• About Us
• Postgraduate Study Options
• Undergraduate Study Options
• Research
  • Seminars
  • Electronic Publications
  • Publications
  • International Collaborations
  • Affliated Organisations
  • Research Themes
  • Current Issues in Tourism
• News
• Links
• Staff
• Alumni

Location

4th Floor,
Commerce Building, cnr Union and Clyde Streets,
University of Otago,
Dunedin 9054, New Zealand

Contact

Tel 64 3 479 8520
Fax 64 3 479 9034
tourism@otago.ac.nz

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion

• 4.1 Tramping Experience
• 4.2 Information Sources
• 4.3 Previous Tramping in New Zealand
• 4.4 Overseas Tramping Experience
• 4.5 Reasons for Choosing Tracks
• 4.6 Wilderness Motivations
• 4.7 Wilderness Status of the New Zealand Backcountry
• 4.8 Impacts
• 4.9 Expectations and Preferences
• 4.10 Coping with Crowding
• 4.11 Other Impacts
• 4.12 The Need for Visitor Management
• 4.13 Satisfaction with the New Zealand backcountry recreational experience

4.1 Tramping Experience

The average number of years involved in tramping and the type of tramper respondents would describe themselves as is outlined in Table 9. It is apparent that internationals have less experience in tramping and account for a greater proportion of first time trampers than domestics.

Table 9 Years of Involvement and Type of Tramper

	Overall N=970	Int'ls N=425	Dom's n=534	BCCs n=475	BCAs n=364	RSs n=24
Number of Years Tramping (mean in yrs)	12.6	10.1	14.6	10.4	14.8	15.5
First Time Trampers Occasional Trampers (at least once/yr) Regular Trampers (at least three times/yr)	11% 36% 52%	16% 34% 50%	8% 38% 54%	16% 45% 39%	6% 27% 67%	4% 4% 92%

When one inspects DoC's classification on the basis of country of residence, BCCs were split 52/48, international/domestic; BCAs 37/63 and RSs 50/50. With the exception of RSs this result may be indicating that domestics are being displaced from BCC environments to BCA environments. If this was the case one would expect RSs to be predominantly domestics, except that it seems likely that such environments are attracting a much more experienced overseas tramper than the majority of internationals. Thus, its seems probable that there are two clear segments to the international market, namely the bulk are relatively inexperienced users and the remainder are highly experienced wilderness users, with the two using very different environments.

When asked to rate their experience as a tramper on a scale of one to seven (Table 10), domestics were marginally more experienced, scoring 4.78 as opposed to internationals at 4.40. As would be expected, Remoteness Seekers had the highest level of perceived experience (5.8), followed by Backcountry Adventurers (5.0) and Backcountry Comfort Seekers (4.2).

Table 10 Perceived Level of Experience

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs n=24 %
Inexperienced	4	7	2	6	2	-
2	7	8	6	10	3	4
3	11	13	10	13	6	-
4	22	21	23	25	21	8
5	26	2	27	24	30	21
6	17	16	18	14	18	33
Very Experienced	13	11	15	8	19	33

Overall 75% of trampers were visiting the track they were surveyed on for the first time, with first time internationals accounting for 90% compared to domestics at 64%, indicating that within the sample there was a low amount of repeat visitation, especially from internationals. The average party size was 3.6 people, 2.6 people for internationals and 4.4 people for domestics. Remoteness Seekers had the smallest party size at 2.5 people while BCAs had 3.2 people and BCCs 4.0 people. The average number of days spent tramping was 3.5 days with no difference between internationals and domestics, although Remoteness Seekers spent the longest amount of time on the track at 5.8 days, with BCAs 4.0 days and BCCs 3.5 days. Overall 62% of trampers decided to walk that particular track prior to leaving, with internationals accounting for 33% while domestics accounted for 85%. Remoteness Seekers, BCAs and BCCs produced similar results to the overall population.

^ Top of page

4.2 Information Sources

Table 11 shows the use that is made of information sources by the overall sample and the two sub-populations, internationals and domestics. It is apparent that internationals use books/guidebooks and friends and people they have met while travelling as their primary sources of information, while domestics utilise friends, the Department of Conservation and books/guidebooks. Of the respondents that noted other sources of information, always know, tramping club, family and map were the most other common responses.

Table 11 Information Sources Utilised

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %
Friends	57	45	67
Books/Guide Books	40	62	26
Department of Conservation	33	30	35
People I have met while travelling	28	40	19
Brochure	20	18	22
Visitor Information Centres	18	22	16
Newspaper/Magazine Article	11	7	15
Television	4	1	6
Travel Agents	2	4	1

 

^ Top of page

4.3 Previous Tramping in New Zealand

To ascertain the level of experience of the sample in the New Zealand backcountry, respondents were requested to indicate whether or not the track they were on was their first tramping trip in New Zealand (Table 12). Overall 80 percent of trampers had previously tramped within the backcountry of New Zealand. Sixty three percent of Internationals and 95 percent of domestics had previous experience in the New Zealand backcountry. When viewed on the basis of DoC's visitor classification we observe that RSs are the most experienced in the New Zealand backcountry while BCCs are the least experienced which given the nature of the classification system confirms DoC's categories.

