Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-bkjnw Total loading time: 0.231 Render date: 2021-10-23T15:24:10.193Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Managing legacy waste in the presence of cultural heritage at Wilkes Station, East Antarctica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2013

Danielle Camenzuli
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, 2109, Australia (
Kirstie A. Fryirs
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, 2109, Australia (
Damian B. Gore
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, 2109, Australia (
Benjamin L. Freidman
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3010, Australia


The Antarctic Treaty has been the principal governing force in Antarctica since 1961. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol) requires that all past and present work and waste-disposal sites are cleaned up unless doing so would cause greater environmental damage or the site is considered to be a monument of significant historical importance. Despite this requirement, legacy waste issues remain unresolved in parts of Antarctica. Clean-up operations in Antarctica are complicated by a combination of restricted access, extreme weather, financial limitations and logistical constraints. Further complications arise at sites such as Wilkes Station, where the requirement for clean-up coexists with the desire to preserve potentially valuable heritage items.

Several buildings and artefacts with potential heritage value remain at Wilkes Station. However, Wilkes Station is not officially designated as a historic site or monument under the Antarctic Treaty, nor is it a national or world heritage place under Australian domestic legislation. Consequently the buildings and relics at Wilkes Station are afforded little protection under the existing relevant domestic and international legislative frameworks.

This paper uses Wilkes Station as a case study of the complexities associated with conducting clean-up operations at contaminated sites with informal heritage value in Antarctica. The legislative and environmental considerations surrounding clean-up operations at Wilkes Station are also investigated. Furthermore, we argue the importance of a multi-disciplinary approach to operations which facilitate the clean-up of legacy waste and preservation of the potential heritage values at Wilkes. Finally, we recognise that the complexities discussed in this paper have wider applicability and we investigate the relevance of these issues to other Antarctic contaminated sites with formal or informal heritage value.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Antarctic Treaty. 1959. The Antarctic treaty. 402 U.N.T.S. Adopted 1 December 1959, Washington D.C.; entered into force 23 June 1961. URL: (accessed 17 October 2013).Google Scholar
Antarctic Treaty Environment Protection Act. 1980. Canberra: Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Attorney General's Department. URL: (accessed 18 October 2012).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2001. Resolution 5 (Guidelines for the handling of pre-1958 historic remains whose existence or present location is not known). Final report of the ATCM. 24th A.T.C.M. meeting. St. Petersburg 9–20 July 2001.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2006. Management plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area no. 166, Port-Martin, Terre-Adélie. 29th ATCM meeting. Edinburgh 12–23 June 2005. URL: (accessed 3 March 2013).Google Scholar
Babicka, N. 2000. Development of a Web-GIS as a tool to assist with the management of contaminated sites in Antarctica. Unpublished Masters dissertation. Sydney: The University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Bastmeijer, K. 2003. The Antarctic environmental protocol and its domestic legal implementation. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Blanchette, R.A., Held, B.W. and Farrell, R.L.. 2002. Defibration of wood in the expedition huts of Antarctica: an unusual deterioration process occurring in the polar environment. Polar Record 38 (207): 313322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchette, R.A., Held, B.W., Jurgen, J.A., Aislabie, J., Duncan, S. and Farrell, R.L.. 2004. Environmental pollutants from the Scott and Shackleton expeditions during the ‘Heroic Age’ of Antarctic exploration. Polar Record 40 (213): 143151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, L. and Wishart, E.. 1989. Historical recording of Wilkes. Aurora 9: 46Google Scholar
Clark, L and Wishart, E.. 1999. Historical documentation of Wilkes Station, Antarctica 1988/89. Launceston: Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery.Google Scholar
Deprez, P.P., Arens, M. and Locher H., H. 1999. Identification and assessment of contaminated sites at Casey Station, Wilkes Land, Antarctica. Polar Record 35 (195): 299316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EPBC Act (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act). 1999. Canberra: Australian Federal Government. URL: (accessed 14 June 2013)Google Scholar
