View
3.843
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
|
A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Tourism at the
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Magnus Kjeldsberg
Department of Tourism
University of Otago
July 2009
EXPLORING SOCIAL ASPECTS OF AIRCRAFT USE
IN
AORAKI/MOUNT COOK NATIONAL PARK
ii
AAbbssttrraacctt
National parks represent recreational opportunities for the public and are often significant tourist
attractions. There is a widespread use of aircraft for scenic flights and transport of guided and
recreational climbing parties in several national parks in the Southern Alps of New Zealand, and
this use can impair ground based users’ experiences and impede their recreational objectives.
There has been a lack of understanding of the social aspects of aircraft use and how users of
remote - and back-country areas relate to the use of aircraft, although social impact, such as noise
annoyance, has been documented in previous research.
This thesis explores the complex issue of how professional mountain guides and recreational
climbers relate to aircraft use in Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park (AMCNP), and also the social
effects of aircraft use. This is done through a series of qualitative semi-structured interviews with
the said user groups.
This study demonstrates that the participants find aircraft use acceptable in the AMCNP due to
multiple factors, many of which are site-specific. They also find benefits such as limiting severe
approaches; time savings; safety aspects; and waste management to compensate for
disadvantages such as noise pollution, loss of natural quiet and crowding. This study also
indicates that guided and recreational climbing in the AMCNP is dependent on aircraft in order to
sustain current levels of use. Aircraft use does affect user experiences by limiting the feeling of
solitude and wilderness, but participants find that acceptable in the AMCNP since these attributes
are accessible in other natural areas. Participants are found to prefer to have aircraft activity
concentrated to certain areas so that other areas can still provide natural quiet, solitude and
wilderness. This study also found aircraft not to be a significant source of recreational conflict in
the AMCNP.
iii
AAcckknnoowwlleeddggeemmeennttss
This project would not have been more than a big selection of unstructured documents on my
hard-drive had it not been for a few important people.
First and foremost, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Anna Thompson, my Masters
supervisor, who has provided great support and guidance throughout this process. Her knowledge
of mountaineering in Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park, the guiding industry, and of course; the
people, has been a huge benefit for me.
Huge thanks goes out to my mom and dad for their invaluable support during these last few hard
months of writing and trying to make ends meet after I came back to Norway. You’ve both been
great and I could not have done it without you.
I would also like to thank:
The Tourism Department; James Higham, for a lot of good advice as Masters Coordinator;
Nicola Mitchell, for doing lots of great transcribing on short notice; and Helen Dunn, for being
very helpful with all the inevitable organizational stuff.
Sandra, for being a great support during this process, and for all the good times.
Martin, fellow Norwegian, office mate and ski buddy, for giving me a taste of home again (the
milk chocolate) and for some great feedback when I needed it the most. Not to mention all the
good times on the hill. Good luck with your thesis!
Leif, for his ‘what’s mine is yours’ attitude, moral support, and not to mention for accepting that I
turned his kitchen into an office for a couple of months following my return to Norway.
I would also like to thank Ray Bellringer at DOC, for initial conversations regarding this
research, and last but not least; all those who participated in this research. It is all thanks to your
generosity and willingness to share your experiences. Thank you.
iv
TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss
ABSTRACT I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS III
TABLE OF CONTENTS IV
LIST OF TABLES VIII
LIST OF FIGURES VIII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IX
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 RESEARCH CONTEXT 1
1.2 STUDY AREA BACKGROUND – THE AMCNP 3
1.3 RECREATION AND GUIDING IN THE AMCNP 7
1.4 MANAGEMENT OF RECREATION IN NEW ZEALAND'S NATURAL AREAS 9
1.5 AIRCRAFT USE IN THE AMCNP 11
1.6 RESEARCH PROBLEM 14
1.7 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 14
1.8 THESIS OUTLINE 16
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 17
2.1 INTRODUCTION 17
2.2 RECREATIONAL USE OF NATURAL AREAS 18
2.3 PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS INFLUENCING USER EXPERIENCES 19
2.3.1 Perception of natural areas and wilderness 20
2.3.2 User expectation and satisfaction 22
2.3.3 Attitudes towards aircraft use 23
2.3.4 Recreational motives and objectives 25
2.4 AIRCRAFT USE IN NATURAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED SOCIAL EFFECTS 26
2.4.1 International experiences with aircraft use in national parks 26
2.4.2 New Zealand experiences with aircraft use in national parks 28
v
2.5 NOISE IMPACT AND THE LOSS OF NATURAL QUIET 32
2.5.1 Noise impact research 32
2.5.2 Actual effect of noise on recreationists 35
2.6 CONFLICT BETWEEN USER GROUPS – INTERPERSONAL AND SOCIAL VALUE CONFLICT 36
2.7 CROWDING AND DISPLACEMENT 38
2.8 SUMMARY 40
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 41
3.1 INTRODUCTION 41
3.2 RESEARCH APPROACH 42
3.3 PREVIOUS RESEARCH METHODS APPLIED TO THE FIELD OF STUDY 45
3.4 RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL 46
3.5 CARRYING OUT THE RESEARCH 47
3.5.1 Preparation of the fieldwork 47
3.5.2 The participants 49
3.5.3 Interviews 51
3.5.4 News search 52
3.5.5 Analysis 53
3.6 RESEARCH BIAS, SUBJECTIVITY AND LIMITATIONS 54
3.6.1 The role of the researcher 56
3.6.2 Limitations of the study 57
3.7 SUMMARY 58
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS 59
4.1 INTRODUCTION 59
4.2 PROFESSIONALS’ RELATIONS TO AIRCRAFT 60
4.2.1 Extent of aircraft use 60
4.2.2 Benefits of aircrafts use 63
4.2.3 Disadvantages of aircraft use 65
4.2.4 Guides’ perception of aircraft effect on user experiences 68
vi
4.2.5 Attitudes towards aircraft use 70
4.2.6 Acceptance of the use of aircraft in climbing 74
4.3 RECREATIONALISTS’ RELATIONS TO AIRCRAFT 75
4.3.1 Extent of aircraft use 75
4.3.2 Benefits of aircraft use 76
4.3.3 Disadvantages of aircraft use 77
4.3.4 How recreationists perceive aircraft to affect the recreation experience 78
4.3.5 Attitudes towards aircraft use 81
4.3.6 Acceptance of aircraft use for climbing 84
4.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GUIDED AND RECREATIONAL PARTIES 85
4.5 SUMMARY 87
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION 89
5.1 INTRODUCTION 89
5.2 EXTENT OF AIRCRAFT USE AND REASONS FOR USE 90
5.3 BENEFITS OF AIRCRAFT USE 91
5.3.1 Saves time and eliminates long approaches 91
5.3.2 Safety and SAR 92
5.3.3 Waste management 93
5.3.4 Less need for permanent infrastructure 94
5.3.5 Increased chances of achieving objectives 96
5.3.6 Other benefits 96
5.4 DISADVANTAGES OF AIRCRAFT USE 97
5.4.1 Noise impact and loss of natural quiet 97
5.4.2 Crowding 99
5.4.3 Loss of wilderness experience 100
5.4.4 Other disadvantages 100
5.5 EFFECT OF AIRCRAFT ON USER EXPERIENCES 101
5.5.1 What experiences can the AMCNP provide its users? 104
5.6 ATTITUDES TOWARDS AIRCRAFT USE IN THE AMCNP 107
5.6.1 Perception of scenic flights 109
vii
5.6.2 Site attributes influence attitudes towards aircraft use 111
5.6.3 Factors influencing the acceptance of aircraft use in the AMCNP 113
5.7 DOES AIRCRAFT USE CAUSE CONFLICT IN THE AMCNP? 114
5.8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 116
5.8.1 The benefits of aircraft use in the AMCNP outweigh the disadvantages 117
5.8.2 Guiding and most recreational activity in AMCNP is reliant on aircraft use 118
5.8.3 Aircraft use has significant effect on users’ experiences 119
5.8.4 Attitudes towards aircraft use are site-specific 120
5.8.5 Conflict and displacement is not widespread in the AMCNP 121
5.8.6 Other 121
5.8.7 Summary 123
REFERENCES 127
APPENDICES 139
APPENDIX 1: SCENIC FLIGHT PATHS 139
APPENDIX 2: LEGISLATIONS AND STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 143
APPENDIX 3: MWNPAUG ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 149
APPENDIX 4: INTERVIEW GUIDES 150
APPENDIX 5: ETHICS PROPOSAL 152
APPENDIX 6: INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PROFESSIONAL MOUNTAIN GUIDES 159
APPENDIX 7: LETTER TO NZAC SECTIONS 160
viii
LLIISSTT OOFF TTAABBLLEESS
TABLE 1: Presentation of participants ......................................................................................... 50
TABLE 2: Benefits of aircraft use as perceived by professional and recreational users .............. 91
TABLE 3: Development strategies for access to mountain areas ................................................. 95
TABLE 4: Disadvantages of aircraft use in the AMCNP as perceived by the participants .......... 97
LLIISSTT OOFF FFIIGGUURREESS
FIGURE 1: Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park including mountain huts ...................................... 5
FIGURE 2: Aoraki/Mt Cook Village with airport .......................................................................... 6
FIGURE 3: Designated landing areas within the AMCNP ........................................................... 13
FIGURE 4: Factors influencing users’ acceptance of aircraft use in the AMCNP ..................... 113
FIGURE 5: The scenic flight paths of Mount Cook Ski Planes .................................................. 139
FIGURE 6: Mount Cook Ski Planes' West Coast flight paths .................................................... 140
FIGURE 7: The Helicopter Line’s flight paths from Glentanner Park ....................................... 141
FIGURE 8: The Helicopter Line’s flight paths from Twizel ...................................................... 142
FIGURE 9: The Helicopter Line’s flight paths from Franz Josef and Fox Glacier Villages ...... 142
ix
LLIISSTT OOFF AABBBBRREEVVIIAATTIIOONNSS
AMCNP Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park
CAA Civil Aviation Authority
CCMS Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy
DNPP Denali National Park and Preserve
DOC Department of Conservation
FMC Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand
GCNP Grand Canyon National Park
GPNP General Policy for National Parks
IFMGA International Federation of Mountain Guides Association
MANP Mount Aspiring National Park
MWNPAUG Mount Cook and Westland National Parks Resident Aircraft
User Group
NZAC New Zealand Alpine Club
NZCA New Zealand Conservation Authority
NZMGA New Zealand Mountain Guides Association
NZMT New Zealand Ministry of Tourism
ODT Otago Daily Times
OSNZAC Otago Section of the New Zealand Alpine Club
ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
NPS US National Parks Service
USDA United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
WTPNP Westland/Tai Poutini National Park
YNP Yellowstone National Park
x
Turning a new page
1
Chapter 1. IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn
11..11 RREESSEEAARRCCHH CCOONNTTEEXXTT
Outdoor recreation is a popular undertaking in New Zealand, both amongst the local population
and overseas tourists. Many activities fit within this umbrella term, amongst them tramping
(hiking); mountaineering; climbing; hunting and fishing; and mountainbiking. According to
Cessford and Dingwall (1997) there was little recreation pressure in New Zealand conservation
areas, mostly due to their remoteness, until the 1970s when the country experienced a
‘backcountry boom’ with massive growth in numbers of outdoor recreation participants. The
initial growth happened because of a “greater interest in outdoor recreation among New
Zealanders, made possible by improved access and increasing affluence, mobility, information
and leisure time” (Cessford and Dingwall 1997, p. 35), but much of the following growth from
the 1980s is dominated by overseas tourists.
Outdoor recreation has become incredibly important for the tourism industry over the last few
decades. According to the New Zealand Ministry of Tourism (NZMT) (2008) around 71% of all
international tourists and 21% of all domestic tourists participate in at least one nature-based
tourism activity. That totalled in 2006 around 15.7 million occasions where tourists took part in
nature based activities. When added up, the activities that relate to mountain areas (half day bush
walks, full day- or overnight tramping, glacier walks and mountain climbing) total roughly 1.8
million occasions (NZMT 2008). It has also been estimated that around 1995, approximately 50
percent of international visitors to New Zealand visited one or more nationally protected area
(Shultis 2003, p. 61). Consequently, both the commercial as well as the recreational pressure on
natural areas such as the Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park (AMCNP), has increased
dramatically during this time. The huts in the AMCNP are used for about 7000 bednights per year
according to the Department of Conservation (DOC) (2004), and this has been a fairly stable
figure over the last 20 years.
Mountaineering and ski touring are two of the few recreational activities taking place in the
alpine areas of the AMCNP. These activities as well as mountaineering related courses, are also
offered as commercial products by mountain guide operations based in and around the Southern
2
Alps, which is a large mountain area on the South Island of New Zealand. Climbers and ski
tourers, as well as professional mountain guides, often use helicopters and ski-planes as means of
access to the high alpine huts and the attractive climbing areas of the AMCNP, and the bordering
Westland/Tai Poutini National Park (WTPNP). These huts serve as a backbone for
mountaineering in the Southern Alps, functioning as base camps and providing shelter and safety.
In addition to these transport or ‘charter flights’, as they are often called, an increasing number of
visitors to both sides of the Southern Alps, choose to engage in sightseeing by aircraft, hereafter
referred to as scenic flights, to experience the alpine environment of the Southern Alps and
especially Aoraki/Mt Cook (see Appendix 1 for a detailed description of the scenic flight
operations). This results in a significant amount of air traffic in this alpine environment.
Several studies have investigated how aircraft use affects nature and wildlife (Bowles 1995;
Buckley 2004) and an increasing number of studies have looked into its effect on recreational
users of natural areas. Among these are several international case studies (Miller 1999; Nugent
1999; Krog and Engdahl 2004; Mace, Bell, Loomis and Haas 2003; Mace, Bell and Loomis
2004) and some with a focus on aircraft impact on recreationists in New Zealand natural areas
(Sutton 1998; Booth, Jones and Devlin 1999; Cessford 2000; Harbrow 2007; Squires 2007).
