Ways to Travel

Traveling to Antarctica With a Clean Conscience

Published

1 month ago

June 13, 2025

I’ve wanted to travel to Antarctica since before I was a professional travel journalist. Fascinated by the tales of Shackleton, Byrd and Scott, I wanted that sense of discovery of a wild, untamed continent, minus the frostbite, hypothermia or near starvation.

One of the main reasons I hadn’t yet ventured to Antarctica was the immense carbon footprint. According to a study quoted by Sierra Magazine, an average trip releases four tons of CO2 emissions per passenger. If I were to offset that myself, I’d need to plant more than 120 trees. My lawn isn’t that big, and my HOA would immediately order me to cut them down anyway.

When I learned some cruise companies offset the carbon footprint of Antarctica travel, I was intrigued. Many offer the opportunity to help with citizen-science projects and also bring along actual researchers studying climate change’s impact on the landscape and wildlife. That’s why in early March, jet-lagged from more than 24 hours of travel, I climbed aboard the SS Greg Mortimer, named after noted Australian explorer and founder of Aurora Expeditions.

That commitment to science and stewardship is an increasing reason people choose Aurora, says expedition leader Daniel Stavert. “As the number of travelers to Antarctica increases, so does our impact,” Stavert says. “The fragile wilderness that we came to experience has to be protected.”

Because no country owns Antarctica, tourism rules are set by an organization called the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO). But not all tour operators abide by these regulations. Stavert — a dead ringer for actor Jeremy Davies but with a cool Aussie accent and embroidered puffy vest — announced the rules our first night onboard the ship. No food or drinks were permitted on land, save for water. We couldn’t leave anything behind or take anything, be it a rock or a particularly cuddly penguin. We had to stay at least 15 feet away from wildlife at all times. Our bags and clothing were meticulously checked for possible invasive contaminants before we visited the continent, and we needed to disinfect our boots and hiking poles after each landing. Each rule was meant to keep Antarctica as pristine and wild as possible.

The vessel

Rob Annis

Yo Ho, All Hands

The worst part of the journey was crossing the Drake Passage, 500-plus miles of open water renowned for rough passage. I have friends who’ve done similar journeys, and their stories ranged from a kitchen blender set to low to the sea behaving like a temperamental four-year-old after a sugar bender. The way out was a bit rougher than normal, according to the crew, which I took as encouragement to tear into my stash of Dramamine. We made the most of our time on the open sea, with various live lectures on Antarctic wildlife, history and science, which I mostly watched in a dimenhydrinate stupor from my cabin.

As the Drake calmed a bit, I spent more time exploring the ship. Expedition ships are typically smaller than the Carnival-branded behemoths that ferry retirees from Miami to Bermuda. The nose of the Greg Mortimer is designed to cut through the ice. We had around 100 passengers aboard the ship, mostly a mix of Americans, Brits and Aussies. The guides hailed from destinations far and wide, brought together by a shared love of Antarctic adventure.

Dining hall options were pretty varied — breakfast and lunch buffets and à la carte menu options for dinner. There were a couple of bars on board, as well as a library where we could learn more about the continent we were currently making a beeline for.

The Journey by InsideHook

Join over 100K travelers seeking trip ideas, the latest travel news, and all the inspiration you need for your next vacation.

Taking samples

Rob Annis

Citizen Science

With his dark beard, perfectly symmetrical cheekbones and affable demeanor, Dr. Ryan Jones looks like he’s starring in a Hallmark movie about a marine ecologist who charms an attractive young female oil executive with his small-town charm and sobering data about rising ocean temperatures. (Based on at least a few whispers during the cruise, more than a few of the elderly ladies on board wanted to audition to be his leading lady.) Using a crossbow and special-tipped biopsy arrows, Jones and his University of California Santa Cruz’s Friedlaender Lab teammates were taking skin and blubber samples from whales encountered on the journey.

During our journey and the previous one, they collected samples from more than 80 humpbacks, two fin whales and five minkies. The skin samples tell researchers if the whales are male or female, their pregnancy status and cortisol levels, as well as levels of heavy metals or other toxins. That data, combined with other research, will give significant insights into the overall health of the species, their breeding cycles and more.

