided shore excursions, wildlife viewing, and educational lectures conducted by knowledgeable naturalists and scientists on board the cruise ships. These activities aim to foster a deeper understanding of the Antarctic ecosystem, its geological formations, and its diverse wildlife, including penguins, seals, whales, and seabirds.

To ensure sustainable tourism practices, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) plays a crucial role in regulating tourism activities. IAATO sets guidelines for responsible tourism, which include limiting the number of visitors at landing sites, managing waste disposal, and promoting wildlife conservation and habitat protection. Tour operators and cruise companies affiliated with IAATO undergo a rigorous process to comply with these guidelines and maintain high standards of safety and environmental stewardship.

The tourism industry in Antarctica offers benefits to both visitors and the region itself. For travelers, it provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to witness the grandeur of Antarctica’s icy landscapes, encounter unique wildlife species, and gain a deeper appreciation for the planet’s natural wonders. Additionally, tourism contributes to local economies in South American port cities, providing employment opportunities and fostering economic growth.

However, the industry also poses challenges and concerns that must be addressed. One significant concern is the potential for environmental impacts, including pollution from cruise ships, disturbances to wildlife, and the introduction of non-native species. To mitigate these impacts, strict regulations and guidelines are enforced, requiring adherence to stringent waste management practices, wildlife observation protocols, and strict biosecurity measures.

In conclusion, the tourism industry in Antarctica represents a specialized sector that offers a unique and awe-inspiring travel experience while upholding stringent environmental protection measures. By adhering to responsible tourism practices and adhering to the guidelines established by organizations such as IAATO, tourism in Antarctica can continue to provide enriching experiences for travelers while safeguarding the continent’s delicate ecosystems and scientific values for future generations.

Now lets put things into perspective. Here are some statistics about tourism in Antarctica:

• Visitor Numbers: The number of tourists visiting Antarctica has been steadily increasing over the years, with approximately 56,000 visitors in the 2019-2020 tourism season.
• Seasonal Variation: Tourism in Antarctica is highly seasonal, with the majority of visits occurring during the austral summer months (November to March) when weather conditions are more favorable.
• Restricted Access: Antarctica’s tourism industry is governed by strict regulations to protect the continent’s fragile ecosystem. Currently, only vessels carrying fewer than 500 passengers are permitted to make landings.
• Cruising as the Primary Mode of Travel: Cruise ships are the primary means of transportation for tourists visiting Antarctica. These ships offer amenities and accommodations to ensure a comfortable experience while navigating the Southern Ocean.
• Environmental Guidelines: The International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) sets guidelines for responsible tourism, focusing on minimizing environmental impacts, managing waste, and preserving wildlife habitats.
• Landing Sites: There are approximately 100 approved landing sites in Antarctica, where tourists can disembark from their cruise ships to explore the continent’s unique landscapes and observe wildlife.
• Wildlife Encounters: Visitors to Antarctica have the opportunity to witness diverse wildlife, including penguins, seals, whales, and seabirds. Close encounters with these animals are a highlight of the Antarctic tourism experience.

8. Educational Programs: Many Antarctic tour operators offer educational programs on board their cruise ships, featuring lectures and presentations by experts in fields such as biology, geology, and climate science to enhance visitors’ understanding of the region.

9. Duration of Visits: Most tourist visits to Antarctica last between 10 and 20 days, including travel time from departure ports in South America to the continent and back.

10. Economic Impact: Antarctic tourism contributes to the economies of the countries involved in supporting the industry, particularly in South American port cities like Ushuaia and Punta Arenas, where cruise departures and associated services generate employment and revenue.

It is important to note that these statistics about tourism in Antarctica may vary from year to year and are subject to change due to factors such as environmental regulations, global events, and ongoing efforts to ensure sustainable tourism practices in Antarctica.

Antarctica, with its pristine and captivating landscapes, offers a range of remarkable tourist attractions that draw visitors from around the world. These attractions showcase the continent’s natural wonders, unique wildlife, and historical significance. In an academic tone, let us delve into some of the most popular tourist attractions in Antarctica:

Antarctic Peninsula:

• The Antarctic Peninsula, extending northward from the continent, is one of the most sought-after destinations. It boasts stunning ice-covered landscapes, towering glaciers, and majestic mountain ranges. Travelers can witness breathtaking scenery and observe wildlife such as penguins, seals, and seabirds thriving in this remote environment.

South Shetland Islands:

• The South Shetland Islands, situated near the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, offer incredible opportunities for exploration. Visitors can witness striking volcanic landscapes, visit research stations, and encounter diverse wildlife, including penguin colonies and elephant seals.

Ross Ice Shelf:

• The Ross Ice Shelf, the largest floating ice shelf in Antarctica, is a captivating attraction. It stretches over an area roughly the size of France and showcases the awe-inspiring beauty of the icy continent. It is also home to iconic landmarks such as Mount Erebus, the southernmost active volcano on Earth.

Lemaire Channel:

• The Lemaire Channel, often referred to as the “Kodak Gap,” is a narrow passage between the mainland and Booth Island. Enclosed by towering snow-covered cliffs, this picturesque channel provides breathtaking views and is a favorite among photographers.

Deception Island:

• Deception Island, an active volcano in the South Shetland Islands, offers a unique experience due to its natural harbor formed by a submerged caldera. Visitors can bathe in geothermally heated waters, explore abandoned whaling stations, and witness the stark contrast between the volcanic landscape and snow-covered surroundings.

Historic Sites:

• Antarctica is also renowned for its historical sites, such as huts used by famous explorers like Ernest Shackleton and Robert Falcon Scott during the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration. These sites provide a glimpse into the challenges faced by early explorers and the history of human presence on the continent.

Wildlife Encounters:

• One of the primary attractions of Antarctica is its abundant and diverse wildlife. Travelers can observe massive colonies of penguins, including Adélie, gentoo, and chinstrap species. Seal species like Weddell seals and leopard seals can also be spotted, along with various bird species, including albatrosses and petrels.

Icebergs and Glaciers:

• Antarctica’s icebergs and glaciers showcase extraordinary natural formations. These colossal ice structures come in mesmerizing shapes and sizes, offering stunning visuals as they float across the Southern Ocean. The opportunity to witness the calving of icebergs or to sail amidst a field of floating ice is an awe-inspiring experience.

Scientific Research Stations:

• Some tourist itineraries include visits to scientific research stations, providing a glimpse into ongoing scientific endeavors in Antarctica. These stations allow visitors to learn about climate research, glaciology, and various other scientific disciplines, and gain insights into the challenges and discoveries made in this extreme environment.

Zodiac Cruising:

• Zodiac cruises are a popular activity in Antarctica, allowing visitors to explore areas inaccessible by larger vessels. These small inflatable boats provide an up-close experience, enabling travelers to navigate through ice-filled waters and get closer to wildlife, glaciers, and breathtaking ice formations.

These attractions exemplify the unique and extraordinary nature of Antarctica, showcasing its pristine beauty, diverse wildlife, and rich history. It is important to note that visitors to Antarctica must adhere to strict guidelines and regulations to preserve and protect this fragile and pristine environment for future generations to experience and appreciate.

In Antarctica, tourism manifests in various forms, each offering distinct experiences that cater to different interests and preferences. These popular types of tourism in Antarctica encompass a range of activities and expeditions, lets take a look at what these are:

Expedition Cruises:

• Expedition cruises are a popular choice for tourists visiting Antarctica. These voyages typically involve traveling aboard ice-strengthened vessels, designed to navigate through the icy waters of the Southern Ocean. Expedition cruises offer opportunities to explore Antarctica’s awe-inspiring landscapes, visit remote locations, and observe wildlife, while providing comfortable accommodations and amenities on board.

Wildlife and Nature Photography:

• Antarctica’s mesmerizing landscapes and abundant wildlife make it a paradise for photography enthusiasts. Many tourists visit the continent specifically to capture breathtaking shots of icy vistas, towering icebergs, penguins, seals, whales, and a variety of bird species. Photography tours and workshops cater to the specific needs of photographers, providing guidance and access to prime locations for capturing stunning images.

Polar Diving:

• For adventurous and experienced divers, polar diving in Antarctica offers a unique and exhilarating experience. Brave individuals equipped with specialized drysuits and diving equipment can explore the frigid waters and marvel at the underwater beauty, including unique marine life, mesmerizing ice formations, and potentially encounter seals or penguins beneath the surface.

Kayaking and Zodiac Cruising:

• Kayaking and Zodiac cruising are popular activities that allow tourists to explore Antarctica’s icy waters and get closer to its wildlife. Participants can paddle through tranquil bays, weave between icebergs, and observe wildlife up close while maintaining a safe and non-disruptive distance. These activities provide an intimate connection with the environment and offer opportunities for awe-inspiring encounters.

Hiking and Shore Excursions:

• Hiking and shore excursions are an integral part of many Antarctic itineraries. Visitors disembark from their cruise ships to explore designated landing sites and undertake guided walks led by experienced naturalists. These excursions offer the chance to immerse oneself in the unique landscapes, observe wildlife colonies, visit historic sites, and gain insights into Antarctica’s geological and scientific significance.

Education and Scientific Expeditions:

• Antarctica’s scientific and research value attracts educators, scientists, and individuals with a keen interest in understanding the region’s natural processes and environmental changes. Scientific expeditions and educational programs are conducted by various organizations, providing opportunities to participate in ongoing research projects, learn from experts in various fields, and contribute to data collection and analysis.

Historical and Cultural Tourism in Antarctica:

• Antarctica holds a rich history of exploration and human presence. Tourists interested in history and culture can visit historic sites and remnants of early exploration, such as huts and scientific research stations established by famous explorers. These visits provide insights into the challenges faced by early explorers and the enduring human connection to Antarctica.

Expedition Mountaineering:

• Antarctica’s mountain ranges and glaciated terrain attract experienced mountaineers seeking challenging and rewarding expeditions. Climbing enthusiasts can embark on mountaineering adventures, conquering peaks such as Mount Vinson, the highest mountain on the continent. These expeditions demand specialized skills, equipment, and a high level of physical fitness.

Each of these types of tourism in Antarctica offers a distinct perspective and engagement with the continent’s awe-inspiring landscapes, unique wildlife, and rich scientific and historical heritage. It is crucial, however, to approach these activities with a strong commitment to environmental conservation, sustainability, and adherence to strict guidelines to preserve the delicate ecosystem and ensure the long-term viability of Antarctic tourism.

The tourism industry in Antarctica has both positive and negative impacts on the continent’s social, environmental, and economic aspects. Understanding these impacts is crucial for sustainable management and ensuring the long-term preservation of this unique and fragile ecosystem. Let us examine the impacts of tourism in Antarctica:

Positive Social Impacts of Tourism in Antarctica:

a. Education and Awareness: Tourism in Antarctica provides an opportunity for visitors to gain a deeper understanding of the region’s scientific significance, climate change, and environmental conservation. This can foster a sense of environmental stewardship and inspire individuals to advocate for the protection of Antarctica.

b. Cultural Exchange: Tourism in Antarctica facilitates cultural exchange between tourists and the small community of scientists, researchers, and support staff residing in Antarctica. This exchange can promote cultural understanding, global cooperation, and the sharing of knowledge and experiences.

c. Economic Opportunities: Antarctic tourism contributes to the economic development of countries involved in supporting the industry. It generates employment opportunities, particularly in South American port cities, providing income and improving the livelihoods of local communities.

Negative Social Impacts of Tourism in Antarctica:

a. Disturbance to Wildlife: The presence of tourists can cause disturbance and stress to wildlife, particularly if guidelines and regulations are not followed. Noise, overcrowding, and invasive behavior can disrupt natural behaviors, breeding patterns, and nesting sites, affecting the well-being and survival of wildlife populations.

b. Safety Risks: The harsh and unpredictable Antarctic environment poses inherent risks to tourists. Accidents, extreme weather conditions, and remote locations can present challenges for search and rescue operations, potentially jeopardizing the safety of visitors and emergency responders.

c. Cultural and Heritage Impact: Increased tourist activity in Antarctica may impact the preservation of cultural and historical sites, such as the huts and relics of early explorers. Inadequate management and visitor behavior can lead to damage or degradation of these important cultural heritage sites.

