Wilderness and aesthetic values in the Antarctic.

386 Pages·2009·34.03 MB·English

Open Research Online
The Open University’s repository of research publications
and other research outputs
Wilderness And Aesthetic Values In The Antarctic
Thesis
How to cite:
Codling,RosamundeJill(1999). WildernessAndAestheticValuesInTheAntarctic. PhDthesisTheOpenUniversity.
For guidance on citations see FAQs.
(cid:13)c 1999 The Author
Version: Version of Record
Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright
owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies
page.
oro.open.ac.uk
I- -
WILDERNESS AND AESTHETIC VALUES IN THE ANTARCTIC .'
A
'.I I :. - \ i , _..,-,_ . .
Thesis submitted by
Rosamunde Jill Codling . . .'. . . ..
.
Diploma in Landscape Architecture, Diploma in Polar Studies,
to the Department of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University --.-+w
,-".
EX12
RESEARCH DEGREES CENTRE
LIBRARY AUTHORISATION FORM
Please return this form to the The Research Degrees Centre with the hvo bound copies of your
thesis to be deposited with the University Library.
All students should complete Part 1. Part 2 only applies to PhD students.
>
Student: PI: M7/4352?/
Part 1 Open University Library Authorisation [to be completed by all students]
1 confirm that I am willing for my thesis to be made available to readers by the Open University
Library, and that it may be photocopied, subject to the discretion of the Librarian.
Signed: Date:
Part 2 British Library Authorisation [to be completed by PhD students only]
If you want a copy of your PhD thesis to be available on loan to the British Library Thesis Service
as and when it is requested, you must sign a British Library Doctoral Thesis Agreement Form.
Please return it to the Research Degrees Centre with this form. The British Library will publicise
the details of your thesis and may request a copy on loan from the University Library. Information
on the presentation of the thesis is given in the Agreement Form.
Please note the British Library have requested that theses should be printed on one side only to
enable them to produce a clear microfilm. The Open University Library sends the fully bound copy
of theses to the British Library.
The University has agreed that your participation in the British Library Thesis Service should be
voluntary. Please tick either (a) or (b) to indicate your intentions.
d .
[a] I am willing for the Open University to loan the British Library a copy of my thesis
A signed Agreement Form is attached.
[b] 0 I do not wish the Open University to loan the British Library a copy of my thesis
ABSTRACT
The 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty requires parties: ‘to
identify within a systematic environmental-geographicalf ramework ... areas of
outstanding aesthetic and wilderness value’ (Annex V, article 3.2). In order to develop
these frameworks, procedures and techniques used in environmental planning are
considered for their applicability and pradicality in the severe Antarctic environment.
The phrase in the Protocol is taken as two separate topics. Concepts of wilderness are
examined first, and it is concluded that the whole continent should be seen as
wilderness, with this designation being modified only for those areas in which human
influence is visible.
In order to understand ‘aesthetic values’, interpretations given to landscape are
considered, before examining the techniques developed in the United Kingdom for
landscape assessment, and those used in the United States which are termed visual
resource management.
Procedures, primarily based on the most recent practice in the United Kingdom, are
developed, before testing by fieldwork on the Peninsula. Landscape assessment is
seen as a widescale planning pmdure, distinct from, thollgh essential to, the site-
specific techniques required for environmental impact assessment (EIA). Objective
description and classification of the landscape forms the basis of the methodology, with
subjective aspects following in the form of clearly stated criteria so as to identity ‘areas of
outstanding value’. During evaluation comparisons may only be made on a ‘like with like’
basis, eg glaciers with glaciers, islands with islands. If desired, areas may then be
designated under the procedures given in the Protocol.
