The impact of human activities on wilderness and aesthetic values in Antarctica

Figures & data

Fig. 1  Screen capture of the questions page of the online survey. (Photo by Frédérique Olivier.)

Table 1 Number of scenes in each of the landscape types and the type of human activity in each. There is some overlap between images showing infrastructure and transient activity, for example, a photograph of vehicles parked near a field hut.

Landscape type/human content	Infrastructure	Transient activity	Total with human content	Total without human content	Total
Coastal ice-free	9	5	11	10	21
Mountainous ice-free	4	6	7	11	18
Ice shelves	3	4	6	6	12
Coastal–continental margin	4	6	8	7	12
Antarctic Peninsula ice fields	2	4	5	7	12
Central Antarctic ice sheet	5	7	8	4	12
Total	25	32	45	45	90

Fig. 2  (a) Original Environmental Domains of Antarctica and (b) the reclassified landscape types used in the analyses.

Fig. 3  Examples of original and digitally modified images. (a) Original image of a coastal ice-free scene (photo by Rupert Summerson) and (b) the modified image. (c) Original image of a mountainous ice-free scene (photo used with permission of the Australian Antarctic Division) and (d) the modified image. (e) Original image of an ice shelf (photo by John Penney, National Science Foundation Photo Library) and (f) the modified image. (g) Original image of an Antarctic Peninsula ice field (photo by Rupert Summerson) and (h) the modified image. (i) Original image of the central Antarctic ice sheet (photo by Brian Vasel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and (j) the modified image.

Table 2 Number of survey participants from different nations and regions.

Nationality	Count
Australia	146
UK	58
USA	47
Japan	18
New Zealand	16
Canada	9
Other European countries	21
South America	11
Others	4
Not specified	7

Table 3 Maximum number of respondents in each set of images.

Set 1 (images 101–130)	Set 2 (images 201–230)	Set 3 (images 301–330)
94	125	118

Fig. 4  Ranges of assessments of “wilderness” among images with human content, grouped by human content type. “Complex infrastructure” is defined as multiple buildings and structures, for example, stations. “Minor infrastructure” is one or two buildings and/or structures, for example, field huts. “Major transient” is defined as ships, aircraft or heavy vehicles. “Minor transient” is light vehicles or people on foot. “Tracks only” are tracks in snow only. The figures in brackets are the numbers of images in each group. The vertical bars represent the range of assessments in each group: minimum to maximum; the mean is represented by the cross-bar. The range of assessments of “wilderness” of the 45 images without human content is shown on the right for comparison.

Fig. 5  Percentage assessments of wilderness: all images with and without human presence aggregated by landscape type. The black columns are the percentages of responses perceived as wilderness of all images with human presence. The grey columns are the percentages of assessments of wilderness of all images in each landscape type without human presence. Landscape types are abbreviated as follows: coastal ice-free (CIF), mountainous ice-free (MIF), coastal–continental margin (CCM), peninsula ice fields (PIF), ice shelves (IS) and central Antarctic ice sheet (CIS).

Table 4 Results of Pearson's chi-square tests with Yates's continuity correction (χ²) comparing assessments of wilderness and not-wilderness between all images aggregated by landscape type, differentiated by all images, images containing infrastructure and images containing transient activity. Significance (p) and effect size (Φ) are shown.

Landscape type^a	All			Infrastructure			Transient activity
	χ ^2	p	Φ	χ ^2	p	Φ	χ ^2	p	Φ
CIF	251.75	0.00	0.35	330.89	0.00	0.43	0.23	0.63	0.02
MIF	76.55	0.00	0.21	97.93	0.00	0.26	20.91	0.00	0.13
PIF	20.63	0.00	0.13	10.56	0.00	0.11	17.41	0.00	0.13
CCM	85.36	0.00	0.25	59.46	0.00	0.25	95.03	0.00	0.32
IS	81.82	0.00	0.25	161.74	0.00	0.41	2.93	0.09	0.06
CIS	79.93	0.00	0.28	105.29	0.00	0.39	41.24	0.00	0.25

^aCoastal ice-free (CIF), mountainous ice-free (MIF), coastal–continental margin (CCM), peninsula ice fields (PIF), ice shelves (IS) and central Antarctic ice sheet (CIS).

Fig. 6  Percentages of assessments of wilderness for each image pair in the 16 pairs of images. Landscape types are abbreviated as follows: coastal ice-free (CIF), mountainous ice-free (MIF), coastal–continental margin (CCM), peninsula ice fields (PIF), ice shelves (IS) and central Antarctic ice sheet (CIS). The type of human presence in the original images is either infrastructure (I) or transient activity (T). The black column represents values for images with human presence, and the grey column to images without human presence. Significant difference is indicated with asterisks.

Table 5 Results of chi-square tests of responses on perceptions of wilderness of the 17 pairs of digitally manipulated pairs of images. Italicized significance (p) values are results from Fisher's Exact Test, used in place of χ² owing to frequencies <5 in cells in contingency tables.

