Visiting Antarctica or the Arctic? Here's how to minimise your impact

As polar tourism surges, experts warn of its environmental impact. From transport choices to local food, here's how to visit responsibly while protecting fragile ecosystems.

I first learned of Greenland's existence from a world map pinned on my childhood bedroom wall. Decades later, I finally made it to the capital, Nuuk. I'd long been fascinated by pictures of the brightly coloured wooden houses lining its rocky shores – red, yellow, green and blue against an icy backdrop. Small icebergs floated just offshore and the absence of trees gave a stark, otherworldly feel. I looked forward to experiencing the crisp, biting air, exploring Inuit art at the Nuuk Kunstmuseum and maybe, if I was lucky, spotting some seals or a passing whale. 

I'm not the only one entranced by Greenland's icy beauty: between 2018-2023, tourism to the country grew by 46%, with 131,767 visitors arriving in 2023. Much of this surge is due to the increasing number of cruise ships navigating Arctic waters.  

According to the Arctic Council, ships entering the Arctic Polar Code area  – a regulated maritime zone around the North Pole – increased by 37% between 2013 and 2024. Many cruise operators, like Hurtigruten, Swan Hellenic and Ponant, offer routes encompassing Iceland, Svalbard and Greenland, with the latter expecting visitor numbers to keep growing thanks to a 2024 airport expansion in Nuuk and two more international airports set to be built by 2026.

Meanwhile on the opposite side of the planet, Antarctica is seeing a similar tourism boom. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reports a steady rise in visitors since the 1990s. In the 2022-23 season, 104,897 people visited the continent, rising to 124,262 last year. More than 80,000 of those set foot on Antarctic land – an alarming statistic for conservationists who warn that human presence can disrupt fragile ecosystems, alter animal behaviour and unwittingly bring invasive foreign organisms with them.

As tourism to the poles increases, organisations like the Arctic Council, the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators (AECO) and Visit Greenland stress the urgent need to balance economic benefits with environmental responsibility. The lure of the polar regions is undeniable: the near lunar landscapes; the intensity of the blue sky on a freezing, sunny day; the thrill of fresh snow crunching underfoot; and the unique wildlife that calls these places home.

James Grecian, a marine ecologist at Durham University, UK, and scientist-in-residence at climate advocacy nonprofit Arctic Basecamp, has spent years studying polar wildlife. Last year, he was in Antarctica studying snow petrels – or more specifically, their vomit.

Snow petrels' stomach oil deposits freeze into solid lumps that contain, when analysed in a lab, data on how their diet has changed over the years, and in turn, what that means about the local ecosystem. "We can tell a lot about past conditions by taking samples from the environment, or from animals," Grecian explains. "For example, the baleen plates of whales can be taken from dead animals, and the chemical signatures will tell you something about the environmental conditions or what the animal was eating."

As a fairly frequent polar visitor, he understands the appeal of these environments – and also the impact. He notes there are choices we can make to reduce the damage to these vital but threatened regions. Polar tourism is showing no signs of slowing down, but Grecian hopes that, with increased awareness of its drawbacks, visitors can make the most ethical choices possible. Here are his suggestions on how to do that.

First of all, you'll need to weigh up your travel options to reach the polar region of your choice.

The problem with a cruise ship is that you're bringing the hotel and all the services with you," he says. "I've heard stories of towns being quite unhappy about the disruption when lots of people disembark. They get all their meals catered on the ship so they won't go to the local cafes. Contrast that to planes – if you fly into an area, you're going to be staying in local hotels, you're going to be using local tour operators. The communities have a chance to benefit economically. But you need to offset that against the massive carbon emissions of planes." 

While ships may seem a greener alternative to flying, global data suggests otherwise. Aviation accounts for 2.5% of CO2 emissions globally, while shipping contributes slightly more at 3% (although most of that is from cargo ships). There's also the noise pollution issue – the hum of ships' engines has been shown to disrupt whales' echolocation ability.

"There's a horrible video – an animation based on real blue whale migration tracking, and it's a blue whale caught in shipping lanes," says Grecian. "It's like a pinball in a machine; it keeps turning around and turning back because of the amount of noise that the ships produce."