Positive Environmental Impacts of Tourism in Antarctica:

a. Conservation Efforts: The tourism industry in Antarctica plays a role in promoting the conservation and protection of the continent’s fragile ecosystems. Responsible tourism operators adhere to strict guidelines, ensuring minimal impact on the environment, managing waste appropriately, and protecting sensitive areas from human disturbance.

b. Research Support: Some tourism activities contribute to scientific research efforts in Antarctica. Tourists may participate in citizen science programs, data collection, and environmental monitoring, providing valuable information for ongoing scientific studies.

Negative Environmental Impacts of Tourism in Antarctica:

a. Pollution and Waste: The transportation of tourists to Antarctica, primarily by cruise ships, can contribute to pollution through greenhouse gas emissions and the discharge of untreated wastewater. Strict regulations and waste management practices are in place to minimize these impacts, but compliance is essential to prevent pollution.

b. Introduction of Non-Native Species: Tourism activities can inadvertently introduce non-native species, such as seeds, spores, or insects, which may disrupt the delicate Antarctic ecosystem and threaten native species that have evolved in isolation.

c. Habitat Disturbance: Uncontrolled access, excessive visitation, and improper behavior can result in habitat disturbance, particularly in fragile coastal areas. Trampling of vegetation, erosion, and alteration of nesting sites can have long-lasting negative effects on the local flora and fauna.

Positive Economic Impacts of Tourism in Antarctica:

a. Employment and Economic Growth: Antarctic tourism contributes to the economies of countries involved in supporting the industry. It generates employment opportunities, including guides, crew members, researchers, hospitality staff, and support services in port cities. This leads to economic growth and improved infrastructure.

Negative Economic Impacts of Tourism in Antarctica:

a. Dependency on Tourism: Overreliance on tourism in Antarctica can create economic vulnerability for local communities, especially if there are fluctuations in visitor numbers or unforeseen events that disrupt the industry. Diversification of economic activities is necessary to mitigate this risk.

b. Unequal Distribution of Benefits: The economic benefits of tourism in Antarctica may not be equally distributed among all stakeholders. Local communities and indigenous populations may not always receive a fair share of the economic gains, leading to social inequalities and marginalization.

Understanding the complex and multifaceted impacts of tourism in Antarctica is crucial for implementing sustainable practices, fostering responsible visitor behavior, and ensuring the long-term preservation of this pristine environment. Striking a balance between tourism development and environmental protection is essential to safeguard Antarctica’s unique ecosystems and cultural heritage for future generations.

Now that we know a bit more about tourism in Antarctica, lets answer some of the most common questions on this topic:

Q: Can anyone visit Antarctica?

• A: Yes, anyone can visit Antarctica, but it is primarily accessible through organized tours or cruises arranged by authorized tour operators.

Q: When is the best time to visit Antarctica?

• A: The Antarctic tourism season typically runs from November to March when the weather is relatively milder, and wildlife activity is at its peak. The exact timing may vary depending on the specific activities and experiences you seek.

Q: How long does an Antarctic trip usually last?

• A: Most Antarctic trips range from 8 to 20 days, depending on the itinerary and activities involved. Longer expeditions allow for more comprehensive exploration of the continent.

Q: What kind of wildlife can I expect to see in Antarctica?

• A: Antarctica is home to diverse wildlife, including penguins, seals, whales, seabirds, and various marine species. Visitors can witness these incredible creatures in their natural habitat during their expedition.

Q: How much does a trip to Antarctica cost?

• A: The cost of a trip to Antarctica can vary greatly depending on factors such as the duration, type of expedition, level of luxury, and additional activities. On average, prices range from several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars per person.

Q: Do I need a visa to visit Antarctica?

• A: As there is no permanent population or governing body in Antarctica, there is no visa requirement. However, you may need visas for the countries from which your trip departs or where you transit.

Q: Are there any restrictions on visiting Antarctica?

• A: Yes, visitors to Antarctica must adhere to the regulations set forth by the Antarctic Treaty System. These regulations aim to protect the environment, wildlife, and cultural heritage of the continent.

Q: How do I get to Antarctica?

• A: Most visitors reach Antarctica by embarking on a ship or cruise from Ushuaia, Argentina, or Punta Arenas, Chile. Flights to these gateway cities are typically arranged separately.

Q: What should I pack for a trip to Antarctica?

• A: Packing essentials include warm and waterproof clothing, thermal layers, sturdy boots, gloves, hats, and sunglasses. It is crucial to follow the packing list provided by your tour operator to ensure you have the necessary gear for the extreme Antarctic conditions.

Q: How many people can visit Antarctica at once?

• A: The number of visitors allowed in specific areas is regulated to minimise environmental impact. Typically, the number of passengers on a cruise or expedition ship can range from tens to a few hundred, depending on the vessel’s capacity.

These FAQs and their answers provide a starting point for understanding the key aspects of tourism in Antarctica. However, it is important to consult with authorised tour operators or travel agencies for the most accurate and up-to-date information regarding specific trips, requirements, and guidelines for visiting Antarctica.

Antarctica, the world’s last true frontier, is a breathtaking realm of ice and mystery. As more adventurers set foot on this pristine continent, the implications of tourism come under scrutiny. Balancing the thirst for exploration with the imperative to conserve, it’s vital to consider the delicate ecosystems and unparalleled beauty of Antarctica. The responsibility lies with every visitor to ensure minimal impact on this untouched wilderness. As we reflect on the profound allure of the frozen south, one cannot help but emphasise the importance of preserving Antarctica for generations to come.

If you enjoyed this article about tourism in Antarctica, I am sure you will love these too:

• The Three Biomes of the United States
• 15 fascinating facts about the Patagonian Desert
• Is desert snow real? The truth about the weather in the deserts
• 25 Fascinating Facts About the Indian Ocean 
• 21 Interesting Facts About The Savanna

Liked this article? Click to share!

Discovering Antarctica

Interactive teaching and learning resources on Antarctica from RGS-IBG in partnership with BAS and supported by UK FCO.

Tourism / Destination Antarctica / Impacts and Management

• Wilderness challenge
• Being there
• The sound of silence
• Antarctica the movie
• Be a media critic
• Sizing up Antarctica
• The world turned upside down?
• Introduction to Antarctica’s Ice Sheets
• Going back in time
• Antarctica: The frozen continent
• Seasonal change
• The climate today
• The climate of the past
• The climate of the future
• Rising seas
• Making waves
• So you think you know about glaciers?
• What are glaciers?
• Glacial features
• Exploring ice
• Pine Island Glacier
• Key physical features
• Tectonic history: into the deep freeze
• Antarctica’s geology
• Ice sheets and glaciation
• The coast and adjacent ocean
• Key factors behind Antarctica’s climate
• Regional climate variation and weather
• Climate change: past and future
• The ozone hole
• Who’s looking at you
• Food from the freezer
• A time to Krill: a murder mystery
• A view to a Krill
• Biogeography of Antarctica
• The terrestrial environment
• The marine environment
• Ecosystem change and exploration
• A letter never sent
• The race to the pole
• The Rime of the Ancient Mariner
• Explorer’s diaries
• Packing your bag
• What (not) to wear
• Keeping healthy
• Generation next
• The job of a lifetime!
• Spot the difference
• Polar extremes
• The importance of Polar science
• Your polar proposal – become a scientist
• Decision time
• Guess the gadget
• Prepare to travel south
• Collect data about the ocean
• Collect atmospheric data
• Collect data about the land
• Using your data
• Bases for understanding
• Developing understanding
• Contemporary understanding
• Using the past to research the present
• Conserving the past
• Understanding the past and the present
• Mapping wind speed and direction in Antarctica
• Working in 3D using digital elevation models
• Ice shelf retreat on the Antarctic Peninsula
• Why Antarctica?
• A trip of a lifetime
• Avoiding footprints
• The future of tourism
• Acting responsibly
• Visit Antarctica

Impacts and Management

• Environmentally friendly tourism
• A treasure trove of resources
• Farming Antarctic waters
• Putting you under pressure
• Fishing and biotechnology
• Under pressure: Land
• Overfishing
• Future of Antarctica
• Mineral resources
• Which view of the future? You decide!
• Reporting on the future
• Evidence of Change
• Impacts of climate change
• All agreed?
• The Antarctic Treaty system
• Making claims
• Working together
• Antarctic Treaty
• Conservation
• Science in Antarctica
• For teachers

Antarctica is an incredible tourist destination of icebergs, mountains, glaciers and wildlife. Tourists are attracted by its scenery, wildlife, adventure activities and remoteness.

Visitor numbers to Antarctica have increased rapidly with more than 37,800 tourists visiting Antarctica in 2008-09. Visits are confined to the warmer austral summer months and the majority of visits are to the Antarctic Peninsula. This increase in visitors, confined to certain areas and intensified over certain months raises questions about the sustainability and environmental impact of so many people visiting such a fragile environment.

• What impacts are tourists having on the environment and wildlife in Antarctica?
• Use the tourist impact sheet to fill in your answers.

Tourist impact sheet

Alien species

The photo below shows two alien species in one go! The first hoverfly (a pollinating insect) ever recorded on South Georgia in the sub – Antarctic, on a dandelion flower. Species could use the sub – Antarctic as a ‘jumping off point’ to travel to Antarctica in the future.

Tourists visit Antarctica because it is so ‘ pristine ‘, untouched and natural. But could seeds and spores on tourists’ clothes or small animals on tourist ships be inadvertently introduced and change this fragile ecosystem forever? Antarctica’s remoteness has prevented natural introductions of new species or introductions from humans due to the lack of human activity on the continent. Could this be under threat from invading species brought by tourists arriving from abroad? What will be the effect of climate change on the introduction of alien species?

What “alien lifeforms” could threaten Antarctica?

Read this news article from The Telegraph: “ Alien Life forms are Invading Antarctica ” and discuss or answer the following questions:

• In what ways could introductions of species from abroad change Antarctica?
• What measures can be put in place to prevent species introduction from outside Antarctica?

Learn more about the invasion of alien species in sub – Antarctica and Antarctica itself at the following websites:

• BAS: Preventing the introduction of non-native species to Antarctica
• Australian Antarctic Division: Human impacts in Antarctica
• Antarctic Treaty Secretariat: The Committee for Environmental Protection

Managing the impact of tourists

The overall aim is to ensure that all tourism activities in Antarctica are conducted safely, and with minimal impact on the environment. However, with increasing numbers, it is vital that the continuing growth in tourism activities is carefully planned and monitored. Under the terms of the Antarctic Act 1994, all UK visitors to the Antarctic are required to have a permit from the UK Government (FCO) or authorisation from another Contracting Party. All activities are subject to assessment of their environmental impact and applicants must ensure their visit is fully self-sufficient which includes demonstrating they have adequate contingency plans and search and rescue provisions in place.

The Antarctic Treaty nations have agreed a range of measures to regulate tourism in the region, including Visitor Site Guidelines. The guidelines help tour operators to manage tourist visits responsibly and sustainably, minimising the impact on the environment and wildlife. They also apply to the staff of Antarctic operators when on recreational visits.

Regarding Environmental Impact Assessments Article 3 (1) of the Protocol states “The protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems and the intrinsic value of Antarctica, including its wilderness and aesthetic values and its value as an area for the conduct if scientific research, in particular research essential to understanding the global environment, shall be fundamental considerations in the planning and conduct of all activities in the Antarctic Treaty area.”

Article 2 states that “activities …. shall be planned and conducted to limit adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems …”. Article 3c) goes on to say that “activities shall be planned and conducted on the basis of information sufficient to allow prior assessments of, and informed judgments about, their possible impacts on the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems and on the value of Antarctic for the conduct of scientific research”

Article 8 deals specifically with environmental impact assessments and sets out the procedures in the planning processes leading to decisions about any activities including science, tourism and all other governmental and non-governmental activities in the AT area. It introduces the concept of “minor or transitory impacts” as a measurement and details the procedures to follow (at Annex I) depending upon whether the planned activity will have “less than a minor or transitory impact”; “a minor or transitory impact” or “more than a minor or transitory impact”. In essence, the Protocol notes the importance of science but highlights the need for prior assessment of any impacts and for mitigation – the greater the impact the greater the in-depth assessment and the need for mitigation.

