Our society is living in the Anthropocene, an era in which human activities are making lasting impacts across the globe, including their contributions to the climate crisis (Tempelhoff, 2021). Tourism is one of the major contemporary human activities that can have both positive and negative economic, environmental, and social impacts (McCool and Bosak, 2016; Leung et al., 2018). Tourism impacts are of particular concern in the highly sensitive and increasingly visited polar regions of the Arctic North: Canada, the Nordic Countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Greenland) (Jóhannesson et al., 2022; The Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers, 2023), Russia, and USA-Alaska, and the South: Antarctica (Hall and Saarinen, 2010; Stewart et al., 2010; Vila et al., 2016, p. 451).

Human impacts within the polar regions, including those associated with tourism activities, are often cumulative, both on local, ecosystem-specific vegetation and wildlife and globally, contributing to carbon emissions that are linked to the increased pace at which the glaciers, ice caps, and sea ice in these regions melt (Dawson et al., 2007). Due to the remote nature of these destinations, tourists' often travel on long-haul flights over the standard international round-trip distance of 4,100 km, releasing about 3.2 tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) per passenger, per flight (Amelung and Lamers, 2007). Additionally, visiting polar regions generally involves cruising for long periods of time, a week or more, which releases the “highest per capita CO₂ emissions in tourism” (Amelung and Lamers, 2007; Eijgelaar et al., 2010, p. 340; Farreny et al., 2011). Black carbon and other air pollutants that are released by vessels, airplanes, helicopters, diesel power plants, and generators can accelerate melting of ice by reducing the albedo of snow-covered, polar environments (Cordero et al., 2022, p. 2).

Polar tourism has found itself in a positive feedback loop with climate change impacts. The rise of polar tourism can be attributed to several factors, including decreased airfare costs, more information available to prospective tourists, and a trend of “last chance tourism” (Snyder, 2007; Vila et al., 2016). A motivation consistently cited in the polar tourism literature that references visiting a climate-change vulnerable location before it drastically changes or disappears (Abrahams et al., 2022). Visitation data to the Arctic is not centrally collected, making accurate counts difficult. The following estimates come pre-COVID from 2017 to 2019 from Maher et al. (2021). The most visitation was reported among the Nordic countries, Finland with 3 million in 2019, Sweden 2.9 million in 2018, and Norway 2.7 million in 2017, with 158,000 of those visitors in Svalbard in 2018. Alaska recorded 2.4 million in 2019 (Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, 2022) and Iceland with 2.2 million in 2017. Whereas, destinations like Canada had around 500,000 and Greenland only 90,000 in 2017 (Maher et al., 2021). The first commercial tourism in Antarctica may have officially begun in the early 1960s, but substantial growth in visitation occurred in the mid-90's, early 2000s, and is now expected again, post-pandemic (IAATO, 2022). At the beginning of the millennium, an estimated 12,248 visitors traveled to Antarctica (IAATO, 2001). During the 2019–20 season, 74,401 tourists traveled to the continent by a combination of air-cruises and cruises (IAATO, 2020b). After a two-year halt due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Antarctic tourism is returning in full force, reaching 104,897 visitors in 2022–23 season (IAATO, 2023b). How tens of thousands or even more tourists interact with these environments is an important factor in managing the environmental impacts of tourism and generating long-lasting awareness among tourists.

Tourism activities in the Arctic regions span multiple sovereign nations that all have their own policies and regulations (Taylor et al., 2020). The fragmentation of tourism management in the Arctic means that each country is individually responsible for managing tourism and not only its environmental, but social impacts on the local and indigenous communities, additional challenges that Antarctica does not have (Kerber, 2022). In contrast, Antarctica, a singular land without a resident population or a sovereign body, relegates governance decisions to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) and their instruments, especially the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, or the Madrid Protocol (Cajiao et al., 2021). Though directives for tourism regulation are not directly laid out in the Treaty itself, the ATCPs can choose to implement binding or non-binding, tourism policy through national legislation (Abdullah et al., 2015). In the absence of sweeping policy, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) formed to self-regulate the industry through guidelines (Verbitsky, 2013). IAATO formed in 1991 to “advocate, promote, and practice safe and environmentally responsible, private-sector travel in Antarctica” (IAATO, 2020a). The complex nature of tourism in the polar regions has sparked debate and curiosity among researchers and industry to determine how this specialized form of tourism can contribute to the conservation and protection of these places.

