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

The Contribution of Frontcountry Tourist Recreation Towards Increased Crowding And Dissatisfaction In New Zealand's Natural Environments.

G Kearsley, S Russell and R Mitchell
Department of Tourism
University of Otago
PO Box 56
Dunedin
New Zealand
Tel 64 3 479 8520
Fax 64 3 479 9034
Email geoff.kearsley@stonebow.otago.ac.nz

Introduction

The demand for natural areas where outdoor recreation can take place has been increasing rapidly for some time. In New Zealand a threefold increase in tourism over the past two decades, to 1.7 million visitors a year, has put pressure on resources that were traditionally utilised by domestic recreationists. The clean green image of New Zealand and the reputation of its natural environments has brought an influx of international recreationists so that those natural resources are coming under increased pressure. This increase in recreational demand has come to threaten the very resources upon which it is based, and has brought associated problems, both for visitors and managers. Crowding has become the most serious of these, affecting the very nature of the outdoor recreation experience itself (Kearsley 1996, 1997; Kearsley, Coughlan, Higham, Higham and Thyne 1998).

Crowding in outdoor recreational environments has become a growing focus of research in recent years (e.g. Shelby et al 1989; Vaske et al, 1980; Ditton et al, 1993) and many of the factors that influence perceptions of crowding have been identified. Among them, the personal characteristics of visitors, the characteristics of others encountered and situational variables are considered most significant. The personal characteristics of visitors that have been found to influence perceptions of crowding include motivations for outdoor recreation, preferences and expectations of contacts, experience levels and attitudes towards management.

This paper is concerned with the motives of users of the back country, their perceptions of crowding and wilderness and the extent to which they might be displaced in the future. These perceptions are compared with similar information from the first part of a study of front country users, that is, those who use easily accessible natural areas for periods of less than a day. In particular, the aim is to see whether or not such users, who are by far the majority, numerically, are likely to graduate to back country use. If, as is suspected, they are, then back country pressures will be greatly magnified as natural environments are obliged to absorb not just a growing visitor market, but also a growing market share.

Back country use

Because of the nature of backcountry recreation, precise participation figures for the domestic population are hard to come by, but the various local and regional studies that are available show little sign of a major shift in the profile of backcountry users. The Life In New Zealand survey (1991) shows that only two percent report tramping as an activity, although since the relevant question asked for participation in the previous four weeks only, this may under-represent overall participation. There is no documentary evidence to suggest that there has been any great fluctuation in that figure over a considerable period of time, and there has been little change over a ten-year period. However, in the longer term, a present trend towards increased tramping activity among the elderly could lead to a 75 percent increase in activity by 2051, leading to nearly 105 000 participants in a four week period. Natural increase and present patterns of immigration, then, are likely to lead to an increase in use of the backcountry for the foreseeable future.

Domestic New Zealanders are not the only users of this rich and diverse recreational resource; international tourists have also become major visitors to the backcountry (Higham 1996; Higham and Kearsley 1994). In 1975 New Zealand had only 250 000 international tourists; they tended to be Australians and to patronise scheduled coach tours and few left the highways and scenic highlights, so few were to be found in the backcountry. Even in 1982, when visitor numbers had begun to grow towards the half million mark, a study of Fiordland National Park, by far the country's largest, showed that overseas backcountry users were a minority, overwhelmingly Australian (Kearsley 1982; Higham and Kearsley 1994; Kearsley and Higham 1997). By 1985, the number of tourists had reached half a million, with a much greater range of nationalities and a high level of demand for adventure experiences, such as white water rafting and bungy jumping. It was at this point that a significant tourist presence could be recognised in remoter natural areas. The present total of visitors is one and a half million, many of whom use the Conservation Estate, especially the more popular walking tracks and scenic destinations. In 1987, New Zealand's then ten National Parks received a total of three million visits; 70 percent of the visitors to Mount Cook, for example, were from overseas.

The most complete study of the volume of international tourist use of conservation lands is that of Duncan and Davison (1991). It revealed that in 1990/1 inbound tourists represented 45 percent of the 100,000 trampers on the 32 tracks reviewed. The presence of international trampers also proved to be heavily concentrated on a restricted number of tracks. Sixty-five percent of all tramping use by overseas visitors took place on just five tracks _ Abel Tasman, Milford, Routeburn, Kepler and Lake Waikaremoana; 85 percent of all use was based on just 11 tracks. Overseas tourists were the majority of guided walkers as well. In all, 23,800 visitors made 43,200 tramps. Germans, Swiss and other Europeans were most likely to have made repeat tramps. The number of trampers was forecast to reach 104,000 by 2000, with 125,300 trips being made. The use of the frontcountry through short walks was estimated at 489,700 for half to one-hour walks and 69,200 for half to one-day walks. These were forecast to double in each case.