The impact of tourists on penguin colonies

One of the reasons tourists go to Antarctica is to see the wildlife and penguins are always a popular attraction. For 12 years the British Antarctic Survey and the UK Antarctic Heritage Trust who operate Port Lockroy on Goudier Island, have been studying breeding performance in ten colonies of gentoo penguins, including 600 pairs in sites visited by tourists and 200 pairs of gentoos in colonies off the tourist trail.

The study at Goudier Island is a valuable long-term dataset. It is only with such long-term datasets using consistent methods that the impacts of controlled and regulated tourism can be found.

The results of the study show that at two of the six visited colonies, gentoo breeding pairs are showing a “a significant statistical decline but the declines may not simply be due to visitors”. At the moment at least, the impact is relatively small and there is no discernible impact on breeding success” However, if tourism increases significantly or is not well managed there is a massive potential to impact on wildlife which is why the monitoring studies are so important to help determine effective management measures and further research is essential looking at breeding potential well as counting the eggs that are laid and hatched.

The impact of passenger vessels

The potential of tourism to impact on the marine environment is even greater than the potential impact on the land. The sinking of the MV Explorer near the South Shetland Islands in November 2007 highlighted the potentially disastrous human and environmental impacts of Antarctic tour operations. All the passengers and crew were safely rescued but 178,000 litres of fuel and 24 tons of lube oil is probably still sitting at the bottom of the ocean and which will be gradually released into the marine environment. So far there has been no sign of pollution but the possibilities are still there.

The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties are working towards greater control over tour ships in the area. At the ATCM in April 2009, a Measure was passed banning ships carrying more than 500 passengers from landing in Antarctica, and restricting other landings to a maximum of 100 passengers ashore at any one time, with a minimum ratio of one guide to every 20 passengers. These procedures have been voluntarily adopted by IAATO for some years. Voluntary procedures are important because the Antarctic tourism industry continues to grow: in the 2019-2020 tourist season 74,401 visitors travelled with IAATO members to the continent with 18,506 on cruise-only vessels.

In addition, the Treaty Parties have been working with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to prevent ships from carrying and burning heavy fuel oil in Antarctic waters. The ban will come into force in mid-2011. This will mean that large cruise vessels, which operate on heavy fuel oil, will not be able to sail in the area unless they use alternative, more environmentally-friendly, fuels.

The Treaty Parties and IAATO have also instigated measures to improve communications and vessels regularly report their positions. In December 2009, the International Maritime Organisation adopted revised guidelines for ships operating in polar waters and is now actively working on a mandatory Polar Shipping Code which is expected to be adopted in 2012. The Code will set compulsory standards for vessels intending to operate in the high latitudes.

The UK already requires British cruise ships to demonstrate that they are not operating in isolation whilst in Antarctic waters and is continuing to encourage other Antarctic Treaty Parties to do likewise. In the past many ships have wanted to be out there alone, selling this wonderful wilderness experience, but now the industry actively encourages vessels to cooperate with one another so they are able to provide assistance in the event of an incident.

• More information can be found on the IAATO website .

Student activity 1

What measures can be taken to reduce the environmental impacts on antarctica.

Imagine that you work for the International Assocaition of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) as their Tourism Impacts Advisor, you have been asked to develop 10 guidelines for tourists to Baily Head to be ratified at the Baltimore ATCM in 2009 to minimise environmental impacts. You have been given the following issues to consider: wildlife, vegetation, species introduction, litter, ships, adventure sports and historic buildings.

• Download and fill in the chart to get you started.
• Use the information in the Warm Up section to help you.

The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 governs activities on Antarctica. In 1998, a protocol called the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection was put in place which sets out guidelines to help protect the Antarctic environment and its ecosystems from tourist activities.

Learn more about the guidelines that have been developed at the following websites:

• IAATO: Visitor guidelines
• IAATO: Wildlife watching guidelines
• Discuss how they differ or are the same.

Student activity  2

Q&a: minimising the impact on penguins.

The British Antarctic Survey has the longest running study into the impact of tourists in Antarctica based at Port Lockroy one of the most popular destinations with more than 16,000 visitors in the 2007/08 season.

• Suggest measures that could be taken to minimise the impact of the tourists.
• Group sizes are restricted to 20 and landings must be staggered throughout the day.
• Visitors also need to remain outside the natural boundary of the colony
• Keep at least five metres from wildlife
• Give the birds the right of way, there are ‘penguin highways’ down to the beach with the birds going out foraging, so you mustn’t block their tracks

Student activity 3

Are tourists using antarctica sustainably.

As a journalist for a leading newspaper you have been asked to write a balanced news article or a report considering whether tourism in Antarctica is currently sustainable. You need to show both points of view.

• Use the links and the downloadable plan to help you.

Learn more about sustainable tourism at the following websites:

• New York Times Tourism in Antarctica: Edging Towards the (Risky) Mainstream
• Telegraph: Tourism ‘threatens Antarctic’

Tourism in Antarctica

More Than 34,000 People Tour the Southern Continent Annually

Mint Images - David Schultz / Getty Images

• U.S. Economy
• Supply & Demand
• Archaeology

Antarctica has become one of the world's most popular tourist destinations. Since 1969, the average number of visitors to the continent has increased from several hundred to over 34,000 today. All activities in Antarctica are heavily regulated by the Antarctic Treaty for environmental protection purposes and the industry is largely managed by the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO).

History of Tourism in Antarctica

The first expedition to Antarctica with travelers was in 1966, led by Swedish explorer Lars Eric Lindblad. Lindblad wanted to give tourists a first-hand experience on the ecological sensitivity of the Antarctic environment, in order to educate them and promote a greater understanding of the continent's role in the world. The modern expedition cruise industry was born shortly after, in 1969, when Lindblad built the world's first expedition ship, the "MS Lindblad Explorer," which was specifically designed to transport tourists to Antarctica.

In 1977, both Australia and New Zealand started to offer scenic flights to Antarctica through Qantas and Air New Zealand. The flights often flew to the continent without landing and returned to the departure airport. The experience was an average 12 to 14 hours with up to 4 hours flying directly over the continent.

The flights from Australia and New Zealand stopped in 1980. It was due in large part to the Air New Zealand Flight 901 accident on November 28, 1979, in which a McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 aircraft carrying 237 passengers and 20 crew members collided into Mount Erebus on Ross Island, Antarctica, killing all onboard. Flights to Antarctica did not resume again until 1994.

Despite the potential hazards and risks, tourism to Antarctica continued to grow. According to IAATO, 34,354 travelers visited the continent between 2012 and 2013. Americans contributed to the largest share with 10,677 visitors, or 31.1%, followed by Germans (3,830/11.1%), Australians (3,724/10.7%), and the British (3,492/10.2%). The remainder of the visitors were from China, Canada, Switzerland, France, and elsewhere.

The IAATO's original visitor and tour operator guidelines served as the basis in the development of the Antarctic Treaty Recommendation XVIII-1, which includes guidance for Antarctic visitors and for non-government tour organizers. Some of the mandated guidelines include:

• Do not disturb wildlife either at sea or on land
• Do not feed or touch animals or photograph in a way that will disturb
• Do not damage plants or bring invasive species
• Do not damage, destroy, or remove artifacts from historic sites. This includes rocks, bones, fossils, and content of buildings
• Do not interfere with scientific equipment, study sites, or field camps
• Do not walk onto glaciers or large snowfields unless properly trained
• Do not litter

There are currently over 58 vessels registered with the IAATO. Seventeen of the vessels are categorized as yachts, which can transport up to 12 passengers, 28 are considered category 1 (up to 200 passengers), 7 are category 2 (up to 500), and 6 are cruise ships, capable of housing anywhere from 500 to 3,000 visitors.

Tourism in Antarctica Today

Most ships depart from South America, particularly Ushuaia in Argentina, Hobart in Australia , and Christchurch or Auckland, New Zealand. The principal destination is the Antarctic Peninsula region, which includes the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. Certain private expeditions may include visits to inland sites, including Mt .Vinson (Antarctica's highest mountain) and the geographic South Pole . An expedition can last anywhere from a few days to several weeks.

Yachts and category 1 ships generally land on the continent with a duration lasting approximately 1 - 3 hours. There can be between 1-3 landings per day using inflatable crafts or helicopters to transfer visitors. Category 2 ships typically sail the waters with or without landing and cruise ships carrying more than 500 passengers are no longer operational as of 2009 due to concerns of oil or fuel spills.

Most of the activities while on land include visits to operational scientific stations and wildlife sties, hiking, kayaking, mountaineering, camping, and scuba-diving. Excursions are always accompanied by seasoned staff members, which often includes an ornithologist, marine biologist, geologist, naturalist, historian, general biologist, and/or glaciologist.

A trip to Antarctica can range anywhere from as little as $3,000-$4,000 to over $40,000, depending on the scope of transportation, housing, and activity needs. The higher end packages typically involve air transport, on-site camping, and a visit to the South Pole.

British Antarctic Survey (2013, September 25). Antarctic Tourism. Retrieved from: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/tourism/faq.php

International Association of Antarctica Tour Operations (2013, September 25). Tourism Overview. Retrieved from: http://iaato.org/tourism-overview

• The 7 Continents Ranked From Largest to Smallest
• 10 Facts about Christchurch, New Zealand
• Geography of the Southern Hemisphere
• The Big Apple: How NYC Got Its Name
• Australia: The Smallest Continent
• Commonly Asked Questions About Continents
• Antarctica: What's Beneath the Ice?
• The World's Highest Recorded Temperatures
• Zealandia: The Drowned Continent of the South
• What French Prepositions Go With Countries and Continents?
• The World's Major Earthquake Zones
• Captain James Cook
• The South Pole
• History of the Supercontinent Pangea
• Interesting Geography Facts
• Where Do Killer Whales Live?

share this!

February 27, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

written by researcher(s)

Antarctica provides at least $276 billion a year in economic benefits to the world, new research finds

by Rachel Baird and Natalie Stoeckl, The Conversation

All humanity benefits from Antarctica and the Southern Ocean that surrounds it. To some, these benefits may seem priceless. But in our market-driven world, calculating the economic value of the environment can be a useful tool in garnering support for its protection.

That was the intention of our new research . We crunched the numbers on the value of services Antarctica and the Southern Ocean provide in terms of fisheries, tourism and various natural processes that support Earth's functioning.

And the result? We calculate the economic value at a whopping US$180 billion (A$276 billion) each year. We hope our findings will help prioritize conservation actions in Antarctica and galvanize international support to protect the region from the ravages of climate change.

Benefits seen, and unseen

The many benefits nature provides to humans are known as " ecosystem services ".

Some services provided by Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are invisible to most people. For example, the Southern Ocean absorbs carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere, and ice in the region reflects heat. These processes help regulate Earth's climate

The Southern Ocean also helps transport water around the globe, which helps distribute heat, fresh water, carbon and nutrients. These are known as "regulating" services.

We can think about the value of these services in terms of the cost that would accrue if it was not provided. For example, the Antarctic ice sheet contains 30 million cubic kilometers of ice. If that ice melted as a result of global warming, the effects on coastal communities around the world would be catastrophic.

Other benefits provided by the Antarctic region are more visible. For example, humans rely on toothfish and krill for food, pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements. A warmer and more acidic Southern Ocean would affect fish stocks —both in the region and elsewhere—and some species may become extinct.

The Antarctic region also provides cultural services such as hosting vital scientific research. And in recent years, Antarctica has experienced a surge in tourist numbers.

So how much are these services actually worth to humanity? Our research examined that question.

Crunching the numbers

We used various methods to estimate the value of each service. Some, such as the provision of food, can be easily calculated by looking at what the market is willing to pay. Others, such as the avoidance of harm due to CO₂ absorption, are more complicated to ascribe value to.

Let's start with tourism. Visitor numbers to Antarctica—mostly by ship—have increased markedly in recent decades, from about 8,000 a year in 1993–1994 to 105,000 in 2022–2023. We estimate the annual value of the Antarctic tourism industry at about US$820 million.

And what about the benefits of fisheries? Considering the tons of toothfish and krill caught in the region, we estimate the value at about US$370 million per year.

Finally, we estimated the economic value of "regulating services" such as carbon storage, sea level regulation and light reflection. We did this by multiplying estimates of the value of carbon stored in the Southern Ocean by estimates of the social cost of carbon.

This was a complex calculation, which we explain in greater detail in our paper. Overall, we estimate the value of the region's regulating services at about US$179.3 billion a year.