No.	Landscape type^a	Subject	Infrastructure (I)/transient activity (T)	Nhuman ^b	Nnatural ^c	χ^2d	p	Φ^e
1	CIF	Cairn	I	79	96	0.009	0.926	−0.02
2	CIF	Radio masts	I	101	115	13.05	0	−0.26
3	CIF	Field hut 1	I	81	98	1.35	0.24	−0.1
4	MIF	Field hut 2	I	110	80	–	0.027	−0.17
5	MIF	Field hut/vehicle	I	104	101	33.39	0	−0.41
6	MIF	Vehicles	T	112	100	–	0.69	−0.05
7	CCM	Icebreakers	T	113	78	24.56	0	−0.37
8	CCM	Field hut 3	I	99	81	8.7	0.003	−0.24
9	CCM	Field hut 4	I	111	102	12.84	0	−0.26
10	PIF	Field party 1	T	100	80	5.063	0.024	−0.19
11	IS	Tractor train	T	101	79	5.955	0.015	−0.2
12	IS	Airfield 1	I	98	80	36.41	0	−0.46
13	IS	Airfield 2	I	78	115	10.3	0.001	−0.25
14	IS	Field party 2	T	77	109	0.011	0.916	−0.02
15	IS	Automatic weather station	I	113	98	38.3	0	−0.44
16	CIS	Station	I	100	112	33.19	0	−0.41
No.	Landscape type	Subject	Infrastructure / transient activity	Npenguins^f	No_penguins^g	χ^2 d	Significance	Effect size
17	PIF	Penguins	–	99	111	–	0.07	0.14

^aCoastal ice-free (CIF), mountainous ice-free (MIF), coastal–continental margin (CCM), peninsula ice fields (PIF), ice shelves (IS) and central Antarctic ice sheet (CIS).

^bN_human is the sample size of images with human presence.

^cN_natural is the sample size images without human presence.

^dResults of Pearson's chi-square tests with Yates's continuity correction (χ²).

^eEffect size. The sign of the phi coefficient (Φ) is immaterial.

^fN_penguins is the sample size of images with penguins.

^gN_{o_penguins} is the sample size images without penguins.

Fig. 7  Frequency plot of Z scores and raw aesthetic preference ratings for all images in the survey.

Fig. 8  Mean aesthetic (Z) scores of images, with human content, transient activity and infrastructure, aggregated by landscape type. Landscape types are abbreviated as follows: coastal ice-free (CIF), mountainous ice-free (MIF), coastal–continental margin (CCM), peninsula ice fields (PIF), ice shelves (IS) and central Antarctic ice sheet (CIS).

Table 6 Aesthetic (Z) scores for landscape types, with t-test results comparing images with no human content and images with transient human activity.

Landscape type^a	Human content	N	Mean Z score	SD	t	Df^b	p (two- tailed)^c	Mean difference^d	95% confidence interval (lower)^e	95% confidence interval (upper)^e	Φ ^f
CIF	Yes	214	−0.562	0.791	4.794	1184	0.000	0.287	0.169	0.404	0.36
	No	972	−0.275	0.792
MIF	Yes	303	0.317	0.665	3.977	1323	0.000	0.183	0.093	0.273	0.26
	No	1022	0.5	0.715
PIF	Yes	284	0.174	0.757	9.453	422	0.000	0.472	0.373	0.569	0.72
	No	799	0.645	0.613
CCM	Yes	390	−0.018	0.965	8.213	637	0.000	0.462	0.352	0.573	0.58
	No	551	0.444	0.656
IS	Yes	291	−0.042	0.773	8.664	486	0.000	0.452	0.349	0.554	0.64
	No	694	0.41	0.68
CIS	Yes	359	−0.287	1.073	11.033	625	0.000	0.767	0.63	0.903	0.83
	No	306	0.48	0.705

^aCoastal ice-free (CIF), mountainous ice-free (MIF), coastal–continental margin (CCM), peninsula ice fields (PIF), ice shelves (IS) and central Antarctic ice sheet (CIS).

^bDegrees of freedom.

^cSignificance (α=0.05).

^dThe mean difference between each pair of images.

^eUpper and lower confidence intervals around the mean differences.

^fEffect size.

Table 7 Aesthetic (Z) scores for landscape types, with t-test results comparing images containing no human content and images with infrastructure.

Landscape type^a	Human content	N	Mean Z score	SD	t-test	df^b	p (two-tailed)^c	Mean difference^d	95% confidence interval (lower)^e	95% confidence interval (upper)^e	Φ ^f
CIF	Yes	857	−1.114	1.13	18.139	1509	0.000	0.839	0.748	0.929	0.87
	No	972	−0.275	0.79
MIF	Yes	416	−0.187	0.851	14.516	665	0.000	0.687	0.594	0.78	0.91
	No	1022	0.5	0.715
PIF	Yes	180	0.398	0.654	4.63	255	0.000	0.247	0.142	0.352	0.4
	No	799	0.646	0.613
CCM	Yes	400	−0.026	0.8	9.642	753	0.000	0.47	0.375	0.566	0.65
	No	551	0.444	0.656
IS	Yes	290	−0.616	1.02	15.72	400	0.000	1.025	0.897	1.154	1.29
	No	694	0.41	0.678
CIS	Yes	386	−0.486	1.072	14.242	669	0.000	0.966	0.833	1.099	1.04
	No	306	0.48	0.705

^aCoastal ice-free (CIF), mountainous ice-free (MIF), coastal–continental margin (CCM), peninsula ice fields (PIF), ice shelves (IS) and central Antarctic ice sheet (CIS).