Also, several reports have examined social impact of aircraft in the AMCNP as part of an aircraft
monitoring programme commenced by DOC in the AMCNP in 1998 (Horn 2001; McManaway
and Bellringer 2002; Garrard 2005). A detailed review of this research will be presented and
discussed in Section 2.4, but it is important to highlight that the reviewed research is fairly
conclusive that aircraft can have a significant effect on users’ experiences. Noise is likely the
biggest impact with possible effects such as loss of feeling of solitude; loss of wilderness
experience; and annoyance (Mace et al. 2004). Also, users of natural areas sometimes perceive
crowding as result of aircraft passenger transport (Squires 2007).
In the AMCNP and other parts of the New Zealand conservation estate, DOC works towards
protection and conservation of native flora, wildlife, and important habitats while concurrently
securing public access for recreation on the conservation estate (DOC, 1983; 2003), and assuring
that a diverse spectrum of recreational objectives can be met, such as experiencing solitude,
adventure, natural quiet and partaking in recreational activities without impairing on the
experiences of other users (New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) 2005). The difficult
3
balancing act of securing that the “two potentially conflicting sets of values” (DOC 2004, p. 35)
of conservation, and securing public enjoyment of the park, are maintained, is an important part
of the DOC mandate and also an issue that causes some discrepancy. Among invested
organisations (New Zealand Alpine Club (NZAC), and Federated Mountain Clubs of New
Zealand (FMC)) and users of the national parks, there has been a noteworthy debate related to the
effect of aircraft use in certain national parks in New Zealand (Garrard 2007; NZAC 2008; Otago
Section of the New Zealand Alpine Club (OSNZAC) 2007; 2008). This debate directly concerns
the “potentially conflicting set of values” noted above. There has not been the same degree of
debate about aircraft use in the AMCNP, but it was estimated that approximately 70,000 people
took part in some form of scenic flight within the glacier regions of the AMCNP and the WTPNP
in 1999, a number which has been relatively stable over the last few years, but is expected to
increase (DOC 2000; Garrard 2005). Consequently, there is the potential that recreational users’
experiences in the AMCNP will become further impaired by the effects of aircraft use.
11..22 SSTTUUDDYY AARREEAA BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD –– TTHHEE AAMMCCNNPP
The AMCNP (Figure 1) is a protected natural area with a size of 70,720 hectares, situated in
Southwest Canterbury on the South Island of New Zealand (DOC 2004). The AMCNP is part of
the Southern Alps and most of the park consists of an imposing alpine mountain environment,
with Aoraki/Mt Cook as the most striking and renown feature. Aoraki/Mt Cook is the highest
mountain in New Zealand and, like many other mountains in the park, feature characteristics
ideal for mountaineering. These traits have made AMCNP an attractive destination for domestic
as well as international mountaineers and also a desirable destination for travellers seeking
impressive mountainous scenic vistas or alpine experiences. According to the AMCNP
Management Plan, the area is also of great significance to Ngäi Tahu, the principal Māori iwi
(tribe) of the southern region of New Zealand, as they consider Aoraki/Mt Cook as a symbol of
their ancestry and thus hold the mountain sacred (DOC 2004).
The area consists of a precipitous alpine environment with the highest peak, Aoraki/Mt Cook
reaching 3,754 meters into the sky and nine other peaks exceeding 3,000 meters. The more well-
known of these, especially for recreation purposes, include Mt Tasman (3,497m), Malte Brun
(3,198m), Mt Sefton (3,151m), Mt Elie De Baumont (3,151m) and La Perouse (3,078m) (NZAC
4
2006). A third of the park terrain is covered by permanent snow and ice and only a small
percentage of the remainder consists of relatively flat terrain, mainly in the Godley, Tasman and
Hooker Valleys (DOC 2004).
Parts of the AMCNP have been designated as conservation areas since 1885, when the Hooker
and Mueller Valleys became ‘recreational reserves’ due to recreational concerns with local
farming practices and economic concerns of preserving the area for tourism purposes (DOC
2004). Additional areas, namely the Tasman Valley, the Murchison Valley and the Godley
Glaciers were given the same status in 1887, 1917 and 1927. Much due to lobbying from the
NZAC and other clubs and a public debate, the National Parks Act 1953 was passed and the
existing protectorate was expanded and given status as Mount Cook National Park (DOC 2004).
Recreation and tourism in the AMCNP was highly dependent on accommodation and
infrastructure in the area, and in 1884 the first accommodation in the area, the Hermitage, was
built. The area has remained one of New Zealand’s premier tourist attractions and climbing areas,
and today the area adjacent to the site of the old Hermitage has developed into a village with
several forms of accommodations (including the new Hermitage), a visitor centre, a DOC Area
Office and an airport (Figure 2) which is used for the ski-plane operations by the company
Aoraki/Mt Cook Ski Planes. In addition there is an airfield at Glentanner about 14 kilometres
outside the park boundary, which is used by a helicopter operation (Helicopter Line) servicing
park users and offering scenic flight tours.
5
FIGURE 1: Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park including mountain huts and ROS-sectors (Source:
DOC 2004)
6
FIGURE 2: Aoraki/Mt Cook Village with airport (Source: DOC 2004)
7
11..33 RREECCRREEAATTIIOONN AANNDD GGUUIIDDIINNGG IINN TTHHEE AAMMCCNNPP
Mountaineering in New Zealand started in the Southern Alps and was for the most part
undertaken with guides in the early years. The first true alpine endeavour in New Zealand is
claimed to be the crossing of the Main Divide (the central part of the Southern Alps) by
geological surveyor Dr James Hector and his two companions in 1863. Hector and company were
on a search for a trade route from east to west which led them up the west Matukituki Valley in
what is now the Mount Aspiring National Park (MANP), and across parts of the Bonar Glacier
using ropes and ice axes, before ascending into Waipara Valley (Davidson 2002). Other early
alpine exploration includes surveyor Edward Sealy’s trips up the Tasman and Godley glaciers
(climbing almost to the top of Hochstetter Dome) in what is now the AMCNP. These expeditions
were important because they provided useful information and inspiration for later mountaineers
(Wilson 2007). Classifying these undertaking as recreation may seem farfetched given their
purposes, but at that time, as in Europe where mountaineering evolved, recreation, science,
mountaineering and exploring were highly intertwined (Hansen 1995; Freedgood 2000; Davidson
2002).
It is commonly acknowledged that mountaineering in New Zealand was initiated by visiting
British mountaineers during the last two decades of the 19th
century (Davidson 2002). The
highest peaks of New Zealand were the main focus of overseas climbers right from the beginning
of the country’s climbing history, and Aoraki/Mt Cook was the main objective and the biggest
price. The first attempt to conquer Mt Cook was initiated by British Reverend William
Spotswood Green, a member of the recent English Alpine Club, which was formed in 1857
(Davidson 2002). This pioneering trip, which took place in 1882, was also the first example of
guided mountaineering in the Aoraki/Mt Cook region, as Reverend Green was accompanied by
Emil Boss and Swizz guide Ulrich Kauffman (Carr 1997; Davidson 2002). They got within 60
meters of the summit before they had to return. Inspired by the overseas climbers and their
guides, a very small mountaineering and guiding community was formed in the vicinity of the
Southern Alps. Guided mountaineering in New Zealand advanced with the increase in visitors to
the Southern Alps after the Hermitage was built (Carr 1997), and self-taught local mountaineers
were employed as guides. Given the importance of the Aoraki/Mt Cook area for tourism, it was
not long before guides were employed directly by the Government Tourist Department (ibid).
8
The first true ascent of Aoraki/Mt Cook was undertaken by New Zealanders Tom Fyfe, George
Graham and Jack Clarke on Christmas Day 1894. It is fair to say that the first ascent of
Aoraki/Mt Cook was an amateur undertaking, although the members of the team worked as
guides at the newly established Hermitage. These men were part of the first generation
mountaineers in New Zealand and are acknowledged to have, to a large degree, established both
recreational and guided climbing in the Southern Alps (Leonard 2007; NZMGA 2009).
Until the 1930s, mountaineering in the Southern Alps and what came to be the AMCNP, was
most commonly undertaken in the company of guides. During the following years, tramping,
skiing and ultimately mountaineering became increasingly popular past times amongst the
domestic population (Carr 1997; Wilson 2008). The NZAC which had been formed as early as
1891 but “went into recess around 1896” (Wilson 2008, p. 9) was restored around 1914 and
became very active in the 1930s. It had previously been modelled after the Alpine Club of
England, targeting upper class people and excluding guides, but as few New Zealand climbers
were upper class people, this model did not allow for many members. Wilson (2008) writes that
most early New Zealand climbers were either working class or middle class people and that “the
division between amateur and professional was always blurred” (Wilson 2008, p. 9). Other clubs
was established in the same period like the Otago Tramping and Mountaineering Club (1923) and
the Canterbury Mountaineering Club (1925). All of the above clubs were important for the
recruitment to the sport, but also because they built huts and shelters in the mountains allowing
for easier access to, and better living conditions in the mountains (Wilson 2008).
At the same time as recreational climbing expanded, guiding went into recess. Guided
mountaineering almost ceased entirely from the 1930s, until 1967 when Alpine Instructions Ltd.
(later Alpine Guides Ltd) was established (Wilson 2008; NZMGA 2009). This company also
offered instruction courses as well as guided ascents, and during the last decades it has become
common for recreational climbers and trampers to get their first introduction to alpine climbing
through such instructions courses.
The establishment of other guiding companies and the need for a New Zealand standard of guide
training led to the establishment of the New Zealand Mountain Guides Association (NZMGA) in
1975 (NZMGA 2009). This organisation later became part of the International Federation of
9
Mountain Guides Association (IFMGA) and today, everyone working as a mountain guide in
New Zealand is required to have partly or fully completed the IFMGA education process. The
NZMGA has implemented safety standards, training and qualifications for professional guides in
New Zealand, and has per 2009 a total of 36 fully qualified IFMGA mountain guides in their
registry, and multiple guides with qualifications as ski guide, climbing guide or alpine trekking
guide (NZMGA 2009).
The guiding activities taking place in the AMCNP consist of guided summit ascents, various
mountaineering and rescue safety courses, and advanced, alpine trekking often involving glacier
terrain (DOC 2004). Other, less physically committing guided trips also exist in the so-called
‘front-country’ of the AMCNP (see Section 1.4), such as walks up to Blue Lakes or Hooker Lake
(Figure 2), but these do not require NZMGA qualifications, nor are they considered
mountaineering, and for these reasons (and for the purpose of the research) they are not taken into
account. Currently, several mountain guiding companies hold concessions for commercial
operations in the AMCNP, and they require aircraft for transporting clients and gear into the
mountains.
11..44 MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT OOFF RREECCRREEAATTIIOONN IINN NNEEWW ZZEEAALLAANNDD’’SS NNAATTUURRAALL AARREEAASS
Management organisations such as DOC have to manage both recreational and commercial use of
natural areas such as national parks, while simultaneously maintaining a conservational focus
(DOC 2004). One of the tools widely deployed for managing use of natural areas is the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). This section will briefly describe the ROS and how it is
applied by DOC in the management of the AMCNP.
The ROS is a recreation planning method which in New Zealand was developed and applied to
meet the booming recreational demand of natural areas with development of facilities like huts
and tracks, while simultaneously securing that some real wilderness areas remain. In this context
wilderness is considered “wild landscapes offering the opportunity for recreation entirely
unsupported by facilities like huts and tracks” (DOC 2003, p. 6). The ROS was designed to “to
identify the range of settings appropriate for different recreation activities from wilderness to
front-country which caters for a wider section of potential visitors” (DOC 2003, p. 6). These
10
settings are managed with the objective of providing certain experiences like physical challenge,
natural quiet, self-reliance and isolation in designated areas (DOC 2004). Besides being an
important management tool, ROS also enables park users to choose which area to go to, based on
what experiences they aspire and the properties of the area as described in the ROS (ibid). In the
AMCNP, the settings used by DOC to describe the different areas of the park are:
1. Backcountry remote;
2. Backcountry walk in;
3. Backcountry accessible - motorised;
4. Front-country – short-stop;
5. Highways, roadside opportunities and visitor service sites. (DOC 2004, p. 31)
The ROS definitions as applied in the AMCNP are pictured in Figure 1. Note that the AMCNP
ROS does not include a ‘Wilderness area’ setting. That is because there are no areas in the
AMCNP that meets DOC’s criteria for a ‘Wilderness area’. A description of a ‘Wilderness area’
is presented in the next paragraph.
In addition to the above mentioned benefits of the ROS, the settings also work as guidelines for
the development of visitor facilities such as huts and tracks, and the nature and standard of these.
They also guide management of concession activities such as aircraft use in the attempt to
prevent these from impairing other users’ experiences, and they “assist in the management of
adverse effects (e.g. aircraft noise) or conflicts between visitor activities” (DOC 2004, p. 31).
Cessford and Dingwall define a New Zealand wilderness area in a management perspective, as an
area with “no apparent modification and no huts, tracks, bridges, signs or other facilities” (1997,
p. 41). Wilderness in this perspective also requires that there is no motorised access available and
that it requires at least half a day’s walk from the nearest access point. Cessford and Dingwall
admit that these distinctions are primarily useful for management purposes and recognise that
there are many ‘Remote’ and ‘Backcountry walk-in’ areas that appear similar to the user and will
provide much the same experiences (this notion is further discussed in Section 2.3.1).
Consequently, DOC tries to cater for ‘wilderness experiences’ outside the wilderness areas and
they consider the best way to do so is by maintaining an impression of unaltered natural settings
and minimal apparent visitor numbers. One example of this is the reservation system recently
11
applied to the Routeburn Track, which purpose is to keep user numbers down in order to lessen
crowding at huts and on the track (ibid).
11..55 AAIIRRCCRRAAFFTT UUSSEE IINN TTHHEE AAMMCCNNPP
Aircraft have a long-standing history of use in the AMCNP, which reaches back beyond Harry
Wigley’s vision of fitting small planes with retractable skis in order to land on the glacier snow,
thus enabling passengers of all ages and abilities to visit the spectacular areas of the park. Scenic
flights had actually been operating allowing passengers to view these areas from above before
this time. With the invention of the ski-plane however, it was made possible to take off using the
wheel set while landing with the skis on the snow (Mount Cook Ski Planes 2009). The first ski-
plane landing occurred in 1955, and the subsequent ski-plane business revolutionised tourism in
the region and also provided mountaineers with fast and easy access to the high mountain (DOC
2004; Mount Cook Ski Planes 2009). Helicopters were later introduced for use in mountain areas
and provided different options than the ski-plane in terms of take-off and landing requirements.
