Sustaining Wilderness in New Zealand in the Third Millennium:
Wilderness policy developments and the increasing pressures of international tourist demand for wilderness in New Zealand.
Paper presented at the High Latitudes Symposium, University of Surrey, UK
16 and 17 June, 1998.
J.E.S. Higham
Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Email jhigham@business.otago.ac.nz
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Wilderness in New Zealand
- Tourism and conservation in New Zealand
- Problem context
- Visitor perceptions of wilderness
- Methodology
- Results
- Implications
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
Abstract
The field of wilderness management is one that demonstrates great relevance to the study of tourism. Wilderness environments are under threat by the demands of tourists. In many cases such as in New Zealand, the sub-Antarctic Islands and Antarctica much of the growth in demand to experience wilderness areas has been received from international visitors. The management of wilderness for tourism necessitates an accurate appreciation of qualities of experience that visitors seek. Recent research in this field confirms that a wide range of visitor expectations and desired experiences are held by wilderness users. This is particularly true of international tourists who bring a wide range of personal, social, cultural and experiential frames of reference to the wilderness setting. These visitors express their wilderness preferences in their desire for varying degrees of physical challenge, mental challenge, social contact, facility development and personal risk.
This paper examines issues of wilderness management in New Zealand. It first sets the context of wilderness policy developments to date. It then reports on a programme of research that examines the qualities of wilderness sought by international visitors to mainland New Zealand. This paper segregates international visitors into four purism classes based on their personal concepts of wilderness. The qualities of wilderness sought by each are then examined and compared. This analysis confirms that a wide range of experiences are sought by international visitors who may be segregated on the grounds of their wilderness perceptions. The urgent need for a management policy incorporating an appreciation of visitor perceptions of wilderness is concluded. 
Introduction
There is little doubt surrounding the grounds on which New Zealand's tourism industry competes internationally. Two core resources attract international visitors to New Zealand; indigenous Maori culture and an extensive National Park system. The latter provides a wide range of natural recreational settings, only one of which is wilderness. New Zealand is particularly well regarded by international visitors due to its National Parks and wilderness areas. These play a central role in the promotion of New Zealand to international visitor markets. As a consequence, New Zealand's conservation estate has become an important resource for the tourism sector. In the process it has also become the recipient of increasing recreational pressure. While a proportion of this pressure comes from domestic recreationists, international tourism has significantly compounded levels of use of conservation lands. The challenge of managing recreational demands and sustaining wilderness values in New Zealand falls at the feet of the Department of Conservation (DoC). This paper examines this challenge and assesses the extent to which it is being met successfully. 
Wilderness in New Zealand
New Zealand society has a deeply entrenched back country culture. Free and unrestricted access to the National Parks contributes in many ways to defining who New Zealanders are. Recreational and educational contact with the 'great outdoors' begins at an early age for most New Zealanders. School outdoor education programmes bring many young New Zealanders into contact with the conservation estate for the first time. For many this is the start of a life long recreational association with the 'great outdoors'. For most of the remainder, the protection if not direct use of the National Park system is important.
Hall and Higham (1998) review the history of wilderness in New Zealand in four stages. The development of a preservation ethic (1879-1952) spans a period during which a system of parks and reserves was established and gradually expanded to the point at which it now covers approximately one-third of New Zealand's mainland area. The tourism potential of the Central North Island hot springs as spas and resorts served to initiate this process in the 1870s and 1880s. In 1887 the Ngati Tuwharetoa chief Te Heuheu Tukino gifted to the Crown the volcanic peaks that now form the nucleus of Tongariro National Park. By the 1890s and the turn of the century interest infurther expanding protected area designations spread to the South Island where the lakes and mountains of South-west New Zealand, now Fiordland National Park, were set aside. Hall's (1992) notion of wastelands being set aside to form the heart of a protected area system certainly applies in these cases. These areas were identified to be 'almost useless so far as grazing was concerned'. Their only economic value, as such, was to protect their aesthetic values so as to encourage tourism. The role of parks to provide for the purposes of recreation and tourism were clearly stated in the dominant attitudes towards parks in New Zealand. Indeed the introduction of game such as deer, pigs and goats served to add to the attraction of parks by providing for the needs of game hunters from Britain. The introduction of these species as well as later introductions including opossums, wasps and mustelids have contributed significantly to the degradation and extinction of flora and fauna throughout New Zealand's conservation estate. The recreational rather than conservation goals of park designation is further illustrated by the fact that protected areas did not, and still do not represent the full range and distinctive features of New Zealand's natural environments and landscapes.
The creation of a New Zealand National Park system (1952-1970) provides a second distinct stage in the development of New Zealand's conservation estate. In 1952 the National Parks of New Zealand were established under a variety of Acts to be managed separately. With input from the Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand, and drawing upon the development of parks in North America, the government legislated for a National Parks Act 1952 to draw previous designations into a National Park system. In line with North American perspectives National parks were seen as wilderness areas set aside to both protect their natural character, as well as encourage their recreational use.