“Most marine biology is funded by the federal government,” Jones says. But with the current chaos surrounding the government, public support, private donations and relationships with cruise companies like Aurora “have never been more important.”

Late on the third day, we saw land — Snow Island in the South Shetlands. That’s where we’d make our first landfall. The announcement came at dinner, causing the entire room to hastily gobble up the remainder of their entrees and head to their rooms to gear up. It was dusk when we stepped foot on the island, already surrounded by gentoo penguins and adolescent elephant seals. It was an almost overwhelming feeling. Touching boots to ground in Antarctica — even the outlying islands — felt amazing, the culmination of decades of dreams. Looking around at the other passengers, I could tell many of them were feeling the same thing. Because of the rapidly approaching darkness, we only stayed on the beach for 40 minutes or so, but that memory will stay with me for a lifetime.

The next day, I was on a zodiac, taking variety of water samples to detect levels of phytoplankton. It was a two-person job, but we had seven, including our guide Annette Scheffer, in the rubber boat. We all took turns lowering nets and sample bottles and doing water-quality readings. At times, it felt a bit like busy work, more for us to feel like we were doing something productive. But Stavert insisted we were filling in important gaps.

“Our citizen science projects get data that would otherwise be very expensive,” Stavert says. “We’re covering more ground than a typical science vessel and going places they may not normally venture.” Having professional scientists, like the whale team, was mutually beneficial. The scientists were able to gather data, which will hopefully be used to help protect the wildlife and landscapes passengers are paying thousands of dollars to visit.

On day five, we spent the morning traveling the peninsula, looking for the perfect spot to drop anchor and step onto the actual continent for the first time. We made landfall at Brown Bluff, a noted penguin colony nestled atop volcanic rock. We had an all-too-brief experience before increasing winds forced us back to the ship. But we’d officially reached Antarctica, and no one could take that away from us.

Rubbing elbows with the locals

Rob Annis

Boots Down in Antarctica

The original plan was to spend several days exploring the Weddell Sea area, but ice and weather had us retreating across the Antarctic peninsula. At least one elderly gentleman wasn’t too happy about that, a fact he shared with anyone within earshot. But even in those early days, it was apparent we’d have to be nimble, taking what experiences we could for however long we could, before weather and circumstance caused us to pivot. Our trip was at the tail end of the season, and brutal winter weather was peaking around the corner.

It was on one of these early journeys onto land that I discovered the true polar peril — penguin poop. Landing at a gentoo penguin colony, we discovered nearly every square inch was covered in penguin scat. It makes sense they won’t poop in the water; they swim in there, after all. But combine already slick rocks with even slippier penguin excrement and add in wobbly senior citizens, and you’ve got a real disaster scenario. A few of the adventurers took a spill and would spend the evening trying to get stool stains out of polyester parkas in their room showers. But it got me thinking: How many famous polar adventurers actually died because of penguin poop? Did a famed captain slip on poo-splattered rocks, splitting his head open, only to have his embarrassed crew invent a more reputation-saving story? How many polar graves are filled with sailors that took a header after slipping on excrement-covered outcroppings? We’ll likely never know.

One of the highlights of the trip for me was getting to do a polar paddle. Kayaking in the Antarctic was a different experience. Paddling just above the frigid water, surrounded by an eerie silence broken only by the sound of my paddle gliding through the water. Every now and then, we’d have to squeeze between an iceberg and the land mass we were paddling, the vast openness of the frozen landscape giving way to the claustrophobic feeling of ice and land closing in on us.

After an hour on the water, we made landfall at Portal Point. Climbing up onto a rise, I saw a vast expanse of glaciers snuggled between mountains above an impossibly blue bay littered with icebergs. I’ve traveled the world and seen many gorgeous places, but I wasn’t prepared for how beautiful this scene was. I stood there for maybe 20 minutes, snapping photos, unable to look away.

