New Zealand Great Walks: user perceptions
New Zealand Huts Department of Conservation, Part D:
Great Walks user perceptions
in Great Walks Huts and Serviced Huts
by Sam Demas
(Note: this is part of the larger work New Zealand Huts: Notes towards a Country Study)
In operating the world’s largest hut system, DoC caters for trampers with vastly different experience and skill levels, from different parts of New Zealand society and from all over the world. DoC is continually trying to balance these disparate needs, abilities, and preferences through an evolving suite of “visitor management” methods. There appears to be widespread public recognition that DoC is continually walking a very difficult tightrope.
While Kiwis recognize that it is not possible to please everyone, DoC has learned that it can count on experienced local trampers to let them know when their visitor management methods are perceived as undermining traditional tramping. So DoC is well aware of the perceptions summarized below, and doubtless much more.
See related post New Zealand Great Walks: tourism and policies for broader context for these summary perceptions and for discussion of policies designed to address them.
Sources of user perceptions and notes on methodology
There are currently 33 Great Walks Huts and 95 Serviced Huts in the DoC system. This combined total of 128 huts constitutes 13.3% of total DoC huts (963). The user perceptions summarized below are from these two hut categories. While a small percentage of the whole system, these two categories attract the most intensive use and controversy.
This summary of user perceptions is derived from two sources: 1. from discussions that I gathered in three months of interviews and travels in NZ, and 2. from the results of an academic survey reported in the article “Tramper Perspectives on New Zealand’s Great Walks in a time of transition” (in New Zealand Geographer, 2017, p. 1-15, by Joe Fagan and Robin Kearns). [Alas, the link to this article will only get you the full text if you have access through a library with a digital subscription or if you wish to pay. Otherwise you can get a paper copy at your local library or request it on interlibrary loan.]
Fagan and Kearns’ work is based on an online questionnaire targeted at experienced New
Zealand trampers (90% of respondents were Kiwis and on 73% had more than 10 years of tramping experience), and was focused specifically on comments about Great Walks. [Academic studies of NZ huts are quite scarce. Readers keen to delve deeper into the methodology of this study and their analysis of these perspectives and the tensions they represent are highly encouraged to read this valuable research-based analysis.]
My own, less formal “research”, consisted of talking with trampers throughout the country (both Kiwi and international) over a period of three months, along with DoC employees, and Kiwis we met in cafes, bars, grocery stores, social gatherings, campgrounds, etc. My work in gathering user perceptions was supplemented by reading hut logbooks and articles in NZ newspapers, websites and magazines.
Some methodological differences:
Unlike Fagan and Kearns, the perceptions that I recorded are not confined to Great Walks Huts, but also include comments on Serviced Huts.
Comments that I encountered only once in my work are not included below. Otherwise, no attempt is made to indicate how widespread these perspectives actually are, only that these perceptions are out there and not uncommon. Helpfully, Kearns and Fagan’s article does include some analysis of frequency of occurrence of the perceptions they report.
The user perceptions reported by Kearns and Fagan overlap considerably with my own and are combined below. While our research methodologies differ, taken together I believe these two sets of user perceptions provide a useful summary of how NZ trampers in particular view the two most controversial hut categories: Great Walks Huts and Serviced Huts.
I liked the idea of combining our two sets of findings, and was pleased to find that the 16 Broad themes used by Fagan and Kearns (to organize the “exemplar comments” from the results of their online questionnaire; see their article) were in fact broad enough to also encompass the full range of perspectives that I encountered.
Thus the following amalgamation of user perceptions is organized using Fagan and Kearns’ ⇒Broad themes, followed by a summary of specific perceptions related to each theme, which looks like this:
⇒ Broad themes are the brief headings, under which I have included:
Summary in my own words of the gist of perceptions from both sources.
****
Summary of positive perspectives:
⇒ Provide an introduction to tramping/cater for a range of users.
All New Zealanders have a constitutional right of access to the conservation estate.
DoC must serve folks who have little outdoor experience and lack the skills for backcountry tramping.
There is a need for front country huts with higher amenities as an introductory experience for families, children, city slickers and tourists.
Support for a long tradition of taking Kiwi kids out tramping from an early age, and of the importance of intergenerational tramping trips.
Recognition that increasing urbanization in NZ results in a growing number of people who do not have traditional tramping experience and skills, but want to get outdoors.
⇒Good for tourists; provide scenic experiences.
Kiwis are proud of the natural beauty of their nation and want to share it with the world. Great walks are clearly spectacular, affording access to iconic landscapes.
⇒ Benefit New Zealand tourism.
Recognition that tourism is an important part of the NZ economy, and that a majority of international tourists travel specifically to visit NZ’s conservation estate.
The great walks are a national network and a national brand constituting part of Kiwi’s international marketing identity as “clean and green” and “100% pure”.