Evans, S.L. 2007. Heritage at risk: cultural heritage management in Antarctica. Cairns: ICOMOS (ICOMOS Symposium. James Cook University, Cairns, 1921 July 2007).Google Scholar
Evans, S. L. 2011. Icy heritage – managing historic sites in the Antarctic: pristine wilderness, anthropogenic degradation or cultural landscape? The Polar Journal 1 (1): 87100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fryirs, K., Snape, I. and Babicka, N.. 2013. The type and spatial distribution of past waste at the abandoned Wilkes Station, East Antarctica. Polar Record 49 (251): 328347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, F and Wang, Q.. 2011. Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewaters: a review. Journal of Environmental Management 92 (3): 407418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, B.D., Ptacek, C.J., Lindsay, M.B.J. and Blowes, D.W.. 2011. Examining mechanisms of groundwater Hg (II) treatment by reactive materials: an EXAFS study. Environmental Science and Technology 45 (25): 1041510421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gore, D.B. 2009. Chapter 20: Application of reactive barriers operated in frozen ground. In: Margesin, R. (editor). Permafrost soils. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 303320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gore, D.B., Revill, A.T. and Guille, D.. 1999. Petroleum hydrocarbons ten years after spillage at a helipad in Bunger Hills, East Antarctica. Antarctic Science 11 (4): 428430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, C.M and Meadows, J.. 1992. Environmental management in Antarctica Instruments and institutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 25 (9–12): 239249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haward, M. and Griffiths, T.. 2011. Australia and the Antarctic Treaty system: 50 years of influence. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press LtdGoogle Scholar
Henderson, A.D. and Demond, A.H. 2007. Long-term performance of zero-valent iron permeable reactive barriers: a critical review. Environmental Engineering Science 24 (4): 401423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, M.R. and Olson, T.M.. 2009. Life–cycle case study comparison of permeable reactive barrier versus pump and treat remediation. Environmental Science and Technology 43 (24): 94329438CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, J. 1992. Mawson's Antarctic huts and tourism: a case for on–site preservation. Polar Record 28 (164): 3742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennicutt, M.C., McDonald, S.J., Serciano, J.L., Boothe, P., Oliver, J., Safe, S., Presley, B.J., Liu, H. and Wade, T.L.. 1995. Human contamination of the marine environment–Arthur Harbor and McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. Environmental Science and Technology 29 (5): 12791287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazer, E. 2006. Antarctic and sub–Antarctic cultural heritage. Canberra: Department of Environment and Heritage. URL:, (accessed 23 May 2013).Google Scholar
Madrid Protocol. 1991. Protocol on environment protection to the Antarctic Treaty. URL: (accessed 17 October 2013).Google Scholar
Martin, T.A. and Ruby, M.V.. 2004. Review of in situ remediation technologies for lead, zinc, and cadmium in soil. Remediation 14 (3): 3553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melick, D.R. and Seppelt, R.D.. 1997. Vegetation patterns in relation to climatic and endogenous changes in Wilkes Land, continental Antarctica. Journal of Ecology 85: 4356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, K.A., Rayner, J.L., Snape, I., Stark, S.C, Stevens, G.W and Gore, D.B.. in press. Design, installation and preliminary testing of a Permeable Reactive Barrier for diesel fuel remediation at Casey Station, Antarctica. Cold Regions Science and Technology (CRST-D-13-00014R1)Google Scholar
Orton, M.N. 1963. A brief survey of the fauna of the Windmill Islands, Wilkes Land, Antarctica. Emu 63: 1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, M. 2004. Artefact or rubbish – a dilemma for Antarctic managers. In: Barr, S. and Chaplin, P. (editors). Cultural heritage in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Oslo: ICOMOS (Monuments and sites 8): 3943.Google Scholar
Poland, J.S., Riddle, M.J. and Zeeb, B.A. 2003. Contaminants in the Arctic and the Antarctic: a comparison of sources, impacts, and remediation options. Polar Record 39 (211): 369383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, J.L., Snape, I., Walworth, J.L., Harvey, P.M. and Ferguson, S.H.. 2007. Petroleum–hydrocarbon contamination and remediation by microbioventing at sub–Antarctic Macquarie Island. Cold Regions Science and Technology 48: 139153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roura, R.M. 2011. The footprint of polar tourism: tourist behaviour at cultural heritage in Antarctica and Svalbard. Netherlands: Barkhuis.Google Scholar