It was only fitting that after such a wonderful moment, we would receive bad news. The ship’s crew had been tracking bad weather coming into the area. We’d managed to skirt some of it, but the worsening storm meant we’d have to cut our Antarctica adventure a day short. The next day would be our last, but we were all determined to make it a memorable one.

We had our final two landings the following day. I’ll remember the first, mostly for the feisty penguin who chased me around the beach, determined to chomp on my hiking pole. The second, Deception Island, was an active volcano. Shaped like a horseshoe, we sailed into the middle of the island and launched zodiacs. Reaching down into the beach’s sand, the water was hot. (Not so much further out; remember that.) I wondered if this was a vacation spot for the Spheniscidae White Lotus penguins who were camped out on the beach.

Dilapidated buildings ringed the beach. This had been a whaling hub, then a scientific research station for decades until volcanic eruptions in 1969 and 1970 forced its closure. The buildings were slowly falling apart, while items long buried by tons of volcanic ash — including a large, rusted-out farm tractor — were being unearthed by the harsh elements.

They say Deception Island has the warmest water in the Antarctic, but I’d soon learn that’s damning with faint praise. This was the spot where we’d do our polar plunge. Stripping down to my swim trunks, I ran out into the frigid, one-degree water, wondering if the hypothermia or frostbite would do the most lingering damage. I don’t know if I’ve ever enjoyed a hot shower as much as I did in the aftermath of my short swim.

The remaining days were spent crossing the Drake again, the seas a bit rougher than the trip out. Cracking open the Dramamine, I reflected on the previous week and a half. It was an incredible trip, but was my conscience clean? I felt like I did some good helping with the various science projects, but was that enough?

“When you feel involved [via science], when you fall in love with the environment, you’re more likely to act later [to save it],” Stavert says.

Antarctica made a lasting impression on me, and I plan to find other ways to relieve any lingering guilt. I’ll be framing photos I took on the trip, hanging them near my computer. At least once a week, I’ll send a letter or an email to one of the 57 companies responsible for 80% of global emissions, demanding they divest themselves from fossil fuels, and if not, I’ll boycott their business going forward. Then do exactly that. Maybe I’ll add a link to the photos I share on social media, encouraging friends and followers to boycott as well.

Is it likely to do any good? If it’s just one person, no. But if every one of the tens of thousands of people who visit Antarctica each year did the same, maybe we could move the needle enough to see some change before the icebergs disappear.

Source link

Ways to Travel

Pursuit of entertainment or self-expression? Research on adventure tourism

Published

10 hours ago

July 19, 2025

Ayşe Nur Soysal

Data collection

The study focused on domestic and foreign tourists aged 18 and above participating in rafting at Antalya Köprülü Canyon. The questionnaires were applied immediately after rafting in-person, and it was thought that the tourists’ experiences were reflected. In order to accurately measure tourist motivations, the literature was reviewed and scales were selected from the literature. In the process of selecting the scales, previously experienced ready-made scales were used, however, the scales were preferred from ready-made scales with high values in terms of validity and reliability. The aim here is to measure the constructs measured in the study in the most reliable way and in a way that can be distinguished from other constructs. For this purpose, scales with high Cronbach α or composite reliability values and AVE (average variance extracted) values were preferred. Then the convenience sampling method was used as the sampling method because there was no random selection. It is a statistical fact that the convenience sampling method does not represent the whole population because it is not random. However, it is easier to apply than random sampling in terms of reaching individuals with new experiences. In addition, as a result of studies that can be carried out in other countries or regions, although it is not a random sample, new literature becomes more debatable and converges to a scientific reality with the literature obtained with the convenience sampling method together with the developing literature.

Participants voluntarily participated in the survey after the rafting experience. Thus, it can be stated that the participants’ responses to the questionnaire were not influenced by any incentives. This situation causes the participants’ views on the subject to be more sincere. The questionnaires were collected in 2021. From 327 questionnaires, 31 were excluded for incomplete data, leaving 296 for analysis. The demographics included 68.1% Russian, 21.5% EU citizens, 9.5% Turkish, and 1% from other nationalities, reflecting general tourism trends in Turkey as reported by the World Travel and Tourism Council (2021). According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (2021) report, 12% of those who came to Turkey in 2019 were Russian, and 8% were German tourists, while in 2020, this rate was 13% for Russians and 7% for Bulgaria, Germany and Ukraine. In this case, it is predicted that the data and results obtained from the target audience will provide correct inferences. Therefore, bias in the study poses as much risk as bias that can occur in real life.

Although 50% of the participants have visited Antalya before, the rate of those who have visited Köprülü Canyon before is 24.3%. In this case, it can be said that individuals who have visited before have returned home without rafting in Köprülü Canyon. The rate of those who have rafted before is 29.7%. The fact that the rates of those who have visited Köprülü Canyon and those who have rafted are close may indicate that individuals tend to do it again after the first experience. While 62.4% of the participants were female, 37.6% were male. In this case, it can be stated that women are more oriented towards adventure tourism. 12.2% of the participants are high school graduates, 21.3% are associate degree graduates, 57.4% are bachelor’s degree graduates, and 9.1% are master’s and doctorate graduates. The average age of the participants was 33.36, while the median was 33.

Measures

Five-point Likert-type scales assessed all constructs. The scales covered “experiencing nature” (Perić et al., 2019), “escape” (Carvache-Franco et al., 2019), and “joy” (Pestana et al., 2020). The “WOM” influence (Sirakaya-Turk et al., 2015) and “self-image congruence” (Sirgy et al., 1997) were also measured, along with “revisit intention” (Zhang et al., 2018).

Data analysis and results

The data analysis validated the measurement model and evaluated relationships between the constructs.

Measurement model

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated a satisfactory fit, with chi-square/df at 2.81, CFI at 0.92, SRMR at 0.059, and RMSEA at 0.078 (Hu and Bentler, 1999), as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis results.

Construct validity was confirmed, with convergent and discriminant validity assessed and meeting established thresholds (Hair et al., 2014) as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 The results of the inter-construct correlations and AVE value.

According to Tables 1 and 2, the AVE values are greater than 0.50 and the correlation between the variables. Therefore, convergent and discriminant validity is provided. After this stage of the analysis, common method bias (CMB) or common method variance (CMV) was examined. According to Podsakoff et al. (2003), CMB analysis refers to the bias that emerges from external factors on the data set and occurs when the majority of the variance is explained by a single factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Gaskin and Lim, 2016). To measure whether the majority of the variance was gathered under a single factor, the single factor Harman test was performed, and the explained variance rate was calculated as 43%. Since the single factor Harman test is a weak analysis, CMB was re-examined using the Controlling for the effects of an unmeasured latent methods factor analysis suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003), and each regression path was calculated as 0.64, and the explained variance rate was found to be 41%. Since CMB does not exceed 50% (Eichhorn, 2014: p. 8), it can be said that CMB does not exist or is insignificant (Büyükdağ and Kitapci, 2021).

Structural model

The structural model’s evaluation produced the following results: chi-square/df value at 2.81, CFI value at 0.92, SRMR value at 0.059, and RMSEA value at 0.078. These indices satisfy the criteria set by Hu and Bentler (1999), indicating a good fit between the theoretical model and the observed data.

Table 3 shows that push factors significantly and positively influence self-image congruence (β = 0.66), WOM (β = 0.55), and revisit intention (β = 0.32). Self-image congruity also significantly enhances WOM (β = 0.35) and revisit intention (β = 0.30), while WOM positively impacts revisit intention (β = 0.28). The model explains 44% of the variance in self-image congruity, 68% in WOM, and 66% in revisit intention (Fig. 2).

Table 3 Result of the SEM.

Fig. 2: Structural model with standardized path coefficients.

This figure shows the tested structural model with standardized regression weights, reflecting direct and indirect effects among variables. This figure illustrates the structural model with standardized path coefficients, examining the relationships between push factors, self-image congruity, revisit intention, and word-of-mouth. The push factors are measured through three dimensions: experience nature, escape, and joy. The arrows represent the hypothesized paths, and the numerical values indicate the standardized regression weights. The model shows that push factors significantly influence self-image congruity, revisit intention, and word-of-mouth, both directly and indirectly.

Multi-group structural equation modeling (SEM) and analysis results

Multi-group structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to compare the regression paths between two variables based on socio-demographic and field-specific characteristics. Various studies have utilized this approach: Yada et al. (2018) to understand teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy, Al-Swidi and Al Yahya (2017) to examine educational intention and work behavior differences by gender, and Babin et al. (2016), Huang and Ge (2019), Murray et al. (2017), and Aka and Buyukdag (2021) to analyze factors such as culture, household characteristics, store design, and marital status. In this study, multi-group SEM was applied to explore the effects of rafting experience (first-time vs. repeated) and gender (female vs. male model).

According to the multi-group SEM related to rafting experience, the model showed good fit indices with a chi-square/df value of 2.19, a CFI of 0.90, an RMSEA of 0.064, a GFI of 0.79, and an AGFI of 0.73. The comparative analysis between unconstrained and constrained models revealed a chi-square difference of 35.06 and a df difference of 25, indicating no significant variation between the effects of rafting experiences (p = 0.087). Consequently, the research model is applicable to both first-time and repeated rafters. The significance of each path’s rafting experience was further analyzed and is detailed in Table 4.

Table 4 Multi-group SEM results.

According to the multi-group structural equation modeling focused on gender, the model demonstrated good fit indices with a chi-square/df value of 2.17, a CFI of 0.90, an RMSEA of 0.063, a GFI of 0.79, and an AGFI of 0.73. This suggests that the multi-group SEM adequately represents the gender-based differences in the data. Comparative analysis between unconstrained and constrained models showed a chi-square difference of 24.83 and a df difference of 25, indicating no significant variance in gender effects (p = 0.472). Therefore, the research model is equally applicable to both female and male categories. Further analysis was conducted to determine if significant differences exist in local paths based on gender, with detailed results presented in Table 4.

Table 4 shows that push factors affect self-congruence differently for first-time versus repeated rafters. Rafting experience moderates how these factors influence self-image congruence, with a more pronounced effect on first-timers. While push factors significantly impact WOM for both groups, the effect is stronger for newcomers, but rafting experience doesn’t moderate this relationship. Similarly, push factors notably influence revisit intention for first-time rafters, but less so for experienced rafters, where experience doesn’t act as a moderator (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Multi-group comparison by visit frequency and gender.

This figure illustrates differences in structural paths across first-time and repeat visitors, as well as male and female participants, using varying line styles. This figure presents the multi-group analysis results based on visit frequency (first-time vs. repeated) and gender (female vs. male). The structural paths between push factors, self-image congruity, revisit intention, and word-of-mouth are illustrated with different line styles. Solid lines represent first-time visitors, dotted lines indicate repeat visitors, dash-dot lines show female participants, and dashed lines represent male participants. Path coefficients are shown along each arrow. The figure highlights how these variables interact differently across groups, revealing variations in motivational and behavioral responses based on experience and gender.

The influence of self-congruence on WOM is significant for both novice and seasoned rafters, more so for the latter. This suggests that rafters with prior experience, and with higher self-image congruity, are likelier to share their experiences. Self-congruence significantly affects intention to revisit among experienced rafters, but not for newcomers. However, rafting experience does not moderate these relationships in either case.

The impact of WOM on revisit intention was significant for first-time rafters but not for repeat rafters, with rafting experience not moderating this relationship. Table 4 shows variance differences between these groups. For first-timers, the explained variance is 51%, while only 26.9% for repeat rafters. For WOM, the variance is 70.5% for first-time users and 66.5% for repeat rafters. Regarding revisit intention, the variance is 65.3% for novices and slightly higher at 66.1% for experienced rafters.

The model showed no significant gender-based moderating effects, but coefficients highlight important relationship nuances. Both genders experience a positive, significant effect of push factors on self-image congruence, with males showing a higher coefficient. The impact of push factors on WOM is significant for both, yet stronger for males. Females, however, demonstrate a greater influence of push factors on revisit intention. The effects of self-congruence on WOM are similar across genders. Males exhibit a more substantial influence of self-image congruence on revisit intention. WOM’s impact on revisit intention is marginally higher in males. While gender doesn’t significantly moderate these paths, the data suggest males typically have higher values in consumer experiences involving adventure and risk-taking.

Self-congruence significantly influences WOM for both first-time and repeat rafters, more so for the latter. This suggests experienced rafters, likely with higher self-image congruity, are more prone to sharing their experiences. Self-congruence also impacts revisit intention significantly among experienced rafters, but less for novices. In both cases, rafting experience does not moderate these relationships.

The study shows gender differences in variance rates for self-image congruity, WOM, and revisit intention. Self-image congruity explains 49.3% of the variance in males and 38% in females. For WOM, the variance is 81.6% in males and 57.7% in females. Regarding revisit intention, males have a variance rate of 68.1% compared to 65.7% in females. These results imply that self-image congruence is more prominent in male first-time rafters, who also tend to discuss their adventurous experiences more, indicating higher communication about risk-taking and adventure among males.

Study 2

A multiple correspondence analysis examined relationships between push factors, self-image congruence, and demographics in adventure tourism for greater insight into consumer behavior dynamics.

Multiple correspondence analysis

Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) is a robust multivariate technique used to examine relationships among nominal data. This method allows researchers to analyze data, interpret findings, and develop perceptual maps, facilitating a deeper understanding of the data structure (Hair et al., 2010; Hair et al., 2014). In this study, MCA was employed to analyze the relationships between individuals’ perceptions of push factors, self-image congruence, WOM, and revisit intentions, alongside demographic or social factors such as gender, nationality, rafting experience, and visiting status. The objective was to conduct in-depth research and derive meaningful inferences. The graphical representation from the Multiple Correspondence Analysis is provided in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4: Joint plot of category points from correspondence analysis.

This plot visualizes the associations between categorical variables, such as nationality, gender, experience, loyalty, and satisfaction. Spatial proximity indicates stronger relationships. This joint plot of category points illustrates the relationships among categorical variables based on their positions along two dimensions extracted through correspondence analysis. The plot visualizes associations between destination-related experiences (e.g., visit status, experiential satisfaction, loyalty), demographic variables (e.g., nationality, gender), and motivational/behavioral outcomes (e.g., push/pull factors, revisit intention, WOM). For example, high revisit intention, high congruity, and high WOM cluster on the right side of Dimension 1, while variables like low satisfaction and low loyalty appear on the left. The spatial proximity between categories indicates stronger associations.

According to the multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) results, repeat visitors to Köprülü Canyon are predominantly Turkish, male, and have prior visits to Antalya and rafting experience. These individuals are notably influenced by push and pull factors and demonstrate high self-image congruity, WOM, loyalty, and satisfaction, indicating a strong intention to revisit. Conversely, first-time visitors to Antalya and Köprülü Canyon are primarily Russian and female tourists, characterized by their pursuit of excitement, unique experiences, and experiential pleasure in adventure and risk-taking activities. Despite showing a high intention to revisit, the likelihood of Russian and female tourists returning is relatively low. This pattern suggests that while tourists enjoy adventure tourism as part of their sea, sun, and sand vacation, it is not the primary purpose of their visit. The findings imply that although tourists have significant rafting experiences and entertainment, they are more inclined to explore different geographical regions rather than revisit the same location. Consequently, it is expected that these tourists will likely choose alternative destinations for their next vacation.

Therefore, emphasizing promotions targeting first-time visitors in rafting or adventure tourism is anticipated to yield significant benefits. Consequently, catering to the preferences of Russian and female tourists with diverse adventure and risk-taking tourism options is projected to create a vital market segment. However, the analysis indicates that European tourists exhibit lower levels of self-image congruity, WOM, revisit intention, and satisfaction with push and pull factors related to rafting. As such, understanding the specific expectations of tourists from the European Union and offering varied tourism alternatives could become a significant source of revenue. Addressing these preferences may lead to enhanced tourist experiences and increased revisit rates.

Source link