The National Parks Act 1952 represents the first legal recognition of wilderness in New Zealand. However, in the 1970s concern for wilderness values arose from the phenomenon known as 'back country boom'. This term describes the rapid post-war increase in outdoor recreational, initially in North America. In New Zealand the back country boom is recognised to date from the early 1960s. From 1970 to 1987 a third period may be identified in New Zealand's wilderness history, during which the designation of wilderness areas (1970-1987) was initiated. While legal provisions had been made for the designation and protection of wilderness (Reserves and Domains Act 1955), none had yet been established in the Reserves system. In 1981, in response to increasing pressures of recreational use of parks, the Federated Mountain Club hosted a Wilderness Conference at Lake Rotoiti, Nelson Lakes National Park. The conference was convened with the aim of addressing issues of wilderness management in New Zealand. Two outcomes directly resulted from this conference. The first was the publication of a proceedings in 1983 defining ten proposed wilderness areas in New Zealand. The second was the establishment of a Wilderness Advisory Group (representing both Government and public interest organisations) to advise the Minister on policy for wilderness designation and management as well as the identification of additional wilderness areas and on priorities for action. In 1985 the Wilderness Advisory Group published a Wilderness Policy defining the idea of wilderness as being one that embodies the notions of remoteness, solitude, freedom, romance and a feeling on empathy with wild nature. Guidelines for the management of wilderness were established stating that access should be unmechanised, that there should be no huts, tracks, walkways and bridges and that buffer zones should be established to protect core wilderness areas rather than managing wilderness use through the issuing of permits (which was seen to compromise qualities of freedom, autonomy and sponteneity).
Progress made during this period came to fruition in 1986 when the Raukaumara Wilderness was gazetted. At the beginning of 1987 two further wilderness areas, Tasman and Paparoa received Government approval. However, these advances came to an abrupt end in mid-1987 when the restructuring of environmental administration in New Zealand took effect with the enactment ofthe Conservation Act 1987.
The Conservation Act 1987 came into effect on April 1, 1987. This marks the start of the fourth of Hall and Higham's four stages, the establishment of the Department of Conservation and the increase in user pressure on wilderness (1987-present). This stage coincides with the start of a decade of intense growth in international visitor arrivals to New Zealand. Despite this, and perhaps because of it to an extent, any progress in establishing a wilderness system in New Zealand has entered a period of abeyance. Since 1987 only two wilderness areas have been gazetted, the Tasman and Olivine Wilderness areas. Indeed in some Department of Conservation conservancies there has been a reluctance to gazette wilderness areas due to concerns for lacking protection and indeed heightened risk of impact due to their gazettal. Both Lucas (1984) and Kearsley (1990) have raised concerns for the labeling of wilderness and the effect that such a move may have on recreational patterns of use in areas carrying the label. Concerns also arise from the deficiencies of zoning alone as a means of protecting wilderness areas from recreational impact. These points add emphasis to the need for the designation of a wilderness preservation system in New Zealand with careful consideration given to the management of recreational demands for such areas.
Tourism and conservation in New Zealand
There is little doubt that the development of a wilderness preservation system has gone off the boil since the arrival of the Department of Conservation in 1987. This should be received with some alarm in light of changing patterns of tourists use of the conservation estate since 1987. In 1987 New Zealand began a decade of intense growth in international tourism arrivals. From 1987-1994 New Zealand received annual increases in visitor arrivals ranging from 12-14% per annum. Tourism, long an important justification for the designation and protection of natural areas, has since 1987 grown to the point that it poses a real threat to the intrinsic qualities of wilderness that the conservation estate offers. By 1991 international visitors represented 65% of all users on New Zealand's 11 most popular back country tracks; 85% of which was concentrated on only five tracks: the Abel Tasman, Milford, Routeburn, Kepler and Lake Waikaremoana Tracks (Duncan & Davison 1991). It should be highlighted that beyond the most popular tracks there remains a poor appreciation of levels of recreational use.
In the year to April 1992 New Zealand received one million international arrivals per annum for the first time. The fact that this was merely a New Zealand Tourism Board (NZTB) steeping stone target en route to the goal of three million annual visitors by 2000AD was received with some disbelief by conservationists (Higham 1996). However, in 1990 the NZTB received $40 million of government funding in order to promote New Zealand to carefully selected international tourist generating markets. This figure was increased to $55 million in 1991 (due no doubt to the fact that the industry is seen togenerate $4.8 billion in foreign exchange for the New Zealand economy) confirming in the eyes of most observers the seriousness with which tourism growth targets were being pursued.
In 1993 the New Zealand Tourism Board (NZTB) published a document examining the capacities of sites within the conservation estate to cope with projected tourist demand (NZTB 1993). This document identified that levels of use at many sites such as the Routeburn, Milford, Rees-Dart, Dusky and Copland tracks as well as Great Barrier Island were at or beyond their capacities to cope. Some tracks were considered capable of receiving increased use (although many actual users may have disagreed). These included the Abel Tasman, Kepler, Greenstone and Stewart Island tracks. Others, including some of New Zealand's most gratifying wilderness tracks, the Caples, Wilkin-Young and Hollyford among them, were considered capable ofaccommodating double the levels of use that they were then receiving, in order to meet projected levels of demand. Such claims are easily criticised on the grounds that they seek to maximise the throughput of visitors rather than aiming to manage the particular qualities of recreational experience that these different sites offer (Higham 1996).
Many of the most popular key sites in the conservation estate (Whakarewarewa, Waitomo Caves, the Westland Glaciers, Mount Cook and Milford Sound) were projected to receive threefold increases in visitor numbers by 2000AD. In the case of Whakarewarewa, the most popular of the key sites, this describes an increase from 371,000 visits in 1990/91 to a target of 927,500 in the year 2000 (NZTB 1993). At the time few doubted the impacts that such levels of use would have upon the qualities of recreational experience within the conservation estate. These concerns have been confirmed subsequently by various researchers (Kearsley 1997, Coughlan 1997, Higham 1996, Rogers 1995). Indeed, it may be argued that such levels of use in natural settings contributed to the fact that NZTB growth scenarios could only be sustained until 1994. Since then there has been a slowing then stagnation of international visitor arrivals (for the time being at least) atone and a half million visitors per annum.
Problem context
This being so, some concern must be expressed for wilderness management in New Zealand. Much research has been committed to the physical impacts of tourism upon wilderness settings in the conservation estate. Kearsley and Higham (1997), Cessford and Dingwall (1996) and Booth and Cullen (1995) provide some of the more comprehensive syntheses of these impacts. Physical impacts upon all aspects of the natural environment (soil, water, air, vegetation, snow/ice, wildlife and geological features such as caves and thermal hot pools) contributes to the degradation of wilderness values in New Zealand.
Less research attention has been paid to the social sustainability of recreation within the conservation estate although this situation is being rectified. In recent years many tourists have been found to visit remote settings to escape high concentrations of fellow recreationists. This has proved to leave many exposed to physical and mental challenges or weather changes in wilderness settings that that they are ill-prepared to meet. Kearsley (1997) explains that displacement "occurs as the result of dissatisfaction with present or past experiences or expectations of likely future conditions (resulting in) the unwilling but enforced movement out of preferred places or times". Crowding has been shown to be causing unfulfilledrecreational goals resulting in behaviour changes, product shift and the promotion of secondary recreational goals (Kearsley 1997, Higham 1996). Both spatial and seasonal forms of displacement hold potentially serious implications for the patterns and impacts of recreational use in wilderness settings. Most obvious is the likelihood that recreationists will be displaced from primary to secondary tracks and therefore into more remote, challenging, fragile and potentially dangerous settings. Social impacts also arise from asymmetric conflict between mechanised and non-mechanised wilderness users. The impacts of jet boats, helicopter and aircraft overflights add further to the degradation of wilderness and the experiences that wilderness offers. Helicopter flights to view the Westland Glaciers, aircraft overflights in Mount Cook and Mount Aspiring National Parks and jet boat access to park margins are cases that illustrate the asymmetric mechanised impacts in settings offering qualities of wilderness experience.
These points justify the widespread expression of concern for wilderness values in New Zealand. The need for a policy governing the management of wilderness experiences has never been quite so apparent. While such a policy has not been forthcoming the need for the protection and careful management of a wilderness system is beyond reproach. Until such a system is achieved, the threat of eroded wilderness values through tourism and recreation will remain.
Visitor perceptions of wilderness
Several important research contributions attempt to define the dimensions of wilderness perceptions (Stankey 1973; Heberlein 1973). In New Zealand, Wilson (1979) illustrated the similarities and difference in wilderness perceptions between two study groups, the general public and regular back country users. It was revealed that the two held similar views as to how wilderness might be described. Generally it was agreed that wilderness should be natural and unspoiled, wild, free and challenging, sacred, pure and exciting. A more detailed examination exposed several bases on which the perceptions of the two groups diverged. Both held quite different views about what was permissible in a wilderness environment. Among trampers, purists did not believe it possible to have wilderness where there was any sign of people or their artefacts. The general public, by comparison, proved far more tolerant of contacting fellow users and the provision of visitor facilities such as huts, tracks, swing bridges and even toilets and picnic sites. Both groups met with agreement, however, that vehicular access and evidence of commercialisation was inappropriate in wilderness. Thus, it appeared that the highly purist require a pristine ecological wilderness, but that the majority could find wilderness values in places that had been part developed. This suggested that concentrated use of core wilderness areas is not necessary. Rather the majority of wilderness experiences may be achieved in areas that may be developed for recreational purposes and, therefore, somewhat removed from core wilderness areas.
Subsequently, the notion that wilderness can be experienced by various people in a range of different environments has been further researched (Kearsley 1982, Shultis and Kearsley 1988, Kearsley 1990, Shultis 1991, Higham 1996, Kearsley 1997). In various studies, wilderness users, the general public and international visitors to the conservation estate have been asked to state the extent to which they accept various developments or characteristics. These included facilities such as huts, tracks and bridges, attributes such as remoteness and solitude, or physical developments, including exotic forests, hydro-electric power developments and mining, in wilderness areas. Kliskey (1992) and Kliskey and Kearsley (1993) show how responses to such a question may be used to group people into discrete purismclasses and to plot the extent to which specific environments provide wilderness for those groups. This paper reports on the perceptions of wilderness held by international visitors to New Zealand employing methods developed in the New Zealand.
Methodology
This research involves the application of wilderness perception scaling to international visitors to wilderness settings in New Zealand. The collection of primary data from a transient population of international visitors necessitated the development of a specialised survey instrument (Higham, 1996). A questionnaire was designed, pilot tested and administered at a range of backcountry locations selected employing the cluster sampling method. The development of the survey involved the design of a questionnaire to draw accurate responses from a diverse study population. The questionnaire was designed to minimise written responses and translated fully or in part into four languages. Furthermore multiple avenues of return were made available to cover a diverse range of post-track travel itineraries. Questionnaires were personally delivered to 465 international tourists on twelve tracks of varying remoteness, facility development and use intensity. Great walks, secondary tracks and unmarked routes were all incorporated in survey administration via the application of cluster sampling.
The collection of data took place over 85 field days using the roaming (rather than waiting) technique of accessing sample units. On average 5.5 surveys/day were administered to all international tourists contacted in wilderness settings. On the more popular tracks (Great Walks) the administration of up to 15 surveys per day was possible. By contrast less popular or unmarked routes generally provided contacts with less than one eligible respondent per day. On the Stewart Island coastal circuit (which receives a total of less than 250 trampers per annum) fourteen days of tramping resulted in the administration of only twelve surveys, ten of which were completed and returned. The middle eight days of this track yielded not one encounter with another tramper. These figures illustrate the difficulties of generating representative samplesfrom users of wilderness. A response rate of 72.3% generated a sample frame of 336 respondents representing twenty nationalities. The range of error estimate operating on a random sample of 336 is +/-5.0% at the 95 per cent confidence level.
This paper reports on that data generated from these 336 international back country users, collected from throughout the South Island in the Austral summer of 1993/4. Those who were incorporated in the sample were asked, among other things, to identify the degrees to which various qualities of naturalness, remoteness, solitude and artefactualism, were considered to be consistent with their personal perceptions of wilderness. These data allowed the detailed examination of the wilderness perceptions held by international visitors to New Zealand. Likert response scales were employed in the survey to allow degrees of opinion to be recorded in response to each variable. Thisfacilitated the analysis of data employing wilderness perception scaling (WPS). When responses were analysed it transpired that respondents could be segregated into four distinct wilderness purism classes. Tourist perceptions of individual variables as well as key properties of wilderness recreation could then be examined in detail.
Results
The questionnaire included a list of twenty-one variables itemising qualities, developments and facilites that may be encountered or experienced in New Zealand's conservation estate. Respondents were asked to consider each variable and assess the degree to which they may be considered appropriate, acceptable or, in fact desirable (or otherwise) in wilderness settings based on their personal perceptions of wilderness experiences. Analysis of these data (Table 1) confirms the fact that international visitors to New Zealand hold perceptions of wilderness somewhat removed from the elite or purist qualities of wilderness experience stated in New Zealand's Wilderness Policy (Wilderness Advisory Group 1985). Highly purist notions of wilderness would result in the rejection of all but two listed variables ('Distant from towns and cities' and 'big enough to take at least two days to walk across'). These were the only two variables included in the list that actually comply with the Wilderness Advisory Group definition of wilderness. However, international tourists returned favourable responses to fourteen of the twenty-one listed variables.
The provision of search and rescue services in wilderness settings received the greatest level of endorsement among the twenty-one listed variables. Clearly most international visitors to New Zealand seek to experience wilderness in relatively safe surroundings. Only 7.1% of the sample indicated that search and rescue services would violate the wilderness experience as defined by their personal perceptions. All four of the facilities considered inappropriate to wilderness by the WAG were perceived quite differently by international visitors to New Zealand. The WAG considers huts, tracks, walkways and bridges all to be incompatible with the notion of wilderness.
International visitors to New Zealand, by comparison, considered swing bridges and walk wires over rivers and streams with a particularly high degree of favour. Nearly two-thirds (65.4%) of the sample considered swing bridges and walk wires to be either desirable or highly desirable. Only 12.0% rejected the provision of these facilities (the remaining 16.6% being neutral). Maintained huts and shelters and maintained tracks were also considered appropriate in wilderness settings by the majority. Not only that, but toilet facilities, sign posting and information, road access to track termini and developed campsites were considered more acceptable than not by a decreasing majority. Indeed the only facility that was generally rejected was the installment of gas stoves on benches in huts.
Table 1. International tourist responses to wilderness purism variables.
| Variable list | Undesirable | Desirable | Mean | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| Search and rescue operations | 4.0 | 3.1 | 16.6 | 21.2 | 49.1 | 4.3 |
| Distant from towns and cities | 4.0 | 6.7 | 19.8 | 22.6 | 45.1 | 4.0 |
| Swing bridges/ walkwires over rivers or streams | 5.2 | 6.8 | 21.8 | 28.3 | 36.9 | 3.9 |
| Restricted group size | 10.5 | 9.5 | 16.6 | 24.9 | 33.5 | 3.8 |
| Restricted access to prevent crowding | 10.5 | 8.0 | 17.5 | 25.2 | 34.2 | 3.8 |
| Big enough to take at least two days to walk across | 8.9 | 6.8 | 18.8 | 24.3 | 39.4 | 3.8 |
| Water provided in huts | 14.3 | 7.9 | 17.7 | 22.3 | 36.9 | 3.6 |
| Maintained huts and shelters | 9.5 | 11.0 | 22.7 | 27.9 | 26.4 | 3.6 |
| Toilet facilities | 14.0 | 8.5 | 18.6 | 22.9 | 34.5 | 3.6 |
| Exotic plants/ trees (pines, thistles and foxgloves) | 11.2 | 11.6 | 20.4 | 20.7 | 33.4 | 3.6 |
| Signposts/ information | 7.0 | 12.8 | 24.8 | 24.5 | 29.4 | 3.6 |
| Road access to the start of track | 12.5 | 11.6 | 27.1 | 22.0 | 25.0 | 3.4 |
| Maintained tracks (eg tracks cleared of fallen trees) | 13.1 | 18.3 | 21.7 | 27.2 | 18.0 | 3.2 |
| Developed camping sites | 20.2 | 14.4 | 25.2 | 24.2 | 14.1 | 3.0 |
| Grazing of stock (cattle, sheep) | 31.2 | 15.9 | 25.7 | 11.9 | 11.3 | 2.7 |
| Gas provided in huts for cooking | 33.7 | 16.7 | 21.3 | 10.3 | 16.7 | 2.6 |
| Stocking of animals and fish not native to NZ | 40.1 | 20.7 | 21.0 | 4.6 | 7.7 | 2.4 |
| Hunting/ trapping | 38.6 | 18.8 | 21.9 | 9.3 | 8.0 | 2.4 |
| Motorised transport (powered vehicles, boats) | 44.9 | 22.5 | 15.7 | 6.2 | 8.3 | 2.2 |
| Plantation logging / Mining / Hydro development | 52.8 | 18.1 | 16.6 | 4.3 | 4.0 | 2.0 |
| Commercial recreation (eg guided tours) | 52.7 | 20.1 | 13.1 | 5.5 | 6.4 | 2.0 |
These responses confirm that most international visitors to New Zealand seek to experience wilderness in relatively safe and humanised environments. The overwhelming majority consider the provision of visitor services and facilities to be acceptable. This is far removed from the WAG's proposed Wilderness Policy which states that any such developments violate wilderness values. Only seven variables were generally rejected by the sample. Any form of motorised transport was considered to degrade wilderness experiences. This is significant when one reflects on the increasing incidence of mechanised access to many wilderness settings. Jet boat (eg Rees-Dart and Wilkin-Young tracks), shuttle bus (Routeburn and Kepler tracks) and marine vessel (Abel Tasman Coastal and Greenstone-Caples tracks) access and egress to and from tracks has become common in recent years. In addition to this the popularity of scenic flights by helicopter or fixed wing plane (Mount Aspiring, Mount Cook and Fiordland National Parks for example) and mechanised recreation (skidoo recreation in the Old Woman Range) pose serious threats to wilderness values in New Zealand. Such invasive forms of mechanised recreation (for whatever reasons) contribute to the degradation of wilderness experiences as well as the fragmentation of remaining wilderness areas.
Any forms of development, be it plantation logging, mining or hydro-electric, were roundly rejected by international visitors. Hunting, a long standing and popular recreational pursuit in New Zealand was also considered inappropriate, as was the stocking of non-native animals and fish. Commercial recreation received the lowest level of endorsement of any of the twenty-one listed variables. Here international visitors meet with agreement with the Wilderness Advisory Group which views any commercial developments in wilderness to be unacceptable. These findings provide an interesting insight into the perceptions of wilderness that are held by international visitors to New Zealand. They indicate that international visitors generally hold perceptions of wilderness that are far removed from the New Zealand Wilderness Policy as recommended by the WAG (1985). However, such as conclusion must be withheld until a more detailed analysis of the data is undertaken.
Wilderness Purism Scaling (WPS) provides a method by which a more detailed examination of the data may be undertaken. WPS involves a statistical procedure that allows a numeric value to be ascribed to each respondent that describes the wilderness perceptions held by each. The value is derived from responses to all of the twenty-one listed variables. Responses to each listed variable were registered on a five point Likert scale. WPS involves aggregating all twenty-one responses registered by each respondent. This first requires that all those who failed to respond to every listed variable are excluded from WPS analysis. Furthermore, reverse coding had to be performed on two variables; 'distant from towns and cities' and 'big enough to take at least two days to walk across'. In both cases, unlike all other listed variables, these are consistent with the New Zealand Wilderness Policy if they are considered appropriate rather than inappropriate. These variables were reverse coded to allow the consistent handling of data when attempting to identify degrees of purism in responses to variables.
The aggregation of responses to all twenty-one variables (registered on five point Likert scales) provides a wilderness purism score ranging from 21-105. These aggregated scores were then divided into four classes to which labels were applied (Table 2). Those who fell within perception level one (82-105) were labelled 'non-purists' reflecting that fact that they consider most facilities and developments to be acceptable in wilderness recreation settings. Perception levels two (67-81), three (52-66) and four (21-51) were labelled 'neutralist', 'moderate purists' and 'strong purist' respectively. These purism classes demonstrate an increasing tendency towards purist perceptions of wilderness.
The four different levels of perception, therefore, provide an indication of the wilderness perceptions that are held by members of each purism class. Tests of significance were performed to confirm that statistically significant distinctions do actually exist between each of the purism classes. A general Chi square test of significance revealed significant differences separating each of the four purism classes (chi square=108.7, DF=3, p=0.00001). A second test of significance was performed to assess the level of distinction between the two middle classes within which 73.7% of respondents fell. Once again, a high level of significance distinguished between the memberships of these two purism classes (chi square=11.5, DF=1, p=0.0007).
Table 2: International tourist wilderness purism class membership
| Perception level | Purism class | Purism score * | Frequency # | Percent of sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Non-purist | 82-105 | 14 | 4.4 |
| 2 | Neutralist | 67-81 | 92 | 28.7 |
| 3 | Moderate purist | 52-66 | 144 | 45.0 |
| 4 | Strong purist | 21-51 | 70 | 21.9 |
* Generated from Kliskey (1992).
# Sixteen respondents provided insufficient response to variables listed in this question.
WPS confirms that international visitors to New Zealand may be segregated on the basis of the wilderness perceptions that they hold. Clear distinctions lie between the manner in which members of different purism classes seek to achieve wilderness experiences. The implication is that wilderness recreation resources need to be managed in such a way that different qualities of wilderness experience are provided for visitors holding different images of the wilderness experience. It transpires that the largest proportion of international tourists (45.0%) fall into the purism class labelled 'moderate purists'. A further 28.7% comply with the less purist 'neutralist' purism class. These two classes, which fall in the middle of the wilderness purism scale, explain fractionally under three-quarters (73.7%) of all international visitors to wilderness in New Zealand. The perceptual poles are represented by 'strong purists' (21.9%) and 'non-purists' (4.4%). These purism classes provide a basis on which to undertake a detailed examination of the wilderness perceptions held by international visitors to New Zealand.
Lesslie and Taylor (1985) and Kliskey (1992) identify four key properties of wilderness recreation; artefactualism, naturalness, remoteness and solitude. These closely reflect the aspects of wilderness experience documented in the New Zealand Wilderness Policy. As such, they provide a framework for the further analysis of wilderness perceptions held within each of the four purism classes. Each of the twenty-one listed variables were organised under their respectively property titles for the purpose of this analysis (Table 3).
Artefactualism is a property that describes any evidence of human activity in the recreational setting. Such evidence of human activity may take the form of physical developments (roads, tracks, bridges), facilities (huts, toilets, camping facilities) or commercial activities (logging, farming, mining). Tourist perceptions prove to vary greatly within this property. Non-purists agree that any such developments, but for two exceptions, add to their enjoyment of wilderness environments. Only hunting/trapping and commercial activities are viewed with a degree of neutrality by non-purists. Neutralists, by comparison, call for the provision of simple rather than extensive facilities. Huts, running water, toilets and swing bridges are considered important to neutralists. Moderate purists indicate a high level of neutrality towards facility developments with only cooking facilities widely rejected. This would indicate that these tourists are happy to accept facility developments in wilderness settings but are quite prepared to do without them. Strong purists are unanimous in the view that any evidence of artefactualism in inconsistent with the notion of wilderness. These responses paint a clear picture of the levels of facility development preferred by those falling within each of the four purism classes.
Table 3. International tourist perceptions of wilderness property variables expressed by purism class membership
| Property/ Variables | Non-purists (4.4%) | Neutralists (28.7%) | Moderate purists (45.0%) | Strong purists (21.9%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artefactualism | ||||
| Swing bridges | Desirable | Desirable | Neutral | Undesirable |
| Developed campsites | Desirable | Neutral | Neutral | Undesirable |
| Cooking facilities | Desirable | Neutral | Undesirable | Undesirable |
| Hunting and trapping | Neutral | Neutral/ Undesir. | Undesirable | Undesirable |
| Huts | Desirable | Desirable | Neutral | Undesirable |
| Logging, mining etc | Neutral | Undesirable | Undesirable | Undesirable |
| Signposting | Desirable | Desirable/ Neutral | Neutral | Neutral/ Undesir. |
| Toilet facilities | Desirable | Desirable | Neutral | Undesirable |
| Maintained tracks | Desirable | Desirable/ neutral | Neutral | Undesirable |
| Running water in huts | Desirable | Desirable | Neutral | Undesirable |
| Naturalness | ||||
| Exotic trees and plants | Desirable | Desirable | Desire./ Neutral | Neutral/ Undesir. |
| Grazing stock | Neutral | Neutral | Neutral/ Undesir. | Undesirable |
| Stocking non-natives | Desire./ Neutral | Neutral/ Undesir. | Undesirable | Undesirable |
| Two days to traverse | Desirable | Desirable | Desirable | Desirable |
| Remoteness | ||||
| Distant from cities etc | Desirable | Desirable/ Neutral | Desirable/ Neutral | Desirable |
| Motorised transport | Desirable | Neutral/ Undesir. | Undesirable | Undesirable |
| Road access | Desirable | Desirable/ Neutral | Neutral | Neutral/ Undesir. |
| Search and rescue | Desirable | Desirable | Desirable/ neutral | No consensus |
| Solitude | ||||
| Group size restrictions | Desirable | Desirable/ Neutral | Desirable/ Neutral | No consensus |
| Commercial recreation | Desire./ Neutral | Neutral/ Undesir. | Undesirable | Undesirable |
| Access restrictions | Desirable | Desirable/ Neutral | Desirable/ Neutral | No consensus |
Qualities of naturalness receive less clear patterns of response from international visitors. Three purism classes consider grazing stock with neutrality, the only exceptions being strong purists who consider this to be incompatible with the notion of wilderness. All four purism classes meet with agreement that wilderness should take at least two days to traverse on foot. While strong purists reject stock grazing and the stocking of non-native species, they hold neutral views towards the existence of exotic trees and plants. These results confirm that in terms of naturalness, New Zealand's most pristine and fragile natural environments need not be committed to satisfying the wilderness expectations held by international visitors.
Exactly the same can be concluded from an examination of tourist perceptions of qualities of remoteness. Again, it seems that the extremes of remoteness are not sought by international visitors to New Zealand. Indeed motorised transport and road access is considered desirable by non-purists. Strong purists, by comparison see motorised transport to be undesirable but consider road access to wilderness with some neutrality. Search and rescue operations, as mentioned above, are considered desirable by all but strong purists who failed to achieve any consensus on this point. Generally it seems that qualities of both naturalness and remoteness are viewed in neither extreme. It seems that international visitors generally do not seek extremes of remoteness or naturalness. Many variables listed under these recreational properties receive expressions of neutrality. Once again, the conclusion appears to be that peripheral rather than core wilderness areas are required to satisfy the majority of this group of users.
The property of solitude could be analysed via only three indicators, all of which are relatively weak. This property returned a range of perceptions that did not relate closely to purism class membership. Group restrictions were seen to be generally desirable by most. This perhaps reflects high levels of social contact on many of the more popular back country tracks. Access restrictions were viewed in the same light. Commercial recreation was considered to violate qualities of solitude by moderate and strong purists. Neutralists viewed this variable with disapproval mixed with neutrality while only non-purists considered commercial recreation to be acceptable or desirable in wilderness settings. Despite these general results, it must be noted that this is a property of wilderness recreation that justifies specific research.
Implications
In the late 1990s severe doubts must be expressed for the sustainability of wilderness in New Zealand given the substantial pressures being placed upon this finite resource by international tourists and domestic recreationists. However, while there is concern for the decline of wilderness values in New Zealand, very little progress in terms of wilderness designation and protection has been made since the advances of the early and mid-1980s.
Since 1987 there has been little progress made on the designation and legislative protection of the aesthetic as well as recreational values of core wilderness areas. Little further progress has been made on expanding the existing wilderness system to include all areas recommended by the WAG in 1985 (or those recommended since). Even less progress has been made on themanagement of wilderness areas for recreation. Currently this remains a de facto management process, which is likely to be inadequate in light of increasing recreational and non-recreational demands for wilderness. The importance of appreciating the perceptions of wilderness held by users remains unstated in current wilderness management policy.