The 1995/6 International Visitor Survey shows that 33 percent of international visitors took a bush walk or tramp of more than half an hour, but less than half a day and that 29 per cent took a short bush walk of less than half an hour (NZTB 1997). Twelve percent walked for between half and a whole day, while seven per cent took part in full scale tramping that lasted for several days. These figures are up from the 1992/3 survey which recorded 30 percent taking a walk of less than half a day, seven percent walking between half and all of a day, with four percent tramping. In other words, the proportion of trampers has nearly doubled, even as the total market has grown by some 50 percent. As stated above, the key question that this paper helps to answer is whether the very large numbers of short duration users of the front country will evolve to become users of the back country also. If this should be the case, then a sensitive environment, already at capacity in social terms, will be over-run by a very much larger user population than it has currently seen. Since those new users are particularly likely to come from the overseas tourist market, the potential for growth is great, with profound consequences for the satisfaction of the host community and thus the community's acceptance of tourism.

Methods

This paper utilises data collected as part of a sequence of questionnaire surveys conducted by the Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, as part of a larger study into the issues of recreational use, facilities, motivations, perception of crowding, and constraints associated with the use of New Zealand's natural environment.

In the first study a total of 1603 surveys were distributed at various back country sites throughout the South Island of New Zealand during the 1995/96 tramping season, as part of a larger national survey. Questionnaires were distributed on tramping tracks, at huts and at selected Department of Conservation Offices and Visitor Information Centres (Kearsley, Coughlan, Higham and Thyne 1998). In the second and more recent study, a total of 1469 surveys were distributed at various front country sites throughout the South Island of New Zealand during a two week period in February 1999. The questionnaires were distributed at car parks and entrances to day tracks within the Department of Conservation's territory. Out of the 1603 surveys distributed in the back country, 781 were returned giving a response rate of 48.7 percent, while in the front country, 623 were returned giving a response rate of 42 percent

Both Front and Back country questionnaires were designed to assess the nature and extent of crowding and displacement in natural environments as perceived by overseas and domestic recreationists. This was accomplished by ascertaining the following:

Sample Characteristics

Of the 656 completed and useable returned Front Country surveys, 396 (60%) were from non New Zealand residents, while 255 (39%) were from New Zealand residents, with the balance not defining their country of residence. In the back country survey non New Zealand residents only provided 48 percent of the responses, with New Zealanders higher at 51 percent. Table 1 outlines the country of residence for the international visitors in each sample.

Travelling groups were similar for both surveys. The commonest was 'with partner' and the second highest group was 'with friends'. For the third highest group, respondents to the front country survey cited 'family' and the back country quoted 'single'. Similarly the number of people travelling together was similar between the two studies with most travelling in groups of two. Female front country survey respondents were slightly in the majority at 53 percent, whereas they were 48 percent of back country respondents. This is not typical of most previous, smaller, surveys (Booth and Peebles 1995) where males tended to dominate, especially in the back country.

Table 1: Country of Residence

Country Front country Back country
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
New Zealand 255 39 399 51

Australia

43

7 57 7
UK/Ireland 107 16 64 8
West Europe 100 15 142 18
East Europe 1 0 0 0
Nordic Europe 6 1 4 1
North America 96 15 81 10

Japan

22 3 6 1
Asia 8 1 1 0
Other Asia 6 1 1 0
Other 7 11 16 2
No Response 5 1 10 1

Total

656

100

781

100

The largest age group for both the Front and Back country were between 25-34 years old (front country 25%; back country 35%). However, the overall age of respondents from the front country was generally older, Table 2.

Table 2: Age Groups

Age Front country Back country
 
(n)
%
(n)
%
15-19 7 1 67 9
20-24 46 7 145 19
25-34 163 25 267 34

35-44

103

16

130

17

45-54 106 16 115 15
55-64 129 20 38 5
64+ 93 14 11 1

Motivations for front and back country use

Respondents were presented with a series of possible motives for visiting the front country; they also had the opportunity to add their own if they wished. These are compared, Table 3, with the similar, but slightly smaller, set of motives that were recorded for using back country environments (Kearsley and Higham 1997).