Scazzosi, L. 2004. Reading and assessing the landscape as cultural and historical heritage. Landscape Research 29 (4): 335355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.I.L. 1988. Classification and ordination of cryptogamic communities in Wilkes Land, Continental Antarctica. Vegetatio 76: 155166.Google Scholar
Snape, I., Cole, C., Gore, D.B., Riddle, M. and Yarnal, M.. 1998. A preliminary assessment of contaminants at the abandoned Wilkes Station, East Antarctica, with recommendations for establishing an environmental management strategy. Hobart: Australian Antarctic Division.Google Scholar
Snape, I. and Riddle, M.J., 1998. A technical report to consider extraction techniques and logistic arrangements for future removal of contaminated waste from the Thala Valley and Wilkes tip sites, Australian Antarctic Territory. Hobart: Australian Antarctic Division.Google Scholar
Snape, I., Riddle, M.J., Stark, J.S., Cole, C.M., King, C.K., Duquesne, S. and Gore, D.B.. 2001a. Management and remediation of contaminated sites at Casey Station, Antarctica. Polar Record 37 (202): 199214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snape, I., Morris, C.E. and Cole, C.M.. 2001b. The use of permeable reactive barriers to control contaminant dispersal during site remediation in Antarctica. Cold Regions Science and Technology 32 (2): 157174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Splettstoesser, J. and Rossnes, G.. 2002. Report of Working Group 1 Management of Historic Sites and Areas. In: Valencia, J. and Downie, R. (editors). Draft elements for a management plan of Deception Island as an ASMA. Chile: Instituto Antartico Chileno. URL:, (accessed 23 May 2013).Google Scholar
Stark, J.S., Snape, I. and Riddle, M.J.. 2003. The effects of petroleum hydrocarbon and heavy metal contamination of marine sediments on recruitment of Antarctic soft–sediment assemblages: a field experimental investigation. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 283 (1–2): 2150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, J.S., Snape, I. and Riddle, M.J.. 2006. Abandoned waste disposal sites in Antarctica: monitoring remediation outcomes and limitations at Casey Station. Ecological Management and Restoration 7 (1): 2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, S.C., Gardner, D., Snape, I. and McIvor, E.. 2003. Assessment of contamination by heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons at Atlas Cove Station, Heard Island. Polar Record 39 (211): 397414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tin, T., Fleming, Z.L., Hughes, K.A., Ainley, D.G., Convey, P., Moreno, C.A., Pfeiffer, S., Scott, J. and Snape, I.. 2009. Impacts of local human activities on the Antarctic environment: a review. Antarctic Science 21 (1): 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thearle, D.T. 1990. Clean–up of Wilkes Station. Hobart: Australian Antarctic Division (1st Construction Regiment, 17th Construction Squadron, reconnaissance report).Google Scholar
Townsend, A.T. and Snape, I.. 2008. Multiple Pb sources in marine sediments near Australian Antarctic Station, Casey. Science of the Total Environment 389 (2–3): 466474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Townsend, A.T., Snape, I., Palmer, A.S. and Seen, A.J.. 2009. Lead isotopic signatures in Antarctic marine sediment cores: a comparison between 1 M HC1 partial extraction and HF total digestion pre–treatments for discerning anthropogenic inputs. Science of the Total Environment 408 (2): 382389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. In situ treatment technologies for contaminated soil. Washington D.C: EPA Headquarters. URL:, (accessed 23 May 2013).Google Scholar
Vecco, M. 2010. A definition of cultural heritage: from the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage 11 (3): 321324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasley, J., Robinson, S.A., Turnbull, J.D., King, D.H., Wanek, W. and Popp, M.. 2012. Bryophyte species composition over moisture gradients in the Windmill Islands, East Antarctica: development of a baseline for monitoring climate change impacts. Biodiversity DOI:10.1080/14888386.2012.712636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, D., Hafsteinsdóttir, E.G., Gore, D.B., Thorogood, G. and Stark, S.C. 2012. Formation and stability of Pb–, Zn– & Cu–PO4 phases at low temperatures: implications for heavy metal fixation in Polar Environments. Environmental Pollution 164: 143153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Managing legacy waste in the presence of cultural heritage at Wilkes Station, East Antarctica
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Managing legacy waste in the presence of cultural heritage at Wilkes Station, East Antarctica
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Managing legacy waste in the presence of cultural heritage at Wilkes Station, East Antarctica
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *