Case study: Antarctica
Recreation and Tourism
Facts
80,000 tourists a year expected in 2010
History – whaling, sealing and fishing
Antarctic Treaty – 1959 countries signed this to stop the resource exploitation
Environmental impacts
Concentrated around certain bases so concentrated pollution, disturbance to habitats
Tourist ships disturbs seas life especially whales (noise, wash and waste)
Economic impacts
Very little as all money spent outside the area
Size of bases is controlled
Tourist ships are largely self-sufficient
Social impacts
Minimal as the local population is very small and these people do not permanently live there
Political impacts
Some conflicts due to overlapping claims of control, e.g. UK and Argentina
Cultural impacts
No existing culture
Tourism
Camping trips, ship board visits and fishing. IAATO (International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators)
oversees the limits on the tourism in Antarctica
Tourists go over to see glacial landscapes, and wildlife. Go for the remoteness and isolation and to test
themselves in adverse weather conditions. Interested in historic sites. Tourism is concentrated in
southern summer period
Positive impacts of tourism
tourism is a well-run industry
guidelines are accepted by operators and tourists
damage to vegetation is due to natural causes
no litter is attributed to tourists
no stress is caused to penguins
tourists who follow guidelines cause no impact
out of 200 sites only 5% showed wear and tear
Negative impacts of tourism
extremely fragile
summer tourist season coincides with peak breeding periods
land based installations in ice free locations
demand for fresh water is difficult to meet
visitor pressure on heritage sites
some evidence that planes caused stress to breeding colonies and unique legal status of Antarctica makes
enforcement of any code of behaviour difficult
, Case study: Alaskan Pipeline
The Trans Alaskan Pipeline (TAPS)
Facts:
TAPS is an 800 mile oil pipe spanning Alaska
Why is TAPS needed – The main oil extraction site in Alaska is
Prudhoe Bay on the North coast which is surrounded by the Beaufort Sea, which is frozen for most of the year.
This prevents ships carrying oil from Prudhoe Bay. The pipeline transports the oil across Alaska to the Southern
port of Valdez where ships can the transport the oil to the rest of the USA as Valdez is surrounded by the
warmer waters in the Gulf of Alaska
Problems and management:
Air temperatures fall to -50°C so to ensure the oil inside the pipe remains above 60°C the pipe is insulated
The heat from the oil in the pipe could radiate into the permafrost causing thawing producing thermokarst,
this would cause the ground to move. To prevent this the pipeline is elevated so the heat is not conduced into
the ground.
The pipeline crosses an earthquake zone so TAPS has been designed so the elevated structure allows the pipe
to shift sideways on its supports. The pipeline is also in a zigzag pattern so it is able to adjust during ground
movements.
TAPS crosses a major caribou migrating belt so the pipeline has sections that are 3m above ground to allow the
caribou to walk underneath.
Some areas of the pipe had to be built underground but the heat from the oil would thaw permafrost here so
the pipe is insulated by thick concrete to stop the heat being conducted into the ground. 6.5km of the
underground section of the pipe have
refrigeration units to ensure the ground remains
frozen.
Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR)
Arctic Power want to drill for oil in ANWR, many people
agree with this however others are against exploitation
of this fragile environment.
asons For Oil Drilling in ANWR Reasons Against Oil Drilling in ANWR
Arctic Power will follow the strictest environmental The drilling site is a major caribou birthing site,
rules whilst drilling drilling would disrupt 150,000 caribou
It will create 250,000 jobs and many will be for local The area has been protected since 1960
people USA is a rich nation with many other resources
USA currently imports 60% of its oil however some e.g. solar panels could be used instead
believe they should become self-sufficient as the The Gwich’in Indians are local people who are
current sources are unreliable and can lead to conflict against it as caribou have been a major part of
Less than 1% of the reserve will be exploited their lives for centuries so they should not be
Oil wealth is passed on to local people; $1,800 is given disturbed
to each citizen Other areas of fragile tundra such as Prudhoe bay
Oil wealth also increases standard of living as it funds have already been turned into industrial areas
public services such as hospitals and schools with many roads and contaminated waste sites
The local people of Kaktovic support it The environment would struggle to recover from
75% of non-native Alaskans support drilling development as vegetation growth is slow
,Case study: The Alps Switzerland
Threats to the ecosystem
Natural threats
Climate
Global warming melting permafrost
Landslide and floods
Mass movement and floods destroy habitats
Fire
Increasing in dry summers
Human threats
Urbanisation
Construction of ski-resorts, transmitters
Transport
Building of roads to reach the resorts and pollution
Industry
Building of dams has changed river regimes
Recreation
Skiing, snowboarding… damages slopes and vegetation
Mining
Quarrying and mining destroy the environment
Farming
Overgrazing by sheep and goats
Other
Forest clearance has increase avalanches and runoff
, Case study: Northern Sweden – the Sami
Resources
Facts
Between 70,000 and 100,000 people in northern Norway Sweden and Finland
Since 1991they had their own parliament
Two groups – reindeer herders and sea Sami (fishing)
Environmental impacts
Minimal – migrated with seasons and kept herds in line with carrying capacity
Increasing restricted by mining, forest clearance and hydro schemes
Economic impacts
Low income so many migrated to cities for work
Few road or towns as tribes were nomadic
Few services as largely self-sufficient
Substances with reindeer supplying most of their needs
Social impacts
Increasingly absorbed in westernised way of life (only one 10% now live off herds)
Becoming a tourist attraction
Tribal organisation being weakened
Political impact
Lost land rights last century so forced out of private forests where reindeer sheltered but now legally
protected
Cultural impacts
Being protected and Sami parliament fosters language and culture