Clearly, both samples have very similar motivational structures, with the main motivations being virtually identical. The three most important were scenic beauty and naturalness, to enjoy the outdoors and to experience wilderness/untouched nature. These

Table 3 Motivations for front and back country use

  Front country (n=656) Back country (n=781)
  Mean* Rank Dom Int Mean* Rank Dom Int
Scenic beauty/naturalness 4.75 1 4.66 4.80 4.75 1 4.68 4.83
Enjoy outdoors 4.46 2 4.5 4.42 4.65 2 4.66 4.64
Wilderness/untouched nature 4.08 3 3.94 4.15 4.25 3 4.17 4.33
Exercise 3.71 4 3.93 3.57 3.76 5= 3.94 3.58

Get away

3.62

5

3.77

3.55

3.77

4

3.95

3.58

Relax with others 3.56 6 3.87 3.37 3.36 7 3.71 2.98
Learn about N.Z. flora/fauna 3.54 7 3.43 3.61 3.28 9 3.17 3.39
Different experience 3.42 8 3.32 3.47 3.24 10 3.15 3.33
Challenge of nature 3.17 9 3.05 3.23 3.76 5= 3.75 3.79
Solitude 3.01 10 2.79 3.13 2.98 11 2.97 3.00

Personal goals

2.69

11

2.86

2.58

3.34

8

3.52

3.16

Excitement 2.67 12 2.66 2.67 N/A N/A    
Face new challenges 2.64 13 2.71 2.59 N/A N/A    
Build on skills 2.46 14 2.53 2.42 N/A N/A    

Educate family

2.08

15

2.37

1.91

N/A

N/A

   
Meet people 2.04 16 1.97 2.07 2.37 6 2.36 2.37

*Note: On a scale of 1-5, where 5 is extremely important.

Dom: Domestic; Int: International

were similarly strong and ranked; the main differences between the samples were the position of to face the challenges of nature and to achieve personal goals, which were seen as more important by the back country sample, perhaps understandably, given the nature of the experience. By contrast, front country users were slightly more inclined to favour both exercise and relaxing with others and a desire to learn about NZ flora and fauna. In spite of these very small differences, however, the similarities between the two samples are very strong. In other words, they are seeking similar experiences, even though at different levels of involvement.

Perceptions of wilderness

The urge to experience wilderness, however that might be personally defined (Kearsley, Kliskey, Higham and Higham 1997), is a significant motivator for both samples, and, to a great extent, both samples encountered wilderness conditions. Less than 5 percent of respondents (4.5 percent of front country and 2.6 percent of back country responses) indicated that they did not experience wilderness at all. While the remainder indicated that they experienced some degree of wilderness less than 10 percent experienced pure wilderness (9 percent and 9.2 percent, respectively). Whether this relates to different perceptions and expectations, or different environments, or both, is at present unclear. Not surprisingly, though, the back country sample believed that they had experienced a slightly purer wilderness environment than the front country users, although differences are not great with means of 3.32 and 3.45, and medians of 3 and 4, respectively. These are on a five point scale where five was pure wilderness and one not at all wild.

Around three out of four respondents in both samples had expected to encounter wilderness, while a similar number said they had experienced it. Over 90 percent of those who had expected wilderness from both samples also said they had experienced.

Table 4 Expectation and experience of wilderness

  Front country Back country
Expected wilderness 73.9 70.7
Experienced wilderness 75.0 72.0
Expected & experienced wilderness 93.6 91.0

wilderness conditions to some degree. Few are finding absolute wilderness, but most are finding some. In general, front country users are finding rather less and to a lesser degree than are back country users and this raises the important question of whether, having sampled wilderness, will front country users then attempt to seek it further in the back country?

It might seem quite odd that front country users should expect and find wilderness conditions in trips that are often quite close to roads or lakeshores and certainly substantially less than a day's walk away. Part of the explanation lies in the fact that the strict conditions governing the management of New Zealand's National Parks, in particular, mean that the Conservation Estate is relatively wild land immediately it is entered. The only facilities permitted are tracks, a few simple overnight huts, minimal signage and the occasional walkway and bridge. These are consistent with the expectations of wilderness held by the majority of users of the Conservation Estate and certainly with those of the New Zealand public (Kliskey and Kearsley 1993; Kearsley et al 1997), so that, for many, wilderness begins the instant the Conservation Estate is entered.

Perceptions of crowding

That crowding is a serious issue in the back country had already been established by a number of studies (Kearsley and O'Neill 1994; Kearsley 1997, Kearsley et al 1998). A similar series of questions was posed to front country users. In the first of these, respondents were asked to assess the overall extent to which they had felt crowded during their visit, using a scale developed by Shelby et al (1989) and used elsewhere in New Zealand (Kearsley and O'Neill; 1994 Kearsley et al 1997). As can be seen, the patterns are broadly similar, but with a tendency for front country users to feel slightly less crowded, Table 5.