^bDegrees of freedom.

^cSignificance (α=0.05).

^dThe mean difference between each pair of images.

^eUpper and lower confidence intervals around the mean differences.

^fEffect size.

Table 8 Mean differences between the aesthetic (Z) scores of images with human presence and “natural” (manipulated) images.

Pr.	Content	Infra-structure (I)/transient activity (T)	Landscape type^a	N/p^b	N/n^c	t-test	p ^d	Mean diff.^e	95% confidence interval (lower)^f	95% confidence interval (upper)^f	d ^g
1	Cairn	I	CIF	79	96	2.24	0.026	0.28	0.03	0.52	0.34
2	Radio masts	I	CIF	101	115	−2.48	0.014	−0.24	−0.43	−0.05	−0.34
3	Field hut 1	I	CIF	81	98	−2.28	0.021	−0.24	−0.44	−0.03	−0.34
4	Field hut 2	I	MIF	109	79	−3.86	0.000	−0.31	−0.47	−0.15	−0.55
5	Field hut/vehicle	I	MIF	104	101	−5.52	0.000	−0.6	−0.81	−0.38	−0.77
6	Vehicles	T	MIF	112	100	−4.37	0.000	−0.32	−0.46	−0.17	−0.6
7	Icebreakers	T	CCM	113	77	−8.18	0.000	−0.92	−1.14	−0.7	−1.09
8	Field hut 3	I	CCM	99	80	−2.33	0.024	−0.22	−0.41	−0.03	−0.35
9	Field hut 4	I	CCM	111	102	−5.15	0.000	−0.52	−0.72	−0.32	−0.71
10	Field party 1	T	PIF	99	77	−1.54	0.126	−0.126	−0.37	0.05	−0.23
11	Tractor train	T	IS	102	79	−2.59	0.010	−0.26	−0.46	−0.06	−0.39
12	Airfield 1	I	IS	99	78	−9.69	0.000	−1.1	−1.33	−0.88	−1.37
13	Airfield 2	I	IS	78	115	−6.67	0.000	−0.87	−1.13	−0.61	−1.06
14	Field party 2	T	IS	77	109	−0.92	0.360	−0.1	−0.32	0.12	−0.14
15	Automatic weather station	I	IS	113	98	−13.2	0.000	−1.4	−1.61	−1.19	−1.79
16	Station	I	CIS	99	112	−7.32	0.000	−0.87	−1.11	−0.64	−1.04
17	Penguins	-	PIF	98	110	−4.35	0.00	−0.36	−0.52	−0.2	0.61

^aCoastal ice-free (CIF), mountainous ice-free (MIF), coastal–continental margin (CCM), peninsula ice fields (PIF), ice shelves (IS) and central Antarctic ice sheet (CIS).

^bThe number of respondents to images with penguins (pair 17).

^cThe number of respondents to the natural (manipulated) images.

^dSignificance (α=0.05). Figures in boldface are non-significant results.

^eThe mean difference between each pair of images.

^fUpper and lower confidence intervals around the mean differences.

^g d is Cohen's d, for which 0.2 is a small effect, 0.5 is a moderate effect and 0.8 is a large effect.

Fig. 9  Examples of the types of infrastructure and transient activity and significance in differences in wilderness scores in the manipulated pairs. Only the non-manipulated images are shown. (Photos: Australian Antarctic Division, Ewan McIvor, Rupert Summerson and—courtesy of the US National Science Foundation Antarctic Photo Library—Kristan Hutchison, John Penney and Jordan Dickens.)

Fig. 10  Aesthetic Z scores for all images without human content, averaged by landscape type. The horizontal bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Landscape types are abbreviated as follows: coastal ice-free (CIF), mountainous ice-free (MIF), coastal–continental margin (CCM), peninsula ice fields (PIF), ice shelves (IS) and central Antarctic ice sheet (CIS).

Fig. 11  (a–c) The three most aesthetically preferred and (d–f) the three least aesthetically preferred natural scenes, that is, without human presence. (Photos: [a] Paul Thur; [b] Zee Evans; [c] Frédérique Olivier; [d] Rupert Summerson; [e] and [f] Ewan McIvor. Photos [a], [b] and [f] courtesy of the US National Science Foundation Antarctic Photo Library.)

Fig. 12  Scatter plot of averaged responses to wilderness and aesthetic value of all 90 images. Perception of wilderness is expressed as a percentage of responses as wilderness to each image and aesthetic values as mean Z scores.