All up, this brings the total value of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean's ecosystem services to about US$180 billion a year. This is a conservative estimate which excludes some ecosystem services.

For example, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and neighboring ocean gyres —which distribute Antarctic nutrients around the world—are thought to help boost the value of global fisheries by about US$2.8 billion. We did not include this in the calculation above to avoid double-counting with other regulating services.

And due to a lack of data, we could not even roughly estimate the value of scientific work in Antarctica, so this is also excluded. But Antarctic research may have prevented significant damage to livelihoods and infrastructure across the world—for example, by monitoring changes in ice and sea levels—and we can expect this contribution to increase in future.

And the region provides other important services that we don't have enough information to estimate, such as medicinal ingredients yet to be discovered.

What role for the Antarctic Treaty?

As the Southern Ocean becomes warmer and more acidic, its natural systems will undergo huge changes. This will reduce the many benefits the Antarctic region provides, at great cost to the world. So how should the global community respond?

The Antarctic and Southern Ocean is governed by the Antarctic Treaty , which was adopted in 1959. The threats we've outlined were not anticipated at the time, and the treaty does not address them.

Treaty parties have the authority to safeguard some ecosystem services, such as tourism, fishing and science. But are unable to effectively safeguard others, such as regulating services when the threat comes from outside the Antartctic area.

The treaty has evolved over the years. Now it must go further, to safeguard the huge benefits—economic and otherwise—the region provides to the world.

Provided by The Conversation

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Land management and climate change affect ecosystems' ability to provide multiple services simultaneously, study shows

12 minutes ago

Chimpanzees understand that they are sometimes relying on luck when making guesses, research suggests

22 minutes ago

New approach to identifying altermagnetic materials

27 minutes ago

Self-assembling and disassembling swarm molecular robots via DNA molecular controller

28 minutes ago

Astronomers discover an Earth-sized exoplanet orbiting a nearby ultracool dwarf star

58 minutes ago

Is magnesium the sleeping potion that enables sandhoppers to survive cold winters?

Exploring the origin of polaron formation in halide perovskites

2 hours ago

High-precision measurements challenge our understanding of Cepheids

7 hours ago

Sweaty cattle may boost food security in a warming world

17 hours ago

Watery planets orbiting dead stars may be good candidates for studying life—if they can survive long enough

Relevant physicsforums posts, the secrets of prof. verschure's rosetta stones, earthquake precursors associated with the turkey earthquakes.

22 hours ago

Should We Be Planting More Trees?

Jun 12, 2024

Is it possible to transform an electric thunderstorm into an EMP storm?

Jun 4, 2024

Jacchia Atmospheric Model

Jun 3, 2024

Iceland warming up again - quakes swarming

More from Earth Sciences

Related Stories

Sea change: New blueprint for Southern Ocean survival

Oct 18, 2023

Video: The latest science on tipping points in Antarctica

Feb 22, 2024

Study challenges classical view of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current origin and warns of its vulnerability

Feb 5, 2024

Report: Antarctic is changing dramatically, with global consequences

Jun 13, 2022

Acidity of Antarctic waters could double by century's end, threatening biodiversity, say scientists

Jan 10, 2024

Russia, China block move for new Antarctic marine reserves

Jun 24, 2023

Recommended for you

Study finds yuck factor counteracts sustainable laundry habits

20 hours ago

Scientists unravel drivers of the global zinc cycle in our oceans, with implications for a changing climate

Study shows video analysis of Iceland 2010 eruption could improve volcanic ash forecasts for aviation safety

Ancient ocean slowdown warns of future climate chaos

Jun 13, 2024

Estimating the energy of past earthquakes from brecciation in a fault zone

Uncovering the prolonged cooling events of the Holocene

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Most women working in the Arctic and Antarctic have reported a negative experience while undertaking field work

Women undertaking field work in the Arctic and Antarctic have faced difficult team dynamics, sexism, and a lack of accountability for bullying or harassment, a new survey has found.

Between September and November last year, researchers surveyed more than 300 women from around the world who had done field work in polar regions.

Of those, 79 per cent reported a negative field work experience.

The five most common issues related to field team dynamics and communication, sexism, rest and the weather.

Report co-author, University of Technology Sydney PhD candidate in polar marine ecology and climate change Rebecca Duncan, said while her team was already aware of many of the issues raised, they were "far more prevalent and pervasive" than anticipated.

The report, published in climate research journal PLOS Climate, found a common issue raised by respondents was the delegation of tasks and work expectations, with many saying they felt women had to "do more" to prove themselves.

The report showed that although 83 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement "my field work contributions were valued", 30 per cent also agreed that "in order to be recognised as a valuable member of the field team, I had to work harder than my co-workers".

One respondent said:

"[W]omen are often the ones that have the most laboratory tasks, while male colleagues are often the ones that get to go out on the boat all day and bring the women home the samples for processing late into the night."

Another said there was a "different perception of what women can handle, e.g. operating large machines" and that they "generally feel that sexism was always pervasive and affected my work".

Ms Duncan said it was something she had experienced personally.

"I've actually had scientific equipment taken from me, by male colleagues, and told 'this isn't women's work, this is for men', and essentially encouraged to go and do lighter duties," she said.

"It just reflects this idea that women maybe are not up for the task, and then they don't get offered those opportunities."

Equipment 'not designed for them'

Ms Duncan said while the team acknowledged some of the challenges identified were not faced by women alone, it was important to recognise inherent gender biases that existed.

She said the weather was one example, with the fit of the snowmobile suits worn when going outside raised in the survey.

Ms Duncan said the current style of the suits meant that when women had to go to the toilet — which regularly had to happen outside — they had to remove the whole suit.

"If it's minus 30 degrees and you're basically half naked to go to the toilet, that's a completely different ball game to men who can just urinate without being essentially half naked.

"No-one enjoys bad weather, but it's made worse for women because the equipment is not designed for them."

'Broad cultural and institutional changes' needed

The report said the "sexism, sexual harassment, violence and psychological abuse raised by respondents highlights a need for broad cultural and institutional changes".

Among the changes recommended in the report was "improving institutional structures for reporting incidents and holding perpetrators to account".

Ms Duncan said better reporting structures were needed. She said many respondents expressed concerns about negative repercussions if they spoke up, or were uncertain about where they could turn for help.

She said clear accountability also had to be a part of that process.

"Even if it's not through a direct reporting channel, just being able to speak to your boss and say … 'hey, I've been bullied, I've been harassed' or, 'I'm having a really bad time', knowing that you'll actually get an outcome is critical."

Hope for change

The Antarctic Women's Network was established in Tasmania last year to encourage more women to consider careers in Antarctic science and to support those already working in the field. It now has 140 members.

"It is about feeling safe, and having a space where people can share their stories," the network's leader, Karen Rees, said.

Ms Rees said change was happening, but there was still work to be done.

She said encouraging women to take leadership roles in the field, and to pursue their interests in Antarctic science was vital, along with bringing men into the conversation.

"Like all things, it takes time," Ms Rees said.

"But what I do understand is that there's really no tolerance for the kinds of behaviours that have led to this report."

Ms Duncan said she was optimistic change would happen.

"A lot of these women [surveyed] said, 'rather than leaving the research arena, I actually want to become a better leader because of the experiences I had'," she said.

"They're standing up for what should be happening."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Antarctic expeditioners complain of 'predatory', widespread sexual harassment as minister, division urge change.

On a stunning Antarctic voyage, women confront the cold, hard reality of science's diversity dilemma

• Science and Technology

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 13 June 2024

Global impacts of marine heatwaves on coastal foundation species

• Kathryn E. Smith   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7240-1490 1 ,
• Margot Aubin 1 ,
• Michael T. Burrows   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4620-5899 2 ,
• Karen Filbee-Dexter   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8413-6797 3 , 4 ,
• Alistair J. Hobday   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3194-8326 5 ,
• Neil J. Holbrook   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3523-6254 6 , 7 ,
• Nathan G. King 1 ,
• Pippa J. Moore 8 ,
• Alex Sen Gupta   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5226-871X 9 ,
• Mads Thomsen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4597-3343 10 , 11 ,
• Thomas Wernberg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1185-9745 3 , 4 ,
• Edward Wilson 1 &
• Dan A. Smale   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4157-541X 1  

Nature Communications volume  15 , Article number:  5052 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

29 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change ecology
• Ecosystem ecology
• Macroecology

With increasingly intense marine heatwaves affecting nearshore regions, foundation species are coming under increasing stress. To better understand their impacts, we examine responses of critical, habitat-forming foundation species (macroalgae, seagrass, corals) to marine heatwaves in 1322 shallow coastal areas located across 85 marine ecoregions. We find compelling evidence that intense, summer marine heatwaves play a significant role in the decline of foundation species globally. Critically, detrimental effects increase towards species warm-range edges and over time. We also identify several ecoregions where foundation species don’t respond to marine heatwaves, suggestive of some resilience to warming events. Cumulative marine heatwave intensity, absolute temperature, and location within a species’ range are key factors mediating impacts. Our results suggest many coastal ecosystems are losing foundation species, potentially impacting associated biodiversity, ecological function, and ecosystem services provision. Understanding relationships between marine heatwaves and foundation species offers the potential to predict impacts that are critical for developing management and adaptation approaches.

Similar content being viewed by others

Carbon export from seaweed forests to deep ocean sinks

Characteristics and changes of glacial lakes and outburst floods

Microbes as marine habitat formers and ecosystem engineers

Introduction.

The vast majority (~90%) of the excess heat arising from anthropogenic climate change has been absorbed by the upper oceans, leading to multidecadal scale warming across most of the globe 1 . As a result, many marine species have shifted their distributions over recent decades, causing widespread changes in the structure and function of marine communities 2 and impacting the ecosystem services they underpin 3 . As a consequence of global warming, climatic extremes such as marine heatwaves (MHWs; discrete and prolonged periods of warm ocean temperature extremes) have also increased in intensity and duration over the past century 4 , a trend which is projected to intensify further in coming decades 5 . Although a range of complex, interacting oceanographic and atmospheric processes drive MHWs 6 , 7 , the underlying fundamental link to human-mediated warming means projected increases in global temperatures will exacerbate future MHW events and their ecosystem impacts 8 .

Extreme temperatures associated with MHWs have been shown to impact the performance of a wide range of marine species, from the molecular to the population level, as critical thermal thresholds are exceeded 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 . Acute temperature increases associated with MHWs reduce the potential for individuals to respond via mechanisms such as plasticity or relocation 12 . Responses ranging from reduced ecological performance (e.g., growth, photosynthesis) and failed reproduction, to mass mortality events (MMEs) have been reported globally for marine primary producers, invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 with far-reaching ecological and socioeconomic ramifications 12 , 18 . In particular, declines in the abundance and health of foundation species such as macroalgae, seagrass, and hard and soft corals can have a disproportionately large impact on the wider community and ecosystem due to their fundamental role in maintaining ecological processes 19 , 20 . Foundation species are among the most important species in any coastal ecosystem as they define its identity including the biodiversity it supports and the services it provides. The loss of these foundation species can result in ecosystem collapse, leading to widespread shifts in ecological structure and functioning 19 , 20 .

Our understanding of the biological and ecological impacts of MHWs has increased significantly over the past decade as recognition of and research into these events have developed. MHWs are commonly defined as periods of five or more days where sea temperatures are warmer than the 90th percentile based on a 30-year fixed historical climatological baseline for the location and time of year 21 , 22 . Events can be classified by intensity into moderate, strong, severe, or extreme categories 23 . Event category and other MHW metrics, such as maximum and cumulative intensity, duration, and rate of onset and timing, can be described and explored using this definition, enabling the comparison of MHW metrics across and between events and linked to biological responses 22 . Several MHW characteristics (e.g. duration, cumulative intensity) have been shown to be useful predictors for biological responses in different locations 11 , 15 , 17 . However, a coherent understanding of how MHW characteristics mediate the responses of groups of functionally similar, ecologically important foundation species at the global scale is lacking. A loss of foundation species changes the identity of an environment and can lead to severe declines in the ecosystem services (e.g. tourism and fisheries) that human societies depend on 18 , 19 , 20 . Hence, without such knowledge, the inherent spatial and temporal variability of MHWs makes predicting species responses to different event profiles and in differing biogeographic regions problematic. This challenge is further complicated by variability in responses across a given species distribution. For example, populations persisting towards their warm trailing range edge are expected to be more detrimentally impacted in the future as MHW temperatures exceeding critical thermal limits are experienced more frequently 11 , 12 .