Table 5: The overall extent of crowding, per cent

  Back country Front country
Not at all crowded 30 40

2

16 18

3

15 13
Slightly crowded 16 15

5

7

5

Moderately crowded 9 7
7 4 3

8

1

1

Extremely crowded 2 1

Over half of the front country sample experienced little or no crowding; neither sample saw extreme crowding to any great extent. Nearly a quarter of the back country sample experienced moderate crowding or more, the comparable figure for the front country was half that, at 12 percent. However, in both samples, the degree of crowding varied substantially during the experience. In the back country, for example, scenic points and overnight huts were the principal areas of crowding. While these figures indicate that that crowding is emerging as a significant management problem, it has little impact, as yet, on overall satisfaction, Table 6, although the effect is considerably stronger in the case of the back country. This may in part be because, with many trampers relying on overnight huts, it is impossible to escape crowding, whereas in the shorter and less constrained front country experience, it is possible to avoid potential crowding at the time when it is experienced.

Table 6 The extent to which crowding affected enjoyment, per cent

  Back country Front country
Not at all 24 66

2

23

20

Moderately 40 10
4 12 2
Extremely 2 1

A considerable amount of information on numbers encountered and the extent to which this met with expectations and wishes was also collected for each sample. While it is not the purpose of this paper to discuss those figures in detail, they confirm the pattern of a reasonable degree of crowding for both samples, with the situation more critical at present in the back country.

In detail, as crowding perception rose, so too did dissatisfaction and consequent displacement behaviour (Anderson and Brown 1984; Neilson and Endo 1977 Kuentzel and Heberlein 1992). One of the first reactions, in both samples, was to became dissatisfied with the location (15 percent in the back country and 10 percent in the front), often leading to a decision to go elsewhere another time (18 percent and 12 percent, respectively). In the case of the front country sample, it is particularly significant that more than a half of those who said that they would go elsewhere said that they would seek out somewhere more remote the next time. Thus, at a very minimum, some six percent of the overall front country sample are contemplating more remote locations for their next experience. Although this may not sound much as a proportion, in absolute terms, and compared with the size of the total back country user population, this is a very significant figure.

In each case there was some evidence of product shift; that is to say, the user had re-evaluated and re-interpreted their previous perception of the location (Shelby, Bregenzer and Johnson 1988). Some 22 percent of the back country sample reported this, whereas only eight percent of front country users had made such a perceptual change. In other words, it seems likely that the front country users experienced what they expected to a greater extent than did the back country sample. In the latter case, a significant factor was the degree of sophistication of track and facilities on the 'Great Walks' where a great deal of overseas use is concentrated. For many overseas visitors, the numbers of people and degree of development are not at all what they expected, and not really commensurate with the wilderness that they hoped to encounter.

In both samples, significant numbers said that they would take some future action, or were already taking action, to avoid crowds. In the back country 35 percent said that they were or would. In the main, they would camp to avoid huts and adjust their daily departure times, either sooner or later, to avoid others (Kearsley et al 1998), along with a variety of other avoidance strategies. Rather fewer (16 percent) of the front country sample indicated similar action. Of these, 22 percent said that they started early in the day, but 16 percent said that they had or would venture 'deeper into the unknown', and this confirms the earlier suspicion that front country users plan to enter the back country, or are already doing so to some extent.

Conclusion

Compared with the past, a wider population is using the Conservation Estate, in terms of age, gender and nationality. It is no longer the largely exclusive preserve of young, well-educated New Zealand males. There is no doubt that there are growing visitor pressures; those associated with increased numbers have been outlined in this paper. The back country is already experiencing significant crowding problems, especially on the Great Walks, where international visitors are especially to be found. Visitor numbers are increasing, and there are significant signs of displacement to more remote locations. In terms of the back country, this implies greater pressure on fragile and presently untouched environments and greater safety risks for relatively inexperienced users who may be tempted to go further than their abilities permit. In the front country, this implies a possible turn to back country environments and experiences. If this should happen, then the most likely receptors are the more accessible and safe locations, namely those that are already under the most pressure. It is hard not to imagine that this will create a domino effect of further back country displacement.