CONTENTS
Abstract 2
Chapter details 3
Appendices details 9
List of Illustrations 10
Title pages 10
Figures 10
Tables 11
Figures in Appendices 11
Plans 12
Acronyms used in text 12
Statement 14
Format of the text 15
Acknowledgements 15
Text 17
Appendices 232
References 204
1 INTRODUCTION 17
1.1 Aims of the study 17
1.2 The Antarctic 17
1.3 ‘Wilderness and aesthetic values’ 18
1.3.1 Wilderness 18
1.3.2 Aesthetic value 19
1.4 A ‘systematic environmental-geographical framework‘ 19
1.5 Summary 20
2 THE ANTARCTIC 21
2.1 Scope of the chapter 21
2.2 Sources for background information 21
2.3 The continent 22
2.4 Physiographic classification 26
2.4.1 Fono f physiographic classification 27
2.4.2 Mapping scales 28
2.4.3 Notation 28
2.5 Physiographic Provinces of the Antarctic 29
2.6 Physiographic Regions and Subregions 29
2.6.1 Landfon and landscape 29
3 PERCEPTIONS OF THE ANTARCTIC 32
3.1 Scope of the chapter 32
3.2 Human involvement with the continent 32
3.2.1 Discovery and exploration 32
3.2.2 The place of science 33
3.2.3 Tourism 33
3.2.4 Motives for visiting 34
3.3 Landscape dilemmas presented by the Antarctic 36
3.3.1 Visual aspects of ice 37
3.3.2 Seasonal change and light 37
3.3.3 Whiteout 38
3.3.4 Aurora and other optical phenomena 38
3.3.5 Vegetation 39
3.4 Geographic descriptions of the Antarctic 39
3.5 Landscape perceptions of the Antarctic 41
3.5.1 SOUrCeS 42
3.5.2 Explorers’ perceptions of the Antarctic 42
3.5.3 Academic studies 46
3.5.4 Popular presentations 47
3.5.5 Postcards and guidebooks 47
3.5.6 Fiction 48
3.5.7 Poetry 48
3.5.8 Theatre 49
3.5.9 Photography, films and television 49
3.5.10 Music 51
3.5.11 Art 51
3.6 Imagined landscapes 53
3.7 Summary 54
4 ANTARCTIC TREATY SYSTEM 55
4.1 Scope of the chapter 55
4.2 1957-1958 International Geophysical Year & 1959 Antarctic Treaty 55
4.3 1958 Scientific Commit& on Antarctic Research (SCAR) 57
4.4 The development of wider environmental concerns 57
4.4.1 1961 SCAR: Comervation of Nature in Antarctica 57
4.4.2 1961- 19 79 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings 58
4.4.3 1980 SCAR: A ris#or’S introducbn to the Antarctic 60
4.4.4 1986 SCAR and IUCN 60
4.5 ‘World park‘ proposals 60
4.6 1988 Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource
Activities (CRAMRA) 62
4.7 19891990 Events leading to the Protocol 63
4.7.1 1989 XV ATCM Recommendations 63
4.7.2 1989 SCAR: Objectives of conservation in the Antarctic 64
4.7.3 The UN and the Antarctic 65
4.7.4 1991 IUCN report A strategyforAntamfic conservation 66
4.8 1991 Protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic Treaty 68
4.9 1992 SCARAUCN Developing Antarctic Protected Area System 72
4.10 1996 IUCN Cumulative environmental impacts in Antarctica:
minimisation and management 74
4.1 1 Summary 75
~~ ~ ~ ~
5 WILDERNESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 77
5.1 Scope of the chapter 77
5.2 Definitions of wilderness 77
5.3 Controversial issues 79
5.3.1 Size 80
5.3.2 Recreation 80
5.3.3 Nature of the land and indigenous people 81
5.3.4 Wilderness values and aesthetic values 82
5.4 Wilderness in the British mind 85
5.4.1 Romanticism 85
5.4.2 The 20th centuly 86
5.4.3 Future patterns? 88
5.5 Environmental issues 89
5.5.1 Wilderness understood from an anthropocentric position 90
5.5.2 Wilderness understood from an intrinsic value position 91
5.5.3 A further position 94
5.5.4 Development of a biblical position 96
5.5.5 Stewardship 100
5.6 Continuum approaches 101
5.6.1 Australian National Wilderness Inventory 101
5.6.2 Other examples 10 3
5.6.3 Management under a continuum approach 103
5.7 Summary 104
6 WILDERNESS IN THE ANTARCTIC 105
6.1 Scope of the chapter 105
6.2 The Antarctic as wilder&s 105
6.3 Factors influencing the concept of wilderness in the Antarctic 108
6.3.1 The place of human beings 108
6.3.2 The permanency of occupation 110
6.3.3 The place of motorised transport 111
6.4 Wildernew In the Antarctlc: a working approach 111
6.4.1 Wilderness in the Antarctic and Areas of human influence 112
6.4.2 Noise 113
6.4.3 Control of motorised transport 114
6.4.4 Differentiationb etween ‘wilderness’ and ‘wilderness value’ 114
6.5 Comparative sizes of designated areas 115
6.6 Wilderness status 117
7 AESTHETIC VALUES 118
7.1 Scope of the chapter 118
7.2 Interpretations of ‘aesthetic values’ 118
7.3 Interpretations of ‘(andscape’ 119
7.3.1 Interpretationi n Britain 120
7.3.2 Interpretation in the United States 121
7.3.3 Landscape in the Antarctic 121
7.4 Landscape assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment 122
7.4.1 Landscape assessment 123
7.4.2 The development of EIA 123
7.4.3 EIA in the Antarctic 125
7.5 Landscape assessment in Britain 126
7.5.1 The development of landscape assessment 126
7.5.2 British approaches leading to current practices 127
7.5.3 Outline of six reports 129
7.5.4 Future issues 137
7.5.5 Summary of current British practices 138
