Go Here, Not There: 7 Reasons to Consider the Arctic Circle Before Antarctica

The world’s southernmost continent once felt so remote that simply reaching it was considered a staggering achievement. It was an adventure reserved for pioneers, scientists, and those willing to risk their lives in pursuit of blank spaces on the map.

But today, it’s a different story, and anyone with two weeks and $10,000 to burn can stand on the Great White South. Antarctica is making headlines for its rapidly increasing issues with overtourism, as polar expeditions go mainstream and crowds flock south. Increasing numbers of tourists are trampling vegetation and disturbing bird breeding colonies, and daily cruise ships are contributing to air, water, and noise pollution. Research shows that each passenger each day on a cruise ship emits the equivalent of .33 to .42 tons of CO2.

Fortunately, however, there’s no need for travelers to make the decision between forgoing the chance to see gorgeous, ice-covered expanses, or being part of the overtourism problem. In fact, there’s a similar option that just so happens to be the polar opposite, literally: Instead of heading to the South Pole, go north. For those willing to look north instead of south, the rewards are profound. Here’s why the Arctic Circle is just as worthy of your attention.

The Arctic Circle’s geography protects it from some overtourism problems

Ilulissat City in West Greenland. Photo: Chris Christophersen/Shutterstock

Visitor numbers to Antarctica in the 2023-24 season jumped to 122,000, up from 7,400 in 1992-93. Experts say nearly half a million annual visitors could be possible by 2033-34. That’s not a lot of visitors for a place like Paris or Yosemite National Park, but Antarctica traffic is highly concentrated. Most travelers arrive on cruises and funnel into a handful of landing sites on the Peninsula. Although expeditions cap landings at 100 per site, repeated visits and overlapping ship schedules are having an undeniable impact. Waste and accidental species introductions pose further risks. And with climate change already putting the planet’s ice sheets at risk, there’s little room for ignoring these issues.

While the Arctic Circle’s towns do have overtourism issues, its geography makes it less susceptible to the tourist concentration issues of Antarctica. Whether it’s Svalbard’s polar bear and walrus habitats, Greenland’s massive fjords and dog-sledding villages, or Tromsø’s aurora borealis and Sámi traditions, travelers have more places to go and more points of entry. And those places have more established infrastructure, like guesthouses, commercial flights, and established roads and trails, reducing the pressure of too many people in one space.

Make no mistake about it, though: both Antarctica and the Arctic Circle are extremely fragile landscapes.

The Arctic Circle is loaded with cultural experiences

A Sami reindeer herder in Finland. Photo: footageclips/Shutterstock

Unlike Antarctica, which has no Indigenous populations, the Arctic is home to millennia-old cultures. Inuit, Sámi, Nenets, and other Indigenous groups still live in cities in the Arctic Circle, many operating tourist activities that allow visitors to experience their traditions, foods, and festivals. In the Arctic Circle, you can visit Greenland’s northernmost fishing villages or travel with Sámi reindeer herders across glaciers.

Engaging in those tourism experiences supports the local economies and helps members of these groups keep their traditions alive. This not only means more available experiences for non-active adventurers, but also provides travelers with a chance to learn about human survival in the world’s most extreme conditions — something not available to travelers in Antarctica.

You can travel solo, and on the cheap

You can chill at Svalbard’s Husky Cafe in the Arctic Circle for the low price of a 3-euro coffee. Photo: Suzie Dundas

Unlike in Antarctica, travelers to the Arctic Circle have multiple options for group or self-guided travel. There are airports in or near the Arctic Circle with regular commercial flights in Norway, Finland, Canada, and Alaska, so you don’t need to go with an organized tour — most destinations can be reached independently on flights and ferries. You can book your own accommodations online, and book whatever tours, guides, and activities you like — or just explore independently. Many Arctic Circle towns have companies and tours led by Indigenous guides, and booking directly with them keeps money in the communities.

To visit Antarctica, you have to travel on a cruise ship via a set cruise itinerary from Southern South America. There’s no option to fly to Antarctica and explore on your own (nor should there be, from a sustainability standpoint). But it does make trips to Antarctica both pricier and less flexible than a DIY trip up north.

Most Arctic towns are big into local feedback and governance

Many towns in the Arctic Circle set some of their own tourism rules, such as Svalbard, Norway. Photo: Suzie Dundas

National and local governments and Indigenous leaders manage most Arctic lands. In places like Svalbard, visitor rules and wildlife protections are enforced by local authorities, allowing for quick adjustments both as the environment demands, and if locals start to feel like policies should change. This makes community oversight a given, and Indigenous groups have regulated snowmobile use in small towns and lobbied for caps on cruise ship visitation in Greenland. In Canada, many Arctic preserves are run and managed by traditional landholders. Decisions can be made quickly, and the public can influence and change policy with less red tape.

This isn’t the case in Antarctica, and it’s not just because Antarctica has no Indigenous groups. It’s because governance is shared between 56 countries via the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), with about 29 countries having voting rights at any given time. It’s a lot easier for residents in small towns to make their voices heard when they have local or local-ish authority, but international governance between countries takes longer. So if you’re into supporting places where locals and traditional land managers have closer ties to the goings-on in their backyards, the Arctic Circle could be a good fit.

