Reaching consensus on Antarctic tourism regulation: Calibrating the human-nature relationship?

Kees Bastmeijer, Machiel Lamers

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientific

    Abstract

    The states that jointly manage Antarctica were not yet able to reach consensus on a number of specific management issues relating to Antarctic tourism. While recognizing that many factors influence the international decision-making process, this publication aims to explore one rarely discussed philosophical factor that may be of great significance for understanding the difficulties in reaching consensus: the possible differences in the human-nature relationship among the CPs and expert organisations. Based on an explorative analysis of relevant documents, it is concluded that CPs and expert organisations consistently reject the ‘mastery’ attitude, both in general Antarctic policy instruments and in tourism-specific documents. The relevant documents relating to two sub-themes (the acceptability of permanent land-based tourism facilities and large-scale adventure or sporting events) show that there is a strong tendency to use ‘rational arguments’ that do not reflect human-nature relationships; however, a closer look reveals that underneath these relatively neutral positions, substantially different human-nature attitudes appear to be hidden. These differences may not block consensus regarding general policy statements on Antarctic tourism, as these statements leave sufficient space for different interpretations; however, different attitudes towards nature may well constitute a hurdle in reaching consensus on concrete management issues. It is most likely that CPs with different human-nature relationships have different views on what the specific ‘values’ of Antarctica are and how these values could best be protected, and, consequently, it is also most likely that these CPs have different opinions on what norms should be set in respect of specific tourism developments. This makes it understandable that the approach of the ATCM to focus strongly on (the desirability of) norm setting is not always successful. Underlining the explorative nature of this study, the authors would recommend further research on human-nature relationships in the Antarctic tourism context. More knowledge and consciousness of differences in human-nature attitudes might invite stakeholders to search for management solutions based on a greater understanding of each other’s convictions.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationNew Issues in Polar Tourism
    Place of PublicationHeidelberg
    PublisherSpringer Verlag
    Pages67-85
    Number of pages18
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Fingerprint

    Tourism
    regulation
    Antarctica
    setting of norms
    management
    expert
    decision-making process
    consciousness
    Values
    stakeholder
    interpretation
    event

    Keywords

    • Antarctica
    • Antarctic tourism
    • tourist activities
    • human-nature relationship
    • sustainable tourism
    • mastery
    • stewardship
    • partner
    • participant
    • Antarctic Treaty
    • Environmental Protocol
    • permanent facilities
    • sports events
    • decicion making
    • polar tourism
    • Polar Regions

    Cite this

    Bastmeijer, K., & Lamers, M. (2012). Reaching consensus on Antarctic tourism regulation: Calibrating the human-nature relationship? In New Issues in Polar Tourism (pp. 67-85). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
    Bastmeijer, Kees ; Lamers, Machiel. / Reaching consensus on Antarctic tourism regulation : Calibrating the human-nature relationship?. New Issues in Polar Tourism. Heidelberg : Springer Verlag, 2012. pp. 67-85
    @inbook{a8ff6c9d0e17405b8b53fc5474473163,
    title = "Reaching consensus on Antarctic tourism regulation: Calibrating the human-nature relationship?",
    abstract = "The states that jointly manage Antarctica were not yet able to reach consensus on a number of specific management issues relating to Antarctic tourism. While recognizing that many factors influence the international decision-making process, this publication aims to explore one rarely discussed philosophical factor that may be of great significance for understanding the difficulties in reaching consensus: the possible differences in the human-nature relationship among the CPs and expert organisations. Based on an explorative analysis of relevant documents, it is concluded that CPs and expert organisations consistently reject the ‘mastery’ attitude, both in general Antarctic policy instruments and in tourism-specific documents. The relevant documents relating to two sub-themes (the acceptability of permanent land-based tourism facilities and large-scale adventure or sporting events) show that there is a strong tendency to use ‘rational arguments’ that do not reflect human-nature relationships; however, a closer look reveals that underneath these relatively neutral positions, substantially different human-nature attitudes appear to be hidden. These differences may not block consensus regarding general policy statements on Antarctic tourism, as these statements leave sufficient space for different interpretations; however, different attitudes towards nature may well constitute a hurdle in reaching consensus on concrete management issues. It is most likely that CPs with different human-nature relationships have different views on what the specific ‘values’ of Antarctica are and how these values could best be protected, and, consequently, it is also most likely that these CPs have different opinions on what norms should be set in respect of specific tourism developments. This makes it understandable that the approach of the ATCM to focus strongly on (the desirability of) norm setting is not always successful. Underlining the explorative nature of this study, the authors would recommend further research on human-nature relationships in the Antarctic tourism context. More knowledge and consciousness of differences in human-nature attitudes might invite stakeholders to search for management solutions based on a greater understanding of each other’s convictions.",
    keywords = "Antarctica, Antarctic tourism, tourist activities, human-nature relationship, sustainable tourism, mastery, stewardship, partner, participant, Antarctic Treaty, Environmental Protocol, permanent facilities, sports events, decicion making, polar tourism, Polar Regions",
    author = "Kees Bastmeijer and Machiel Lamers",
    year = "2012",
    language = "English",
    pages = "67--85",
    booktitle = "New Issues in Polar Tourism",
    publisher = "Springer Verlag",
    address = "Germany",

    }

    Bastmeijer, K & Lamers, M 2012, Reaching consensus on Antarctic tourism regulation: Calibrating the human-nature relationship? in New Issues in Polar Tourism. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 67-85.

