Challenges and opportunities for NZ and its huts: observations and questions

Challenges and Opportunities for NZ and its Huts: observations and questions

by Sam Demas

(Note: this is part of the larger work New Zealand Huts: Notes towards a Country Study)

Note: These jottings on challenges and opportunities are one way of wrapping up loose ends and finishing this phase of my study of NZ huts, conservation, and tramping.  These are notes on topics about which I hope to learn more in future.  As observations, questions and opinions of an outsider with large gaps in his understanding NZ,  I apologize in advance for mistakes, misunderstandings, cultural arrogance, and/or naïveté; and invite elucidation, constructive criticism and alternative views.

*******

With one of the most extensive, well supported and successful hut systems in the world, what challenges and opportunities are faced by those using and operating NZ huts?

1. Engagement: A major theme and opportunity for DoC and the tramping community today is “engagement”. There is a groundswell of voluntary hut maintenance activity, with the Backcountry Trust as a flagship program. As the DoC tradition of relying on conservation volunteers extends increasingly to huts and tracks, my sense is that more Kiwis will begin to use huts as infrastructure for conservation, track maintenance, outdoor education and other purposes in addition to recreation. The DoC Director General, Lou Sansom, seems committed to and practiced at removing bureaucratic roadblocks to citizen engagement. I heard reports of DoC rangers in the field who have come to appreciate serious voluntary hut maintenance efforts. By working together volunteers and rangers come to realize they are on the same team. Rangers come to recognize the good will and practical value of these voluntary efforts. It seems the Kiwi public is very supportive of hut restoration work and increasingly values its heritage of huts and tramping. Of course there are real challenges in organizing and managing a large-scale program of voluntary efforts, including getting a new generation of trampers involved. There will be a series of tramping club centenaries over the coming decade and these seem likely to generate further “engagement”, a long tradition of NZ tramping clubs. In addition, clubs are no longer the exclusive gate-keepers for new trampers, and DoC will likely find ways of working with a new generation of trampers.

2. Realizing ambitious goals: Many New Zealanders appear to have embraced mottos such as “100% Pure” and “Clean and Green” as proclamations of the nation’s environmental consciousness. On the other hand, many Kiwi’s suggest this is primarily about public relations and that much more substance is needed to justify these claims. DoC has announced a number of amazingly ambitious goals (e.g. “Predator free by 2050”, “Restoring the dawn chorus”), and has injected a highly controversial/divisive program of using of the pesticide 1080 to advance these programs. In the huts arena, caring for the world’s largest collection of backcountry huts, along with the Great Walks-style accommodations is a major challenge. Fortunately DoC appears to have widespread public support for its mission and programs.

3. International tourism: International tourists have more money to spend than most Kiwis, they often have different values in relation to outdoor recreation, and some international trampers are clueless about basic hut etiquette.  Nevertheless, DoC seems to have little choice but to do its part to support NZ’s relentless tourist promotion (which may be moderating under the current government?).  But is mass tourism fundamentally counter to the nation’s conservation aims?  Who is profiting from all this tourism and how can the conservation estate benefit, or at least not be degraded?  How is social media-driven tourism affecting NZ’s recreation infrastructure and experience?  Where and how does NZ draw the line in terms of concession operations in the conservation estate and noise from helicopters?  Can tourists help pay to keep NZ “Clean and Green”?  Is there a role for “voluntourism”, i.e. can tourists be induced to volunteer in genuinely useful, hands-on ways to advance NZ’s conservation aims?  How might huts fit into this picture?

4. Great Walks: DoC touts and is expanding its “World’s Greatest Walks”, which in turn engenders tensions among Kiwi’s about the flash huts and highly orchestrated experience of the expanding number of NZ Great Walks. At a minimum, striking the balance between increasing international tourism and support for traditional Kiwi tramping will require ongoing experimentation in access, differential pricing, green taxes, reservations policies and other measures to help find the way forward.  While Kiwi concerns about the Great Walks is easy to understand, my perception is that these Great Walks are far better organized than most of the popular European walks.  Is DoC a victim of its own success in structuring the walks and the experience?  Will the gravitation to more amenities continue to grow, and seep into Standard and Basic Huts?

5. Budgetary support: The breadth of DoC’s portfolio and scope of its ambitions will require strong budgetary support, which requires strong public support. Just in the arena of huts, maintaining the balance of support between Great Walks and Serviced Huts and the Standard and Basic Huts in the backcountry will be an ongoing challenge.  It will be interesting to see if creative engagement of citizens will help to build even greater support for DoC and its programs.

6. Is DoC bureaucratized and disconnected?: Critics of DoC worry that it has become too large and disconnected from what Kiwi’s actually want.  Mick Abbott suggests that when Kiwi’s complain about huts becoming too flash, sterile and uniform, or when they write in a logbook “another hut lost to the tourists”, what they are really saying is that DoC does not appear to value what they value (i.e. the traditional Kiwi tramping experience).  He thinks the connection between DoC and the citizens needs to be re-built through a variety of creative engagement approaches.  My sense is that DoC does very much value backcountry huts and tramping, but is struggling to find the balance in catering to an increasing range of audiences for its huts.

7. International leadership on huts?: With what seems to be the world’s largest and best-organized hut system, DoC is well positioned to take a leadership role in looking at the role(s) of huts in conservation, education and recreation world-wide.  While this is not a huge area of international endeavor, it will be of increased interest as nations accelerate work in creating biological preserves and protecting species diversity.  It is also a topic of increasing interest in tourism and recreation.  DoC has deep experience in these matters, and is already a leader in conservation research and development, large-scale invasive species control and native species protection, and in engaging volunteers in such activity.  Why not expand this international leadership role to include research and education on huts as green infrastructure for conservation, education and recreation?

Examples of possible international cooperation include:

• International exchange: Invite a delegation of US (and European?) recreation and conservation folks to New Zealand for a study tour focusing on huts and related topics.

• Working with International Trails Symposium and hut2hut.info on a series of country studies/cross-cultural comparisons of hut systems.

• Bring a group of NZ and design professionals to USA to participate in some design charettes with groups planning hut systems.

• Encourage NZ academics and DoC professionals working on huts to do relevant sabbatical research in USA and Europe.

8. Research on huts?: For a nation that is a world-leader in huts, there seems to be limited engagement with the topic on the part of NZ academics. I only met one, Mick Abbott (Lincoln University), while in NZ, and later learned about the interesting work of Robin Kearns and Joe Fagan (University of Auckland).  Doubtless there are others I haven’t learned about.  In any case, related to the international leadership, this seems to be a natural research opportunity for NZ academics in cultural geography, conservation biology, recreation, tourism, recreational ecology and other disciplines.

One simple example: there is a surprising lacuna in the research literature in recreational ecology on the environmental impact of huts.  There appear to be no scientific studies on the impact of huts (while the impacts of tracks, camping and backpacking have been studied empirically).  As far as I can tell, parks managers, researchers, and ecologists around the world are satisfied to accept the common wisdom that huts concentrate human impacts and can be an effective stewardship tool in managing human impacts in the back (and front) country.  It seems commonsensical, but why not test the hypothesis with an international team of recreational ecologists?  NZ might want to take the lead in advancing and refining knowledge (with partners in NZ, USA and Europe) in this arena in which NZ has vast experience and a considerable stake.