The introduction of aircraft made it possible to build huts high on the mountain, the Grand
Plateau Hut being one of them, providing climbers with better facilities and better access (DOC
2004). The ski-plane operations in the AMCNP are run by Mt Cook Ski Planes which is based
within the Park, at Mt Cook Airport (Figure 2). The main helicopter operation in the area is run
by the Helicopter Line which is based at Glentanner, approximately 14 kilometres south of the
park boundary (DOC 2004). Both companies offer scenic flights as well as transports climbers
and guided groups to designated landing areas in the park (see Figure 3 for an overview of
designated landing sites). In addition, there are several companies in the surrounding area that
offer scenic flights (using both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft) but do not land within the
park (DOC 2004).
Since its introduction, aircraft use has had a substantial significance for recreational and
professional mountaineers. Mountain professionals, such as guides, utilise aircraft in conjunction
with most of their mountaineering related products, such as ascending Aoraki/Mt Cook, ski-
touring trips and mountain skills courses. The glaciers which in previous years provided good
access in the park have receded dramatically during the last few decades, making the access
much more difficult and the moraine walls on the glacier sides, unstable (DOC 2004). The
12
difficult access makes it almost necessary to use aircraft in order to get to terrain suitable for
guiding and training courses, as this study will show. In the AMCNP, aircraft landings have been
limited by DOC to the upper parts of the Tasman and Murchison glaciers, and the Grand Plateau
(Figure 3) (DOC 2004). This recognises the importance of aircraft as means of access to the high
alpine huts often used by mountaineers, ski tourers and commercial guided parties. The head of
the Tasman and Murchison Glaciers are mostly used for commercial mountain skills courses and
recreational climbing and ski-touring, and the Grand Plateau for climbing and Aoraki/Mt Cook
ascents (DOC 2004) (research participants also confirmed this). In addition, the head of Fox and
Franz Josef glaciers in the adjacent WTPNP is also used extensively for similar purposes (DOC
2004). DOC has the mandate to regulate all traffic and commercial activity on the estate but their
mandate is limited to land based activities only (see Appendix 2 for a summary of the relevant
legislative context). The activity in the airspace above national parks and conservation areas is
regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (Tal 2004; Garrard 2005; CAA 2009a). For
flying in natural areas such as in the AMCNP, the CAA regulations demand a minimum height
above ground level of 500 feet, as opposed to urban areas where the minimum height is 1000 feet
(CAA 2009b). There is not much in terms of legal regulations controlling conservation land and
national parks overflights, and DOC has little jurisdiction in this matter (Tal 2004). DOC does
however, control aircraft landings on their estate and control concessions for commercial
operators who apply for landing permits. This situation has long been a problematic issue for
DOC since they arguably cannot fully execute their directive when not being able to control one
of the most perceptible activities occurring on the conservation estate (Tal 2004).
With the lack of specified legal regulations concerning flights in the airspace above the AMCNP,
the Mount Cook and Westland National Parks Resident Aircraft User Group (MWNPAUG) was
established (DOC 2004), largely in order to maintain a high standard of safety within the local
industry but also as medium for cooperation with DOC. This group consists of local
concessionaires and other commercial operators utilising the airspace above the AMCNP
(Garrard 2005). The MWNPAUG stipulates the ‘environmental policy’ for aircraft operations in
the AMCNP which can be found in the AMCNP Management Plan 2004 (see Appendix 3 for the
guidelines as presented in the AMCNP Management Plan 2004).
13
FIGURE 3: Designated landing areas within the AMCNP (Source: DOC 2004)
14
11..66 RREESSEEAARRCCHH PPRROOBBLLEEMM
Previous research concerned with the social effect of aircraft in the AMCNP has to a large degree
focused on measuring levels of users’ annoyance with aircraft, using a quantitative approach
(Booth et al. 1999; Garrard 2005). While being able to identify if aircraft annoyance at the
monitoring sites exceeds threshold levels (Booth et al. 1999) and providing management with
longitudinal statistics of annoyance levels which can identify changes over time (ibid), they do
not reveal much about the meaning of the use of aircraft in the park and how it affects the park
users. Another question which has not previously been addressed relates to why aircraft use
causes annoyance and other social impacts, and equally interesting, why aircraft activity does not
cause more annoyance given the documented extent of use and the associated noise. As noted in
Section 1.1, aircraft activity can be a source of social impacts and conflict in several natural
areas, but this appears not to be the case in the AMCNP regardless of the relatively high level of
aircraft use as stated in the AMCNP Management Plan: “Scenic and other aircraft traffic in both
Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park and Westland/Tai Poutini National Park is considerable”
(DOC 2004, p. 112). This will be discussed further in Section 2.4.
Aircraft activity in the AMCNP has increased dramatically during the past two decades and is
expected to increase more in the future (Garrard 2005). For those reasons it is important to
understand the complexity of the effect aircraft has on park users’ experiences, something which
can contribute to the understanding of what factors instigate aircraft annoyance and other effects
in some areas, while not in others.
11..77 AAIIMMSS AANNDD OOBBJJEECCTTIIVVEESS
Based on the knowledge gaps outlined in the above section, this research aims to explore how
different user groups relate to the use of aircraft and how it affects their experiences of using the
park. Partly because there is only a small body of research related to users of the high alpine areas
of the park (DOC Community Relations Manager for AMCNP, R. Bellringer, pers. com. 2008),
and partly because of the researcher’s own interest in the climbing culture and community,
recreational climbers/ski tourers and mountain guides were selected as participating user groups.
Due to the nature of the research, only experienced users of the AMCNP were chosen as
15
participants as they are likely to possess information beyond just their own experiences. They are
also likely to have reflected on any issues of contention in the AMCNP given that they have
undertaken several trips in the area. The selection of participants is discussed further in Chapter
3. The fieldwork consists of a total of thirteen in-depth interviews (yielding a total of 10 hours
and 20 minutes of recorded material), of which five are with recreational climbers/ski tourers,
and the remaining eight are with professional mountain guides.
As noted in Section 1.1, there has been some debate about the use of aircraft in national parks in
New Zealand, especially in the MANP. The issues of contention have been the social impacts of
aircraft and the threat they pose on natural quiet (Garrard 2007; NZAC 2008; OSNZAC 2007;
2008). Research has documented some level of conflict in the popular climbing area of the
MANP partly due to aircraft use (Squires 2007). In addition, previous research has as noted (and
further discussed in Chapter 2) focused mostly on ground-based users’ annoyance with aircraft,
while not much has been investigated in terms of the benefits of aircraft use. Consequently, the
issue of aircraft use in natural areas has become somewhat ‘conflict oriented’. To investigate if
this notion is accurate or misleading, this study aims to explore the benefits and disadvantages of
aircraft use, and establish whether aircraft cause any conflict in the AMCNP. Also, since aircraft
use is an integral of the mountain guide operations in the AMCNP, and the guides and the
recreational climbers use the same areas and the same huts, this study aims to disclose if there are
any issues of conflict between the two participating user groups.
To sum up, the aim of the research is to explore the complex issue of how recreational and
professional users of the AMCNP relate to the use of aircraft.
In order to achieve this aim, a number of research objectives were determined. The objectives of
this research are to:
1. identify the benefits and disadvantages of aircraft use in the AMCNP;
2. explore how aircraft use affects users’ experiences in the AMCNP;
3. investigate if aircraft use is a source of conflict in the AMCNP;
4. disclose any issues of conflict between mountain guides and recreational users of the
AMCNP.
16
11..88 TTHHEESSIISS OOUUTTLLIINNEE
Chapter Two, the literature review, will now proceed to present and discuss relevant literature
based on the research problem and the aims and objectives of the research. It will begin with
discussing recreational use of natural areas and relevant psychological factors which influence
recreational experiences. This is followed by a discussion of literature concerning aircraft use in
natural areas and the implications and impacts such use can have on recreational users of these
areas. The chapter is finalised with a presentation and discussion of research related to conflict
and crowding, which has been the focus of much of the existing research concerning aircraft use
in natural areas.
The third chapter will describe the methodology used for this research. A qualitative research
approach has been chosen and information has been gathered through thirteen in-depth, semi-
structured interviews. Two user groups are explored; professional mountain guides and
recreational climbers. Benefits and disadvantages of using a qualitative approach will be
explained and a detailed description of the fieldwork will be given. The chapter finally reflects on
the study’s subjectivity, bias and limitations.
The fourth chapter presents the research findings. These are divided into the respective
participant groups, and organised to reflect the aims and objectives and relevant themes identified
in the literature review.
Chapter Five discuss the research findings in relation to the theories presented in the literature
review and other existing research. This chapter is organised similarly to the previous chapter,
and discusses the findings in relation to benefits and disadvantages of aircraft use; user
experiences of aircraft; user attitudes towards aircraft; and issues of conflict related to aircraft
use. Finally, the research conclusions and recommendations are presented.
17
Chapter 2. LLiitteerraattuurree RReevviieeww
22..11 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN
This chapter will provide an understanding of outdoor recreation and discuss research previously
undertaken on the topic of social aspects of aircraft use in natural areas. There is a limited body
of research investigating this topic, and few of those have aimed to understand how recreationists
relate to aircraft activity and how it affects their use of the area. As such, much of the research
discussed in this chapter deals with other forms of recreational use of natural areas and other
forms of motorised use of natural areas.
There is quite a large body of research available in relation to environmental impacts of
motorised use (including aircraft use) of natural areas, especially in relation to wildlife (Bowles
1995; Cole and Landres 1995), and there is some consensus amongst researchers that motorised
means of transport and recreation have a negative impact on wildlife and the environment
(Buckley 2004; Tal 2004). However, since the scope of this research is social aspects of aircraft
usage, research concerning environmental issues will not be discussed further, although
environmental values can factor in on some users experience of, or attitudes towards aircraft use
in natural areas. Much of the existing research on social aspects of aircraft use is concerned with
the impact of aircraft in relation to airports and urban settings (Fields 1993; Anderson 2004), or
focus on acoustic sound levels (Ambrose and Burson 2004; Krog and Engdahl 2004) and
annoyance threshold (Booth et al 1999; Cessford 2000).
Before the commencement of the fieldwork for this thesis, several social aspects related to use of
aircraft or other motorised modes of transport in natural recreational areas were identified in the
existing literature:
1. perception of natural areas and wilderness;
2. visitors’ expectation and satisfaction;
3. users’ attitudes (towards aircraft);
4. recreational motives and objectives;
5. aircraft use in natural areas and its associated social effects;
18
6. noise impact and loss of natural quiet;
7. conflict between user groups – interpersonal and social value conflict;
8. crowding and displacement.
This literature review will discuss research relevant to each of these issues in order of
appearance. The first four points are collected under Section 2.3 (Psychological factors
influencing user experiences) as they can all be considered psychological constructs rather than
having external aspects. But before that an overview of factors which have led to the
development of outdoor recreation as a phenomenon will be presented.
22..22 RREECCRREEAATTIIOONNAALL UUSSEE OOFF NNAATTUURRAALL AARREEAASS
Recreational use of natural areas, or outdoor recreation, is a modern and Western phenomenon
that evolved during the nineteenth century. Recreation and leisure occurred to a large extent as a
product of abundance, and as such it is perhaps natural that it has its roots in the middle- and
upper class society of Victorian England (Hansen 1995; Freedgood 2000). The Romantic
Movement also originated in the same culture during the second half of the nineteenth century,
and it spurred a major shift in how people perceived natural areas. Previously, Western cultures
had mostly perceived natural areas as wastelands and of little value unless they could be utilised,
and mountains in particular were seen as places of fear which lacked the presence of God. The
Romantic Movement however, saw natural areas as being examples of the vastness of God’s
creation, and the most extreme examples of the vastness of the creation were mountains.
Consequently, they were seen as sacred and sublime objects (Cronon 1995; Hansen 1995;
Freedgood 2000). Places of spectacular scenery became places of ‘worship’, and visiting and
viewing natural areas became a popular recreational undertaking (Hansen 1995). Chamonix and
other places in the European Alps, as well as North American areas like Yellowstone and Banff
were among the first destinations to become subject to this new type of tourism. But Hansen
(1995) argues that when the emphasis in experiencing the sublime changed from sublime objects
to sublime emotions, it became a sacred act to seek experiences in nature because that provided a
spiritual contact with the creation. Accordingly, recreational use of natural areas evolved from
being distinguished by passive, disengaged observation of extraordinary natural features, to
19
become tantamount with engaging interaction with nature. The notion of seeking divine
experiences in nature was but one factor in the development of outdoor recreation, as it came
together with the strong traditions of global exploration as well as scientific exploration of that
time. Especially the latter was an important factor in the development of mountaineering, as most
early mountain exploration happened in the name of science and the early mountaineers carried
all sorts of scientific equipment to carry out measurements (Bonington 1992; Hansen 1995). But
eventually mountaineering evolved as a recreational undertaking in itself, and the European Alps
with Chamonix, Mount Blanc and the Matterhorn became the focal points of the growing activity
(Bonington 1992; Hansen 1995). As noted in Section 1.3, geographical explorations, such as
surveying, are considered predecessor to the mountaineering culture in New Zealand, but that
happened at a later stage than that of the development in Europe.
Cronon (1995) argues that the notion of sublime experiences in nature is still influencing the way
we see and experience nature today and that this notion also has dictated our preference for
establishment of national parks. This theory can also contribute to a deeper understanding as to
why people seek experiences in natural areas of such inhospitable nature such as the AMCNP,
and why the issue of natural quiet is so sensitive. Users of such areas seek experiences that can be
seen as being related to the notion of sublime experiences (ibid). Examples of extraordinary
scenic landscapes’ potential to evoke feelings are frequently found in literature from the past two
centuries, perhaps most famously so from artist like William Wordsworth and John Muir. The
first detailed description of the impressive AMCNP landscape, given by geologist and explorer
Julius Von Haast in 1862, can pose a fitting example of such:
“It was towards evening when this grand sight first burst upon us. The majestic forms of Mount Cook, Mount Haidinger, of the Moorhouse range, and many other wild craggy peaks covered with snow and ice, rose in indescribable grandeur before us, and whilst the summits were gilded by the last rays of the sun, the broad valley of the Tasman was already enveloped in deep purple shade. It was a moment of extreme delight, never to be forgotten.” (Von Haast. 1948, p. 209, in DOC 2004, p. 26)
22..33 PPSSYYCCHHOOLLOOGGIICCAALL FFAACCTTOORRSS IINNFFLLUUEENNCCIINNGG UUSSEERR EEXXPPEERRIIEENNCCEESS
This section presents a number of important psychological factors influencing user experiences.
