Preservation amenity, research laboratory, or mineral reserve? International perspectives on the values of Antarctica

Abstract

Inspired by notions of interest of humankind and intergenerational equity, we explored Antarctic perceptions of a subset of future generations—university students. Students at three universities in Canada, the Netherlands, and the USA were surveyed to determine the relationships between nationality, academic major, opinions on values of Antarctica, and support for a range of human activities in Antarctica (n = 618). Logistic regression was used to model the relationship of these variables with support for designation of Antarctica as a wilderness reserve, construction of new research stations, and mining. Compared with business and economics majors, biological sciences and natural resources/conservation majors were more likely to support wilderness designation and less likely to support mineral resource development. Nationality was not significantly associated with support for construction of new research stations and mineral resource development. Opinions on the value of Antarctica and support for activities also exhibited significant influences on dependent variables. Consistent with earlier studies of Antarctic scientists, personnel, tourists, and other members of the general public, university students valued Antarctica as one of the world’s last great wildernesses (66%), an important component of the Earth’s climate system (66%), and a science laboratory for the benefit of mankind (62%).

Public support for Antarctic science: lessons from a national survey of Australians

“…All of these nations are Antarctic Treaty signatories, with four of them (Chile, Argentina, New Zealand and Australia) being territorial claimants and one (the USA) being a 'reserved claimant'. 1 Several comparative studies between two or more national groups were conducted, with results in each case suggesting comparatively few differences across national cohorts (Bastmeijer & Tin 2015, Peden et al 2016, Tin et al 2019. Two further studies synthesize the results of several surveys (including those already mentioned) across different locations (Neufeld et al 2013, McLean & Rock 2016.…”