Polar tourists are often provided with unique opportunities to connect to the environment through immersive educational experiences and first-hand interactions with wilderness and wildlife. These experiences and education provided either on-site or on cruises can influence a tourist's intention to behave in a way that benefits the environment, better known as their pro-environmental behavior intentions (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Educational and interpretive experiences have long been utilized to facilitate visitor behavior change, especially in protected area settings (Ham and Krumpe, 1996; Larson et al., 2015; Backman et al., 2018). In the polar context, the discussion around this potential for behavior change revolves around the “ambassadorship” concept, which has been questioned about its accuracy and effectiveness in this context. Ambassadorship is widely utilized in the promotion, messaging, and educational experiences of Antarctic tourism to describe representatives who enact behavior that protect or sustains the place (IAATO, 2023a). Lindblad linked the term of ambassadorship to the positive benefits of experiencing an educational expedition in the Antarctic in the 1960s, and when IAATO formed in 1991, they continued to promote the program (Manley et al., 2017; IAATO, 2020a). The concept and specific term usage focusing on tourists are clearly present within the Antarctic industry and research narratives, which might result from a lack of resident Antarctic population who could serve as ambassadors. In contrast, official Arctic Ambassadors exist in most Arctic countries who are political appointees with defined responsibilities for the area, and who may or may not come from the local population (Solli et al., 2013). As the Arctic region shares similar challenges with tourism, it is less clear whether or how this concept or term has permeated geographical boundaries to be used by researchers to examine tourist behavior change in other polar environments. This paper seeks to first identify and define common terminology related to the ambassadorship concept, and then present results from a scoping review to explore the identified terms' usage, boundaries, implications, and differences within the scope of polar tourism research. This work is intended to serve as the initial step toward more in-depth examination of these terms with respect to their conceptual commonalities and differences.

We conducted a scoping review for its usefulness in identifying the boundaries of a topic in the peer-reviewed literature, using inclusion and exclusion criteria and matrices to organize and present results (Paré and Kitsiou, 2017; Xiao and Watson, 2019, p. 99). The search was conducted using Web of Science, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, and ERIC databases, which included references published in English. We chose to examine the language in scientific literature, rather than tourism marketing materials, as we are interested in how such language is defined and utilized in the published academic work. Researchers studying polar tourism not only provide insights into the programs and language used by the industry, but also empirical analyses. Due to the similarity of advocacy and stewardship to ambassadorship in associating with pro-environmental behavioral outcomes of tourists (Maher et al., 2001; Bennett et al., 2018), these three terms were all included in the searches for articles that discuss tourists' outcomes. Specifically, we identified articles based on the following search criteria:

A combination of the above keywords was entered to find relevant articles. The search was conducted for all time periods. Results were screened for relevance to the research topic based on the stated criteria. A matrix was utilized to extract important data from each article, including authors, research questions, methodology, findings, terminology, and geographic location (Goldman and Schmalz, 2004). The matrix allowed for a simple analysis of similarities and differences between the studies.

After screening for results that fit into our selection criteria, the search produced only 16 articles (Figure 1). Selected articles were all published from 2001 through 2022. Antarctica was the most prevalent study destination (n = 8). Arctic study areas were more diverse given that the region can be categorized into high, low, or sub-Arctic regions (United Nations Environment Programme, 2013). Some (n = 2) focused on the Arctic region in general, the majority were conducted in sub to low Arctic destinations (n = 4), and one in the high Arctic. One study focused on both poles. The main research methods were surveys (n = 10) and literature reviews (n = 5), with one study that conducted a Netnography (method for studying online cultures). Surveys included knowledge tests, connection to nature scales, and questions about attitudes, environmental behaviors, and future behavior intentions. Keyword search for articles revealed the overlapping nature of terms, where four articles were found using both ambassador and steward, and one article was found with all three. Although advocacy as a keyword produced only one relevant, repeated result, the term was used in five of the articles, although only in reference to action from ambassadors. Ambassador and steward appeared in studies conducted in both Arctic and Antarctic, and Figure 1 below shows the presence of the terms across region.