The Arctic has the potential for unrivaled wildlife encounters

A polar bear on ice, shot from the deck of my National Geograhpic Lindblad Expeditions tour in Norway. Photo: Suzie Dundas

The Arctic’s biodiversity rivals Antarctica’s, with the added dimension of one iconic species: polar bears. And if that wasn’t enough for you, how about narwhals, belugas, musk oxen, and herds of reindeer traversing vast landscapes? (In Svalbard, Norway, there’s even a unique type of extra-fluffy reindeer species). The Arctic Circle is also home to walruses, who you can find lounging in the sun by the dozens at areas known as “haul-outs” in Svalbard, Nunavut, and northeast Greenland.

Wildlife in Antarctica is more limited. You’ll find stunning colonies of penguins and the chance to see whales and seals, but not many mammals beyond that. If it’s iconic wildlife you’re after, the Arctic Circle is your best bet. Local municipalities also set wildlife-viewing rules, which vary by destination. Churchill, Manitoba, issues polar bear viewing licenses and regulates operators with local police; in Svalbard, hikers must be accompanied by an armed guide (or be licensed themselves); and in Finland’s Lapland, authorities restrict access to reindeer calving grounds.

Despite these regulations — or, likely, because of them — the potential for seeing breathtaking species is high for visitors who plan accordingly.

You can see the Northern Lights in the Arctic Circle

Photo: Flystock/Shutterstock

Keen to see the Northern Lights (aurora borealis) or Southern Lights (aurora australis)? The average traveler is much more likely to see the colorful lights in the Arctic Circle than in Antarctica. Many destinations within the Arctic Circle, including Tromsø (Norway), Rovaniemi (Finland), Fairbanks (Alaska), Iqaluit (Canada), and Ilulissat (Greenland) are directly under the auroral oval. Between September and April, sightings often happen several nights per week, upping your chances of seeing them during shorter trips.

The southern lights are just as active as the northern lights. But almost all Antarctic cruises and flights are between November and March, when Antarctica sees 24 hours of daylight. That makes viewing the lights impossible — and Antarctica is inaccessible to tourists in winter, when they are visible.

By the way, some ships in both the Arctic Circle and Antarctica have outdoor igloos guests can sleep in to watch the stars all night.

There are many more places to go

Tromso, Norway. Photo: Photosbypatrik/Shutterstock

The fact is, there are many more places to go in the Arctic Circle vs. Antarctica. That does make reaching Antarctica fairly straightforward, because there are far fewer options. Most visitors to the continent are on expedition cruises, usually departing from Ushuaia, Argentina, before crossing the infamously choppy Drake Passage.

Nearly all tourists to Antarctica spend all their time on and around the Antarctic Peninsula, the 190,000-square-mile stretch of the continent closest to South America — because that’s where all the Antarctica cruises go. There’s literally no other way to reach the rest of the continent as an average tourist.

In comparison, there are many more places you can reach in the Arctic Circle. Svalbard is 24,000 square miles and very accessible, half of Greenland (or about 400,000 square miles), is in the Arctic Circle, and Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic alone is 195,000 square miles. Many small towns in the Arctic Circle are tourism hubs, with tours that responsibly visit the undeveloped parts. If you want to go even further out on a custom hiking or sledding tour, you can do that. But in Antarctica, you’re limited to only where the boat can take you.

How to visit Antarctica vs. the Arctic Circle

A hiker in Alaska’s Gates of the Arctic National Park, inside the Arctic Circle. Photo: T.J. Olwig>

Owing to its remoteness, trips to Antarctica usually last at least 10 to 12 days, or seven to eight if you fly from Chile to board at King George Island. Only ships with fewer than 500 passengers can go ashore, and these cruises often cost $10,000–$20,000 per person. Larger ships from companies like Celebrity Cruises and Princess Cruises offer more affordable tours, but passengers can only see the continent from the ship, not make landfall.

Pricey expedition cruises are also an option in the Arctic Circle. My first foray north was a nine-day National Geographic/Lindblad photography cruise around Svalbard on an icebreaker that reached 82 degrees north. With posh cabins, a free DSLR camera library, and onboard photography experts, it was every bit as luxurious as an Antarctica cruise. But in the Arctic, luxury trips like that are an option — not the only option.

Travelers looking for a more budget trip to Svalbard can fly there directly and book their own activities, like dogsled tours or hiking. From Fairbanks, Alaska, the boundary of the Arctic Circle is about a five- or six-hour drive on the Dalton Highway. However, travelers who prefer organized tours will find far more land- and water-based options, from evening northern lights tours in Greenland to 12-day Canadian Arctic sailings, weeklong tours from Anchorage and Fairbanks starting under $3,000 per person, and day trips in Finland that cross into the Arctic Circle before visiting reindeer farms and learning about Sámi culture.

If you can afford it, I absolutely recommend a high-end expedition cruise from a company like Nat-Geo Lindblad Expeditions, to either Antarctica or the Arctic Circle. But if your budget doesn’t allow for that, you’ll have many more budget-friendly options if you set your sights north.

More like thisTravelThese Cruise Lines Are the Only Ones to Let You Snorkel and Dive in Antarctica