7.6 Visual resource management in the United States 138
7.6.1 Concern for ‘visual quality’ and the Wilderness Act, 1964 138
7.6.2 NEPA and subsequent developments 139
7.6.3 Widening concerns 141
7.6.4 ‘Our National Landscape’ 1979 143
7.6.5 Outline of procedures used by federal agencies 144
7.6.6 The reports 145
7.6.7 Summary of current American practices 147
7.7 Consideration of British and American practices in the context of
Antarctic use 148
7.8 The World Heritage Convention 149
7.9 Summary 151
8 DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL-GEOGRAPHIC
FRAMEWORK TO IDENTIFY AREAS OF OUTSTANDING AESTHETIC VALUE
8.1 Scope of chapters 8-1 0 154
8.2 Scope of this chapter 154
8.3 Remotely sensed data and Geographic information systems (GIS) 155
8.3.1 Recent studies 155
8.3.2 Current work: LANDMAP 158
8.3.3 Conclusions about use of GIS for Antarctic landscape assessment 158
8.4 Use of photographs during landscape assessment 159
8.4.1 Use of photographs during survey 159
8.4.2 Use of photographs to assess landscape perceptual preferences 161
8.5 Identification of boundaries 162
8.5.1 Boundaries for designated areas in the Antarctic 16 2
8.5.2 Boundaries for designated areas: an alternative approach 163
8.5.3 Boundary delineation: desk-study of Antarctic features 164
8.6 SCAR matrices 167
8.7 Comparing ‘like with like’: Landscape Types 168
8.7.1 Draft classification for Landscape Types 168
8.7.2 An illustration of ‘like with like’ 169
8.8 Criteria for evaluation 169
8.8.1 Model to be considered 169
8.8.2 Combinations of landscape elements 17 0
8.8.3 Preferences 17 2
8.9 Antarctic evaluation groupings 174
8.9.1 Criteria for Special values 174
8.9.2 Criteria for Resource values: Rarity 175
8.9.3 Criteria for Resource values: Representativeness1T ypicality 176
8.9.4 Criteria for Resource values: Scenic quality 176
8.10 Procedure i77
8.11 Summary 17 8
9 DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL-GEOGRAPHIC
FRAMEWORK TO IDENTIFY AREAS OF OUTSTANDING AESTHETIC VALUE:
FIELDWORK 17 9
9.1 Scope of the chapter 179
9.2 Pre-fieldwork desk-study 179
9.3 Desk-study: objective material 180
9.3.1 The Antarctic Peninsula 180
9.3.2 Geology and geomorphology 180
9.3.3 Climate 181
9.4 Desk-study: perceptions of the Peninsula 182
9.4.1 Responses from explorers 18 2
9.4.2 Responses from scientific and support workers 184
9.4.3 Responses from professional artists 184
9.4.4 Responses from professional photographers 188
9.4.5 Responses from tourists 188
9.5 Safety 189
9.6 Extent of fieldwork 191
9.7 Fieldwork 192
9.7.1 Available opportunities 192
9.7.2 Survey equipment 19 3
9.7.3 Ephemeral changes 19 3
9.8 Fieldwork checklists 193
9.8.1 Checklist 1: geographical terms 194
9.8.2 British and American versions of Checklists 2 and 3 194
9.8.3 Checklists 2 and 3 for Antarctic use 196
9.8.4 Use in the field: fieldwork sheet 1 196
9.8.5 Use in the field: checklist 1 197
9.8.6 Use in the field: checklist 2 197
9.8.7 Use in the field: checklist 3 198
9.9 The scale of the landscape 198
9.10 Personal Construct Theory (PCT) 200
9.10.1 The interview 200
9.10.2 Chosen locations 202
9.10.3 Value of the survey 203
9.1 1 Post-fieldwork considerations 204
9.1 1 .I Intangible qualities 204
-
9.1 1.2 Criteria for Resource values Rarity, Representativenessnypicality2 04
9.12 Summary 205
10 A SYSTEMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL-GEOGRAPHIC FRAMEWORK TO
IDENTIFY AREAS OF OUTSTANDING AESTHETIC VALUE 207
10.1 Scope of the chapter 207
10.2 The approach 207
10.2.1 Presentation of information 209
10.2.2 Appended plans 209
10.3 Detailed approach for Landscape studies 209
10.3.1 Sequential diagrams for the latter part of the process 21 0
10.3.2 Level of application for criteria 21 0
10.4 Landscape study of P12 Antarctic Peninsula 21 1
10.4.1 Physiographic Regions 212
10.4.2 Physiographic Sub-regions 21 3
10.4.3 Landscape Regions 214
10.4.4 Landscape Sub-regions 215
10.5 Fieldwork in a Landscape Subregion of the Peninsula:
-
Western edge of mainland from Camp Point to Cape Rey, with offshore islands
Adelaide I, Pourquoi Pas I, Horseshoe I, Liard I etc 21 6
10.5.1 Landscape Description Units 21 6
10.5.2 Major Landscape Tracts 21 6
10.5.3 Landscape Character Areas and Landscape Types 21 6
10.6 Landscape desk-study of P4.RS Shackleton Range 218
10.6.1 Physiographic Regions of P4 East Antarctic ice sheet slopes 21 8
10.6.2 Discovery 21 8
10.6.3 Physiographic description and Physiographic Sub-regions 220
10.6.4 Other descriptions 220
10.6.5 Landscape Region 223
10.6.6 Draft Landscape Sub-regions 223
10.6.7 Outcome of Landscape desk-study 225
10.7 Format of documentation 226
10.8 Form of designation 226
10.9 Summary of the systematic environmental-geographical framework to
identify areas of outstanding aesthetic value 227
11 CONCLUSIONS 229
11.1 Summation of study 229
11.2 Design in the Antarctic 230
11.3 Other Antarctic landscapes 230