Here, we combine an extensively used MHW framework 21 , 23 with globally distributed ecological observations to assess responses of coastal marine foundation species (macroalgae, seagrass, scleractininan hard corals (hereafter ‘hard corals’) and soft coral habitat-forming invertebrates, like gorgonians) to MHWs. Using time-series datasets, we examined changes in macroalgae and seagrass abundance, along with observations of bleaching in hard corals and MMEs on Gorgonian soft corals. We focused on more intense MHWs (classified as ‘strong’ or greater intensity 23 at some point during their lifetime), that occurred during summertime (June to September and December to March for the northern and southern hemispheres, respectively, and all year round within the tropics (23.4°N-23.4°S)). These events were targeted because strong summer MHWs are more likely to elicit a greater response as species will be closer to their thermal maxima. To examine biological responses to MHWs, we collated a total of 2314 observations spanning 85 marine ecoregions defined by Spalding et al. 24 . We focussed on the dominant habitat-forming foundation species at each location, with the exception of hard corals, where species-level bleaching data were rarely available. Where sites were in close geographical proximity (<8 kilometres) and sharing common environmental features, we averaged the observed response of the dominant foundation species to individual MHW events, resulting in 1322 observations. Using these data, we first applied linear regression to explore if the number of annual negative responses observed changed over time. We next visually explored trends in the level of responses associated with MHWs across foundation species globally and by ecoregion. We then ran two generalised linear models (GLMs; one for macrophytes, one for hard corals and Gorgonian soft corals) to examine the relationships between foundation species responses and key MHW characteristics (mean, maximum, and cumulative intensity, duration, and maximum absolute temperature) at a global level. We included ‘marine ecoregion’ and ‘point in range’ (i.e. where a species was located within its geographical range) as predictor variables in the GLMs. Separate GLMs were run for the two groups because the scale of responses varied; bleaching and MMEs were reported as proportions of the population impacted, whereas changes in macrophytes included both losses and gains and consequently were either positive or negative. Ecoregion was identified as a significant variable in both GLMs. Consequently, we ran separate GLMs to explore foundation species responses to MHW characteristics for the 28 ecoregions, where ≥ 10 co-occurring MHW events and biological responses were available. A further two ecoregions were available with ≥10 data points, but analyses were not run on these ecoregions due to the high number of zeros in the data. Zeros represent locations where no response to an MHW was observed.

Global impacts of MHWs on foundation species

We found that MHWs have driven major changes in populations of foundation species globally, with the proportion of negative responses relative to total annual observations increasing significantly over time ( p  = 0.021, R 2  = 0.15; Fig.  1 ). While trends in observed responses varied between foundation species, both globally and across marine ecoregions (Figs.  2 a–c and 3a–c ), impacts were identified in 79 of 85 ecoregions. In the remaining six ecoregions, no responses to MHWs were observed (all regions where no bleaching of hard corals was observed at site level), although for five of these six ecoregions less than three data points were available. Across hard and soft corals, the range of responses varied from 0 to 100% of sampled individuals being impacted in an ecoregion, while seagrass and macroalgae responses ranged from complete loss to, in some cases, considerable increases in abundance.

The blue trend line indicates the significant relationship between the number of negative responses and year using regression analyses ( p  = 0.021, R 2  = 0.15), along with the 95th percentiles around the mean in grey. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

Colour codes represent no change or varying degrees of increased bleaching or mortality. a global map of ecoregions included in our analyses. Each ecoregion is coloured by the average observed biological response. Blue coloured ecoregions represent ecoregions where no data were available. The map is adapted from 24 and the relevant shape files available from the Nature Conservancy https://geospatial.tnc.org/datasets/ed2be4cf8b7a451f84fd093c2e7660e3_0/about . b , c proportion of responses globally and within each ecoregion that are mild (<10 % of population impacted), moderate (10 – 50% impacted), and severe (≥ 50% impacted). A number of data points identified in each ecoregion are listed on the right. 1 = Hawaii, 2 = Fiji Islands, 3 = Samoa Islands, 4 = Southern Cook/Austral Islands, 5 = Society Islands, 6 = Tuamotus, 7= Easter Island, 8 = Nicoya, 9 = Cocos Islands, 10 = Northern Galapagos Islands, 11 = Eastern Galapagos Islands, 12 = Guayaquil, 13 = Panama Bight, 14 = Western Caribbean, 15 = Greater Antilles, 16 = Floridian, 17 = Bahamian, 18 = Eastern Caribbean, 19 = Southwestern Caribbean, 20 = Southern Caribbean, 21 = Fernando de Naronha and Atoll das Rocas, 22 = Northeastern Brazil, 23 = Eastern Brazil, 24 = Gulf of Guinea Islands, 25 = Northern and Central Red Sea, 26 = Seychelles, 27 = East African Coral Coast, 28 = Delagoa, 29 = Western and Northern Madagascar, 30 = Mascarene Islands, 31 = Western Arabian Sea, 32 = Maldives, 33 = Chagos, 34 = South India and Sri Lanka, 35 = Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 36 = Northern Bay of Bengal, 37 = Gulf of Thailand, 38 = Andaman Sea Coral Coast, 39 = Malacca Strait, 40 = Western Sumatra, 41 = Cocos-Keeling/Christmas Island, 42 = Sunda Shelf/Java Sea, 43 = Northeast Sulawesi, 44 = Lesser Sunda, 45 = Banda Sea, 46 = Bonaparte Coast, 47 = Arnhem Coast to Gulf of Carpentaria, 48 = Torres Strait and Northern Great Barrier Reef, 49 = Southeast Papua New Guinea, 50 = Central and Southern Great Barrier Reef, 51 = Tweed–Moreton, 52 = New Caledonia, 53 = Southern Vietnam, 54 = Gulf of Tonkin, 55 = South China Sea Oceanic Islands, 56 = Southern China, 57 = East China Sea, 58 = South Kuroshio, 59=Central Kuroshio Current, 60 = Mariana Islands, 61 = Eastern Philippines, 62 = Palawan/North Borneo, 63 = Marshall Islands, 64=Sulawesi Sea/Makassar Strait, 65 = Bismarck Sea, 66=Solomon Archipelago, 67 = Vanuatu, 68 = Alboran Sea, 69 = Western Mediterranean, 70 = Aegean Sea, 71 = Adriatic Sea. * Average change is the average amount of bleaching or MME’s identified across all locations/events within that ecoregion. Not all ecoregions are averages; only one replicate was available for ecoregions 1, 4, 7, 9, 21, 26, 31, 35, 43, 46, 47, 49, 55, and 67, and thus the colour reflects the single replicate. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

a global map of ecoregions included. Each ecoregion is coloured by the average observed biological response. Blue-coloured ecoregions represent ecoregions where no data were available. The map is adapted from 24 and the relevant shape files available from the Nature Conservancy https://geospatial.tnc.org/datasets/ed2be4cf8b7a451f84fd093c2e7660e3_0/about . b , c proportion of responses globally and within each ecoregion that are mild (10 % gain to 10 % loss), moderate loss (10–50% loss), severe loss (≥ 50% loss), moderate gain (10–50% gain) or severe gain (≥ 50% gain). The number of data points identified in each ecoregion is listed on the right. 1 = Fiji Islands, 2 = Floridian, 3 = Celtic Seas, 4 = Andaman Sea Coral Coast, 5 = Malacca Strait, 6=Arnhem Coast to Gulf of Carpentaria, 7 = Torres Strait and Northern Great Barrier Reef, 8 = Central and Southern Great Barrier Reef, 9 = Tweed–Moreton, 10 = Vanuatu, 11 = Gulf of Alaska, 12 = Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Is., 13 = Northern California, 14 = Southern California Bight, 15 = Magdalena transition, 16 = Humboldtian, 17 = Gulf of Maine, 18 = Southern Norway, 19 = North Sea, 20 = Houtman, 21 = Bassian, 22 = Cape Howe, 23 = Northeastern New Zealand. *Average change is the average amount of bleaching or MME’s identified across all locations/events within that ecoregion. Not all ecoregions are averages; only one replicate was available for ecoregions 1, 3, 6, 15–17, and 23, and thus the colour reflects the single replicate. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

Across ecoregions, where there were enough observations ( n  ≥ 3, 57 ecoregions) to calculate an average change in foundation species, trends in the magnitude of responses varied markedly (Supplementary Data  1 ). The occurrence of MMEs was greatest in the Western Mediterranean where a single MHW event led to an average of 44.0% mortality across populations of Gorgonian soft corals. For the bleaching of hard corals, the hardest hit ecoregions included South India and Sri Lanka (average 69% bleaching) followed by the Maldives and the East African Coral Coast (51% and 40.3% bleaching, respectively). Comparatively, the least impacted ecoregions included New Caledonia, North and Central Red Sea, Andaman Sea Coral Coast, Cocos-Keeling/Christmas Island, Southern China, and the Banda Sea, where average bleaching remained below 1% across 80 observations gathered following MHW events (Fig.  2a ). For seagrass, the greatest loss of cover was recorded in the Tweed-Moreton ecoregion (28.6% loss) in Australia whereas only small impacts were observed in the Torres Strait and Northern Great Barrier Reef ecoregion, with changes averaging just 5.7% loss following MHW activity (Fig.  3a ). For macroalgae, Northern California recorded the most dramatic declines (39.3% loss of macroalgae density) whereas moderate increases were recorded in the Bassian ecoregion (11.8% gain in macroalgae coverage).

Critically, responses to MHWs were strongly modulated by the location of the surveyed population within species distributions, with the most negative responses occurring towards warm trailing range edges (Fig.  4 ). Our global-level GLMs indicated point in range to be a statistically significant variable predicting responses to MHWs in both macrophytes ( p  = 0.004) and corals ( p  = 0.027). For macrophytes, sizeable losses were typically recorded in populations persisting towards their warm range edges (20.1% loss), whereas those found towards leading cool range edges exhibited a moderate increase in density or coverage (11.0% gain). MHW-induced bleaching of hard corals and MMEs of Gorgonian soft corals affected larger proportions of the population at warm range edges (23.5%) compared with mid and cool range edges (22.9% and 21.0% bleaching, respectively). Our global-level GLMs also indicated responses in macrophytes to be significantly related to mean MHW intensity ( p  = 0.012), MHW duration ( p  = 0.034), and marine ecoregion ( p  = 0.009). Corals were found to be significantly related to mean and cumulative MHW intensity, maximum absolute temperature, MHW duration (all p  < 0.001), and marine ecoregion (both p  = 0.001).

a Percent of populations impacted by bleaching in scleractinian hard corals and mass mortality events in gorgonian soft corals, and b Change in macroalgae and seagrass abundance (percent cover or densities). Two-tailed generalised linear models indicate point in range to be a significant factor for predicting responses to MHWs in both corals ( p  = 0.027; n  = 171, 880 and 73, for 0–25%, 25-75% and 75-100%, respectively) and macrophytes ( p  = 0.004; n  = 34, 97 and 56, for 0–25%, 25-75% and 75-100%, respectively). Data are presented as mean values +/− SEM. Model parameters are defined in Supplementary Table  1 . c Illustrative performance curves for species from the northern hemisphere, equatorial region, and southern hemisphere indicating where species are more likely (warm range areas) or less likely (cool range areas) to experience negative impacts of MHWs. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

Increasing MHW intensity and duration exacerbates negative impacts

We identified statistically significant relationships between species responses and key MHW characteristics for 21 of the 28 marine ecoregions where large numbers of observations (> 10) were recorded following strong MHWs (Figs.  5 , 6 , Table  1 ). In all ecoregions, foundation species performance declined significantly as one or more MHW characteristics, such as intensity and duration, increased. The most statistically important characteristics varied; for hard corals, maximum absolute temperature was most commonly the strongest predictor of bleaching levels. Conversely, for the other foundation species, the mean intensity was most commonly and significantly linked to responses. Across foundation species types, in many ecoregions, statistically significant relationships were found between biological responses and two or more MHW characteristics (Supplementary Table  2 ), although for a small number of ecoregions, no significant relationships were evident between differences in responses and any of the MHW characteristics examined. This could be due to factors including low sample size (e.g. Mascarene Islands) or low overall levels of bleaching in hard corals (e.g. Eastern Philippines). Interestingly, in New Caledonia bleaching in hard corals did not exceed 2.5% despite 20 observations made during MHWs. In the North and Central Red Sea and in Southern China, although commonly above zero, levels of bleaching were consistently low, with a maximum of 12.5% of hard coral bleached during any one event. For Gorgonian soft corals, we identified a significant relationship between MMEs and mean MHW intensity in the Western Mediterranean, whereas in the Adriatic Sea MMEs were significantly linked with MHW duration.