There were two distinct study designs in which the researchers explored the concepts: (1) research that was related to understanding either tourist motivations, perceptions, knowledge and/or behavior, with the intention that measuring some combination of those could transfer to management action to promote ambassadorship, stewardship, or advocacy, and (2) research in which the author(s) developed conceptual pieces (Delphi study, literature reviews, research notes) to analyze the meaning and implications of term concepts on tourism, or tourism directly.

This review synthesized the usage, boundaries, implications, and differences of terminology related to ambassadorship within polar tourism research. Despite the formal and colloquial association of ambassadorship with Antarctic tourism, researchers have applied the concept to analyze potential pro-environmental behavior outcomes in the Arctic as well. Within the Arctic, and occasionally in the Antarctic, stewardship is used interchangeably to explain the same concept. Unlike IAATO in the Antarctic, the Arctic tourism industry does not put forth cohesive language about creating ambassadors, stewards, or advocates from their tourism experiences. However, with the prevalence of the idea that polar experiences can influence tourists' pro-environmental behaviors, application of the ambassadorship concept to Arctic tourists both by professionals and researchers may be beneficial in creating a more complete picture of polar tourism. Tour operators that wish to keep utilizing this term should clearly define expectations, and researchers should keep pushing to understand the outcomes associated with this type of tourism and to better define the use of the terms. As the term Arctic Ambassadors is already established for official representatives from Arctic countries, extending it to tourists in the Arctic should be done judiciously so it does not create confusion with the official Arctic Ambassadors.

Experiences in polar regions are primarily educational through nature encounters, and many factors influence how tourists perceive their experience and whether that contributes to attitude or behavior change around conservation. An established connection to nature and a desire to learn about natural environments or the effects of climate change can motivate visitation (Groulx et al., 2016). Visiting polar regions provide tourists with an opportunity to witness the effects of climate change first-hand; however, evidence also shows that without proper on-site interpretation, visitors can misinterpret the information in front of them (Miller et al., 2020). This point is echoed by van Soest (2023)'s recent critique of the value of Arctic Expedition despite the use of “science ambassadors” for its tourist participants. Limited longitudinal research suggests that visitors can retain practical knowledge at least 3 months after a journey, and certain factors, such as occurrence of epiphanies, length of experience, and total minutes educated, can increase the likelihood of engagement in pro-environmental behaviors (Powell et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2020). Additional research on the different factors involved in polar tourist experiences and which factors are most influential in facilitating that connection could help operators create more effective programming to facilitate pro-environmental outcomes. The effectiveness of providing specific actions or behavior tourists could engage in to contribute to conservation produced mixed results depending on other factors influencing tourists' attitudes, beliefs, and experiences. Contributing to concept exploration may need to involve questions that Alexander et al. (2019) posed, “what then might such behavior look like? Is it conservation behaviors in a person's daily life such as supporting an environmental organization, reducing waste, walking to work, or is it enough to share photos of a trip on Facebook and tell your friends?” (p. 503).

We recommend researchers continue to advance the understanding, conceptualization, and operationalization of these terms, as well as to extend the scope of examination to include non-English scientific literature, such as Norwegian and Russian references in which these terms also appeared. Our methods may have led to search results that focused on the environmental aspects of ambassadorship, even in the Arctic. Changes in keywords and selection criteria may be needed if the social and community aspects of ambassadorship are of interest in future studies. Future research is also encouraged to apply citation impact analysis to examine how the terms and concepts introduced by seminal publications (e.g., Eijgelaar et al., 2010) evolve in, and impact on, the scientific literature across disciplinary boundaries.

Ambassadorship, stewardship, and advocacy can be all sides of the same coin, subject to similar research seeking to prove their validity and efficacy within polar tourism. An understanding of the state of knowledge and academic discourse of these terms should inform the industry on how consistent or deviant it is in using these terms in its marketing and education programs, prompting debates about the implications and potential consequences if significant discrepancies exist. Despite the main focus of these studies being on measuring tourist outcomes, Tin (2017) starts to expand that boundary by labeling the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties as stewards themselves. While tourists are an important population to foster ambassadorship, this inclusion of the ATCPs prompts questions about who else in the polar tourism industry could function as ambassadors. Further research on developing and expanding the ambassadorship concept may open up the field to new perspectives on who could be considered an ambassador, which may help validate the accuracy of the concept in these contexts.

JR: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing—original draft. Y-FL: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—review and editing. DC: Writing—review and editing.