Conclusion
This research attempts to add detail to the understanding of wilderness experiences sought by international visitors to New Zealand's conservation estate. It confirms that non-purists seek a particularly safe and humanised wilderness. Indeed, these visitors are ill-prepared to cope with more challenging lower-tier tracks. Their experiences, and those of neutralists (who collectively represent 33.1% of the sample) can be satisfied in peripheral zones, hardened to resist physical impacts, somewhat removed from core wilderness areas and deliberately managed to provide low purist wilderness experiences. While increasingly elite wilderness experience are sought by moderate and strong purists, there is little doubt that these too can be met in zones buffering core the wilderness areas proposed by the Wilderness Advisory Group. While these results provide an appreciation of visitor demands for wilderness experiences in New Zealand, it is important that such information be incorporated into a wilderness management policy for the conservation estate. This, coupled with lack of recent progress in designating and protecting wilderness areas in New Zealand, should assume renewed priority if wilderness values in New Zealand are to be sustained.
Bibliography
Booth, K. and Cullen, R. 1995. Recreation Impacts. In Outdoor recreation in New Zealand. Volume 1. A review and synthesis of the research literature. Department of Conservation and Lincoln University.
Cessford, G.R. and Dingwall, P.R. (eds) 1996. Impacts of visitors on natural and historic resources of conservation significance. Part 1: Workshop Proceedings. Science and Research Internal Report. No. 156. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
Conservation Act 1987, No.65. V.R. Ward Government Printer-1988. Wellington, New Zealand.
Coughlan, D. 1997. Displacement in the New Zealand Back Country: Does it exist? Trails in the Third Millennium: A Tourism Research Conference. Cromwell, New Zealand. 2-5 December 1997. pp. 379-385.
Duncan, J. and Davison, J. (1991). Review of the Capacity of Selected Tramping Tracks to Cater for Projected Increases in Overseas Trampers. NZTB, Wellington, New Zealand.
Haas, G.E., Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. and Lucas, R.G. (1987). Wilderness management zoning. Journal of Forestry. 85(12):17-21.
Hall, C.M. (1992). Wasteland to World Heritage: Preserving Australia's Wilderness. Melbourne University Press. Victoria.
Hall, C.M. and Higham, J.E.S. (1998). Wilderness in New Zealand. Proceedings of the Park Histories Conference. Mount Buffalo National Park, Victoria, Australia. April, 1998.
Heberlein, T.A. 1973. Social Psychological Assumptions of User Attitude Surveys: The case of the Wildernism Scale. Journal of Leisure Research. 5(3):18-33.
Higham, J.E.S. (1996). Wilderness Perception Imagery: The perceptual approach to the management of international tourists visiting wilderness areas within New Zealand's conservation estate. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Otago, Dunedin. New Zealand.
Kearsley, G.W. 1982. Visitor survey of Fiordland National Park. Lands and Survey Department. Wellington, New Zealand.
Kearsley, G.W. (1990). Tourism Development and the User's Perceptions of Wilderness in Southern New Zealand. Australian Geographer. 21(2):127-140.
Kearsley, G.W. (1997). Wilderness Tourism: A new rush to destruction? Inaugural Professorial Lecture. Wednesday 21 May 1997. University of Otago. Dunedin, New Zealand.
Kearsley, G.W. and Higham, J.E.S. (1997). Management of the Environmental Effects Associated with the Tourism Sector. Review of Literature on Environmental Effects. Report prepared for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Wellington, New Zealand.
Kliskey, A.D. (1992). Wilderness perception mapping: A GIS approach to the application of wilderness perceptions to protected areas management in New Zealand. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Kliskey, A.D. and Kearsley, G.W. (1993). Mapping multiple perceptions of wilderness in southern New Zealand. Applied Geography. 13:203-223.
Lesslie, R.G. and Taylor, S.G. (1985). The Wilderness Continuum Concept and its Implications for Australian Wilderness Preservation Policy. Biological Conservation. 32:309-333.
Lucas, R.C. (1982). Recreation regulations - When are they needed? Journal of Forestry. 80(3):148-151.
National Parks Act 1980, No. 66. P.D. Hasselberg, Government Printer-1981. Wellington, New Zealand.
New Zealand Tourism Board. (1993). New Zealand conservation estate and International visitors. Wellington, New Zealand.
Rogers. K. (1995). The effect of aircraft overflights on visitors to the Mount Cook National Park. Unpublished Dissertation, Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin.
Shultis, J.D. (1991). Natural environments, wilderness and protected areas: An analysis of historical western attitudes and utilisation, and their expression in contemporary New Zealand. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Shultis, J.D. and Kearsley, G.W. (1990). Environmental Perception in Protected Areas. Proceedings of the Symposium on Environmental Monitoring in New Zealand. Department of Conservation. Wellington. pp. 166-177.
Stankey, G.H. (1973). Visitor perceptions of wilderness recreation carrying capacity. USDA Forest Service Research Paper. INT-142. Ogden, Utah 84401.
Wilderness Advisory Group. (1985). Wilderness Policy. Department of Lands and Survey, New Zealand Forest Service. Wellington, New Zealand.
Wilson, M.L. (1979). Dimensions of the Wilderness Image. Unpublished Bachelor of Arts (Hons) Dissertation (Geography). University of Otago.