For each foundation species group and ecoregion, the MHW metric shown is for the lowest p value identified (see Supplementary Table  1 for model parameters and Supplementary Table  2 for all p values). * indicates significant p values. The colour surrounding each plot indicates the foundation species group. Numbers in the top left corner of each plot refer to the numbered ecoregions on the central map. All GLMs were two-tailed. For significant GLMs, the grey area around the blue trend line indicates 95th percentiles around the mean. GLMs were not run on data from New Caledonia or Southern China due to a high number of zeros present in each dataset. The map is adapted from24 and the relevant shape files available from the Nature Conservancy https://geospatial.tnc.org/datasets/ed2be4cf8b7a451f84fd093c2e7660e3_0/about . The underlying data for this figure can be found in the figshare database included in the data availability statement.

For each foundation species group and ecoregion, the MHW metric shown is for the lowest p value identified (see Supplementary Table  1 for model parameters and Supplementary Table  2 for all p values). * indicates significant p values. The colour surrounding each plot indicates the foundation species group. Numbers in the top left corner of each plot refer to the numbered ecoregions on the central map. All GLMs were two-tailed. For significant GLMs, the grey area around the blue trend line indicates 95th percentiles around the mean. The map is adapted from 24 and the relevant shape files available from the Nature Conservancy https://geospatial.tnc.org/datasets/ed2be4cf8b7a451f84fd093c2e7660e3_0/about . The underlying data for this figure can be found in the figshare database included in the data availability statement.

For macroalgae and seagrass, we found that mean and cumulative intensity were the strongest predictors of change in cover, with statistically significant declines in macrophytes observed with increasing MHW intensity (Fig.  6 , Supplementary Table  2 ). Our data also showed that while most responses to MHWs were negative (i.e. a reduction in density or cover of macrophytes), within every ecoregion some positive responses to MHWs were also observed, typically during lower-intensity MHW events. Regardless, observed declines in macroalgae and seagrass cover were mostly associated with increasing MHW intensity.

Marine heatwaves (MHWs) are emerging as pervasive stressors to marine ecosystems, with impacts observed across all trophic levels from primary producers to top predators 9 , 11 , 12 , 25 . Our study presents a globally extensive and coherent analysis of MHW impacts, highlighting the widespread, detrimental effects that these warm ocean extreme events have on a range of coastal foundation species. Given their exceptional importance within marine communities and ecosystems, losses of foundation species will likely have far-reaching implications for local biodiversity, ecological functioning, and the provision of ecosystem services. For example, declines in foundation species lead to loss of biogenic habitat structure, decreased species richness, and shifts in community composition 10 , 14 , 26 , 27 , 28 , as well as decreased productivity 15 . Considerable ecological and socioeconomic ramifications of foundation species’ losses have already been observed globally in response to MHWs 12 , 14 , 18 , 29 . Consequences range from loss of income from tourism or fishing to reduced storm protection and carbon sequestration (Table  1 and references therein). Off Christchurch, New Zealand, large bull kelp has become regionally extinct following an MHW in 2017/2018, replaced by smaller, more ephemeral species 28 . Similarly, in Western Australia, extensive losses of trailing edge macroalgae populations following an extreme MHW in 2011 resulted in an ecosystem-level regime shift from temperate macroalgae forests to warmer-affinity algal turfs that support a more tropicalized community 10 , a change that continues to persist more than a decade on from the event 30 . Further north, the same event led to extensive losses of seagrass, resulting in a reduction in commercial fisheries species 29 , a decline in charismatic megafauna 14 , and the release of significant amounts of carbon from coastal sediments 13 .

Our findings provide compelling evidence of the impacts of strong, summer MHWs on the decline in foundation species globally. Foundation species responses were overwhelmingly negative, with the relative number of negative impacts increasing through time, in line with MHW intensification over recent decades 4 . The most detrimental effects are seen on warm range edge populations, highlighting the potential for MHWs to accelerate range contractions at the equatorward distributions of these species. Our findings provide evidence to support previous research indicating that warm range edge populations, which live closer to their thermal limits, are more negatively impacted by warm water anomalies 11 , 31 . Further, our research highlights that this pattern is global. While there is evidence to suggest that such events also facilitate an expansion of foundation species at their cool range edge, newly established populations will likely take decades or longer to form productive ecosystems and will support dissimilar communities to the original foundation species with the potential for broad socioeconomic ramifications (Table  1 ).

At the ecoregion level, we identified clear negative relationships between the heath of foundation species and the severity of MHWs, with foundation species typically exhibiting more detrimental responses as MHW intensity increased. It was, however, interesting to note that despite a general pattern of bleaching in hard corals increasing rapidly at temperatures >30°C, populations in some ecoregions exhibited little to no bleaching following high-magnitude MHWs that exceeded 31°C (e.g. New Caledonia and Southern China). This could be related to local oceanography generating cooler regions that are unresolved by the temperature dataset 32 , cloud cover reducing insolation that is necessary for bleaching to occur 33 or indicate a level of thermal acclimation 34 , but identification of these regions offers the opportunity for further investigation into the drivers of ecological resilience. Similarly, it was interesting to observe ecoregions where moderate gains were reported (e.g. macroalgae in the Bassian ecoregion). These responses were likely due to the dominant foundational species remaining comfortably within their thermal range throughout the duration of the MHW events, which can lead to no impact or even promote growth and performance. For example, the kelp Ecklonia radiata is found at temperatures ranging from 8–25 °C 35 , but the highest temperature this species was exposed to during MHWs identified during this study in the Bassian ecoregion was ~21 °C (Supplementary Data  2 ). As these events fall inside the species thermal range, the higher water temperatures may have enhanced ecological performance. For species located near their cool range edge, these results are perhaps unsurprising; since it is cold temperatures that limit distribution in these locations, it follows that warmer conditions may promote growth. Certainly, range expansions at the poleward edge of species distributions have previously been reported for kelp and seagrass in the Arctic 36 , 37 , 38 and corals in subtropical regions 39 . Regardless, in many ecoregions, strong MHW events are projected to increase in frequency and duration over the coming decades 5 , 8 , while other ecoregions are characterised by the presence of high numbers of warm range edge species which have a greater likelihood of exhibiting negative responses 11 . It is where these two factors overlap that the most detrimental impacts of MHWs are most likely to be observed 11 .

Our analyses add an important contribution to the understanding of MHWs on coastal ecosystems globally. Nevertheless, despite targeting datasets that collect long-term data exploring trends in biodiversity at representative sites (e.g. Reef Check or Seagrass Survey; see Table  2 for details), we recognise elements of the study may be influenced by factors like publication bias or targeted sampling. Similarly, while we targeted strong, summer MHWs because these events are more likely to be stressful and have been associated with previous impacts 11 , we acknowledge that our study did not explore responses to MHWs occurring in other seasons. Temperatures experienced during such events will be less likely to exceed upper thermal thresholds and may elicit positive or neutral responses 12 , depending on the species and environmental context, and warrant further investigation. Furthermore, we have only assessed direct relationships between MHW characteristics and foundation species responses. Some of the foundation species responses we have observed could be exacerbated by either a compound stressor or may have occurred as an indirect response to MHWs. For example, the loss of seagrass off the coast of Western Australia and the loss of macroalgae off the coast of New Zealand following MHWs were attributed to a combination of warming, increased sedimentation, and reduced light conditions 14 , 40 . In a recent global bleaching event, tissue loss and subsequent mortality of hard corals were contributed to by both bleaching and disease induced by warming 41 . Loss of macroalgal forests off the coast of California following ‘the Blob’ MHW in 2014-2016 was, in some locations, driven by increased herbivory as a consequence of sea star mass mortality (due to wasting disease linked to warming), facilitating urchin population booms 42 . There is clearly a need to better understand the cumulative and secondary responses of a broad suite of species to MHWs, and to identify which species and ecosystems exhibit greater resistance and resilience to extreme warming events.

Identifying relationships between MHW characteristics and biological responses of foundation species across ecoregions takes us a step further towards predicting the impacts of future extreme warming events. Concurrently, such information can be used to ascertain potential climatic refugia or warming-resilient ecosystems by identifying areas at low risk of events or foundation species groups that exhibit some resistance to MHWs 43 . This, coupled with more skillful forecasting 44 , 45 will improve predictions of how species will respond across their ranges, facilitating management efforts such as ad hoc fishery closures and targeting of alternative species to alleviate the impacts of MHWs in high-risk areas 29 , 46 , 47 . In some locations, early management actions have already alleviated the impacts of or even taken advantage of, MHW activity 48 . Building a mechanistic understanding of how other species, or entire communities, respond to MHWs or compound events, including both direct and indirect responses 14 , 42 , will further increase predictive ability. Additionally, gaining an understanding of the recovery of MHW-affected communities will shed light on the longer-term resilience of ecosystems. Further, supporting field observations with laboratory studies 49 or more sophisticated mesocosm approaches 50 will help to identify physiological tipping points of critical foundation species. Ultimately, to mitigate the future impacts of MHWs, it is essential to use a multi-faceted approach to understand species-level risks, resilience, and recovery.

Data collection

Foundation species datasets.

We analysed nine long time-series datasets that reported either density or coverage of macroalgae or seagrass, bleaching in scleractinian hard corals, and mass mortality events (MMEs) in gorgonian soft corals. Datasets with a large spatiotemporal coverage were targeted to maximise the likelihood of identifying marine heatwaves (MHWs) that occurred during data collection across global locations (see Table  2 for details of the datasets used). The datasets used were generally datasets that had been gathered to explore trends in biodiversity at representative sites, rather than surveys which targeted specific impacts or areas. For example, the Santa Barbara Channel Long Term Ecological Research (SBC-LTER) team has been carrying out standardised surveys since the year 2000 on a range of sites, and Reef Check ( www.reefcheck.org ) has been using trained citizen scientists to survey reefs globally since 1996. We examined the datasets for any overlap (e.g. PISCO 51 data up until 2017 are also available in the dataset from ref. 52 ) and removed duplicate data points. We also removed data points that were described to have been impacted by stressors other than temperature (for example, Seagrass Watch records all Tropical Cyclones occurring across monitoring periods). Because MHWs are typically identified from sea surface temperature (SST) measurements, we targeted ecological surveys that had been carried out in shallow waters for consistency. We therefore used an arbitrary cut-off of 10 m depth for all datasets, and where multiple surveys were carried out at the same location and time, we used the shallowest records. These criteria resulted in 9027 global locations with multiple years of data or 25,951 individual data points. All data were reported at the species level, except hard corals that were reported at the order level (Scleractinia).

Definition and calculation of MHWs

To identify MHWs from observational SST time series data we used the definition proposed by Hobday et al. 21 , 23 , which defines a MHW as a period of 5 or more days when water temperatures are above a seasonally varying 90th percentile climatological threshold (i.e., consecutive events separated by two or fewer days were analysed as single events). The climatological mean and threshold were calculated over an 11-day window centred on each calendar day using a 30-year fixed baseline from 1983 to 2012 21 , 23 . The climatological mean and threshold were smoothed using a 30-day running window. MHW intensities were also categorised based on multiples of the difference between the climatological mean and the 90th percentile for any location and time, i.e. intensities between 1-2x are Moderate, 2-3x are Strong, 3-4x are Severe and >4x are Extreme events 23 .