    Reaching consensus on Antarctic tourism regulation : Calibrating the human-nature relationship? / Bastmeijer, Kees; Lamers, Machiel.

    New Issues in Polar Tourism. Heidelberg : Springer Verlag, 2012. p. 67-85.

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientific

    TY - CHAP

    T1 - Reaching consensus on Antarctic tourism regulation

    T2 - Calibrating the human-nature relationship?

    AU - Bastmeijer, Kees

    AU - Lamers, Machiel

    PY - 2012

    Y1 - 2012

    N2 - The states that jointly manage Antarctica were not yet able to reach consensus on a number of specific management issues relating to Antarctic tourism. While recognizing that many factors influence the international decision-making process, this publication aims to explore one rarely discussed philosophical factor that may be of great significance for understanding the difficulties in reaching consensus: the possible differences in the human-nature relationship among the CPs and expert organisations. Based on an explorative analysis of relevant documents, it is concluded that CPs and expert organisations consistently reject the ‘mastery’ attitude, both in general Antarctic policy instruments and in tourism-specific documents. The relevant documents relating to two sub-themes (the acceptability of permanent land-based tourism facilities and large-scale adventure or sporting events) show that there is a strong tendency to use ‘rational arguments’ that do not reflect human-nature relationships; however, a closer look reveals that underneath these relatively neutral positions, substantially different human-nature attitudes appear to be hidden. These differences may not block consensus regarding general policy statements on Antarctic tourism, as these statements leave sufficient space for different interpretations; however, different attitudes towards nature may well constitute a hurdle in reaching consensus on concrete management issues. It is most likely that CPs with different human-nature relationships have different views on what the specific ‘values’ of Antarctica are and how these values could best be protected, and, consequently, it is also most likely that these CPs have different opinions on what norms should be set in respect of specific tourism developments. This makes it understandable that the approach of the ATCM to focus strongly on (the desirability of) norm setting is not always successful. Underlining the explorative nature of this study, the authors would recommend further research on human-nature relationships in the Antarctic tourism context. More knowledge and consciousness of differences in human-nature attitudes might invite stakeholders to search for management solutions based on a greater understanding of each other’s convictions.

    AB - The states that jointly manage Antarctica were not yet able to reach consensus on a number of specific management issues relating to Antarctic tourism. While recognizing that many factors influence the international decision-making process, this publication aims to explore one rarely discussed philosophical factor that may be of great significance for understanding the difficulties in reaching consensus: the possible differences in the human-nature relationship among the CPs and expert organisations. Based on an explorative analysis of relevant documents, it is concluded that CPs and expert organisations consistently reject the ‘mastery’ attitude, both in general Antarctic policy instruments and in tourism-specific documents. The relevant documents relating to two sub-themes (the acceptability of permanent land-based tourism facilities and large-scale adventure or sporting events) show that there is a strong tendency to use ‘rational arguments’ that do not reflect human-nature relationships; however, a closer look reveals that underneath these relatively neutral positions, substantially different human-nature attitudes appear to be hidden. These differences may not block consensus regarding general policy statements on Antarctic tourism, as these statements leave sufficient space for different interpretations; however, different attitudes towards nature may well constitute a hurdle in reaching consensus on concrete management issues. It is most likely that CPs with different human-nature relationships have different views on what the specific ‘values’ of Antarctica are and how these values could best be protected, and, consequently, it is also most likely that these CPs have different opinions on what norms should be set in respect of specific tourism developments. This makes it understandable that the approach of the ATCM to focus strongly on (the desirability of) norm setting is not always successful. Underlining the explorative nature of this study, the authors would recommend further research on human-nature relationships in the Antarctic tourism context. More knowledge and consciousness of differences in human-nature attitudes might invite stakeholders to search for management solutions based on a greater understanding of each other’s convictions.

    KW - Antarctica

    KW - Antarctic tourism

    KW - tourist activities

    KW - human-nature relationship

    KW - sustainable tourism

    KW - mastery

    KW - stewardship

    KW - partner

    KW - participant

    KW - Antarctic Treaty

    KW - Environmental Protocol

    KW - permanent facilities

    KW - sports events

    KW - decicion making

    KW - polar tourism

    KW - Polar Regions

    M3 - Chapter

    SP - 67

    EP - 85

    BT - New Issues in Polar Tourism

    PB - Springer Verlag

    CY - Heidelberg

    ER -

    Bastmeijer K, Lamers M. Reaching consensus on Antarctic tourism regulation: Calibrating the human-nature relationship? In New Issues in Polar Tourism. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. 2012. p. 67-85