Recreation and Tourism
Facts
80,000 tourists a year expected in 2010
History – whaling, sealing and fishing
Antarctic Treaty – 1959 countries signed this to stop the resource exploitation
Environmental impacts
Concentrated around certain bases so concentrated pollution, disturbance to habitats
Tourist ships disturbs seas life especially whales (noise, wash and waste)
Economic impacts
Very little as all money spent outside the area
Size of bases is controlled
Tourist ships are largely self-sufficient
Social impacts
Minimal as the local population is very small and these people do not permanently live there
Political impacts
Some conflicts due to overlapping claims of control, e.g. UK and Argentina
Cultural impacts
No existing culture
Tourism
Camping trips, ship board visits and fishing. IAATO (International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators)
oversees the limits on the tourism in Antarctica
Tourists go over to see glacial landscapes, and wildlife. Go for the remoteness and isolation and to test
themselves in adverse weather conditions. Interested in historic sites. Tourism is concentrated in
southern summer period
Positive impacts of tourism
tourism is a well-run industry
guidelines are accepted by operators and tourists
damage to vegetation is due to natural causes
no litter is attributed to tourists
no stress is caused to penguins
tourists who follow guidelines cause no impact
out of 200 sites only 5% showed wear and tear
Negative impacts of tourism
extremely fragile
summer tourist season coincides with peak breeding periods
land based installations in ice free locations
demand for fresh water is difficult to meet
visitor pressure on heritage sites
some evidence that planes caused stress to breeding colonies and unique legal status of Antarctica makes
enforcement of any code of behaviour difficult
, Case study: Alaskan Pipeline
The Trans Alaskan Pipeline (TAPS)
Facts:
TAPS is an 800 mile oil pipe spanning Alaska
Why is TAPS needed – The main oil extraction site in Alaska is
Prudhoe Bay on the North coast which is surrounded by the Beaufort Sea, which is frozen for most of the year.
This prevents ships carrying oil from Prudhoe Bay. The pipeline transports the oil across Alaska to the Southern
port of Valdez where ships can the transport the oil to the rest of the USA as Valdez is surrounded by the
warmer waters in the Gulf of Alaska
Problems and management:
Air temperatures fall to -50°C so to ensure the oil inside the pipe remains above 60°C the pipe is insulated
The heat from the oil in the pipe could radiate into the permafrost causing thawing producing thermokarst,
this would cause the ground to move. To prevent this the pipeline is elevated so the heat is not conduced into
the ground.
The pipeline crosses an earthquake zone so TAPS has been designed so the elevated structure allows the pipe
to shift sideways on its supports. The pipeline is also in a zigzag pattern so it is able to adjust during ground
movements.
TAPS crosses a major caribou migrating belt so the pipeline has sections that are 3m above ground to allow the
caribou to walk underneath.
Some areas of the pipe had to be built underground but the heat from the oil would thaw permafrost here so
the pipe is insulated by thick concrete to stop the heat being conducted into the ground. 6.5km of the
underground section of the pipe have
refrigeration units to ensure the ground remains
frozen.
Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR)
Arctic Power want to drill for oil in ANWR, many people
agree with this however others are against exploitation
of this fragile environment.
asons For Oil Drilling in ANWR Reasons Against Oil Drilling in ANWR
Arctic Power will follow the strictest environmental The drilling site is a major caribou birthing site,
rules whilst drilling drilling would disrupt 150,000 caribou
It will create 250,000 jobs and many will be for local The area has been protected since 1960
people USA is a rich nation with many other resources
USA currently imports 60% of its oil however some e.g. solar panels could be used instead
believe they should become self-sufficient as the The Gwich’in Indians are local people who are
current sources are unreliable and can lead to conflict against it as caribou have been a major part of
Less than 1% of the reserve will be exploited their lives for centuries so they should not be
Oil wealth is passed on to local people; $1,800 is given disturbed
to each citizen Other areas of fragile tundra such as Prudhoe bay
Oil wealth also increases standard of living as it funds have already been turned into industrial areas
public services such as hospitals and schools with many roads and contaminated waste sites
The local people of Kaktovic support it The environment would struggle to recover from
75% of non-native Alaskans support drilling development as vegetation growth is slow
,Case study: The Alps Switzerland
Threats to the ecosystem
Natural threats
Climate
Global warming melting permafrost
Landslide and floods
Mass movement and floods destroy habitats
Fire
Increasing in dry summers
Human threats
Urbanisation
Construction of ski-resorts, transmitters
Transport
Building of roads to reach the resorts and pollution
Industry
Building of dams has changed river regimes
Recreation
Skiing, snowboarding… damages slopes and vegetation
Mining
Quarrying and mining destroy the environment
Farming
Overgrazing by sheep and goats
Other
Forest clearance has increase avalanches and runoff
, Case study: Northern Sweden – the Sami
Resources
Facts
Between 70,000 and 100,000 people in northern Norway Sweden and Finland
Since 1991they had their own parliament
Two groups – reindeer herders and sea Sami (fishing)
Environmental impacts
Minimal – migrated with seasons and kept herds in line with carrying capacity
Increasing restricted by mining, forest clearance and hydro schemes
Economic impacts
Low income so many migrated to cities for work
Few road or towns as tribes were nomadic
Few services as largely self-sufficient
Substances with reindeer supplying most of their needs
Social impacts
Increasingly absorbed in westernised way of life (only one 10% now live off herds)
Becoming a tourist attraction
Tribal organisation being weakened
Political impact
Lost land rights last century so forced out of private forests where reindeer sheltered but now legally
protected
Cultural impacts
Being protected and Sami parliament fosters language and culture