These factors are often a central part of research related to the subject of recreational use of
natural areas.
20
22..33..11 PPeerrcceeppttiioonn ooff nnaattuurraall aarreeaass aanndd wwiillddeerrnneessss
Recreating and travelling in natural areas generates emotional processes in most people. These
processes are hard to explain but they have been the subject of many discussions, writings and
research, some of which will be discussed in this section. Recreating in natural surroundings
provides us with more than physical exercise and fresh air. Kaplan (1995) argues that the natural
environment is particularly rich in characteristics that provide restoration for people suffering
from stress and related difficulties. He argues that restoration occurs due to the effortless
attention required by the natural surroundings, the exploration desire which often is triggered
when one engages with natural areas, and by experiencing surroundings which one has desired to
experience or is compatible with (ibid). There is a large body of research focusing on personal
benefits of outdoor recreation, but it is beyond the scope of this thesis to focus intensively on this
topic. However, it has previously been concluded that “in pursuing recreational activities in
protected areas, park visitors obtain a prodigious range and depth of psychological and
physiological benefits that manifest themselves throughout individuals and wider society”
(Shultis 2003, p. 70).
Some of the major attributes of national parks and other natural areas are their potential to
provide natural quiet and solitude (Booth et al 1999; Tal 2004; DOC 2004), and an option to
‘escape’ the stressors of urban life and experience nature (Stein and Lee 1995; Rolston III 2003)
which for many provides a sense of restoration as discussed in the previous paragraph. It can be
seen as a paradox then that an increase in people engaging in outdoor recreation to experience the
said benefits, can potentially derive the participants of what they seek to achieve (DOC 2004). In
that sense, natural quiet and solitude can be considered commodities or resources which can get
depleted.
While natural area management have clear definitions of what is front- and back-country areas
(as shown in Section 1.4) and what is to be considered wilderness, most natural area users are not
likely to relate to these sector boundaries drawn on a map. What a backcountry or wilderness
experience consists of is actually very difficult to define. Should it be based on the remoteness of
the location or does the individual’s perception define whether he/she is having a wilderness
experience? Obviously, one can encounter lots of people on some very remote places like
21
Denali/Mt McKinley in Alaska, and one can be very isolated and experience solitude in relatively
accessible areas such as the head of the Rakaia River in South Canterbury.
As briefly mentioned in Section 1.4, there are several ways of defining wilderness and wilderness
experiences. Higham, Kearsley and Kliskey (2000, p. 218) define wilderness as “a concept that
has both a physical and a perceptual meaning”. Perceptual meaning implies that recreationists can
achieve wilderness experiences wherever they perceive they are in wilderness settings. That
could be in virtually any natural environment (Higham et al. 2000). If catering for wilderness
experiences is a managerial goal then it should be important to also consider what the users
perceive as wilderness, since it is “likely that the majority of wilderness experiences can be
accommodated in non-wilderness areas” (Higham et al 2000, p. 218). In that case, true wilderness
areas can maintain very low user levels which benefits wildlife and vegetation, and other areas
can provide recreational wilderness experiences. Higham et al. also suggest that low key
developments such as basic huts and tracks should not diminish the wilderness experience for all
but the most “purist of wilderness adventurers” (ibid), which implies that the fraction of outdoor
recreationists that require ‘true’ wilderness in the physical sense in order to have a wilderness
experience, is very small.
A definition of the perceptive wilderness concept will differ greatly from a definition of the
physical wilderness concept. Higham et al. (2000, p. 218) loosely characterise wilderness as a
“personal construct that can be defined as an image that varies from person to person”. This
perception fit well with how the conception of wilderness as we know it came about, as described
in Section 2.2. In this perspective, wilderness is a concept that is ever changing, and is dependent
on cultural as well as individual references. Higham et al suggest that wilderness “exists where
personal cognitions dictate; different people perceive wilderness in different ways and in
different places, but, for each of them, wilderness exists in that place, although it might not for
others” (2000, p. 218). Wilderness experiences are thus emotional states which emerge if the
physical conditions are right, as ‘defined’ by the individual.
22
22..33..22 UUsseerr eexxppeeccttaattiioonn aanndd ssaattiissffaaccttiioonn
The concept of user expectations refers to what users expect out of their recreation experience.
For example, users who expect to experience little or no aircraft activity are more likely to
become adversely affected by aircraft encounters or have a less satisfying recreation experience
(Booth et al. 1999). A study by Shelby (1980) aimed to improve the understanding of the
relationship between crowding and user satisfaction (a concept which will be discussed shortly),
found that user density and interaction has virtually no impact on user satisfaction, contrary to the
assumption of many previous studies (ibid). Rather, Shelby argued that the individual users’
expectations to the recreation experience, and also the users’ values had a major impact on user
satisfaction. The importance of users’ expectations was also highlighted in an earlier study. Clark
and Stankey (1979) were some of the first to discuss noise impact on recreationists and they
reasoned that the recreationists’ tolerance level for mechanical noise depended on their
expectations based on the areas development level. They argued that in an un-developed or less
developed natural area, users were likely to believe that noise would not be prevalent thus
expecting little noise impact, whereas if visiting a developed area they would be likely to expect a
certain presence of human produced sounds and consequently be more tolerant towards these
sounds.
Evidence of the importance of user expectation is found also in aircraft impact specific research.
A study by Sutton (1998) of aircraft impact in the front-country areas of the WTPNP, found a
higher annoyance level amongst users of the rugged bush-walks in the valley sides than the users
of the valley floor trails which are easier to access. He assumed this to be related to differences in
expectations between the two user groups. This assumption supports findings by Kariel (1990)
who compared how mountaineers and roadside campers perceived and evaluated different
natural, human and non-natural (technological) sounds. Kariel found mountaineers to be more
negative towards human and non-natural sounds than the other group but also more positive than
the other group towards natural sounds. This indicates that different user groups have different
expectations but also different motivations, which will be discussed in the following section
(2.3.4). Both Sutton (1998) and Booth et al. (1999) suggest that the difference in annoyance with
aircraft from front- and backcountry users is caused by the expectations users of more remote
areas have of encountering fewer other users and fewer aircraft.
23
User satisfaction is a concept widely used by park managers and recreation researchers (Booth et
al. 1999; Borrie and Birzel 2001; Tarrant and Smith 2002), which can be described as a measure
of people’s satisfaction with their recreational experiences in a given area (Booth et al. 1999). A
similar but inverse concept is the visitor annoyance measurement widely used by DOC in their
recreational management of New Zealand conservation land (Booth et al 1999). Visitor
annoyance measures the level of annoyance among users of a given area, and in New Zealand the
recommended threshold value is 25 percent annoyance before any management action is required
(Cessford 2000; DOC 2004). For instance, in the AMCNP, Garrard (2005) measured an
annoyance level of 27 percent at Mueller Hut (see Figure 2) which is around the same level as
was recorded in 2000, 2001 and 2002 (ibid).
Both user expectation and satisfaction have been closely linked to the concept of visitor
expectation (Shelby 1980; Booth et al. 1999). Shelby (1980) argues that a concept like user
satisfaction is perceptive and highly contextual, which makes it difficult to measure. The same
can probably be said about user expectation. These are psychological factors influencing the
users’ experiences and as all psychological concepts, they are inherently difficult to quantify and
measure.
22..33..33 AAttttiittuuddeess ttoowwaarrddss aaiirrccrraafftt uussee
Individual attitudes are also considered an important factor of how users perceive their
experience. For instance, Booth et al. (1999) found recreationists to show less annoyance with
aircraft if the purpose of the flight was either search and rescue (SAR) or management related.
Scenic flights however, were not thought (by users) to serve equally important purposes, and
were thus considered unnecessary by many. In this case the individuals’ attitudes towards
different types of aircraft use affect how they feel towards the impact of the aircraft.
An attitude is in social psychology defined as “a cognition, often with some degree of aversion
or attraction (emotional valence), that reflects the classification and evaluation of objects and
events” (Encyclopedia Britannica (website) 2009). This implies that an attitude is either a
positive or negative view about an object.
24
In a study of the relationship between trail user groups, Beeton (1999) investigated hikers’
attitudes towards horseback groups. Beeton (1999; 2006) found that many of the participants
displayed attitudes towards horseback groups without having encountered such groups and as
such their attitudes were preconceived. Those walkers having met horse riders actually displayed
more positive attitudes than those who had not had an encounter. This finding corresponds with
the findings of Cessford (2003) who studied the relationship between hikers and mountainbikers
on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand. Cessford found that those hikers who encountered
bikers displayed more positive attitudes towards them then those who had not met any bikers.
Beeton (2006) suggest that these findings “reinforce the influence that attitudes formed through
means other than personal experience can have, especially from a negative aspect” (Beeton 2006,
p. 51). This highlights the importance of user group interaction for increased satisfaction with
user experiences. These findings suggest that users are more tolerant of each other and more
forthcoming towards the other’s requirements the more they know about the other’s needs and
behaviour. Interaction in the form of knowledge sharing can also be facilitated by management
on order to increase awareness, and thus understanding about other user groups.
While some have indicated that users of motorised transport have more consumptive and activity-
based attitudes towards outdoor recreation (Jackson and Wong 1982; Jackson 1986; Shultis
2001), Davenport and Borrie (2005) present findings that goes across the common beliefs about
recreational snowmobilers as “thrill seeking” individuals. They state that “non-motorised and
motorised recreationists are commonly pitted against one another as having divergent activity and
experience preferences, natural resource values, and environmental attitudes” (Davenport and
Borrie 2005, p. 151). However, in their study of recreational snowmobilers visiting Yellowstone
National Park (YNP), they found that snowmobiling in YNP is perceived as a means of transport
in order to experience the park rather than an attractive activity in itself. The researchers carried
out 93 personal interviews with YNP visitors, of which 65 were using snowmobiles. The most
important incentive for visiting the park seemed to be interaction with wildlife and experiencing
the unique geothermal nature. Another interesting finding was that the snowmobile users actually
differentiated between snowmobiling in YNP and other places, expressing that in the YNP it was
“touring” rather than “real snowmobiling”. They were using snowmobiles to get around the park
in order to experience the park and the nature, and not to ‘play around’. This is a very important
25
distinction, and it indicates the importance of the attributes of the location (or site) in the
formation of users’ attitudes towards an activity or engagement at a particular location. The users
also displayed concerns with the environmental impact of snowmobile use, but considered it the
only way to get a comprehensive experience of the YNP. Davenport and Borrie’s findings
actually support much earlier findings by Jackson and Wong (1982) who could not find any
differences in the importance snowmobilers and skiers place on feeling a part of nature, despite
suggesting that snowmobilers are machine-oriented and value the activity, adventure and social
interactions rather than interaction with nature (Jackson and Wong 1982; Davenport and Borrie
2005).
22..33..44 RReeccrreeaattiioonnaall mmoottiivveess aanndd oobbjjeeccttiivveess
Motivation for outdoor recreation is a complex field and it is beyond the scope of this research to
explain all known aspects of it. Ewert defines motivation as a “set of internal and external factors
that arouse or direct human behavior” (1993, p. 336) and adds that recreational motivation can be
described as “a construct that is activity dependent, goal directed and related to leisure need”
(ibid). Motivation is thus a psychological process and it is believed to be a product of human
desire to achieve particular outcomes or benefits (Manfredo, Driver and Tarrant 1996).
As previously noted (Section 2.3.1), recreation in natural settings has been found to have a
restorative effect on people. Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) suggest that humans have specific needs
that can be fulfilled in interaction with nature due to the psychological, social, and physiological
experiences which cannot be as easily obtained in an urban setting. Taking this to an even more
basal level, Ulrich (1993) actually argues that the restorative effect of natural areas is a result of
human adaptation through evolution. Taking this into account, a basic sort of motivation for
outdoor recreation could be natural and somewhat instinctive to us. Regardless of its evolutionary
origin, a common perception is that motivation for outdoor recreation emerges as result of
peoples’ “pursuit of personal benefit” (Kyle, Mowen and Tarrant 2004, p. 441).
An interesting finding emerged from a study by Ewert (1993) of mountaineers who had
attempted to climb Denali. Ewert found that those who did not succeed in reaching the summit
also communicated that they felt many of their motives were met. It was especially motives such
26
as photography, catharsis/escape and the experience of wilderness environment that were
fulfilled. Consequently, Ewert concluded that in order to perceive the trip as successful, climbers
who did not summit, subconsciously emphasised the other sub-motivations which were met.
Ewert (1993) also found differing motives amongst different types of climbers. Independent
climbers (not using guides) who are usually in small groups and have more experience were
compared to climbers from guided parties who typically have less experience. The guided
climbers had higher motivation scores on variables such as ‘exhilaration/excitement’ and ‘social
aspects’. A selection of solo climbers was also surveyed and they gave a significantly higher
motive score on the variable ‘risk’ than the other two groups (ibid). These findings suggest that
motivations differ greatly between user groups and between users of different experience levels
within the same user group. Supporting this, Lee, Scott and Moore (2002) noted that several
studies point out the connection between motivation and intensity of involvement, level of
experience, commitment or level of specialisation. They, as well as Ewert (1993), also note that
there are clear indications in the existing literature that motivations alter when people gain more
experience and acquire skills.
22..44 AAIIRRCCRRAAFFTT UUSSEE IINN NNAATTUURRAALL AARREEAASS AANNDD AASSSSOOCCIIAATTEEDD SSOOCCIIAALL EEFFFFEECCTTSS
22..44..11 IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall eexxppeerriieenncceess wwiitthh aaiirrccrraafftt uussee iinn nnaattiioonnaall ppaarrkkss
Much of the international research that has been concerned with the social impact of aircraft have
less significance for this study as most are not overly focused on the experience of the users, but
rather focused on external factors such as actual noise levels within the soundscape of national
parks. For the benefit of the thesis structure, noise factors are discussed further in section 2.5.
Aircraft operations serving recreation demands in national park are also common elsewhere in the
world. In the USA, Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) and the Hawaiian national parks are
experiencing huge demand for scenic flights, and the issue has been debated publicly for several
years (Henry, Ernenwein, Thompson and Oppermann 1999). The management situation in
American national parks is somewhat similar to that of New Zealand in the sense that both
countries have a split jurisdiction between airspace and land management. The US National Parks
Service (NPS) manages and controls all ground based activity in much the same way as DOC in
27
New Zealand, while the Federal Aviation Administration regulates the airspace above national
parks (as is the case with the CAA of New Zealand). According to Henry et al. (1999, p. 118), the
two involved bodies “have not had a common mechanism to address the management of air
tourism over parks, the quality of service provided to park visitors, or how this service might be
provided in a way that minimises impacts on park resources and visitors”. As outlined in Section
1.5, in New Zealand this situation creates difficulties for management of conservation areas and
national parks since they cannot control the activity which affects the natural soundscape of the
areas they are set to manage for the benefit of all users.
An international case study which is comparable to the situation in the Southern Alps is that of
Denali National Park and Preserve in Alaska (DNPP) (Tranel 2006; Watson, Knotek &
Christensen 2008). This national park has a relatively high recreational demand, with users
engaging in activities such as mountaineering, hunting, fishing, boating, hiking and camping. For
recreational users to access suitable and desired areas and to meet their recreational objectives,
aircraft use is often the most viable option. The majority of those who utilise air taxis are
however mountaineers and the most requested landing spot is on the glacier adjacent to the
standard climbing route on Denali/Mt McKinley (Tranel 2006). Similarly to New Zealand where
organisations such as the New Zealand Alpine Club have expressed concern about aircraft
activity (Garrard 2007; NZAC 2008; OSNZAC 2007; 2008), climbers and climbing organisations
North America has expressed concerns about aircraft noise in DNPP (Tranel 2006). Also
similarly to the AMCNP, one major challenge for the NPS in their management of the aircraft
operations in DNPP, is that the air taxi and scenic flight operations actually pre-date the
establishment of the national park itself (Tranel, 2006), which legitimises the aircraft use in the
area. This is not necessarily a problem in itself, but it can pose a higher risk of conflict between
park management and operators if enforcing regulations is necessary. The situation in DNPP has
received a lot of attention from researchers and a soundscape monitoring programme was
initiated in 2000 (Hults & Burson 2006). Unfortunately, in spite of all similarities between the
two areas, there is little current research on social aspects of aircraft use in DNPP that is directly
relevant for this study.
28
22..44..22 NNeeww ZZeeaallaanndd eexxppeerriieenncceess wwiitthh aaiirrccrraafftt uussee iinn nnaattiioonnaall ppaarrkkss
There is both a recreational and a tourism demand for access to natural areas in New Zealand.
Areas that are interesting for tourism and recreation often embody properties which also make
them important for conservation. This can be considered a paradoxical situation since by
allowing more people to experience these areas some of the very things people want to
experience can be impaired (Kearsley and Coughlan 1999). This paradox was acknowledged by
DOC already in their first General Policy for National Parks from 1983 which states that:
“Aircraft can provide a means of access to and enjoyment of parks with minimal physical impact compared with roading and some other methods of access. However, while scenic flights can be a valuable way of enjoying the parks, it is also important that the enjoyment of those who seek quietness in the parks, particularly in remote areas, is not unduly impaired” (DOC 1983, p. 21, in Tal 2004, p.11).
The General Policy for National Parks (GPNP) states that “measures need to be taken to avoid
the adverse impact of aircraft on the natural state of a national park, and on the enjoyment by
people of natural quiet” (NZCA 2005, p. 50). Tal (2004) however, argues that the governing body
of New Zealand national parks does not do enough to maintain some of the values of the
conservation estate. Tal implies that in some sense, allowing for an increase in aircraft activity
(which in some places results in a continuous aircraft presence) is not wholly in accordance with
some of the key objectives of national parks, namely providing “solitude, peace and natural
quiet” for visitors (Tal 2004). In its Visitor Strategy, DOC obligate themselves to strictly manage
aviation traffic on the estate by saying that “the qualities of solitude, peace and natural quiet will
be safeguarded as far as possible in all areas managed by the department” (DOC 2003, p. 14).
There are significant considerations to be made in the management of both aircraft use and
recreation however. DOC has to provide for a wide range of recreational opportunities within a
park and “as the number of aircraft overflying parks continues to increase, the potential for
conflict between ground based recreationists and those seeking experiences from the air is likely
to be exacerbated” (Booth et al. 1999, p. 7).
There have been a number of studies undertaken on social impact of aircraft use in natural areas
in New Zealand (Sutton 1998, Booth et al 1999; Cessford 2000; Horn 2001; McManaway and
Bellringer 2002; Garrard 2005; Harbrow 2007; Squires 2007). Much of the existing research is
produced in affiliation with DOC, as it has a keen interest in how aircraft affect users of the areas
29
which the agency governs. This interest is formulated in the AMCNP Management Plan (DOC
2004) as well as the GPNP (NZCA 2005). Much of this research employ ground based users’
annoyance level as a primary measure for social impact (Booth et al. 1999). While most studies
do not reveal much understanding of the issue it has been concluded that it is mostly the aural
features of aircraft that have the most impact on users, and causing annoyance. The visual aspect
is considered acceptable by most (Booth et al. 1999).
Interestingly, research has not found aircraft annoyance to be a major problem in many national
parks (Sutton 1998; Cessford 2000; Garrard 2005). Booth et al. (1999) found that “visitor
dissatisfaction with aircraft overflights was often secondary to other park concerns (for example,
poor signage, conflicts with other recreationists)” (1999, p. 23). This could indicate that social
impact of aircraft is not a major concern amongst recreational users of natural areas in New
Zealand. Their research also find no connection between aircraft annoyance and total visit
experience, which indicate that annoyance with aircraft is a fluctuant reaction and disappears
shortly after the aircraft does. This supports previous findings from USDA (1992 in Booth et al.
1999).
Acknowledged as a precursor to the aircraft monitoring programme (Booth et al. 1999), Sutton
(1998) studied aircraft annoyance amongst visitors to Franz Josef and Fox Glaciers in the
WTPNP, using self administered questionnaire based on Likert-like scales. The aim of the
research was to see if there existed dissatisfaction with the presence of aircraft. Sutton found the
average number of aircraft in the valleys to be 6.3 per hour with a range of up to 40 per hour
(1998, p. 8). He recorded a significant annoyance amongst the visitors, correlating with the level
of aircraft activity, especially high was the annoyance amongst those being exposed to more than
14 aircraft per hour. But, interestingly, even with high levels of aircraft presence, there were more
people that were either neutral or accepting of the aircraft presence than those being annoyed. As
noted in Section 2.3.2, Sutton compared users of the main valley floors with users of the bush
walks in the elevated valley sides and found the bushwalkers to have significantly higher
annoyance levels, something he assumed can be related to the different expectations of the two
groups. Also, the valley sides are of higher elevation so users of these tracks will inevitably find
themselves closer to the aircraft flight-paths. This supports the earlier mentioned (Section 2.3.2)
significance of user expectation.
30
In another New Zealand study, Cessford (2000) analyzed 11 surveys of visitors to popular multi-
day hiking trails (also known as the New Zealand Great Walks), together sampling almost 5000
users. The users of these trails typically expect to experience “natural conditions with minimal
intrusion by human effects” (2000, p. 71). In this analysis Cessford distinguishes between the
users noticing a noise effect and actually being bothered with it. He found that overall, the users’
impact tolerance levels are not consistent; “where the awareness levels are similar, the
proportions of visitors actually bothered often varied considerably, suggesting case specific
degrees of noise tolerance” (Cessford 2000, p. 72). He continues to say that previous research
(NPS 1994; Sutton 1998) has indicated that higher levels of annoyance with noise is attributed to
higher sound/noise levels, to which Cessford disagrees. Cessford is of the opinion that noise
levels and annoyance levels are not the variables of major importance for management of noise
impact on recreational users. He believes that “the activity, setting and recreation experience
context in which noise effects occur, and the different variables affecting the visitor’s individual
evaluation of those noise effects, may be more important in most cases” (2000, p. 72).
A study monitoring the effect of aircraft on recreationists at Mueller Hut was carried out by
Garrard (2005) in 2005. The study drew on previous research done at that location in 2000, 2001
(Horn 2001) and 2002 (McManaway and Bellringer 2002). This body of research discovered that
there is some degree of user annoyance with aircraft at Mueller Hut and other locations within the
park. The percentage of users being annoyed with aircraft has remained relatively stable during
the four monitoring projects, at a level of 27 to 35 percent, which is just above the management
threshold suggested by DOC (Cessford 2000; DOC 2004). Garrard concludes however that even
if visitors are annoyed with aircraft, it rarely detracts from their overall trip satisfaction.
In a study of social impact of aircraft in relation to the Milford Aerodrome in Fiordland National
Park, Harbrow (2007) draws on five previous studies undertaken on behalf of DOC with similar
objectives. Some of these studies have been concerned with the Milford track and found
annoyance levels ranging from 51 to 69 percent. Interestingly, Harbrow found consistent
indications that fixed wing aircraft caused less annoyance than helicopters in this area. This, he
states, is in contrast to management perception. At one location helicopters and planes both
caused about a 14 percent annoyance “despite there being almost three times as many overflights
by planes as helicopters over the period of the survey” (Harbrow 2007, p. 12). Another of
31
Harbrow’s findings of interest to this research is that Homer Hut, which is associated with the
climbing areas in Fiordland, had the highest level of visitor annoyance with aircraft, recording
over 60 percent annoyance. Also, 43 percent of the respondents at Homer Hut indicated that
aircraft was what they disliked the most about their visit (this survey question is strategically
placed prior to indications that the survey is concerned with aircraft impact). These results could
indicate that climbers are more sensitive towards non-natural sounds as Kariel (1990) discovered,
and/or that they, as presumably more experienced and specialised users, have more fundamental
goals related to their use of natural areas.
A survey specifically targeting mountaineers was carried out by Squires (2007) during the
climbing season of 2006-07 in the MANP. The aim of this research was to “assess climber’s
experiences in terms of expectations and impacts relating to possible overcrowding, the social
impacts of seeing and interacting with other climbers, and the social impacts of helicopter access”
(Squires 2007, p. 2). The method used was based on the previously mentioned monitoring model
by Booth et al. (1999). The use of aircraft for access to Bevan Col, close to Colin Todd Hut in the
MANP, emerged and has increased drastically during the last 8-12 years. Squires (2007) found
that 57 percent of the respondents used helicopters for their current trip. Amongst the ones who
walked in, more than half stated that cost was the main reason they chose not to use aircraft.
Thirty-six percent said they did not use aircraft because they wanted the experience of walking
in. Only 13 percent were ethically opposed to using aircraft for access. These were opposed
because of either the noise emissions or a preference for a more purist approach to climbing. The
respondents who chose to use aircraft did so mostly because of:
- ease of access/convenience and heavy loads;
- limited time; and
- timing trip with weather window (source: Squires 2007, p. 13)
Interestingly, according to Squires (2007), 41 percent of those who used aircraft would not have
climbed there if helicopter access was not available, and 73 percent of all respondents reported
that seeing helicopter landings had no negative impact on their trip. This indicates that aircraft
activity has little effect on user experiences. It is important to note that Squires’ survey only
asked about the impact and attitudes towards helicopter access flights to Bevan Col, not all forms
32
of aircraft activity. Nevertheless, Squires noted that in the comment section of the survey,
respondents had outlined that scenic flights were considered far more of a disturbance than flights
into Bevan Col. This is however not examined further in that study.
None of the research currently available in New Zealand concludes that overall user satisfaction
is adversely affected by aircraft activity at any of the studied locations up to this point in time.
There are at times significant aircraft annoyance levels, but as Booth et al. (1999) concludes,
there are indications that annoyance with aircraft is a fluctuant reaction and disappears when the
aircraft is gone. These studies also demonstrate that the factors that are disliked (or are annoying)
about aircraft, is the noise effect (Sutton 1998; Booth et al. 1999; Cessford 2000), and the often
associated crowding (Squires 2007) at popular recreational locations and huts. They also point
out that user expectation is an important factor as to whether users perceive a negative impact or
get annoyed (Sutton 1998; Cessford 2000; Squires 2007). Another influencing factor emerging
from these studies is the users’ level of experience (Cessford 2000; Squires 2007). Also worth
mentioning is the fact that even though the importance of ‘setting’ (or location) has been
mentioned by researchers (Cessford 2000), the special properties of the location or ‘setting’ are
not emphasised in existing research as important factors influencing user satisfaction or the user
experience.
22..55 NNOOIISSEE IIMMPPAACCTT AANNDD TTHHEE LLOOSSSS OOFF NNAATTUURRAALL QQUUIIEETT
22..55..11 NNooiissee iimmppaacctt rreesseeaarrcchh
Noise is a phenomenon often defined as unwanted sound (Mace et al. 2004). That implies it is
based on perception and as such it is a psychological phenomenon. Consequently, it is not
quantifiable like sound is (Mace et al. 2004). Noise generates annoyance within people and
several factors contribute to such annoyance, for example whether the noise is considered
unnecessary or provocative by the affected individual, or considered to represent a health hazard
(ibid.). Research has found that when regularly exposed to noise in the daily life (work/home)
people can suffer from concentration problems, increased fatigue, increased blood pressure
(Talbott et al. 1990) and sleep problems (Bronzaft, Ahern, McGinn, O’Connor & Savino 1998).
The contextual factors deciding the origin and nature of any mechanical or non-natural sound are
33
“fundamental to understanding the social consequences of recreational noise” (Cessford 2000, p.
69). That is because social impacts are often defined by the social values of the people involved.
Hence, the values, or attitudes of the people experiencing the noise determine whether or not they
perceive the noise as intrusive and thus, if this noise is an issue of conflict.
Several research projects have been undertaken on the impact of noise on recreationists in natural
settings (Kariel 1990; Fidell et al. 1996; Miller 1999; Nugent 1999; Krog and Engdahl 2004). It is
beyond the scope of this thesis to present all of these as not all provide much useful information
for this thesis. They all however fall into one of the categories presented below. Gramann (1999)
divided the existing noise impact research into three approaches or theoretical frameworks:
- psychological research;
- acoustical research; and
- psychoacoustical research.
These divisions are appropriate for describing the existing research in this field and as these terms
will be used later in this thesis, a short description is necessary. It is worth mentioning that most
of the research covered in this chapter follows the psychological approach since those studies
focus on the perception of sounds, thus being more related to the subject of this study.
The psychological approach is considered beneficial in that it brings aspects of the users’ own
reflections and perspectives into the research and as such examines people’s evaluation of sounds
(Gramann 1999). This approach involves many factors, the actual sound one of them. More
important are people’s own expectations of what they will encounter. Other factors that influence
evaluation of sounds are; which activity people engage in and their foreground tasks; their self
produced noise; and the perceived purpose of the sound (in this case the aircraft activity).
The acoustical approach “considers the effect of physical properties of noise. Among these are
loudness, duration, tone, frequency, pitch, and rhythm qualities” (Gramann 1999, p. 4). Instead of
asking participants how they react to sounds, the audibility of sounds is measured in terms of
decibel and then compared to a “standard of acceptability” (ibid.). This type of research is mostly
descriptive of a physical phenomenon and cannot disclose anything about the effect or the social
impact of the phenomenon.
34
Psychoacoustical research combines elements of the two previous approaches as the name
suggests. According to Gramann (1999) this approach explores the correlation between physical
energies such as light and sound and people’s psychological evaluations of their exposure to such
energies. Their evaluation of this exposure is called a dose response, the dose being the sound
and the response being usually measured as annoyance (Gramann 1999; Miller 1999).
Researchers have come up with a few possible factors as to why some users perceive a negative
impact of noise and some do not. Recreationists’ focus on foreground tasks is one possible factor
(Fidell and Teffeteller 1981). A foreground task is something that engages the recreationists, such
as photography or climbing, and detracts the focus from potential disturbing elements. Other
factors are the self-noise made by the visitors that can be loud enough to drown out mechanical
noise (Fidell et al. 1996). In which case, the size of the group would be an influential factor
(Gramann 1999). Another possibly influential factor which has received little attention is “how
the perceived need for mechanical noise may affect visitors’ evaluation” (Gramann, 1999, p. 10).
This has also been referred to as the purpose of flight (Booth et al 1999).
Considering all the research focusing on noise in recreational settings, one would think that it is a
significant problem. But in fact, most available research finds that aircraft noise, although
perceived as annoying, does not impact negatively on the overall recreational experience.
According to Miller (2008), an important distinction was made by a 1992 NPS study between 39
U.S. parks, between noise interference, which is a brief occurrence where visitors are exposed to
noise but which would stop when the sound expired, and noise annoyance which on the other
hand is an emotion which might linger for a while after the sound has ceased (ibid). However,
this distinction is not always evident in research on social impact of aircraft and noise research.
Tarrant et al. (1995) and Staples (1998) recognise that this can be problematic. They are
concerned that by focusing on one subjective measure (the measure of annoyance), user
responses to certain questions may be misunderstood. Staples states that “simply because visitors
say that they want to experience natural quiet and that noise interferes with this opportunity, does
not imply that they expect to experience natural quiet all the time, or that noise interferes with
their enjoyment all the time” (1998, p.1726). Additional critique of the assertiveness of the
scientific rigor which is embedded in the acoustical and psycho-acoustical research comes from
Miller (1999, p. 80): “Noise metrics do not always relate well to human experience. Too many
35
assumptions are contained in any metric and in any associated quantitative goal to expect that the
desired future condition will always be exactly defined by a few admittedly simple numbers”.
22..55..22 AAccttuuaall eeffffeecctt ooff nnooiissee oonn rreeccrreeaattiioonniissttss
There has been a considerable focus on the restorative properties of natural environments (see
Section 2.3.1). Kaplan (1995) argued that natural environments are widely used by people in need
of restoration, and the restorative properties are believed to be those of tranquillity, piece and
silence. According to Mace et al. (1999) more than 100 studies have found convincing evidence
that natural environments can aid people in recovering from stress and have stress-relieving
properties. A common conclusion is also that stress reduction is one of the major perceived
benefits of recreation in natural environments. As a possible explanation of this, it has been
argued (Ulrich 1993) that since humans evolved in a natural environment, the urban environment
with all its impressions and impulsions causes stress and humans are ‘programmed’ to best
restore from stress in natural settings. It is further believed that environmental stressors such as
noise pollution can interfere with this restoration process. Potentially then, people seeking
restoration in a natural environment can be deprived of the possibility to achieve restoration due
to say, noise pollution from aircraft. In theory, this could possibly lead to an adverse effect on
some peoples’ well-being (Mace et al. 1999).
Research falling into the category of psychological research, has been exploring other factors of
impact than the actual sound. Kariel (1990) compared data from 713 campground visitors in three
Canadian national parks to data from a group of 46 mountaineers he collected in a previous study
in 1980, and found that the mountaineers were significantly less tolerant of mechanical noise.
This indicated that different recreational groups have different expectations related to their
experience, and that different groups have different goals and objectives. Kariel found the
mountaineers to be more sensitive to mechanical and non-natural sounds than other campers, but
also more appreciative of natural sounds. On a side note, Kariel’s (1990) study found aircraft
noise to be the sixth most annoying sound to the participants, whereas chainsaws, motorised
trailbikes and cars produced the most annoying sounds.
36
22..66 CCOONNFFLLIICCTT BBEETTWWEEEENN UUSSEERR GGRROOUUPPSS –– IINNTTEERRPPEERRSSOONNAALL AANNDD SSOOCCIIAALL VVAALLUUEE CCOONNFFLLIICCTT
As previously noted, natural quiet and solitude are believed to be among the objectives and goals
of many recreationists (Gilden 2004; Ormsby, Moscardo, Pearce and Foxlee 2004). Noise
therefore, is often considered to prevent those who seek the silence and solitude of the wilderness
from achieving their recreational goals. As such, noise is a potential source of conflict and a lot of
the focus of research on motorised use of natural areas have thus been conflict oriented (Jacob
and Schreyer 1980; Carothers et al 2001; Vail and Heldt 2004). Studies on recreational conflict
are relevant for the current research because it has often been assumed that aircraft activity causes
recreational conflict (Tal 2004; Squires 2007; Garrard 2007; OSNZAC 2007; 2008; NZAC
2008).
Recreational conflict research has often focused on conflict between different user groups, which
is often referred to as interpersonal (Vaske et al. 1995; Carothers et al. 2001), inter-group
(Jackson 2001), or inter-activity conflict (Cessford 2003). Basically, this can occur when there
are different user-groups using the same space for recreation and one group’s needs interfere with
the other’s needs. Interpersonal conflict is often asymmetrical in the outset, meaning that usually
only one party perceives the situation as conflict (Stankey 1971 in Beeton 2006; Jackson and
Wong 1982; Stankey and Schreyer 1985; Wang and Dawson 2005). This is often illustrated with
non-motorised users such as hikers or skiers, encountering louder or faster users such as
mountainbikers, horse riders, or snowmobilers (Jackson & Wong 1982; Jackson 1986; Cessford
2003; Vail & Heldt 2004). Typically the conflict will become symmetrical when the initial
perceiver of conflict begins to take measures to end the conflict, such as lobbying against the
other user group. That typically leads to the other group perceiving conflict since it is threatening
their activity (Horn et al. 1994).
Other studies have found that conflicts arise because one user or user-group inhibits the other
from achieving their recreational goals, whether these are; experiencing natural quiet or solitude,
encountering wildlife, or simply using a specific area. This represents what is known as goal
interference (Jacob and Schreyer 1980). Later research has focused on differences in social
values which can lead to conflict. This concept is referred to as social values conflict and it is
thought to occur between users with different beliefs and values concerning the resource being
37
used (Vaske et al. 1995) and is also found to occur regardless of actual physical presence of the
other group or physical encounters (Vaske et al 1995; Carothers et al. 2001). ”If an event is not
observed and not considered to be a problem, no conflict is apparent. Similarly, if the event is not
observed but judged problematic, the evaluation must stem from a conflict of social values
(Carothers et al. 2001, pp. 57-58)”. Vaske et al. (1995) found evidence of such conflict between
hunters and non-hunters. The latter group perceived a conflict with the hunters without actually
encountering them or seeing evidence of hunting activity. Just knowing that it occurred, or
hearing gunshot was in some cases enough for conflict to be perceived. Sutton (1998) found
indications of social value conflict in relation to aircraft use in New Zealand, as some visitors
indicated annoyance with aircraft even though they had not encountered any on their current trip.
Conflicts amongst user-groups are indeed quite common, but often it does not occur even though
the requirements are there for conflict to take place. It is, like with all social phenomena, a
complex set of factors influencing recreational conflict. First-hand knowledge, or past
experience, about the other user group for instance, plays an important part (Beeton 1999; 2006;
Cessford 2003; Bradsher 2003). Cessford (2003) studied attitudes towards mountain bikers
amongst recreational walkers on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand, and found the
walkers “surprisingly positive towards bikers” (2003, p. 310), especially those walkers who had
actually encountered bikers. Those who had not encountered bikers, and thus had no first-hand
knowledge about them, had generally more negative opinions about them. These findings
coincide with findings from Beeton (1999; 2006) and Stankey (1971 in Beeton 2006), which all
indicate that backcountry users who actually experience encounters with other recreational
groups have less negative attitudes towards that specific group than users within the same group
who have not experienced such encounters.
Another explored concept related to conflict is that of territoriality or ownership (Beeton 1999;
2006). Beeton (1999) found that regular users of an area displayed a “strong sense of
proprietorship” (Beeton 2006, p. 49) of the area they frequent. Beeton suggested that the
frequency of visit needed not be more than once a year for users to display a strong sense of
territoriality.
38
Consistently, researchers have found indications of recreational conflict but in most research this
does not seem to inflict on the total recreational experience. Explaining the relationship between
conflict and user satisfaction has been a longstanding problem within research on outdoor
recreation conflict (Marcouiller et al. 2006). There are three probable reasons for this: 1) the fact
that most of the previous research has been of a quantitative nature, thus seeking to confirm
developed hypotheses, 2) researchers have realised that a person’s satisfaction with a recreation
experience is based on a complex set of factors, many of them psychological, and as such it is a
difficult area of investigation, and 3) a lot of the recreational research has been carried out by or
initiated by management agencies such as the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) or the
Department of Conservation (DOC). Such agencies have found quantifiable results more
applicable and useful for management purposes since they can provide measurable values which
also provide a foundation for baseline management values such as visitor satisfaction.
22..77 CCRROOWWDDIINNGG AANNDD DDIISSPPLLAACCEEMMEENNTT
The issues of crowding and displacement are considered plausible effects of increased number of
users of an area (and consequently, also as effects of aircraft as they can transport more users into
the area), and this concern can be found in the AMCNP Management Plan:
“The effect of large increases in numbers of overseas visitors, in addition to generating front-country physical and social impacts, is leading to displacement of existing recreational use into and within backcountry areas, with resultant crowding and other perceived impacts.” (DOC 2004, p.36)
Perception of crowding often occurs due to congestion, which have been detected on some of the
Great Walks in New Zealand on typical track bottlenecks (Cessford 1998). Crowding is usually
perceived when an increasing number of people use a limited geographical area and there is too
much, or unwanted interaction between users (Hall and Shelby 2000). Typically, congestion
happens at trailheads where users often inevitably have to congregate and often encounter other
user groups (Jacob and Schreyer 1980). Conflict has been found to occur in such areas, especially
if there are multiple user groups using the trail head (ibid). This is compounded by the
assumption that natural area users “place relatively high importance on having limited contact
with other groups while hiking and camping” (Lawson and Manning 2001, p. 22). Nevertheless,
even though many studies have focused on crowding in recreational settings, researchers have
39
found little correlation between crowding and satisfaction with the overall recreation experience
(Robertson and Regula 1994; Cessford 1998; Marcouiller et al. 2006)
It is often argued that crowding (and conflict) can lead to displacement of users. Hall and Shelby
(2000, p. 436) describe displacement as “the behavior of users who have frequented a site in the
past, become consciously dissatisfied with some type of change at the site and alter their behavior
in response”. Displacement is a topic that is not widely researched however, much due to the fact
that on-site quantitative studies (which most of conflict and social impact research is) cannot
survey those who have already been displaced. Robertson and Regula (1994) concluded in their
review of the current literature that past studies have not been successful in measuring
displacement.
In an attempt to increase the understanding of this phenomenon, Hall and Shelby (2000, pp. 436-
438) distinguished between three types of displacement:
1. Temporal displacement, which implies that users alter the timing of their visit in order to
cope with site changes. Typically they would visit at lower-use times. This coping
strategy does not enable users to adapt to permanent changes, but is common when the
site changes relate to crowding or increased use.
2. Spatial displacement, which implies that the user alter the site or location of their activity
in order to cope with site changes. This could be a reaction to several types of changes,
including crowding and permanent changes. Users can move to a new site within the same
destination or area (say, if users move to a new site within the same park area), which is
referred to as intra-site displacement, or they can move to a new destination or area
altogether. The latter is known as inter-site displacement.
3. Activity displacement, which refers to a situation where users who are adversely affected
by site changes, continue to use the site, but alter or change their activity as a coping
mechanism.
Defining the type of displacement is important if the concept is to be of particular value in terms
of either research or management. Kearsley and Coughlan found that “displacement requires two
factors, an unacceptable change in the recreation environment, and settings that are substitutable
40
for the one from which users have been displaced” (1999, p. 199). This is common for all three
typologies.
22..88 SSUUMMMMAARRYY
This chapter has described previous research that is of relevance to this research. Given the
exploratory nature of the current research, it bridges several fields of study. Thus, eight main
topics of relevance have been identified and discussed (see Section 2.1).
Besides describing these topics which provide important background information for this
research, this chapter has identified some gaps in the existing research. It has shown that not
much has previously been revealed about the meaning of the use of aircraft in natural areas such
as national parks, or how it affects park users. Nor does previous research provide much
understanding as to why aircraft use cause annoyance, or why any potential annoyance often does
not cause significant impairment on user experiences. The lack of aspiration to understand the
positive effects of aircraft use, or other motorised uses of natural areas, is also evident, as no
research focusing on such effects could be found. There has also been an undiversified focus on
the effects of aircraft on recreational users, while few, if any, studies has taken professional users
such as guides and their clients (who could well be considered recreationists) into account.