An opportunity for Kiwis to mix with people from many nations.
⇒Reduce risk.
Having hut wardens present provides a higher level of safety/assurance for those with less tramping experience.
The broader, graded tracks provide access to trampers with a lower level of fitness.
⇒ Create high use areas, thus leaving other wilderness areas less busy.
Keep the tourists and less experienced trampers in the front country and keep the pressure off the backcountry.
Tourists queuing to pee on Tongariro Crossing
⇒ Provide revenue.
The higher fees help defray maintenance costs for all huts by the historically under-funded DoC.
Tourists can afford to pay more and most seem willing to pay more to help fund the system.
⇒ Reduce environmental impact.
Trampers understand that huts concentrate use in purpose-built structures designed to reduce human impacts, and they support this approach to helping protect that conservation estate from the impacts of recreational use.
⇒ Booking systems removes stress.
Recognition that some people (especially urbanites and tourists) need to organize their vacations in advance to ensure they have a bed for the night at the end of their tramp.
Advance booking is necessary in some huts due to user constraints of both time and of backcountry skills to muster alternative sleeping arrangements.
Summary of negative perspectives:
⇒ High cost reduces accessibility.
Ordinary Kiwis cannot afford the cost of these higher amenity huts.
There should be a lower price for Kiwis.
High costs are reducing opportunities for many Kiwi families to introduce their children to tramping.
International tourists are able to purchase annual Hut passes, thus avoiding paying their fair share of the costs of maintaining the system. Hut passes should be reserved for Kiwis.
These larger huts accommodate too many people and this detracts from the cozy feeling associated with smaller basic and standard huts.
The lack of solitude on heavily used tracks detracts from the experience.
Many Kiwis have stopped using these categories of huts because they are overcrowded and do not represent their view of tramping.
⇒ Full of tourists.
Access to the conservation estate and to the huts is a Kiwi birthright that is being impinged by DoC policies to accommodate tourists.
Kiwis feel outnumbered in their own country and in these huts.
Tourists often do not understand or follow hut etiquette, detracting from the experience of others.
DoC is expected to support international tourism, but its budget has often been cut as tourist visits increase. Does DoC get its fair share of tourism revenues from the government?
DoC is realigning its priorities to favor international tourists and less-experienced Kiwi trampers.
Some anti-tourism sentiment is found in the hut logbooks, though rarely directly expressed in conversation.
⇒ Too developed.
Kiwis do not need or want hut amenities such as gas stoves, flush toilets, and hot water. They value simplicity and self-reliance.
The newer huts represent a level of comfort, standardization, and sterility that stands in stark contrast to the smaller, primitive, and architecturally unique basic and standard huts of old.
Higher levels of amenities detracts from the essential tramping experience.
Kiwi’s are looking for a hut that is a “wooden tent”, providing shelter from the storm and not much more.
Presence of hut wardens and their nightly talks are seen as annoying to some experienced trampers.
⇒Changing the wilderness experience.
Lack of open fire places detracts from the hut experience.
People should have the fitness, skills and experience necessary to spend time in the backcountry, and these huts and tracks go too far in providing access to those who haven’t earned it.
Seeing international tourists in Great Walks Huts tramping with concessionaire groups (e.g. on Heaphy Track) that do all their cooking and generally pamper them is annoying to some Kiwis.
⇒ Booking system removes spontaneity.
Kiwis can no longer decide to go tramping at the last minute and must plan in advance.
Kiwis are in competition for bookings with increasing numbers of international visitors.
⇒ Development of front country at expense of back country.
DoC is prioritizing funding of high amenity tracks and huts at the expense of maintaining the extensive network of backcountry infrastructure most used by Kiwis.
In the face of greater competition for maintenance funding, DoC has gradually turned reduced the proportion of support of lesser-used, traditional huts and tracks (which had historically received the greater share of support).
⇒ Expensive to construct and maintain.
These high amenity tracks and huts are far too “flash” and costly to construct. They appear to be aimed at supporting international tourism rather than Kiwi tramping.
Tax dollars are being diverted to maintaining this costly network of high-end huts and tracks.
The new Waihohonu Hut on N. Tongarior circuit is often cited as being too “flash”.
Summary of ambivalent perspectives:
⇒ Serve a purpose.
As Kiwi society has changed it is time for increasing urbanization (and lower level of backcountry skills) to be reflected in DoC funding priorities.
OK, but do not create any more
Are a necessary evil.
*********
DoC is well aware of these user perceptions and strives to adjust hut design, management visitor strategy, and policies to balance the needs and perceptions of different user groups, as discussed elsewhere.See related post New Zealand Great Walks: tourism and policies for broader context for these summary perceptions and for discussion of policies designed to address them.