Seven questions about the future of NZ huts
by Sam Demas
(Note: this is part of the larger work New Zealand Huts: Notes towards a Country Study)
Loyal, engaged and committed to the conservation estate, Kiwis with and through their agency DoC, will doubtless be intentional, and perhaps even creative, in shaping the future of their remarkable national hut system. As contemporary society evolves, what is the future of the world’s largest hut system? Below are a few of the questions that most interest I look forward to discussing them further with hut folks.
1. Will DoC stay firm in its support of the New Zealanders experience of the New Zealand back country? Will a robust system of backcountry huts be maintained, and not sacrificed to supporting the tourist experience of huts? Will huts remain affordable and accessible for Kiwis? These are the concerns Kiwis overwhelmingly expressed when I asked their views about the future of NZ huts. [Interestingly, few other visions or questions were expressed about the future of huts among Kiwis I asked about this, with the exception of Mick Abbott, a fount of ideas and questions.] My sense is that Kiwi trampers have done a fabulous job of making their concerns known and are contributing creatively to ensuring the hut future they most desire. And my sense is that DoC is fully on board with this vision as central to the future of the hut system. Much hard work remains to ensure this vision.
2. What is the future of front country and road-end huts? DoC seems to have come full circle in its thinking about road-end huts and is no longer committed to removing all of them. Meanwhile, DoC has inherited a significant number of baches (e.g on Rangitito Island), some of which are in proximity to urban areas (e.g. Orongorongo). Ongoing tenure review may result in inheritance of additional structures. How can the nation benefit from these structures? Might they become valued infrastructure for providing urban dwellers with safe nature immersion experiences and outdoor/environmental education opportunities? School and youth groups, church groups, and families are some of the obvious potential user groups for front country “huts” and other structures. How can they be made secure and protected from vandalism? Might voluntary hut wardens/environmental educators play a role? DoC lodges, hostels and cabins, which provide greater amenities, already serve these functions. So do some huts. Should this become a more intentional strategy?
3. What is the future of hut siting, design, and architecture? Now that the vast DoC hut system is fully built out and seemingly on track to be well maintained, what will future hut designs look like? [Most Kiwis I spoke with fervently hope the designs won’t change in future]. While there are not likely to be a great many new huts built in future, Mick Abbott suggests huts can be designed (or re-designed) as catalysts for change and innovation in developing skills and attitudes for living well with nature, for living lightly on the land. What we learn in huts can be brought home to inform our daily lives. How to build huts systems that make an area more robust, biodiverse, at scale? Will the trend towards greater amenities in serviced huts seep into standard and basic huts? Perhaps a series of design charrettes that stimulate creative thinking about hut design may be part of determining the future roles of huts and what that means for future hut designs?
Meg Hut, sheep musters hut
4. Will some huts return to their origins as conservation infrastructure? Might huts see increasing use as bases for biodiversity programs (conservation huts), including pest control initiatives, reforestation, erosion control, protection and re-introduction of native species, and for “eyes on the land” in nature reserves?
5. What is the future of private involvement in huts and walks? Today NZ has approximately 30 privately operated hut systems (by comparison, the US has about 18 hut systems, all but one of which is privately operated, some for-profit and some non-profit operated by NGOs). It seems highly unlikely that private huts and walks will even begin to approach the scale of DoC huts, but I wonder what roles/niches they might fill? The older model, e.g. Ultimate Hikes operating a parallel glamping system on Milford and Routeburn Tracks, doesn’t seem to me like a model to expand. But DoC seems open to trying different models of public/private partnership in hut and track management to see what works. Two of the best known are the Hump Ridge Track and the Old Ghost Road. It will be interesting to take stock of the lessons learned from experiments in public/private partnership.
6. What directions will Maori land managers take with huts on conservation lands? As some conservation lands (i.e. some former National Parks such as Te Urewera and Paparoa) are granted a new legal status and positioned for joint management and eventual all-Maori management, how will the tangata wenhua (people of the land) ethos manifestin management of land, water and huts? Will huts continue as traditional recreational infrastructure for trampers? Will they be prized primarily for revenue generation, or will they also add a dimension of education and engagement with about Maori ideas and practices about human relationship to the earth? How will the design and roles of huts change under Maori management, and what might DoC, the nation and the world learn from this?