This chapter has also provided a background for the understanding of conflict in relation to
recreational use, and aircraft use of natural areas. This review has shown that conflict as a result
of aircraft use is not overly common in New Zealand but that aircraft use does cause some
annoyance. It has also shown that in New Zealand, high levels of annoyance with aircraft do not
adversely affect users’ total trip satisfaction. This corresponds with findings from conflict and
crowding research which also conclude that even though crowding and conflict occur to a
relatively high degree, people are usually not adversely affected. This assumption is based on the
fact that none of the reviewed studies found any significance between total trip satisfaction and
level of crowding or conflict. This leads many to believe that annoyance with conflict, crowding
or aircraft noise is a fluctuant reaction which usually passes when the annoying factor disappears
(USDA 1992 in Booth et al 1999).
41
Chapter 3. MMeetthhooddoollooggyy
33..11 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN
This research is a qualitative study employing in-depth interviews as primary method of
gathering information. This method was to some extent accompanied by an analysis of
documents and news reports. This qualitative approach was chosen due to the exploratory nature
of the research question. The interview participant selection was largely done through the process
commonly known as ‘snowballing’ (Glesne 1999). The focus was to recruit people with
extensive experience with either (a) guiding in, or (b) actively recreating in the AMCNP which
neither had to use aircraft nor be in opposition to the use of aircraft.
The focus of the study reflected the research interest of the author, and was determined after
initial conversations with DOC management staff (of the AMCNP) and from information
gathered in the first few interviews with professional mountain guides. It is often recommended
to use multiple methods to collect data (Stake 2005), and that idea was adopted by the researcher
at an early stage of the project. As such, besides the in-depth interviews, also news searches,
reviews of relevant literature such as management reports and research publications from DOC,
and several personal conversations with DOC management were carried out in order to collect
data. However, these methods produced information that was more useful to the researcher as a
backdrop for the fieldwork and analysis process, but did not yield much information that directly
concerns the research objectives.
This chapter will now proceed to discuss the choice of research approach, followed by a
presentation of methods used in previous research concerned with social effects of aircraft use in
New Zealand natural areas. Subsequently, an outline of the ethical considerations, and the ethics
approval granted by the Head of Department of Tourism, will be given before the carrying out of
the research is described and discussed. This chapter is finalised by the discussion of the
subjectivity and limitations of the study, where also a description of the researcher will be
presented due to the influence of the researcher on the design, implementation and analysis
processes.
42
33..22 RREESSEEAARRCCHH AAPPPPRROOAACCHH
Qualitative research involves studying phenomena in their natural settings and values the
collection of rich description of the social world, for example through detailed interviewing,
observation or participation (Denzin and Lincoln 1994).
The epistemological stance/perspective of the research is in the phenomenological tradition (Gray
2004), as the researcher has taken an interpretive approach with the aim to unlock the
participants’ experiences of aircraft use in the AMCNP and also seek to understand the meanings
which they apply to their use of aircraft. As such, it applies a qualitative research approach. This
implies that the phenomenon, or objective of study, is studied in its natural setting and that the
researcher pursues rich and detailed information in order to explore and explain it (Denzin and
Lincoln 1994). Common methods of choice are in-depth interviews, observation and participation
(ibid).
As discussed earlier, previous research in this field has applied a rather narrow focus either on
measuring the acoustic level of aircraft sound or focusing on visitor annoyance as primary factor
of social effect of aircraft. In a methodological review of the NPS monitoring of park
soundscapes over the last two decades, Miller (2008) describes the function and limitation of
quantitative research methods:
"Quantification, even based on any amount of rigorously collected and analyzed data (called science), cannot provide answers to the fundamental question. [...] Quantification does, however, aid in building a series of logical steps that can be documented and defended. Quantification can permit using objective procedures to monitor progress - eliminating human judgement once the qualitative goals are established" (Miller 2008, p. 79-80).
As mentioned earlier (see Section 2.4), the New Zealand research concerned with effect of
aircraft in natural settings has largely been inspired by the NPS research using a quantitative
approach. Such approaches emphasise measurement and are poorly equipped to capture in-depth
information related to personal feelings or behaviour (Denzin and Lincoln 1994). Thus, in order
to achieve the aims and objectives of this research, an exploratory approach seemed most
appropriate. This is also suggested by Cresswell who states that “if a concept or phenomenon
needs to be understood because there is little research that has been done on it, then it merits a
qualitative approach” (2003, p. 22). Qualitative research is also useful for exploring phenomena
43
in which the important variables are not known to the researcher (Cresswell 2003), which
certainly was the case for this research.
The choice of a research design related to the phenomenological tradition is validated when
considering Kvale’s (2007) outline of the essence of a phenomenological approach in the
following quote in which many of the terms apply to the current research:
“Key terms used in describing the mode of understanding of [a phenomenological approach include] experience, consciousness, meaning, interpretation, and human interrelations. […] Within phenomenological and hermeneutical philosophy, these terms have been the subject of systematic reflection” (Kvale 2007, p. 20).
Even though the methods used for this study to a certain degree follow a phenomenological
approach, the focus has not been to create a phenomenological study per se, but rather use some
aspects of phenomenological method combined with a suitable approach for this particular case.
Qualitative methods are recognised as being flexible in terms of methods and style (Walle 1997;
Berg 1998), which makes sense since they are relying to such a degree on the perceptions of the
researcher, which will be discussed in Section 3.6.1. Comparing to a quantitative approach, “one
of the drawbacks of employing rigorous, scientifically acceptable definitions lies in the nature of
society and humankind; strict guidelines for research often require the scholar to refrain from
using insight, intuition, and other non-rigorous knowledge” (Walle 1997, p. 525). Qualitative
researchers also have to maintain methodological flexibility since no case of study is the same
and specific research conditions can never be recreated. Embarking on research, the researcher is
advised to only have a rough plan of the fieldwork (Cresswell 1998), thus taking an inductive
approach which allows for flexibility and takes into account what the researcher does not know
and what has yet to happen. In comparison, a detailed plan of the fieldwork is more an attribute
of the deductive researcher. The exploratory nature of the current study has required a flexible
fieldwork schedule given the difficulty of knowing how many interviews it was possible to
undertake, and how much and what kind of information they would yield. In addition, it has been
challenging to time interviews with especially the guides, as they would embark on a trip in ‘a
minute’s notice’ based on weather and client demand.
Other factors also pointed towards choosing a qualitative approach in order to achieve the aims
and objectives of this study. One significant factor is the obtainable sample size. For comparison,
44
Squires (2007) applied quantitative methods for surveying climbers in the MANP, and in many
instances found the sample size too small to be statistically significant, particularly so for the sub-
questions which are often designed to yield some understanding as to the “why” of the research.
The number of climbers and guides with extensive experience with the AMCNP somewhat limit
the number of participants available for this research. Also, the fact that they had to be available
for an interview at a time that suited both parties lowered the number of participants. A
qualitative approach is well suited to obtain rich detailed information from a small sample size
and is also beneficial when there are many unknown factors, as it is exploratory in nature and
have the ability to extract new information (Gray 2004).
For this research, in-depth semi-structured interviews were chosen as the preferred method for
gathering information. ‘Semi-structured’ implies using an interview guide (see Appendix 4 for
the interview guides used in this study) which ensures that the same topics will be addressed in a
similar manner in each interview (Bryman 2004), while also allowing for ‘probing’ questions
during the interview based on the interest the interviewer takes in what the participant is talking
about. Thus, no interviews are the same and they can address a wide range of issues based on
how the participants’ storyline unfold (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). The structure also allows for
comparison across interviews, which is useful for sorting the material into themes (Jordan and
Gibson 2004). An in-depth interview is ideal for exploring how people relate to, and experience a
specific phenomenon such as the use of aircraft in the AMCNP. That is because “at the root of in-
depth interviews is an interest in understanding the experience of other people and the meaning
they make of that experience” (Seidman 1998, p. 3). Denscombe (2003) suggest using interviews
as research method when the participants are key players in the field and can provide “privileged
information” (2003, p. 165). This type of information is particularly valuable since it typically
cannot be obtained from other participants. This research involves participants who possess in-
depth knowledge and understanding of the AMCNP and its use and as such, follow this advice.
A disadvantage of using qualitative methods is that the findings cannot be generalised in the same
way as quantitative studies often aspire to, because qualitative studies usually involve a smaller
and not randomised participant sample. Detailed, in-depth data is difficult to generalise and apply
to other cases which might be similar. Thus, a qualitative study aspires to provide detailed
exploration and new knowledge about a particular case (Berg 2007). If enough detail is given
45
about the circumstances surrounding the execution of the research, readers can decide themselves
whether the research (and which parts of the research) can be applied elsewhere (Denscombe
2003).
33..33 PPRREEVVIIOOUUSS RREESSEEAARRCCHH MMEETTHHOODDSS AAPPPPLLIIEEDD TTOO TTHHEE FFIIEELLDD OOFF SSTTUUDDYY
This section will give an overview of methods used by other research in relation to social effects
of aircraft use in the Southern Alps. As noted in Section 2.4.2, much of the research done in later
years in New Zealand has been following a framework for research on the effect of aircraft
activity on recreational users of natural areas in New Zealand, developed for DOC by Booth et al.
in 1997 (Booth et al. 1999; Garrard 2005). This monitoring system is designed to be carried out
by DOC staff on site, and the monitoring method is a questionnaire/survey. Consequently, the
research carried out under this framework is quantitative, but the framework allows for comments
and other qualitative information to be gathered. The questionnaire is based around the following
issues:
- general likes and dislikes;
- whether aircraft were noticed during the visit;
- number of aircraft noticed during the visit;
- experience compared with expectations;
- estimate of aircraft threshold level;
- reaction to aircraft—positive, negative, or neutral;
- extent of annoyance; and
- extent to which aircraft have affected total visit enjoyment. Source: Booth et al. (1999, p. 8)
Booth et al. (1999) also undertook research in order to create the above mentioned monitoring
system. This research was more exploratory in nature since its purpose was to identify issues
relevant to social impact of aircraft use, issues that could be targeted by the quantitative
monitoring system. Based on the notion that an increase in both aviation and recreation activity in
natural areas will increase potential for conflict between ground based users and aircraft users
and lead to a decline in visitor satisfaction, Booth et al. (1999) insisted that “visitors’ reactions to
46
aircraft need to be identified and measured” (p. 7). In order to do this and effectively managing
the use of aircraft, Booth et al. designed the aircraft monitoring exercise as a tool.
DOC began an aircraft monitoring programme in the AMCNP in 1998 based on the above
mentioned method, designed to survey visitors’ experience of their visit with particular attention
to the effect of aircrafts. So far this research has been effective for assessing the frontcountry
users, but some limitations have become evident however. The personal interview survey method
used in this programme has yielded good results when used in a frontcountry setting, but DOC
has still to develop a rewarding method for use in the higher, more remote regions of the park
(the back-country areas) (ref: R. Bellringer pers. comment.), such as the high alpine huts.
Consequently, there are gaps in the knowledge of the social aspects and impacts of aircraft usage
in the backcountry areas of the AMCNP. Also, as noted in Section 1.6, these studies have not
provided a great understanding as to why/why not people experience annoyance, nor of the
meaning park users attach to the use of aircraft. These are some of the research gaps that the aims
and objectives of this research are based upon (see Section 1.7). In addition, it appears that these
studies (Garrard 2005; Squires 2007) rely somewhat on the commentary fields to provide
meaning, depth and understanding in relation to some of the research questions. Compared to an
in-depth interview these commentary fields do not yield much information. Also, for many of the
sub-questions of the surveys, the population can become too small to be statistically significant.
Consequently, while serving a number of management purposes, these studies often provide
mostly indications (contrary to the general aim of quantitative studies which is to provide
‘evidence’) for some of the research questions they pose, without providing any in-depth
understanding. In comparison, a qualitative study such as this, recognises its inability to
generalise and to provide evidence, but rather takes advantage of this using its ability to gain a
fuller, in-depth understanding of the case of study.
33..44 RREESSEEAARRCCHH EETTHHIICCSS AAPPPPRROOVVAALL
All research involving participants raises some ethical concerns. “The core idea of research ethics
is that one cannot justify imposing burdens on subjects simply by appealing either to gains to
others or to the service of some abstract goal, like the promotion of knowledge” (Tolich 2001, p.
14). As such, all research should to take all measures necessary to ensure the participants do not
47
suffer any consequences due to their taking part in the study. This involves ensuring participant
confidentiality, anonymity and well-being. To safeguard the practice of ethically sound research
at the University of Otago, all research involving participants require ethics approval directly or
indirectly through the University of Otago Ethics Committee.
For this particular study, an ethics approval category B was gained from the University of Otago
at Department level (see Appendix 5 for the Ethics Proposal for this study including the
participants’ information sheet and consent form). The biggest ethical concern of this study was
related to participant confidentiality. “Confidentiality in research implies that private data
identifying the subjects will not be reported. If a study does publish information potentially
recognizable to others, the subjects need to agree on the release of identifiable information”
(Kvale 2007, p. 27). As such, even though the names of the participants in this study are
pseudonyms (as described elsewhere), and their true identity is only known to the researcher,
their identity might still be recognisable by others through the information released in the study.
That is particularly true in a study such as this where the participants are members of a relatively
small and close-knit community. Thus, no details involving work place, particular feats that are
recognisable, age, place of living, and other similar details, are revealed in this thesis.
33..55 CCAARRRRYYIINNGG OOUUTT TTHHEE RREESSEEAARRCCHH
The choosing of the research topic is described in Section 1.6 and the selection of research
method is described in Section 3.2. This section will proceed to explain what was done in order to
carry out the research.
33..55..11 PPrreeppaarraattiioonn ooff tthhee ffiieellddwwoorrkk
In order to carry out research in relation to a national park, approval has to be sought from DOC.