To detect MHWs and calculate key metrics we used the R code ( https://robwschlegel.github.io/heatwaveR 53 ) which follows the Hobday et al. 21 , 23 MHW definition and intensity categorisation schemes. MHW events were calculated for each location where we had foundation species data, using the 1/4° resolution National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Optimum Interpolation SST V2 data. Analysed MHW metrics included mean intensity (the average SST anomaly across the event), maximum intensity (the maximum SST anomaly reached during an event), cumulative intensity (the sum of the daily intensities across the event), maximum absolute temperature (the highest recorded SST during an event) and duration (the number of days an event lasts). All events categorised as Moderate were removed, leaving only Strong, Severe, and Extreme category events. Higher magnitude events were targeted because a) MHWs of a magnitude of Moderate intensity have been present throughout the satellite record making it difficult to differentiate between events whereas events of Strong or greater intensity occur less frequently 8 , 12 , 17 and b) most key events which have elicited recorded ecological responses have been category Strong or greater 54 . For all locations outside the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn (23.44° N to 23.44° S), the remaining events occurring outside ‘summer’ were eliminated. For the purposes of this study, we defined boreal summer as 1st June–30th September and austral summer 1st December – 31st March, following Smale et al. 11 . Summer events were targeted because species are naturally closer to their thermal maxima during this season, increasing the likelihood of a response being observed 55 .

Foundation species responses to MHWs

To identify biological responses, we cross-referenced detected MHWs with foundation species data to identify periods where Strong or above-category MHWs fitting the above criteria overlapped with the biological datasets. If events occurred during multiple years at any one site, biological data were only included if at least two years had passed since the previous MHW categorised as Strong or greater intensity, offering foundation species the opportunity for some recovery 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 . We focussed on the dominant habitat-forming species at each location, with the exception of hard corals, where species-level bleaching data were rarely available, and followed two methodologies depending on the target foundation species.

For macroalgae and seagrass (in combination referred to as ‘macrophytes’) we used time-series data to compare densities (counts per area) or percent coverage from directly before, but not during, a strong MHW event to 6–12 months after that MHW event. This post-MHW duration was used because there is typically a lag between MHWs and changes in plant density or cover. In each location, we focussed on the dominant species only (e.g. Macrocystis pyrifera off California). Where possible we averaged measurements of macrophytes pre-MHW over 2–3 years to account for natural variability. Data gathered at the same time of year were used to compare pre- and post-MHW conditions. Density/coverage from pre-MHW was subtracted from the same data post-MHW to determine if macrophytes had increased or decreased, and to what extent.

For bleaching in hard corals and MMEs in Gorgonian soft corals, we examined MHW events that occurred at most 16 weeks prior to ecological surveys. Bleaching and MMEs in these foundation species groups typically occur during or soon after MHWs 60 , 61 , and the shorter period prior to surveys was chosen to reflect this.

To calculate the relevant MHW metrics for each biological response, consecutive events that fell within the timeframes being examined were combined. Where any event ran over the confines of the timeframes, the event metrics were trimmed to include only intensities that had occurred within the defined period, i.e. ‘summer’, or 16 weeks prior to surveys. Following the above criteria, we compiled a total data set comprising 2314 sites and time periods. Data from sites that were geographically similar were then averaged for each MHW event; this was defined here as sites within 8 kilometres of each other sharing common environmental features (adapted from Garrabou et al. 17 ). The resulting localized areas were then reclassified into marine ecoregions 24 resulting in 1322 observations across 85 ecoregions (139 for macroalgae, 60 for seagrass, 1047 for hard corals and 76 for gorgonian soft corals). Ranges of the corresponding MHW characteristics for ecoregion are listed in Supplementary Data  2 .

Data exploration and analysis

Trends in mhw responses across time.

We used our initial 25,951 site/year data points along with our 2208 sites and time periods that were impacted by a strong, summer MHW, to assess how negative responses to MHWs have changed over time. All observations were included here rather than the responses averaged within 8 km, to ensure the data was comparable with the 25,951 initial data points, which had not been averaged. We calculated the number of initial data points that had been gathered in any one calendar year along with the number of negative responses from our 2314 data points occurring within a calendar year (excluding either neutral or positive responses). We then calculated the percentage of annual data points that showed a negative response to MHWs. We applied regression analysis on the resulting data to assess if the proportion of sites examined that were negatively impacted by MHWs changed over time.

Global and ecoregion-level trends in responses

We used the 1322 biological observations we had gathered to visually explore trends in global and ecoregion-level responses to MHWs across foundation species. For each foundation species group, we determined the proportion of observations that fell into different effect sizes, first on a global scale, and then by marine ecoregion. The effect sizes comprised mild (<10% of the population impacted), moderate (10–50%), and severe (>50% of the population impacted) inhibition (loss) or facilitation (gain). For bleaching in hard corals and MMEs in gorgonian soft corals only inhibition was recorded, whereas for macroalgae and seagrass, both inhibition and facilitation were recorded. For all ecoregions with a minimum of three data points we also averaged all responses for each foundation species group independently to explore differences in global responses. Where data on bleaching in hard corals were only available as ranges (mild (1–10%), moderate (11–50%) or severe (≥50%)), the range was replaced with conservative values of 1%, 11%, and 51%, respectively, to enable data to be incorporated.

We next combined our data across all foundation species for either all the foundational macrophytes or corals, into two separate analyses to statistically explore the relationships between independent variables (MHW characteristics, ecoregion, species point in range) and foundation species responses. Species points in range were assessed as follows: for all species-level data, the full latitudinal ranges were determined from the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS; https://obis.org ) following Smale et al. 11 . For hard corals, where species-level data were not available, we gathered data from OBIS for the full latitudinal ranges of common reef-forming coral genera ( Acropora, Pocillopora, Porites, Favites and Goniastrea ; 35.03°N–35.06°S). For this group, which spans the equator, we considered the trailing range edge as the equator and leading range edges as the poleward extents, with a point in the range being expressed as the distance between the equator and northern or southern extent (see Fig.  4c for additional information on points in range). Data were analysed with Generalised Linear Models (GLMs) weighted by the number of sites that were averaged within a geographically similar localised area, as described above. For macroalgae and seagrass direct increases or decreases in counts or percent cover were modelled, so Gaussian error structure was used. For bleaching in hard corals and MME in Gorgonian soft corals, data were expressed as proportions of the population, so a Quasibinomial error structure was used. For each dataset, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was calculated to account for collinearity in independent variables. The largest VIFs were removed sequentially until all remaining independent variables had a VIF < 10. For GLMs run using Gaussian error structure, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) score was also examined to help determine the best fitting models. Model residuals were examined, and outliers were removed if necessary (one for corals and three for macrophytes).

Ecoregion was identified as a significant variable affecting responses in both macrophytes and corals. Consequently, for all ecoregions with ≥ 10 datapoints, we ran additional GLMs to test for the relationships between MHW characteristics and foundation species responses at the ecoregion level. Here, our data were reduced to 1133 observations (128 for macroalgae, 60 for seagrass, 869 for hard corals, and 76 for gorgonian soft corals. An additional 189 observations from across these 30 ecoregions were not included in these analyses either because species were only reported to genus level (for 11 macrophyte locations), or because the responses reported within a range (i.e., bleaching in hard corals reported as mild, moderate, or severe, for 178 hard coral locations) were deemed too coarse for these analyses. For macroalgae and seagrass, we compared responses by a single dominant primary foundation species for each ecoregion (i.e., Ecklonia radiata for Bassian and Cape Howe ecoregions, Macrocystis pyrifera for Northern and Southern California ecoregions, Laminaria hyperborea for the North Sea ecoregion, and Zostera muelleri for the Tweed-Moreton ecoregion). No analyses were run for seagrass in the Central and Southern Great Barrier Reef ecoregion or for macroalgae in the Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast, and Shelf ecoregion, because data for ≥ 10 observations for a single, known species was not available. For hard corals and gorgonian soft corals, we compared responses across all observations within an ecoregion. No analyses were undertaken for the Samoa Islands, East China Sea, or Mariana Islands because ≥ 10 accurate data points (i.e. presented as a number instead of a range) were not available for these ecoregions (see Supplementary Data  1 ). GLMs were again weighted by a number of sites within a localised area for each ecoregion or group of ecoregions. As previously, the Gaussian error structure was used for macrophytes, and Quasibinomial error structure was used for corals. Again, the largest VIFs were removed sequentially until all remaining independent variables had a VIF < 10, and for GLMs run using Gaussian error structure the AIC score was examined to help determine the best fitting models (Supplementary Table  1 ). For each dataset, model residuals were examined and outliers were removed if necessary. All GLMs were conducted in RStudio v. 2022.12.0+353 62 .

Potential sources of non-independence

We acknowledge that non-independence of data is a potential issue in our dataset and we have corrected this to the best of our ability. To avoid spatial autocorrelation we averaged responses from sites that were geographically similar and in close proximity. We also recognise that we have used multiple sites from the same dataset. However, each site was typically surveyed by a different observer and therefore we elected to retain the full dataset. Finally, we recognise that similar species within a broader clade may have similar responses. However, our dataset shows large variation in responses for a single species across different studies and we therefore again elected to retain the full dataset, to ensure we had the highest power to detect the influence of MHW characteristics.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The datasets used in this study are shown in Table  2 . The processed data used in this study are available in the following figshare database: https://figshare.com/s/b7a4f926c746b2b9cc3a . Sea Surface Temperature data (dataset: ncdcOisst21Agg_LonPM180)used to determine the presence of marine heatwaves was downloaded from https://coastwatch.pfeg.noaa.gov/erddap/ . Source data are provided with this paper for Figs.  1 – 4 . The data underlying Figs.  5 and 6 can be found in the above figshare database. All datasets used in this study are freely available and the conditions of access were followed for each.  Source data are provided in this paper.

Code availability

All codes required to identify marine heatwaves are freely available at https://robwschlegel.github.io/heatwaveR 62 .

Forster, P. et al. The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 923–1054. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.009 (2021).

Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3 , 919–925 (2013).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Weiskopf, S. R. et al. Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and natural resource management in the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 733 , 137782 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Oliver, E. C. J. et al. Longer and more frequent marine heatwaves over the past century. Nat. Commun. 9 , 1–12 (2018).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Frölicher, T. L., Fischer, E. M. & Gruber, N. Marine heatwaves under global warming. Nature 560 , 360–364 (2018).

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Holbrook, N. J. et al. A global assessment of marine heatwaves and their drivers. Nat. Commun. 10 , 2624 (2019).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Holbrook, N. J. et al. Keeping pace with marine heatwaves. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1 , 482–493 (2020).

Oliver, E. C. J. et al. Projected marine heatwaves in the 21st century and the potential for ecological impact. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 1–12 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Cavole, L. M. et al. Biological impacts of the 2013–2015 warm-water anomaly in the northeast Pacific: Winners, losers, and the future. Oceanogr 29 , 273–285 (2016).

Wernberg, T. et al. Climate-driven regime shift of a temperate marine ecosystem. Science 353 , 169–172 (2016).

Smale, D. A. et al. Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. Nat. Clim. Change 9 , 306–312 (2019).

Smith, K. E. et al. Biological impacts of marine heatwaves. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 15 , 119–145 (2023).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arias-Ortiz, A. et al. A marine heatwave drives massive losses from the world’s largest seagrass carbon stocks. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 338–344 (2018).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kendrick, G. A. et al. A systematic review of how multiple stressors from an extreme event drove ecosystem-wide loss of resilience in an iconic seagrass community. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 1–15 (2019).

Filbee-Dexter, K. et al. Marine heatwaves and the collapse of marginal North Atlantic kelp forests. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–11 (2020).

Shanks, A. L. et al. Marine heat waves, climate change, and failed spawning by coastal invertebrates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 65 , 627–636 (2020).

Garrabou, J. et al. Marine heatwaves drive recurrent mass mortalities in the Mediterranean Sea. Glob. Chang. Biol. 28 , 5708–5725 (2022).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Smith, K. E. et al. Socioeconomic impacts of marine heatwaves: Global issues and opportunities. Science . 374 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj3593 (2021).

Wernberg, T. et al. Impacts of climate change on marine foundation species. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 16 , 247–282 (2024).

Ellison, A. M. Foundation species, non-trophic interactions, and the value of being common. Iscience 13 , 254–268 (2019).

Hobday, A. J. et al. A hierarchical approach to defining marine heatwaves. Prog. Oceanogr. 141 , 227–238 (2016).

Sen Gupta, A. et al. Marine heatwaves: Definition duel heats up. Nature 617 , 465–465 (2023).

