New Zealand Huts Department of Conservation, Part D:
New Zealand Great Walks: tourism and policies
by Sam Demas
(Note: this is part of the larger work New Zealand Huts: Notes towards a Country Study)
The nine New Zealand Great Walks, with a total of 33 huts among them, are a lightning rod for the national discussion about changing conceptions and practices of human relationship with the wild. Rightly or wrongly, the Great Walks are frequently featured in the discourse when concerns are voiced about DoC’s management of huts generally, its priorities, and where New Zealand is going with its hut system.
Is the nation pandering to tourism at the expense of traditional Kiwi recreational values and birthrights? Are business interests over-riding conservation of and domestic rights of access to the conservation estate? Is DoC enforcing a level of standardization and commercialization that takes diminishes the hut experience and the magic of traditional tramping? How can the government ensure fair and equitable pricing and access policies for Kiwi trampers while dealing with the pressures of mass tourism? These are controversial matters, as much in the realm of opinion as of fact. I don’t have firm opinions or all the facts. See User perceptions of Great Walks Huts and Serviced Huts for a summary of user perceptions, which goes deeper into the controversies engendered by these higher amenity huts.
As background, following is a brief outline of how the Great Walks came to be, mention of their role in tourism, discussion of the persistent gap between operational costs and revenues, and a summary of some policy/budget solutions in play.
Origins and growth
The contemporary branding of New Zealand Great Walks, the highest service level and highest cost huts, began in 1992. It was an early policy move of DoC as it struggled to consolidate, protect and administer the massive hut and track infrastructure it inherited as a new government agency in 1987. However, the idea of “great walks” had its roots in the late 19th century development by New Zealand of the world’s first government agency to promote tourism. This resulted in construction of the nation’s first huts for recreational purposes and, in a 1908 travel article that dubbed the Milford Track “The World’s Finest Walk”, a moniker and tourism promotion concept that continued to evolve over the years. It is interesting to note that these are called Great Walks, using the more internationally known term walking, apparently to signify a less demanding, more touristic experience than Kiwi tramping.
According to Brian Dobbie (Technical Advisor, Recreation, Heritage and Technical Unit, DoC Central Office, Wellington) the idea of branding seven very heavily used walks in 1992 as “Great Walks” was not a function of catering to international tourism, but grew directly out of a serious over-use and the need to both protect the environment and preserve the quality of the experience of these walks. This was accomplished by extending a reservation system, which had been in place on the Milford Track since its inception, to an additional 7 premier walks. No matter what the 1992 branding impulse might have been, the Great Walks and their have become iconic symbols of New Zealand’s status as an international mass tourism destination. Their use has grown steadily and is currently booming.
The Kepler Track was built in 1988 to take pressure off the Milford and Routeburn Tracks, but it too has become overcrowded. Presently there are 9 Great Walks and there is a selection process underway through which at least one more will be added by the end of 2018.
Mass Tourism and the Great Walks
Usage of the Great Walks has increased greatly over the past decade, due to factors such as inclusion in guidebooks such as Lonely Planet, and heavy marketing by Tourism New Zealand and partnerships between DoC and Air New Zealand to increase international visitation, including on the Great Walks. I am not clear on what, if any, role DoC has as a promoter of international visitation vs. as an agency obliged to react to tourism generated by others.
According to an article in the Guardian, UK (Milford Track: ‘World’s finest walk’ in danger of becoming just another bucket list tick, 21 January 2018), “Last year, nearly 120,000 people hiked the great walks; a 12.4% increase on the season before and nearly 50,000 more than a decade ago”. 60% of trampers on the Great Walks are international visitors. Some specific tracks, such as the Tongariro Alpine Crossing, are extremely over-used and detract from the experience of a Great Walk.
Among the concerns expressed in this Guardian article about the impacts of mass tourism on the Milford Track are: increases in littering; a frenetic, bucket-list mentality that is antithetical to traditional tramping; the conveyor-belt, stage-managed nature of the experience; the comparative absence of Kiwis; and that tickets sell out within the first 90 minutes of being released, making securing access more competitive than a major rock concert.
These controversial impacts have penetrated the public discourse to make The Great Walks a prism through which one can view the ongoing struggle to define the roles, management and uses of tramping huts in New Zealand.
Again, see User perceptions of Great Walks Huts and Serviced Huts for a summary of user perceptions.
Huts and tourism
The larger umbrella out of which these perceptions grow is the huge numbers of international tourists New Zealand is encouraging to visit. As mentioned, a large proportion are attracted by the beauty of the conservation estate. The tension among tourism promotion, economic dependence on tourism, DoC’s conservation mandate, and tourism’s impact on Kiwi’s in relation to nature is a huge topic. There have long been calls for a national tourism strategy, and for better coordination and communication between the arms of government promoting tourism and those responsible for ensuring the NZ conservation estate does not become a large-scale tragedy of the commons.