7. Is New Zealand developing a multi-tier hut system? Andrew Buglass articulated a concern of many trampers that a two-tier system is developing, “One is extremely well resourced, risk averse, overcrowded and out of the price range….of ordinary New Zealanders. The other is basic, remote, and has a high level of community input.” It seems to me the hut system may actually be evolving into multiple “tiers” to serve an ever more diverse range of audiences.
The growing range of huts (and their accommodations cousins: cabins, camps, baches, and lodges) is apparent when comparing, to name just a handful: the marvelous array of historic huts on the Cobb Valley Track, the huts and tracks of the Abel Tasman Great Walk, the Ghost Trail, the Rangitoto baches, the cabins, camps and lodges and the public/private Hump Ridge Track.
It is critical that the unique, traditional Kiwi backcountry hut experience be privileged and protected as the hut system evolves. But the system will evolve along with Kiwi society.
Starting in the 1990’s, DoC began to rationalize its sprawling system of huts in ways that resulted in the present categories:
Great Walks Huts – catering for Backcountry Comfort Seekers (BCC);
Serviced and Serviced-Alpine Huts – catering for BCC or Backcountry Adventurers (BCA);
Standard Huts (catering for BCA)
Basic Huts (catering for BCA or Remoteness Seekers (RS).
These four hut categories are a subset of the seven “visitor groups” identified in the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum work reported in the 1996 “Visitor Strategy” document. The three not applied to huts are: Short stop travelers (SST), Day Visitors (DV), and Overnighters (ON).
This sensible subset of categories appears flexible enough to encompass most uses/users of huts per se, and may serve NZ well for years to come.
However, as a thought experiment, lets imagine that DoC might in future decide to review its hut categories as part of an exercise in examining how best to address changing user groups and uses. In such an exercise, what other uses/user groups might be considered in categorizing (and designing and operating) huts and other accommodation types? This may involve re-visiting the original seven “visitor groups” and thinking about how huts relate to the other groups and accommodation types. For example:
Recreational users: e.g. BCA and RS huts, which form the core of Kiwi tramping, hunting and fishing. Other recreational user groups, which may well bleed into BCC category, include bicyclists and boaters, kayakers, snorkelers and other marine reserve visitors.
Conservation volunteers: Huts used extensively for conservation work in programs designed to foster a connection with nature through hands-on work (of course there are already huts set aside for agency scientific and backcountry work purposes);
“Voluntourism”: (a subset of the above) huts designed to provide international tourists with an opportunity to experience NZ nature first-hand through participation in volunteer conservation projects.
Urban newcomers to nature: Huts catering to NZ’s increasing urban population, providing introductory nature immersion experiences and teaching outdoor skills to those who haven’t learned them;
Environmental/outdoor education: huts designed for use with youth groups and schools;
International tourist tracks: catering to foreigners who are willing to pay for a high-end recreational experience with the proceeds allocated to conservation programs and maintenance of backcountry huts, rather into the pockets of concessionaires.
Bach vacationers: urban and suburban Kiwis who are not up to “roughing it” in a hut, but happy to stay in pre-existing rustic accommodations inherited by DoC on the conservation estate.
Perhaps this thought experiment is an exercise in comparing apples and oranges, and perhaps it could veer into a dangerous muddling of what should remain distinct categories. But as the uses and users of huts (and the other accommodations on the conservation estate) continues to expand, inevitably the lines will begin to blur. The role(s) of the hut system per se will likely need to be reaffirmed and/or clarified over time.
The hut system may in fact become multi-tiered over time, but that should be a part of a deliberate, values-based decision-making process. It should not be simply a function of mission drift and a reaction to mounting pressures (e.g. constrained budgets, tourism pressures, etc.). If the traditional Kiwi backcountry hut experience is to be protected and privileged in future, it will be within the context of a growing diversity of hut/backcountry/outdoor experiences and accommodations.
****