This somewhat preliminary paper suggests that there is already some propensity for front country users to graduate to back country experiences and overnight tramping. As stated, the percentages appear to be small, but the numbers are large; the front country user population is many times larger than the back. Subsequent work will use more detailed information from this, and from larger surveys, to quantify the extent to which these trends are apparent and to explore associated issues. The front country sample, for example, is currently being expanded, while the back country sample will be replicated in 2001, after a five-year interval. The relevance of this work remains in the fact that more than 50 percent of a growing international visitor market are front country users, but only seven percent, at most, use the back country. Indeed, that proportion has risen considerable since the early 1990s, and, since the Asian financial crisis, there has been a considerable growth in the market share of precisely those countries that are most likely to use the back country, namely Australians, Europeans, British and North Americans. It seems almost inevitable that back country pressures will increase dramatically even if these trends do not continue.

References

Anderson D. and Brown P. (1984) The displacement process in recreation. Journal of Leisure Research 6 (1), 61-73.

Booth K. and Peebles C. (1995) Patterns of use. In Devlin, P.J., Corbett, R.A. and Peebles, C.J. Outdoor Recreation in New Zealand. Wellington: Department of Conservation and Lincoln University.

Ditton, R.B., Fedler A.J., and Graefe A.R. (1983) Factors Contributing to Perceptions of Recreational Crowding, Leisure Sciences. 5 (4) 273-288.

Duncan J. and Davison J. (1991) Review of the Capacity of Selected Tramping Tracks to Cater for Projected Increases in Overseas Trampers, New Zealand Tourism Board, Wellington.

Higham, J. E. S. (1996). Wilderness perceptions of international visitors to New Zealand: The perceptual approach to the management of international tourists visiting wilderness areas within New Zealand's conservation estate. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Higham J.E.S. and Kearsley G.W. (1994) Wilderness Perception and its implications for the management of the impacts of international tourism on natural areas in New Zealand. In Tourism Down-under: A Tourism Research Conference, 6-9 December, 1994 (pp.505-529). Palmerston North: Department of Management Systems, Massey University.

Kearsley G.W. (1982) Visitor Survey of Fiordland National Park. Lands and Survey Department. Wellington, New Zealand.

Kearsley G.W. The Impacts of Tourism in New Zealand's Back Country Culture, in Robinson M., Evans N. & Callaghan P. (eds). Tourism and Cultural Change, University of Northumbria Press (1996) 135-146

Kearsley G.W. Perceptions of Social and Physical Impacts upon New Zealand's Back Country Environments, in Opperman M. (ed) Pacific Rim Tourism, (1997) CABI Wallingford, 156-166

Kearsley, G.W. and Higham, J.E. Wilderness and backcountry motivations and satisfaction in New Zealand's natural areas and conservation estate. Australian Leisure. 8(1):30-34 (1997)

Kearsley, G.W., Coughlan, D.P., Higham, J.E. and Thyne, M. Impacts of tourist use on the recreational back country. Research Paper Number 1. Centre for Tourism, University of Otago. Dunedin, New Zealand. (1998)

Kearsley G.W., Kliskey A.D., Higham, J.E.S. and Higham E.C. Different People, Different Times: Different Wildernesses?, in Higham J.E.S. and Kearsley G.W. (eds) Trails in the Third Millennium Centre for Tourism and the International Geographical Union, University of Otago (1997) 197-214

Kearsley G.W. and O'Neill D. (1994) Crowding, Satisfaction and Displacement: The Consequences of the Growing Tourist Use of Southern New Zealand's Conservation Estate. In Ryan C. (ed) Tourism Down Under, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 171-184.

Kliskey A. and Kearsley G.W. (1993) Mapping Multiple Perceptions of Wilderness in North West Nelson, New Zealand: A Geographic Information Systems Approach Applied Geography, 13, 203-223.

Kuentzel, W. F. and T. A. Heberlein. (1992). Cognitive and Behavioural Adaptations to Perceived Crowding: A Panel Study of Coping and Displacement. Journal of Leisure Research. 24(4): 377-393.

Nielson J.M. and Endo R. (1977) Where have all the purists gone? An empirical examination of the displacement hypothesis. Western Sociological Review 8 (1), 61-75

New Zealand Tourism Board (1997) International Visitor Survey 1995/6, NZTB, Wellington.

Russell D. and Wilson N. (1991) Life in New Zealand Survey Commission Report, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Shelby, B., N. S. Bregenzer and R. Johnson. (1988). Displacement and Product Shift: Empirical Evidence From Oregon Rivers. Journal of Leisure Research. 20(4): 274-288.

Shelby B., Vaske J.J. and Heberlein T. (1989) Comparitive analysis of crowding in multiple locations: results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences 11 (4) 269-261

Vaske J.J., Donnelly, M.P., Heberlein T.A. and Shelby B. (1980) Perceptions Of Crowding And Resource Quality By Early And More Recent Visitors, Leisure Sciences. 3 (4) 367-381.

University of Otago Department of Tourism