Table 12 Previous Tramping in the New Zealand Backcountry

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls N=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs n=24 %
No	20	37	5	26	11	4
Yes	80	63	95	74	89	96

Those respondents that were experienced in the New Zealand backcountry identified those tracks that they had experience on, or indicated their recreational intentions with regard to 22 selected tracks from the New Zealand backcountry. Those that answered A to E from the list below are classified as having some level of awareness of the track in question. Respondents were able to identify the tracks in the following terms:

A. I have tramped this track on a previous tramping trip/visit to New Zealand.

B. I have tramped this track during this tramping trip/visit to New Zealand.

C. I intend to tramp this track.

D. This track has been recommended to me.

E. I do not intend to tramp this track.

F. I have never heard of this track.

The tracks listed have been segregated into three categories, primary, secondary and tertiary based on their level of use and awareness within the sample frame. Overall Level of Awareness is based on those who had answered from A to E in the classification above. Those with a level of awareness greater than 85 percent are categorised as primary tracks, those with an awareness level of between 50 and 85 percent are categorised as secondary tracks while the remainder are classed as tertiary tracks. This classification system is consistent with that used by Higham (1996).

Table 13 Level of Awareness of Selected New Zealand Tracks

	Overall n=771 %	Int'ls n=264 %	Dom's n=501 %	BCCs n=345 %	BCAs n=323 %	RSs n=23 %
Primary Tracks
Milford Track (GW)	100	100	100	100	100	100
Abel Tasman Coastal (GW)	97	99	97	97	98	100
Routeburn Track (GW)	97	96	97	96	98	100
Heaphy Track (GW)	95	93	97	93	98	95
Kepler Track (GW)	93	95	91	89	95	94
Hollyford Track	90	85	92	89	92	85
Secondary Tracks
Round Mt Ruapehu	85	78	88	78	89	94
Copland Pass	82	80	83	73	90	100
Greenstone / Caples Track	82	82	82	81	88	79
Mt Egmont Round the Mountain Track	81	81	81	73	87	88
Tongariro Crossing (GW)	81	83	80	74	86	84
Rees-Dart	75	70	77	68	83	89
North Circuit / Rakiura (Stewart Island)	74	72	75	70	80	89
Dusky Track	73	80	69	69	77	83
Lake Waikaremoana (GW)	73	54	82	62	82	76
Wangapeka	58	42	65	49	65	72
Matukituki Valley	56	40	64	46	65	90
St James Walkway	55	28	68	45	66	59
Travers / Sabine / Angelus Circuit	53	41	59	38	66	65
Tertiary Tracks
Southern Crossing (Tararua)	39	13	52	29	44	53
Wilkin - Young (Gillespie's Pass Circuit)	38	27	44	29	49	33
Powell - Jumbo Circuit (Tararua)	31	9	43	21	37	41

 

In addition to the listed tracks, 368 trampers (38% of the sample) listed an additional 160 tramping areas or places within New Zealand that they had experienced or intended to tramp. Twenty eight percent (n=122) of internationals and 46 percent (n=244) of domestics listed additional tramping areas or places within New Zealand. Appendix D provides a full listing of these tramping areas and places.

^ Top of page

4.4 Overseas Tramping Experience

Overall 56% of respondents (79% of internationals, and 37% of domestics) had visited a major tramping area outside of New Zealand indicating a wealth of experience within the recreationists surveyed. Of those surveyed 526 (54 % of the sample) indicated a total of 108 different tramping areas or places outside of New Zealand that they had visited. The variety of areas ranged from Nepal to USA; they are listed in full in Appendix E.

^ Top of page

4.5 Reasons for Choosing Tracks

Table 14 outlines respondents' reasons for choosing the track they were on in preference to others. The highest scoring variable for each group (except RSs that ranked it as second) was ‘scenery/surroundings'. For RSs, the 'challenging nature of the track' (67%) was the predominant motivation for visiting the track. Secondly for internationals, domestics and BCCs were 'recommendations from others' with 55%, 45% and 64% respectively. While for BCAs, 'this track is less crowded than other tracks' was the second most important motivation at 39%. Thirdly for internationals, domestics and BCAs were 'the challenging nature of the track' or 'this track is less crowded than other tracks'. Thirdly for BCAs was 'recommendations from others' (35%) while for RSs it was, 'this track is less crowded than other tracks'. 'Dissatisfaction with other tracks', 'the price of hut fees on this track' and 'heard negative remarks about other tracks' did not receive a significant amount of responses. It is clear that as one progresses through the categories from BCCs to RSs they are more highly motivated by the challenging nature of the track and how crowded it is likely to be.

 

Table 14 Reasons for Choosing Track

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs n=24 %
Scenery/surroundings	62	64	61	64	63	54
Recommendations from others	50	55	45	64	35	38
The challenging nature of the track	25	29	23	24	27	67
This track is less crowded than other tracks	24	25	23	14	39	50
The price of hut fees on this track	7	7	6	5	10	8
Heard negative remarks about other tracks	2	3	1	2	2	4
Dissatisfaction with other tracks	1	1	1	1	2	4

 

^ Top of page

4.6 Wilderness Motivations

Motivations for recreating on wilderness tracks in New Zealand were investigated in the survey. Twelve wilderness motivation variables were listed and rated by respondents on a five point Likert scale. The scale had as its poles 'not at all important' and 'extremely important' allowing for a range of responses. Table 15 illustrates the results on the basis of country of residence and the DoC's visitor classifications system. It is apparent the motivations to experience 'scenic beauty/naturalness' and to 'enjoy the outdoors' were rated the highest by all groups concerned and their rank order was first and second respectively for all groups. The least rated motivation for all the groups in question was 'to meet new people and make friends' while the second least favoured reason for visiting the New Zealand backcountry was the ‘solitude' based motivation. Although this motivation was ranked in the bottom half of the twelve motivations listed it still received a mean score of three or above for all groups except Backcountry Comfort Seekers. As would be expected given the nature of Remoteness Seekers, they were the most driven by this motivation with a mean score of 3.5 followed by BCAs (3.2) and BCCs (2.8). Remoteness Seekers were also strongly driven 'to face the challenges of nature' while BCAs and BCCs were less motivated by this attribute.

Table 15 Motivations for Visiting Wilderness Tracks

	Overall N=970 Mean	Int'ls n=425 Mean	Dom's n=534 Mean	BCCs n=475 Mean	BCAs N=364 Mean	RSs n=24 Mean
Scenic beauty/naturalness (views, mountains, rivers)	4.7	4.8	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.8
To enjoy the outdoors	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.7	4.8
To encounter wilderness/untouched nature	4.2	4.3	4.1	4.2	4.3	4.3
To face the challenges of nature	3.8	3.8	3.7	3.7	3.8	4.6
To undertake physical exercise	3.8	3.6	4.0	3.8	3.8	3.8
To get away from life's pressures	3.8	3.5	3.9	3.7	3.8	3.9
Relax with family, friends or partner	3.4	3.0	3.7	3.3	3.4	3.0
To achieve personal goals	3.3	3.1	3.5	3.4	3.3	3.8
To learn about New Zealand plants/wildlife	3.2	3.4	3.1	3.3	3.2	3.0
For a totally new and different experience	3.2	3.4	3.1	3.3	3.1	3.0
To experience the solitude of being with no-one but my own group	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.8	3.2	3.5
To meet new people and make friends	2.4	2.4	2.3	2.5	2.3	2.3

 

^ Top of page

4.7 Wilderness Status of the New Zealand Backcountry

Normally the third ranked motivation, and one considered important by at least 80 percent of every group, the expectation of wilderness is of some significance in New Zealand backcountry recreation. Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they had expected wilderness at the track that they were contacted on and if they had in fact experienced wilderness at that location. Table 16 illustrates that the majority of trampers had expected wilderness and did in fact experience wilderness at the location they were surveyed at.

Table 16 Expectations of Wilderness within the New Zealand Backcountry

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs N=24 %
Were you expecting wilderness at this location?
Yes	67.4	72.5	64.0	70.5	67.9	62.5
No	28.8	24.5	32.0	25.7	28.3	25.0
Yes and No	1.2	0.9	1.5	1.1	0.8	8.3
No Response	2.6	2.1	2.4	2.7	3.0	4.2
Did you experience wilderness at this location?
Yes	67.0	69.4	65.7	67.2	69.8	66.7
No	25.5	22.4	27.7	23.4	25.0	20.8
Yes and No	2.5	3.1	2.1	2.9	1.6	8.3
No Response	5.1	5.2	4.5	6.5	3.6	4.2

Table 17 refers to the wilderness character of tracks in general. Overall 97 percent of respondents felt that the track they were on represented wilderness in some form (Table 17). All remoteness seekers felt this way while an equal amount of BCCs and BCAs believed that the New Zealand backcountry track they were on was to some degree representative of a wilderness area. Remoteness Seekers were more critical than BCCs and BCAs rating the tracks they were tramping on as less representative of wilderness than the corresponding backcountry comfort seeker or backcountry adventurer.

Table 17 The Extent to Which Track Generally Represented Wilderness

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs N=24 %
Not at all Wilderness	3	2	4	3	3	-
2	12	13	12	14	10	4
3	32	32	31	33	30	48
4	44	48	42	42	49	35
Pure Wilderness	9	5	11	9	9	13

 

^ Top of page

4.8 Impacts

Perceptions of Crowding

Crowding in this study was measured using a scale developed by Heberlein and Vaske (Shelby et al, 1989). This scale has been used extensively in New Zealand (e.g. Kearsley and O'Neill, 1994; O'Neill 1994; Palmer 1995; Higham 1996). For the purpose of this paper and to be consistent with Shelby et al (1989) the nine point scale was clustered into four categories to highlight distinct perceptions of crowding.

Not at all Crowded	Slightly Crowded	Moderately Crowded		Extremely Crowded
1..........2..........3..........4..........5..........6..........7..........8..........9

Table 18 illustrates the perceptions of crowding with the recreational experience in the New Zealand backcountry. Overall, 46 percent indicated that they were uncrowded while 16 percent expressed moderate to extreme levels of crowding. The remaining 38 percent felt a slight degree of crowding. At first glance the international and domestic figures appear to be very similar, apart from 'not at all crowded'. However, the fact that internationals tended to be on the more popular tracks, while the domestics frequented the more remote tracks may have contributed to this higher perception of the absence of crowding by New Zealanders. This in itself is a possible indicator of displacement. BCCs are less inclined than any others to feel 'not at all crowded' while BCAs are the most likely to feel this way. Moderate to extreme crowding is most apparent in the environments providing backcountry comfort experiences.

Table 18 Perceptions of Crowding

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs N=24 %
Not at all crowded	30	24	36	20	37	26
2	16	17	16	14	20	13
3	15	15	14	17	13	13
Slightly Crowded	16	17	15	20	14	17
5	7	9	6	9	4	9
Moderately Crowded	9	11	7	11	6	13
7	4	4	4	5	4	4
8	1	2	1	2	1	-
Extremely Crowded	2	1	2	2	1	4
Mean	3.1	3.4	3.0	3.6	2.7	3.5

One major influence on crowding perceptions is likely to be the time of year when the track is walked, but a detailed year long survey of all tracks was beyond the scope of this study. When perceptions of crowding are examined on the basis of the track that the respondents were surveyed (Table 19) on it becomes apparent that the 'Great Walks' (with the exception of the Milford) are experiencing higher levels of crowding than the more remote tracks.

Table 19 Perceptions of Crowding by Track Surveyed¹

Track Name	n2	Not at all Crowded	Slightly Crowded	Moderately Crowded	Extremely Crowded
		%	%	%	%
South Island
Abel Tasman (GW)	106	32	36	20	12
Mueller Hut	15	21	57	14	7
Copland Pass/Track	53	49	31	14	6
Routeburn (GW)	118	27	53	19	2
Kepler (GW)	100	35	51	12	2
Heaphy (GW)	86	48	44	6	2
Nelson Lakes	55	52	41	6	2
Milford (GW)	44	41	34	24	-
Matukituki Area	51	49	35	16	-
Caples/Greenstone	22	64	23	14	-
Hollyford	34	58	30	12	-
Huxley/Hopkins	20	58	37	5	-
Wangapeka Area	45	76	20	4	-
Dusky	8	63	38	-	-
Other South Island	14	64	36	-	-
Rees/Dart	4	75	25	-	-
Young/Wilkin	6	100	-	-	-
North Island
Lake Waikaremoana (GW)	29	21	48	24	7
Tongariro (GW)	51	27	45	18	10
Other North Island	2	50		50	-
Powell/Jumbo Circuit	30	73	20	7	-
Round Mt Ruapehu	44	84	14	2	-
Southern Crossing	4	50	50	-	-
Round Mt Egmont	28	79	21	-	-

¹ All rows sum to 100 percent

² One survey was returned with the track it was completed on unspecified.

This anomaly with the Milford is most likely due to the fact that the Milford is a restricted access track unlike the other 'Great Walks'. In particular the Abel Tasman is receiving the highest level of 'extreme crowding' of all the 'Great Walks' closely followed by the Tongariro Crossing in the North Island. The only non 'Great Walks' to experience any degree of 'extreme crowding' were the Copland Track, the Nelson Lakes Area and the Mueller Hut Track at Mt Cook, although the latter must be viewed with caution given the low number of surveys received from the Mt Cook region. Overall the 'Great Walks' are the tracks that are experiencing the most crowding at any level with those believing those tracks to be 'not at all crowded' ranging from 21 to 48 percent. The only non 'Great Walk' to fall into this range of values is the Mueller Hut Track at Mount Cook. The Heaphy track is the least crowded of the 'Great Walks' while the Routeburn followed by the Abel Tasman are the most crowded of the South Island 'Great Walks.'

It is apparent from Table 20 there is an inverse relationship between age and perceptions of crowding. Those in the 55+ age bracket are least likely to feel crowded while those in the 15 to 19 age group are most likely to feel some degree of crowdedness. The two age groups encompassing the twenty to thirty-four age range curiously have exactly the same levels of crowding. There is very little difference in perceptions of crowding on the basis of gender and the same is broadly true for respondent's 'highest educational attainment'.

Table 20 Perceptions of Crowding by Demographic Profiles¹

		n	Not at all Crowded %	Slightly Crowded %	Moderately Crowded %	Extremely Crowded %
Age	15-19	81	35	50	13	3
	20-24	170	41	41	14	4
	25-34	316	41	41	14	4
	35-44	168	53	37	8	2
	45-54	151	46	32	19	3
	55-64	56	78	19	4	-
	65+	18	82	18	-	-
Gender	Female	444	46	39	12	3
	Male	517	47	37	13	3
Employment Status	employed full time	465	48	38	12	2
	employed part time	90	48	34	11	7
	retired	43	70	25	5	-
	student	245	39	42	15	4
	house wife/husband	20	50	35	15	-
	unemployed	97	45	38	14	3
Occupation	professional	193	47	38	12	3
	semi-professional	252	47	39	11	3
	skilled	153	56	29	12	3
	unskilled	49	44	40	10	6
	unemployed	4	25	50	25	-
	trade/vocational	45	56	31	13	-
	self employed	7	43	43	14	-
	student	236	37	44	15	3
Educational Attainment	primary school	2	50	50	-	-
	secondary school	188	45	40	12	4
	tertiary (university)	456	47	38	13	3
	post graduate degree	202	44	39	15	3
	vocational/trade	110	52	34	10	4

Table 21 Perceptions of Crowding by Demographic Profiles¹ continued

		n	Not at all Crowded %	Slightly Crowded %	Moderately Crowded %	Extremely Crowded %
Travelling Group	single	152	52	32	13	3
	with a partner	295	41	40	14	5
	friends	260	45	38	14	3
	family group	127	57	37	6	1
	club or organisation	40	58	35	3	5
	organised tour	18	33	39	22	6
	combination	69	35	43	19	3

¹ All rows sum to 100 percent

When asked if specific sites could be identified as being crowded (Table 21 and Appendix F), 43 percent of the overall sample felt that there were. Backcountry Comfort Seekers and Remoteness Seekers were most likely to feel that there were places that were crowded while domestics were the least likely, again an indication that domestics were in more remote areas than the other groups. Respondents identified five primary crowding sites: these being the huts, the track, campsites, access/departure points and sightseeing areas. In all instances huts were the most crowded, followed generally by sightseeing areas and the track.

Table 21 Specific Sites where Crowding was Experienced by Respondents

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs N=24 %
Were there specific sties that were crowded?
Yes	43	48	40	51	39	70
Locations	n=497	n=241	n=254	n=297	n=156	N=23
Huts	81	77	86	85	81	82
Sightseeing areas	8	10	7	8	6	-
Track	7	8	6	6	8	9
Access/departure points	2	5	<1	1	4	-
Campsites	1	<1	1	<1	1	9

Twenty two percent of the sample said that crowding had affected their enjoyment of the track and some two thirds of those said that it had done so moderately to extremely (Table 22). In detail, a quarter of BCCs were affected, but only 18 percent of BCAs. Forty four percent of Remoteness Seekers were affected, mostly to a moderate extent. Even though only small numbers are involved, this group seems particularly susceptible to the presence of others.

Table 22 The Extent to which Crowding Affected Enjoyment

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs N=24 %
Did crowding affect your enjoyment?
Yes	22	27	17	26	17	44
How seriously did it affect your enjoyment?
Not at all	2	1	3	2	3	-
2	29	29	30	29	27	50
Moderately	51	52	50	52	50	40
4	15	17	13	14	18	10
Extremely	3	1	4	3	2	-
Mean	2.9	2.9	2.9	2.9	2.9	2.6

When respondents were asked how many encounters per day they would tolerate before their experience was significantly downgraded (Table 23), BCCs were the most tolerant group, accepting almost twenty five encounters while remoteness seekers were the least tolerant only accepting 11.2 encounters. Domestics were marginally more tolerant than internationals.

Table 23 Number of Encounters before Experience Downgraded

	Overall N=970 Mean	Int'ls n=425 Mean	Dom's n=534 Mean	BCCs n=475 Mean	BCAs n=364 Mean	RSs n=24 Mean
Numbers of encounters before experience significantly downgraded	21.5	20.9	21.5	24.9	17.8	11.2

 

^ Top of page

4.9 Expectations and Preferences

Actual and Preferred Encounters

Respondents were requested to indicate the number of people they had actually encountered on average per day, on the tracks and in the huts (Table 24). Results suggest that the tracks selected by BCCs are more popular, having higher visitor density, than those selected by both BCAs and RSs. On average BCCs met approximately 19 people on the track and 22 in the huts. This far exceeds the encounter norms of both BCAs and RSs. Examination of both number of groups encountered and average groups size also reflect this trend for BCCs to be experiencing greater encounters than the other two groups. Internationals also are experiencing higher encounters than domestics but this is in part due to their preference for tracks that provide backcountry comfort experiences. With the exception of the number of groups experienced by BCA's, the range of encounters for both people and groups, on the track and within the huts decreased through the three DoC classifications.

 Table 24 Actual Encounters in the New Zealand Backcountry

		Overall N=970	Int'ls n=425	Dom's n=534	BCCs n=475	BCAs n=364	RSs N=24
Average Daily Encounters (#'s of people)
On the track	mean	14.8	16.9	13.1	18.5	8.4	7.9
minimum		0	0	0	0	0	0
maximum		175	150	175	150	100	40
In the huts -	mean	14.8	16.6	13.3	21.8	8.6	12.4
minimum		0	0	0	0	0	0
maximum		150	70	150	150	60	41
Number of Groups	mean	4.6	5.2	4.1	5.3	3.2	3.2
minimum		0	0	0	0	0	0
maximum		200	200	80	60	80	15
Average Group Size	mean	3.6	3.9	3.3	4.1	2.8	3.0
minimum		0	0	0	0	0	0
maximum		78	78	49	78	15	5

It is also possible to view the minimum, maximum and mean number of groups encountered on the tracks surveyed within the study (Table 25). It is clear that the majority of tracks had a wide range of encounters. Almost all tracks had instances where one or no groups were encountered. The maximum number of groups encountered exhibits a wide range ranging from two encounters on the Dusky, Rees/Dart and the Wilkin/Young tracks to a maximum of 200 group encounters on the Tongariro Crossing. The Tongariro Crossing also experiences the largest number of mean group encounters of all the 'Great Walks' at 13.4 groups, while the Abel Tasman Coastal, the Routeburn and Milford Tracks followed in that order. The Heaphy Track had the lowest number of group encounters of all the 'Great Walks'.

Table 25 Minimum, Maximum and Mean Number of Groups on Selected New Zealand Tracks

	Mean	Minimum	Maximum
Primary Tracks (Great Walks)
Tongariro Crossing	13.4	0	200
Abel Tasman Coastal Track	8.8	0	60
Routeburn Track	5.6	0	20
Milford Track	4.8	1	15
Kepler Track	4.7	0	20
Lake Waikaremoana Track	3.8	1	10
Heaphy Track	2.7	0	13
Other Tracks Surveyed
Mueller Hut	6.5	1	15
Southern Crossing (Tararua)	5.8	2	12
Matukituki Valley	4.2	0	20
Powell - Jumbo Circuit (Tararua)	3.9	1	15
Copland Pass	3.6	0	15
Greenstone / Caples Track	3.2	1	8
Travers / Sabine / Angelus Circuit	2.6	0	10
Hollyford Track	2.0	0	10
Mt Egmont Round the Mountain Track	2.0	0	7
Round Mt Ruapehu	1.9	0	10
Wangapeka	1.6	0	7
Rees-Dart	1.5	1	2
Huxley/Hopkins	1.5	0	3
Dusky Track	1.0	0	2
Wilkin - Young (Gillespie's Pass Circuit)	0.8	0	2

Respondents were asked if they felt that any of the groups on the track and in the huts were too large (Table 26). Between 10 and 17 percent felt that this was the case on the track, while between 11 and 35 percent believed this to be the case in the huts. This confirms that the huts are the focal point for crowding on the tracks that were surveyed.

In a manner that is consistent with their desire for solitude, Remoteness Seekers, were most likely to find groups to be too large, even though they saw less than any other group. In all cases respondents expected to see more people and groups on the track and in the hut than they would have preferred to have met (Table 27). Internationals and BCCs had higher expectations of numbers than domestic's, while RSs had the lowest expectations and preferences of all the groups. When compared to the actual encounters in Table 24, it is apparent that almost all groups exceeded preferences in almost all cases. It is interesting to note that if you compare actual encounters (Table 24) with expected encounters (Table 27) in all cases with the exception of RSs expectations were not exceeded.

Table 26 Restrictions on Group Size in the New Zealand Backcountry

Were there any groups that in your opinion were too large?	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs N=24 %
On the track?
Yes	11	13	10	12	10	17
No	89	87	90	88	90	83
In the huts?
Yes	13	15	12	17	11	35
No	82	80	84	81	87	65
Did not stay in huts	5	5	4	3	2	-
What size were they?
On the track? (mean)	14.4	15.0	14.8	15.7	12.9	6.8
In the huts? (mean)	11.6	10.8	12.5	11.9	12.1	8.2
Should group size be restricted?
Yes	47	53	44	48	48	39
No	52	47	55	51	52	57
Yes and No	1	-	1	1	-	4
Largest acceptable group (Mean)	8.6	8.3	9.0	9.6	7.7	5.4

 

Table 27 Expected and Preferred Encounters in the New Zealand Backcountry

	Overall N=970 Mean	Int'ls n=425 Mean	14875534">Dom's n=534 Mean	BCCs n=475 Mean	BCAs n=364 Mean	RSs N=24 Mean
Expected Daily Encounters
People	17.1	18.6	15.9	22.6	10.1	5.4
Groups	5.0	5.4	4.6	6.3	3.6	2.0
Preferred Daily Encounters
People	11.3	11.7	10.8	13.5	7.0	3.7
Groups	3.3	4.2	3.4	3.8	2.5	1.4

 

^ Top of page

4.10 Coping with Crowding

Visitors to the New Zealand backcountry cope with crowding in different ways. Of those that did experience more people than they had expected 15 percent became dissatisfied with their trip, 16 percent decided to go somewhere else next time, while a fifth re-evaluated their trip and changed their thoughts about the track they were on. All of these are coping mechanisms to dissipate the negative effects of crowding. When asked if they took specific actions to avoid others, almost a third of the overall sample said that they had. The strategies that they utilised to overcome this problem are set out in Table 28.

Using a tent and camping was the most popular response; others left the hut very early in the morning to arrive at the next hut before the others arrived and thus gain a bunk. Others, principally the campers, stayed behind until all the others had gone and walked later in the day to avoid the crowds. These findings echo those found by Higham (1996) in his earlier research into international visitors on South Island tracks.

Table 28 Reactions to Too Many Encounters in the New Zealand Backcountry

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	14875535">Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs N=24 %
Re-evaluated perceptions of track	20	24	16	22	18	27
Decided to go somewhere else next time	16	18	14	20	14	-
Became dissatisfied with trip	15	14	16	16	15	13
Practised Coping Strategies to avoid people	32	34	30	34	35	56
Camped	36	32	40	26	49	44
Left early	14	18	10	11	20	11
Left late	12	16	8	22	4	-
Avoided crowded huts	11	7	13	9	9	22
Walked side tracks	9	14	4	6	9	22
Found Secluded spots	8	9	7	15	9	-
Walked fast	7	7	5	9	1	-
Stayed by self	6	2	9	4	7	-
Walked in less popular direction	3	6	6	5	2	-
Allowed people to pass	5	6	5	8	2	-

Forty one percent of respondents stated that there were tracks that they would not want to tramp during the tramping season of 1995/96. The domestic and international segments were only 2% above and below the overall response respectively. The predominant responses to this question were the Milford (28%), Abel Tasman Coastal (17%) and Routeburn (17%) tracks. The overwhelming reason for not wishing to visit these tracks was crowding (59%) with 'too expensive' coming in a distant second at 15%.

Twenty one percent of respondents stated that they had visited the track 'at this time' to avoid other people. Again more domestics (24%) than internationals (17%) had made this specific behavioural choice to tramp at a particular time to avoid other people. Thirty nine percent of each group were carrying tents and 78% of domestics were carrying cooking equipment, with 66% of internationals also doing so. It should be noted however that in some cases where there are no huts or overnight facilities, it is essential that a party should be self-sufficient. Therefore almost all RSs and many BCAs would be carrying such equipment as a matter of necessity. When asked if carrying such equipment was because of expectations of crowded huts or over used facilities, over half said that it was at least to some extent (Table 29).

Table 29 The Extent to which Tents and Cooking Equipment carried because of Crowding

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs n=24 %
Not at all	47	74	83	75	83	58
2	12	7	5	7	4	21
Moderately	18	14	8	13	8	17
4	12	5	2	4	3	4
Extremely	11	-	1	1	-	-

Overall 80% of respondents said that they would return to the track they were surveyed on. Slightly more domestics (84%) than internationals (76%) felt this way. Reasons offered by respondents included, scenery (33%), enjoyed the walk (19%) and beautiful area (15%). Of respondents reasons for not wanting to return to the track, ‘done it now/others to do' accounted for 70 percent, with ‘overcrowded' and ‘too far from home' each reported by 7 percent of respondents. In essence, it seems that the choice of track on which people were interviewed was in response to perceptions of crowding elsewhere, it does seem as though the displacement that had happened was successful in avoiding the undesirable conditions perceived elsewhere.

^ Top of page

4.11 Other Impacts

Apart from crowding, respondents were asked to consider a range of other impacts and to indicate how far each of them had spoilt their overall recreational experience. Table 30 illustrates the range of impacts that respondents believed affected their enjoyment on the tracks. As is apparent noise was the predominant irritant, especially for internationals who tended to be at the busier locations, and who were especially aware of both aircraft (including helicopter) and jet boat engine noise, as well as noise disturbance in huts.

Table 30 Perceived Impacts that Largely or Totally Spoilt Overall Enjoyment

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs N=24 %
Noise in huts	55	47	44	56	37	54
Excessive track wear	44	42	45	44	45	30
Aircraft noise	40	44	36	39	45	43
Track widening	37	39	36	37	38	52
Track standard too high	35	39	33	41	38	29
Untidy huts	32	31	32	34	30	43
Commercial operations	29	35	23	35	22	29
Boardwalks	24	25	23	23	26	10
Litter on track	23	21	35	33	34	30
Accommodation quality too high	23	25	22	28	18	26
Bunks unavailable	20	20	20	21	20	33
Jet boat noise	19	23	15	24	14	12
Behaviour of hunters	11	11	11	12	11	6

 

^ Top of page

4.12 The Need for Visitor Management

Twenty nine percent of the sample saw the need for more visitor management (Table 28) with domestics exhibiting a marginally higher tendency towards visitor management systems while internationals were fractionally lower. It is apparent that with regard to DoC's visitor classification system, as one progresses through the continuum from Backcountry Comfort Seeker to Remoteness Seeker there is a decreasing tendency to feel the need for increasing visitor management on the tracks. Of those that believe that there was a need for increased visitor management, the ‘encouragement of smaller groups', the ‘provision of information' and ‘booking systems' are all favoured, with first come first served day of departure procedures preferred over long term advance booking opportunities. There is agreement that overall charging as a control instrument is inappropriate, but half of internationals and nearly all domestics who see a need for more control, agree that non tax-payers only should pay more.