I have nothing to add to the broad discussion of NZ tourism. But the specific budget and policy solutions in relation to huts and tracks that are outlined below seem the most immediate and direct way to address of the tensions between domestic and international tourism, and between conservation and access. But before we go there, following are some thoughts I’ve heard about the relation between the tourist boom and huts:
- Some have suggested that the private accommodations sector be strengthened to stop the creep of private lodges within the conservation estate.
- FMC has called for a distinction between recreation and tourism, with the former defined as non-commercial, which would presumably include huts, and the latter as commercial tourism, which might not(?).
- Volunteerism by Kiwis in hut maintenance and in various aspects of conservation stewardship is on the rise, and these are seen as strategies for engaging citizens in concrete solutions to the environmental challenges their nation faces.
- Mick Abbott has called for creative thinking and action to increase use of huts for conservation purposes, including harnessing the time and energy of tourists to advance stewardship aims for the conservation estate.
- It is unclear how calls to limit the numbers of visitors to National Parks might affect hut use in future, but its not likely to make much difference.
- Some Kiwis resent being called tourists and “visitors” in their own lands, which seems to point towards some mechanisms for preferential access to huts and tracks. Its difficult to sort out when and how a Kiwi’s actions in tramping is different from those of an international visitor, except of course in the sense of country of origin and impacts of getting to and from the track.
- In light of changes in the legal status and guardianship of certain National Parks, it will be very interesting to observe over time how Maori management of huts in particular, and management of lands and water in general, in Te Urewera and elsewhere, evolves to ensure methods consistent with Maori sensitivity to physical and spiritual features of the landscape.
Budget and Policy Measures
In seems that until very recently the DoC budget was actually reduced by about $55,000,000 over the past 10 years. During this time ambitious conservation initiatives and goals were initiated, and visitor numbers, including for use of front-country huts, soared.
The situation is unsustainable. In announcing a major increase to the DoC budget for 2018/19 Eugenie Sage, Minister of Conservation, noted that “The year ending March 2018 was another record year for visitors to public conservation land with 1.75 million people, or 52% of all international tourists visiting a national park last year, up 5% on the previous year”.
1. Reconciling the gap between operational costs and revenues
The cost of operating the Great Walks exceeds the income from fees charged. But the exact amount of the gap is unclear to me. These are three data points I noted:
- A May 2017 DoC posting on DoC website “Modest fee increases for Great Walks” states that “…overall the Department has a $1.2 million dollar shortfall per year on its Great Walks”.
- A 2018 posting on the DoC website “About the Great Walks pricing trial” says “…At present there is a shortfall of up to $3.8 million each year on costs of recovered from the Great Walks”.
- Based on my January 2018 conversation with Brian Dobbie about DoC hut economics, he gave me rough estimates of hut budget costs and revenues that indicate a shortfall of about $500,000 per year. See part 3 of my post DoC Hut economics.
I expect these are simply not “apples to apples “comparisons, i.e. each estimate may include a somewhat different mix of cost and revenue components, they may represent different years of analysis; in any case, they are simply not comparable figures. Nevertheless, we know the gap between costs and direct revenues for Great Walks huts is somewhere between $500,000 and $4,500,00 per year.
Whatever the exact amount of the shortfall for the 33 Great Walks huts, clearly something must be done to address the gap between operational revenues and expenses for the entire system of 963 DoC huts (approximately $4,500,000 per year according to Brian Dobbie; see my post DoC Hut economics for his analysis). Among the leading options are raising fees and increasing budgets.
I’ve read that the international consulting firm McKinsey observed that DoC gets 5% of its total National Parks revenues from use fees, compared with closer to 20% in USA, Australia and Canadian National Parks. My sense is that this is not a direction (dramatically increasing user fees) Kiwi’s would want to go or that would be an improvement in the long run, except perhaps in the context of preferential pricing (see below).
It appears that the new Labor government is beginning to step up to this long-term shortfall between aspirations and funding for DoC. Following is a summary of the steps of which I am aware that DoC has taken or is considering to address the gap.
2. Major four-year budget increase beginning 2018/19
While the implications for huts and tracks in particular is not clear from reading DoC and newspaper accounts, the good news for conservation in New Zealand is that DoC’s budget will be increased by $181.6 million over the next four years. This will translate into a overall increase of 16% in the DoC budget by 20/21/22. The announced components include:
- $81.3 million for predator control,
- $7.6 million for biodiversity initiatives,
- $5.5 million for managing of increased numbers of visitors on public conservation lands, and
- $16.2 million to strengthen DoC’s core capabilities in a time of great change.
While the implications for recreation in general and huts and tracks in particular are unclear as yet, there appears to be great public support for this substantial increase in the DoC budget in recognition of its immense conservation portfolio and the complex pressures it faces.