So what's the alternative? 

"Using trains is about a 90% or 95% reduction in CO2, so from a climate perspective, a train to Norway for the fjords is a better option." It is possible – but takes much longer – to reach parts of the Arctic by train, even if flights are required for some of the journey. There's direct trains to Narvik in the Norwegian Arctic from Stockholm; from Trondheim to Bodø in Norway or from Helsinki to Rovaniemi in the north of Finland.

Or you could – if you have the money – charter a small sailing boat. "I know people in the Falklands who sail to Antarctica fairly regularly," says Grecian. "The cost of [a private charter] probably wouldn't be far off the cost of a berth on a fancy cruise ship."

Polar wildlife is a big draw for visitors, but Grecian cautions against disturbing the very animals people come to see. 

"You must be appreciative of being a guest in that environment and try to treat it with as much respect as you can," says Grecian. "There can be a tendency these days to try and get selfies with animals and that can cause a lot of disturbance. They're not used to seeing people, so give them space. You shouldn't be trying to chase them down."

More like this:

• Will you be going on holiday to… Greenland next year?

• Antarctic tourism: Should we just say no?

• Could airships be the next cruise ships?

Grecian recommends patience. "If you sit quietly, some animals are quite curious. I haven't seen penguins in Antarctica but I have in the Falklands, and they came within 3-4m (10-13ft). So if you're quiet and still, you might get a visitor."

Local guides can also provide essential knowledge – plus Grecian says that sometimes it's about noticing the small things. "Some people say you should always look up, but if you look down, you can see signs of animals. You might see footprints in the mud, or scat that will give you a suggestion of what animals might have passed through."

That might sound drastic, but if you're visiting on land rather than on a cruise, there is a good reason to eat local products. Transporting supplies to these remote areas carries a significant carbon footprint – globally, food production contributes three billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually.

 In Greenland and parts of Arctic Canada, many Inuit communities still subsistence hunt. Their hunting rights are legally protected in Canada and in Greenland, and are regulated to prevent over-hunting. "The rights of the Indigenous population to pursue traditional hunting practices is enshrined in law," says Grecian. "The meat of a ring seal or a harp seal in Greenland will have a much lower carbon footprint than imported meat or non-native crops."

Of course, your personal comfort levels at the idea of eating seal meat are yours to decide, but bear in mind that if you're visiting a majority-Inuit region like Greenland, the alternatives are limited and local meat is the more environmentally-friendly option – a study comparing the carbon footprint of imported meat and local seal in Greenland found seal had the lowest footprint compared to pork and poultry.

For the intrepid travellers planning on camping or venturing off the beaten track, it's vital to have the right gear – and not just the obvious things like base layers, shoe spikes and waterproofs.

"If you're going somewhere particularly cold or out camping in more remote parts, you can hire gear in the country," says Grecian. Not only will it make your suitcase lighter; it'll benefit the local economy."

But when it comes to packing for your visit, Grecian offers tips on some practical but often forgotten items. "Nasal spray," he says. "Cold environments tend to be dry, so the inside of your nose can dry out and can bleed." And don't underestimate the strength of polar Sun – Grecian recommends taking factor 50 sunscreen. If you're camping or in other basic, remote accommodation, you might want some creature comforts, too: "On an expedition, coffee is vital for me. On my last trip I took a moka pot and a French press!"

Grecian laughs when I tell him that, on my visit to Greenland, I didn't see a single whale. I went in October – the start of winter, just as humpback whales begin their migration to the Caribbean.

"If there's a specific activity or animal you want, look up their migration patterns," he says. And if it's a natural phenomenon, check when it occurs. "For instance, a lot of people go to Newfoundland in May or June [to see] grass and flowers against the backdrop of icebergs. If you want to see that you have to go at that specific time of year."

His advice underscores a broader idea: polar travel should be guided by what's best for the natural world, not just what looks good on social media.

--

If you liked this story, sign up for The Essential List newsletter – a handpicked selection of features, videos and can't-miss news, delivered to your inbox twice a week. 

For more Travel stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.