Table 31 Preferred Visitor Management Systems (% believing visitor management necessary)

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs N=24 %
Need for Increased Visitor Management?
Yes	29	22	32	32	26	21
Method of Visitor Management1
Info on good behaviour	98	100	97	96	100	90
Encourage smaller groups	97	100	94	97	97	100
Info on alternative tracks	96	98	95	97	98	88
Limit Numbers	96	95	96	99	85	100
Day of departure booking	93	93	92	99	86	60
Advance bookings	87	84	90	97	60	100
Increase prices - non taxpayers	85	53	91	87	81	100
Make track one-way	60	53	64	74	31	100
Increase prices - all users	20	10	27	9	18	100

¹ Percent of those who believe that management is necessary

^ Top of page

4.13 Satisfaction with the New Zealand backcountry recreational experience

Satisfaction was measured on a five-point scale, with 5 representing 'completely satisfied' and 1 representing 'not at all satisfied'. Most motivations to use the backcountry were satisfied, with almost all those who believed the motivation to be of some importance reporting positive satisfaction or even extreme satisfaction (Table 32).

Table 32 Satisfaction with Wilderness Motivations and Facilities

	Overall N=970 Mean	Int'ls n=425 Mean	Dom's n=534 Mean	BCCs n=475 Mean	BCAs N=364 Mean	RSs n=24 Mean
Wilderness Motivations
To enjoy the outdoors	4.6	4.5	4.6	4.5	4.6	4.7
Scenic beauty/naturalness (views, mountains, rivers)	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.4	4.6	4.7
To undertake physical exercise	4.3	4.2	4.4	4.3	4.3	4.3
To get away from life's pressures	4.2	4.2	4.3	4.2	4.3	4.3
To face the challenges of nature	4.1	4.1	4.1	4.0	4.2	4.3
To achieve personal goals	4.1	4.0	4.1	4.1	4.1	3.9
Relax with family, friends or partner	4.1	3.9	4.2	3.9	4.2	3.5
To encounter wilderness/untouched nature	3.8	3.8	3.9	3.8	4.0	3.8
For a totally new and different experience	3.8	3.8	3.7	3.8	3.7	3.5
Track and weather information	3.8	3.8	3.8	3.7	3.7	4.0
To experience the solitude of being with no-one but my own group	3.7	3.7	3.8	3.5	3.9	3.7
To meet new people and make friends	3.7	3.8	3.6	3.7	3.7	3.4
To learn about New Zealand plants and wildlife	3.5	3.5	3.5	3.4	3.5	3.1
Wilderness Facilities
Hut facilities	4.1	4.1	4.1	4.0	4.2	4.3
Condition of track	3.9	4.0	3.9	4.0	3.7	4.1
Cooking facilities	4.0	4.0	4.1	4.0	4.1	4.1
Track marking	4.1	4.1	4.1	4.2	3.9	3.8
Toilet facilities	3.9	4.0	3.9	4.0	3.8	3.6

New Zealanders were marginally more enthusiastic than internationals, perhaps a reflection of their tendency to be away from the most crowded locations. Domestics and BCAs offer the highest proportions of extreme satisfaction, while BCCs and internationals seem marginally less satisfied. RSs seem the least satisfied of all, although this needs to be viewed with caution given the limited number of respondents.

As Table 33 shows, overall satisfaction with the New Zealand backcountry recreational experience remains high. All groups express very low levels of dissatisfaction with the largest level of dissatisfaction being amongst BCCs who recorded 5% of responses below the neutral level. Overall 89 percent of respondents were in the satisfied to extremely satisfied range, while 97 percent were neutral or above. Previous studies (Kearsley and O'Neill, 1994) also offer this apparent paradox of high levels of satisfaction while also expressing dissatisfaction at segments of the total experience, namely crowding and other impacts as outlined earlier. This, in part, may reflect a subjugation of minor irritations to contentment with a much more satisfactory whole. It might be that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not necessarily polar opposites operating at just one level. Perhaps New Zealand's scenery is of such magnificence that some minor discomfort is at present insignificant by comparison.

Table 33 Overall Satisfaction with New Zealand Backcountry Recreational Experience

	Overall N=970 %	Int'ls n=425 %	Dom's n=534 %	BCCs n=475 %	BCAs n=364 %	RSs N=24 %
Extremely dissatisfied	-	-	-	-	-	-
2	<1	<1	<1	1	<1	-
Dissatisfied	1	1	1	2	1	-
4	1	1	2	2	1	-
Neutral	3	2	4	3	3	-
6	5	5	5	5	3	17
Satisfied	34	40	30	38	2	38
8	37	35	38	34	40	33
Extremely satisfied	18	16	19	16	19	13
Mean	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.4	7.6	7.4