3. Policy options: background data
Budget increases are unlikely to provide the full and long-term solution. Policy options are under consideration. The DoC charts below are useful in understanding the demand profile of Great Walks Visitors and Usage:
The first chart shows that except for Whanganui Journey, Lake Waikaremoana and Heaphy Track the Great Walks huts are highly used during peak periods, with occupancy rates of 72% (Rakiura Track) – 99% (Milford Track). The second chart indicates that usage in peak period is growing slightly each year. The third chart confirms the predominance of international visitors nn the top five most popular Great Walks (Milford, Tongariro, Kepler, Routeburn and Abel Tasman). The extremely popular Abel Tasman Track is a comparatively easy walk along the seashore, very easily accessed, and can be done in shorter segments (i.e. one doesn’t need to commit to the entire route). Abel Tasman seems a good example of a route designed for comparatively inexperienced tourists that keeps them off the more rigorous tracks.
4. Hut fees as part of the solution
DoC and the current government seem to recognize that fees alone will never cover the cost of recreation on the conservation estate, much less of conservation. Hut fees, first introduced in 1988, were grudgingly accepted (and frequently ignored) as DoC moved to introduce different service levels in the huts to help address budget shortfalls. Interestingly there is a fairly high rate on non-compliance among Kiwis in actually paying the fees (and apparently a much smaller rate of non-compliance among international visitors). This phenomenon has been referred to as a classic instance of the “tragedy of the commons”.
4. a. Modest fee increases in 2017/18
DoC has tinkered over the years with pricing solutions in relation to over-crowding. In 2017 DoC raised Great Walks hut fees modestly. Price increases ranged from 0% to 30%, depending on the level of demand and season. During peak season the highest use Great Walks (Milford, Kepler and Routeburn) increased by 19-30%, while lesser used walks (e.g. Tongariro, Heaphy and Rakiura) increased by 6-13%. I have seen no discussion of the lessons learned from this fee increase.
4.b. Great Walks differential pricing policy trial for 2018/19 season
In its boldest move in recent years to use pricing as a visitor management tool, DoC has implemented a one season differential pricing trail on the four highest use trails (Abel Tasman, Milford, Kepler and Routeburn) effective October 2018. User prices for international visitors will be doubled while prices for Kiwis will not change. The purposes are to:
- begin to charge foreign visitors according to what the market will bear for these spectacular walks,
- increase revenues to help DoC maintain these tracks,
- control visitor numbers,
- begin to establish a fair pricing system that recognizes that Kiwis should not have to pay as much to walk their own Great Walks as international tourists, i.e. to more fairly distribute the cost between Kiwi’s and international visitors.
- encourage foreign visitors to use the less visited Great Walks, where prices remain unchanged.
In announcing this trial, the results of which will inform future policy decisions, DoC noted that:
- It expects to recover an additional $2.9 million in fees during the seven month trial. This will go a long ways towards covering the deficit in maintaining Great Walks huts and tracks (the extent is unclear, see above).
- Kiwi’s under age 17 will continue to walk free of charge.
Presumably with the increased revenues, some level of Great Walks maintenance funds might be shifted from Great Walks and applied to maintenance of the other 930 huts in the system.
The impact this pricing experiment will have on this phenomenon is unclear.
5. Preferential access for Kiwis?
While there have been calls for DoC to reserve space in high use huts for Kiwi’s, I do not believe there have been any moves in this direction.
6. Tourist/Green Tax proposals?
Politicians and citizens concerned about DoC’s capacity to fulfill its conservation and recreation responsibilities have long suggested that all international visitors should be charged a “green tax”. These funds would be allocated to help New Zealand conserve the natural environment that is such a powerful magnet for mass tourism. The idea is controversial and its implementation would be contentious; there has apparently not been any serious policy action in this direction as yet.
*********
While the Great Walks are a lightning rod for controversy about huts and tramping culture in New Zealand, they are undeniably a key feature of DoC’s remarkable hut system and its contribution to international tourism. For me, the bottom line is that the Great Walks are a brilliant New Zealand addition to international hut-to-hut offerings. They provide international visitors with an experience of some of New Zealand’s most stunning landscapes. They reflect Kiwi values in level of amenities offered, e.g. in comparison with the mountain hostels/hotels in the Alps of Switzerland, Austria, France, Italy, etc. With a uniform system of discrete routes that require advance reservations they are in many ways better organized than European hut-to-hut treks. They offer access to a very diverse set of landscapes throughout the nation.
While hard core Kiwi trampers clearly like the challenge of “Back Country Adventure” level of tramps, requiring navigation skills and tramping of rough tracks, the Great Walks provide less well prepared international visitors with a safer, more tame taste of Kiwi tramping. They are an accommodation to international tourism in a remote nation.
DoC is on the verge of announcing one or more new Great Walks. International tourism is steadily increasing and the Great Walks are a key part of New Zealand’s international “brand”. The perceptions and tensions described in the accompanying piece User perceptions of Great Walks Huts and Serviced Huts will continue to provoke policy and budget solutions, and will doubtless influence the continuing evolution of tramping culture in New Zealand.