Hobday, A. J. et al. Categorizing and naming marine heatwaves. Oceanogr 31 , 162–173 (2018a).

Spalding, M. D. et al. Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience 57 , 573–583 (2007).

Welch, H. et al. Impacts of marine heatwaves on top predator distributions are variable but predictable. Nat. Commun. 14 , 5188 (2023).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Stuart-Smith, R. D., Brown, C. J., Ceccarelli, D. M. & Edgar, G. J. Ecosystem restructuring along the Great Barrier Reef following mass coral bleaching. Nature 560 , 92–96 (2018).

Verdura, J. et al. Biodiversity loss in a Mediterranean ecosystem due to an extreme warming event unveils the role of an engineering gorgonian species. Sci. Rep. 9 , 1–11 (2019).

Montie, S. & Thomsen, M. S. Long‐term community shifts driven by local extinction of an iconic foundation species following an extreme marine heatwave. Ecol. Evol. 13 , e10235 (2023).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Caputi, N. et al. Factors affecting the recovery of invertebrate stocks from the 2011 Western Australian extreme marine heatwave. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 1–18 (2019).

Wernberg, T. Marine heatwave drives collapse of kelp forests in Western Australia. In Ecosystem Collapse and Climate Change, Vol. 241, ed. Canadell, J. G., Jackson, R. B., pp. 325–343. Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71330-0 (2021).

Wernberg, T. et al. An extreme climatic event alters marine ecosystem structure in a global biodiversity hotspot. Nat. Clim. Change 3 , 78–82 (2013).

McClanahan, T. R., Maina, J., Moothien-Pillay, R. & Baker, A. C. Effects of geography, taxa, water flow, and temperature variation on coral bleaching intensity in Mauritius. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 298 , 131–142 (2005).

Gonzalez-Espinosa, P. C. & Donner, S. D. Cloudiness reduces the bleaching response of coral reefs exposed to heat stress. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27 , 3474–3486 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Van Woesik, R. et al. Climate‐change refugia in the sheltered bays of Palau: analogs of future reefs. Ecol. Evol. 2 , 2474–2484 (2012).

Wernberg, T. et al. Biology and ecology of the globally significant kelp Ecklonia radiata . Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. 57 , 265–324 (2019).

Filbee-Dexter, K., Wernberg, T., Fredriksen, S., Norderhaug, K. M. & Pedersen, M. F. Arctic kelp forests: Diversity, resilience and future. Glob. Planet Change 172 , 1–14 (2019).

Marbà, N., Krause-Jensen, D., Masqué, P. & Duarte, C. M. Expanding Greenland seagrass meadows contribute new sediment carbon sinks. Sci. Rep. 8 , 14024 (2018).

Assis, J., Serrão, E. A., Duarte, C. M., Fragkopoulou, E. & Krause-Jensen, D. Major expansion of marine forests in a warmer Arctic. Front. Mar. Sci. 9 , 850368 (2022).

Yamano, H., Sugihara, K. & Nomura, K. Rapid poleward range expansion of tropical reef corals in response to rising sea surface temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 , L04601 (2011).

Tait, L. W., Thoral, F., Pinkerton, M. H., Thomsen, M. S. & Schiel, D. R. Loss of the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera driven by marine heatwaves and exacerbated by poor water clarity in New Zealand. Front. Mar. Sci. 8 , 721087 (2021).

Eakin, C. M., Sweatman, H. P. A. & Brainard, R. E. The 2014–2017 global-scale coral bleaching event: insights and impacts. Coral Reefs 38 , 539–545 (2019).

Rogers-Bennett, L. & Catton, C. A. Marine heat wave and multiple stressors tip bull kelp forest to sea urchin barrens. Sci. Rep. 9 , 1–9 (2019).

Lachs, L. et al. Emergent increase in coral thermal tolerance reduces mass bleaching under climate change. Nat. Comms. 14 , 4939 (2023).

Spillman, C. M., Smith, G. A., Hobday, A. J. & Hartog, J. R. Onset and decline rates of marine heatwaves: global trends, seasonal forecasts, and marine management. Front. Clim. 3 , 182 (2021).

Hartog, J. R., Spillman, C. M., Smith, G. & Hobday, A. J. Forecasts of marine heatwaves for marine industries: reducing risk, building resilience and enhancing management responses. Deep Sea Res Ii. 209 , 105276 (2023).

Hobday, A. J. et al. A framework for combining seasonal forecasts and climate projections to aid risk management for fisheries and aquaculture. Front. Mar. Sci. 5 , 137 (2018b).

Hobday, A. J. et al. With the arrival of El Niño, prepare for stronger marine heatwaves. Nature 621 , 38–41 (2023).

Pershing, A. J., Mills, K. E., Dayton, A. M., Franklin, B. S. & Kennedy, B. T. Evidence for adaptation from the 2016 marine heatwave in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Oceanogr 31 , 152–161 (2018).

Bass, A. V., Smith, K. E. & Smale, D. A. Marine heatwaves and decreased light availability interact to erode the ecophysiological performance of habitat‐forming kelp species. J. Phycol . https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13332 (2023).

Pansch, C. et al. Heat waves and their significance for a temperate benthic community: a near-natural experimental approach. Glob. Change Biol. 24 , 4357–4367 (2018).

Carr, M. H., Caselle, J. E., Koehn, K. D. & Malone, D. P. PISCO Kelp Forest Community Surveys. PISCO_kelpforest.1.6 ( https://data.piscoweb.org/catalog/metacat/PISCO_kelpforest.1.6/default ) (2020).

Beas et al. Geographic variation in responses of kelp forest communities of the California Current to recent climatic changes. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26 , 6457–6473 (2020).

Schlegel, R. W. & Smit, A. J. heatwaveR: A central algorithm for the detection of heatwaves and cold-spells. J. Open Source Softw. 3 , 821 (2018).

Van Woesik, R. & Kratochwill, C. A global coral-bleaching database, 1980–2020. Sci. Data. 9 , 20 (2022).

Tan, H.-J., Cai, R.-S. & Wu, R.-G. Summer marine heatwaves in the South China Sea: Trend, variability and possible causes. Adv. Clim. Change Res. 13 , 323–332 (2022).

Magel, C. L., Chan, F., Hessing-Lewis, M. & Hacker, S. D. Differential responses of eelgrass and macroalgae in Pacific northwest estuaries following an unprecedented NE Pacific Ocean marine heatwave. Front. Mar. Sci. 9 , 838967 (2022).

Bell, T. W. et al. Kelpwatch: A new visualization and analysis tool to explore kelp canopy dynamics reveals variable response to and recovery from marine heatwaves. PLoS ONE 18 , e0271477 (2023).

Moriarty, T., Leggat, W., Heron, S. F., Steinberg, R. & Ainsworth, T. D. Bleaching, mortality and lengthy recovery on the coral reefs of Lord Howe Island. The 2019 marine heatwave suggests an uncertain future for high-latitude ecosystems. PLOS Clim. 2 , e0000080 (2023).

Bruckner, A. W. Life-saving products from coral reefs. Issues Sci. Technol . 18, 39–44 (2002).

Glynn, P. W. Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives. Coral Reefs. 12 , 1–17 (2013).

Garrabou, J. et al. Mass mortality in Northwestern Mediterranean rocky benthic communities: effects of the 2003 heat wave. Glob. Change Biol. 15 , 1090–1103 (2009).

RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/ (2020).

Anon. “Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura, Te Poha o Tohu Raumati, Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura 30 (Environmental Management Plan)” . (Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura, Takahanga Marae Kaikōura, New Zealand, 2007).

Google Scholar  

Doshi, A. et al. Loss of economic value from coral bleaching in SE Asia. 12th International Coral Reef Symposium 9–13 (2012).

Sheppard, C., Dixon, D. J., Gourlay, M., Sheppard, A. & Payet, R. Coral mortality increases wave energy reaching shores protected by reef flats: examples from the Seychelles. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 64 , 223–234 (2005).

Robinson, J. P., Wilson, S. K., Jennings, S. & Graham, N. A. Thermal stress induces persistently altered coral reef fish assemblages. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25 , 2739–2750 (2019).

Gurgel, C. F. et al. Marine heatwave drives cryptic loss of genetic diversity in underwater forests. Curr. Biol. 30 , 1199–1206 (2020).

Oliver, E. C. J. et al. The unprecedented 2015/16 Tasman Sea marine heatwave. Nat. Commun. 8 , 1–12 (2017).

Sukhdev, P., Wittmer, H. & Miller, D. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB): challenges and responses. Nature in the balance: the economics of biodiversity. 135–152 https://students.aiu.edu/submissions/profiles/resources/onlineBook/B5e9K7_Nature_in_the_Balance_The_Economics_of_Biodiversity.pdf#page=156 (2014).

Rassweiler, A., Novak, M., Okamoto, D., Byrnes, J. & Krumhansl, K. Global Kelp Time series from NCEAS/KEEN Working Group. Florida State University, Oregon State University, Simon Fraser University, University of Massachusetts Boston. https://catalogue-temperatereefbase.imas.utas.edu.au/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/ecbe5cc3-3fbf-4569-b5e8-07c2201fcb9c . Accessed 1/09/2022. (2016).

Reed, D. & Miller, R. SBC LTER: Reef: Kelp Forest Community Dynamics: Cover of sessile organisms, Uniform Point Contact ver 31. Environmental Data Initiative. https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/7b9f59d4875c4e235448dd42ff7044ad . Accessed 01/09/2022. (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Australian Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS), which is enabled by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) for providing data on macroalgal cover in the Southeast Indian Ocean and Southwest Pacific Ocean. Data on mass mortality events were extracted from MME-T-MEDNet database on mass mortality events in the Mediterranean ( https://t-mednet.org/MME ). Data on seagrass were extracted from https://www.seagrasswatch.org . Data from Reef Check are available at https://www.reefcheck.org . We thank the contributors to Seagrass Watch, T-MEDNet, Reef Check, Sabah Biodiversity Centre, and Reef Check Malaysia. D.A.S. was supported by a UK Research and Innovation Future Leaders Fellowship (Grant MR/X023214/1). T.W. was supported by the Australian Research Council (grant DP200100201). M.S.T. was supported by a University of Canterbury Seeding Grant and the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (Toka ākau toitu Kaitiakitanga – building a sustainable future for coastal reef ecosystems). P.J.M. and M.T.B. were supported by the Natural Environment Research Council Newton Fund (Grant NE/S011692/2). N.J.H. was supported by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (CE170100023) and the National Environmental Science Program Climate Systems Hub (Project 2.10). ASG was supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT220100475). We acknowledge the Marine Heatwaves International Working Group ( https://www.marineheatwaves.org ) and several of its workshops for fostering much of this discussion.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, Plymouth, UK

Kathryn E. Smith, Margot Aubin, Nathan G. King, Edward Wilson & Dan A. Smale

Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, UK

Michael T. Burrows

Oceans Institute and School of Biological Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

Karen Filbee-Dexter & Thomas Wernberg

Institute of Marine Research, His, Bergen, Norway

CSIRO Environment, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Alistair J. Hobday

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, 7001, TAS, Australia

Neil J. Holbrook

Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, University of Tasmania, Hobart, 7001, TAS, Australia

Dove Marine Laboratory, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK

Pippa J. Moore

Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Alex Sen Gupta

The Marine Ecology Research Group, Centre of Integrative Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Mads Thomsen

Aarhus University, Department of Ecoscience, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

K.E.S., M.T.B., A.J.H., N.J.H., P.J.M., A.S.G., M.T., T.W. and D.A.S. conceived the study. K.E.S. and D.A.S. designed the analyses. K.E.S., M.A., N.G.K. and E.W. collected the data and conducted the analyses. M.T.B., K.F.D., A.J.H., N.J.H., P.J.M., A.S.G., M.T., T.W. and D.A.S. provided technical support and conceptual advice. K.E.S. wrote the paper with contributions from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn E. Smith .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Communications thanks Daniel Gómez-Gras and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, peer review file, description of additional supplementary files, supplementary data 1, supplementary data 2, reporting summary, source data, source data, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Smith, K.E., Aubin, M., Burrows, M.T. et al. Global impacts of marine heatwaves on coastal foundation species. Nat Commun 15 , 5052 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49307-9

Download citation

Received : 19 October 2023

Accepted : 31 May 2024

Published : 13 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49307-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.