The research proposal was sent to the DOC Aoraki/Mount Cook Area Manager who approved of
this research taking place. A preliminary meeting with Community Relations Manager for
AMCNP, R. Bellringer, was held the 7th
of July 2009, with the objective to determine the focus
of the research further. The main topic; social aspects of aircraft use in the AMCNP, was already
chosen, but further in-depth information was needed in order to pinpoint the aims and objectives
48
of the research. This meeting provided the researcher with a greater understanding of the social
conditions in the AMCNP, and the level of use. In addition, it led to the conclusion that a focus
on the higher altitude areas was desirable. According to R. Bellringer (pers. com.), DOC has no
methodology for researching social impact or aircraft annoyance of the higher huts due to the
logistic difficulties involved with surveying or having an interviewer permanently placed on
location of the higher huts. Consequently, qualitative interviews are considered a good approach
for researching the users of the back-country areas, which mostly are mountain guides and
recreational climbers and ski-tourers.
In order to contact and recruit participants from the professional guide community, a letter was
sent to all International Federation of Mountain Guides Association (IFMGA) guides and all ski
guides in the NZMGA directory (see Appendix 6 for this letter), with the exception of those who
were listed as living outside either Otago, Canterbury, Southland or Westland. A total of 67
letters were sent to mountain guides (on August 20th
) with an enclosed prepaid envelope to
ensure ease of response. In addition the recipients were encouraged to respond via email. This
approach yielded 8 positive responses by email and another 5 positive responses using the
prepaid envelope. The final selection of these happened more or less by chance as there were
logistical difficulties involved with arranging some of the interviews. After the eighth interview it
was decided that the collected material was large, and rich in information, and the focus needed
to be shifted towards completing the recreationist interviews.
In order to recruit recreational climber participants, two approaches were used. A letter was sent
to three NZAC sections, the Otago, Canterbury and Westland Sections (see Appendix 7 for this
letter). This letter asked the regional sections to notify mountaineers and ski-tourers through their
newsletter and meetings about this research and pass on the researcher’s contact details to those
interested. This approach did not result in any participants recruiting themselves. The other
approach involved using the method of ‘snowballing’ (Glesne 1999) in order to find participants.
In this case, climbers (and members of the NZAC) that were known to the researcher and his
supervisor, were approached and asked if they had extensive experience in the AMCNP, and if
they wanted to participate in the research. In either case they were asked if they knew of any
suitable participants based on the criteria outlined for them. This approach resulted in a number
of names. These individuals were then approached by telephone and asked if they wanted to
49
participate in the research. Due to time constraints and difficulties with finding possible
participants that were in the vicinity of Dunedin, the number of recreational participants turned
out lower than that of professional participants.
33..55..22 TThhee ppaarrttiicciippaannttss
The research participants were selected based on their knowledge of, and experience in the
AMCNP (see Table 1 for participant details). These criteria were set in order to ensure the
selection of “respondents who are strategically located to shed light on the larger forces and
processes under investigation” (Gearson and Horowitz 2002, p. 204). The participants of the
study are made anonymous and the names presented are pseudonyms derived from the sequence
the interviews were carried out in. The name of the participant from the first interview starts with
an A, and the name of the second interviewee starts with a B and so on.
The guide participants naturally have a vast experience and have thus likely reflected on the
issues brought forth in the interviews. For that reason, it was important to balance that with
experienced recreational users who would also likely have reflected on these issues. So, both user
groups are represented by people with multiple experiences, which to a certain degree can make
up for a relatively low sample size. Instead of data based on a vast number of participants with
perhaps little experience of, and reflection on relevant issues (which could be the case with a
random sample research), this research is based on data from a small population, with extensive
experience with aircraft use in the AMCNP. It is important to note however, that while the
professional participants are only referred to as being guides, they too were recreational climbers
before they became guides and most of them practice recreational climbing in their spare time.
50
TABLE 1: Presentation of participants
Participant
pseudonym User group Description
Length of
interview
Adam Guide Fully qualified IFMGA guide and involved in
management of a guide company. Not so
active in AMCNP in recent years
0:20:39
Bill Guide Fully qualified IFMGA guide with extensive
experience from AMCNP over many years,
and involved in management of a guide
company
0:24:30
Chris Guide Fully qualified IFMGA guide with extensive
experience from AMCNP and abroad over
many years
1:14:20
Dave Guide Fully qualified IFMGA guide with extensive
experience from AMCNP
0:52:29
Evan Recr. climber Many years of experience in AMCNP and
elsewhere. Involved in recr. organisation
1:27:39
Fritz Guide Avid climber and experienced guide.
Certified NZMGA ski guide. Extensive
experience from AMCNP
0:44:25
Glen Guide Fully qualified IFMGA guide with extensive
experience from most of the Southern Alps
0:52:12
Hamish Guide Fully qualified IFMGA guide with extensive
experience from most of the Southern Alps
over many years
0:33:12
Ian Guide Fully qualified IFMGA guide with extensive
experience from most of the Southern Alps
over many years
0:26:27
Jeff Recreational
climber/ski tourer
Experienced and active, currently in training
to becoming a mountain guide
0:49:56
Kate Recreational
climber/ski tourer
Quite active and experienced 0:51:48
Lisa Recreational
mountaineer/ski
tourer
Describes herself as “trans-alpine tramper”.
Quite experienced and active, prefer remote
settings
0:55:19
Marcus Recreational
climber
Avid and very experienced alpine climber
and rock climber with many years
experience. Not so active in AMCNP in
recent years
0:42:11
51
33..55..33 IInntteerrvviieewwss
The interviews were carried out during the months of September, October and November in
2008. The majority of them took place at the participant’s own residence, and some either at their
workplace or at an arranged place such as a café. A few were also conducted at the University of
Otago campus, due to its central location in Dunedin. Most of the guide interviews were
conducted during four trips to Mt Cook Village, Twizel and Wanaka, while some were conducted
in Dunedin. The recreational participant interviews were all conducted in Dunedin.
Before the commencing of all interviews the participants were given a participant information
sheet to read before they were asked to read and (if they approved of the conditions) sign a
participant consent form (both the information sheet and the consent form can be found in
Appendix 5, as part of the ethics proposal). This procedure was carried out before every interview
took place. All participants were made well aware of their rights and that sensitive details would
remain confidential.
The researcher developed two interview guides (one for each group) before the first interview
took place. These interview guides were designed as semi structured, thus making them flexible
enough to allow for discussion and input from the participants. This flexibility is useful as it
permits new knowledge to surface instead of simply confirming or invalidating existing
assumptions/hypothesizes (Denscombe 2003). The two sets were designed similarly in order to
gain understanding of different points of view on the same topics, and for sake of comparison.
The intention of the interviews was to stimulate the participants to provide rich information and
allow their own ideas and opinions to come forth. Semi-structured interviews “allow interviewees
to use their own words and develop their own thoughts” (Denscombe 2003, p. 167). This is
important because “allowing interviewees to ‘speak their minds’ is a better way of discovering
things about complex issues” (ibid). After the first two interviews the interview guides were
altered somewhat, based on the information the interviews yielded and how they worked in the
interview situation. The recreationist interview guide was also revised somewhat after the first
recreationist interview. The interview guides used with both the professional and the recreational
participants are included in Appendix 4.
52
All interviews were recorded using a digital voice recorder and backups were made on the
researcher’s personal computer. Notes were also taken during and after the interviews. The
interviews were later transcribed word for word, although some sections which obviously had no
relevance for the research were left out due to time constraints. Notes indicating the elapsed time
of the recording were embedded in the text after each ‘section’ of the recording, usually at the
end of a statement. The first seven interviews were transcribed by the researcher himself, while
the remaining six were transcribed by a research assistant. These were transcribed word for word
however, so that only the researcher could determine what parts were important to the research.
As noted above, the interviews took place at several locations. The atmosphere of the interviews
at the participants’ residences was perceived by the researcher as significantly more relaxed than
that of someone’s workplace, or a coffee shop. Presumably, the comfort of one’s own home and
lack of time pressure from factors of the workplace, gave the participants the ability to relax and
really engage in the interview. The research really benefited from the good atmosphere of most of
the interviews and several participants also expressed that they had enjoyed the interview and
found it interesting. This suggests that those who responded to the participant request feel
strongly about the subject of research. The potential for bias this may represent will be discussed
in Section 3.6.
33..55..44 NNeewwss sseeaarrcchh
As previously noted, an extensive news search was carried out using online search engines,
Otago Daily Times (ODT) online (http://www.odt.co.nz), and by examining previous editions of
Climber Magazine (an NZAC publication) and the OSNZAC newsletter (which can be found
online at http://alpineclub.org.nz/default/247). Using the online search engines and the ODT
website, several key words were used. These were: Aircraft, Aoraki/Mount Cook, AMCNP,
conflict, landings, helicopter, ski-plane, and search and rescue. Other words were also used in
order to compliment those listed, but to a lesser degree. The search was applied to a date range
going approximately six years back in time (from July 2008).
The news search did not produce much information directly related to the research, as the
majority of articles found were related to SAR operations. A few news articles however, were
53
related to illegal helicopter activity and landings outside of the AMCNP, but they were still
relevant to this case as they suggested something about attitudes towards aircraft activity in
natural areas (as well as highlighting some points of conflict). The most valuable aspect of these
articles and publications were perhaps their usefulness in the interview setting since the
participants often referred to cases which had been covered by especially the NZAC publications.
The article and news search thus provided the researcher with some knowledge about these cases,
which in turn proved to have a positive impact on the interview in that the participants often
revealed more when they learned that the researcher had some knowledge about issues relating to
mountaineering in New Zealand.
33..55..55 AAnnaallyyssiiss
In order to sort the findings, the interview transcripts were read through several times, each time
with a new objective or research theme in mind. These themes were determined by the research
aims and objectives (see Section 1.7) and the social aspects identified by the literature search,
which the literature review is based upon (see Section 2.1). For example, the researcher would
read all transcripts with the intention to find comments related to benefits of aircraft use, or how
aircraft affects the user experience. This sorting benefited from the semi-structure of the
interviews, as they tended to deal with one topic at the time. However, in relation to the more
abstract topics, such as attitude towards aircraft use, important findings were likely to be
dispersed throughout the interview.
The findings were then gathered in the main document below subheadings indicating the theme
under which they fit. This process involved copying quotes from the transcripts and writing a
paragraph about the context from which they were taken. Great care was taken to gather similar
quotes from different interviews under one paragraph, while making sure the associated text (the
paragraph) was suited to describe all quotes. A decision was made to implement many, and rather
large quotes, as the interviews were very rich. This also prevents misleading use of quotes (e.g.
using quotes out of context) and it enables the reader to consider the discussion and conclusion
based on a solid understanding of the findings. As such, a substantial presentation of the findings
provides transparency to the research and also allow for further application of the data. The
findings are presented in Chapter 4.
54
In order to meet the aims and objectives of the research, the findings were then discussed in
relation to the aims and objectives, and conclusions and recommendations were made. This work
is presented in Chapter 5.
33..66 RREESSEEAARRCCHH BBIIAASS,, SSUUBBJJEECCTTIIVVIITTYY AANNDD LLIIMMIITTAATTIIOONNSS
All research stems from the subjective perspective of a researcher and develops more subjectivity
and bias with every decision and every bit of information gathered. This constitutes limitations in
the research which it is important to be aware of.
Probably the most obvious bias is the small participant sample size, as only 13 interviews were
undertaken. The smaller the sample size, the less plausible is a generalisation to the grouping that
the sample is supposed to represent. However, this is a qualitative study and thus, its strengths are
not in generalisations but in gathering in-depth information about the case at hand. Given the
experience and position of the participants, it is likely that the information is rich enough to
provide a thorough understanding of the case. This is also somewhat evident since the
interviewees began repeating each other after three or four interviews, and that the recorded
information corresponded well on a number of topics.
Another important bias is the fact that the professional participants outnumber the recreationists
by eight to five. This was not intentional but caused by time limits and difficulties getting hold of
possible participants. Also, considering that the guides have more experience using aircraft might
have caused a skewed representation of how the participants perceive aircraft use and the
associated benefits and disadvantages. Another related bias is that guides do this for a living, and
consequently, one cannot consider their experience a recreational experience. Thus, the
comparison between user groups in this regard becomes a little flawed. This potential bias is
addressed by presenting the findings divided group by group, so that the reader gets an
impression of the differences between them.
One interesting aspect of the study which might represent a bias is that the issue of aircraft use in
natural areas has many negative connotations, possibly due to some negative coverage in NZAC
publications and also previous research which have not examined positive aspects of aircraft use.
It is a sensitive issue to many, and in many areas it is surrounded by conflict and negative debate.
55
The inherent problem is that some participants assume that the researcher is looking at negative
impacts of aircraft use and enter into the process posing a certain stance based on the direction
they assume the researcher is coming from. Due to this, on one occasion the researcher
experienced that the participant was expecting questions of conflict and other negative aspects of
aircraft use. Other participants could also have had such expectations, but they did not express
this. It was expected that such attitudes could arise and great care was taking to formulate
information letters and invitation letters so that no mentioning of negative impact occurred. In
fact, the word impact was found to have too many connotations itself, so ‘social aspects of
aircraft usage’ was the preferred wording. In preparation for each interview the participant was
given a short summary of the research approach, and given a chance to ask questions. Some
participants were curious to the approach of the research, and in these instances great care was
taken to explain the exploratory nature of the research and that it was not its objective to
pronounce aircraft use in the AMCNP as having either negative or positive impacts. Rather, it
was explained that one of the central ideas of the research was to be open to explore all social
aspects of aircraft usage, taking care to also allow for positive aspects to be explored.
All of the participants have utilised aircraft for access in the AMCNP and thus, there were no true
opponents to aircraft use in the study. This represents some bias, but considering that most of the
climbing in the AMCNP is aided by aircraft transport, the sample can still be said to represent the
majority of users, to the degree that a qualitative study can represent a wider population.
As mentioned in Section 3.5.3, there is the possibility that those who responded to the research
request feel strongly about the subject of research and this can represent a bias. It was apparent
however, that most participants were able to discuss the topic from several points of view and
that they possess a lot of knowledge of the subject. It was also the aim of the study to acquire
participants that were key players (Denscombe 2003) in the field of study. As such, the findings
should be fairly balanced, although they do of course represent subjective points of views.
The ultimate subjectivity of most research is the perspective of the researchers themselves. The
researcher ultimately decides what to select from the transcripts, what themes to assemble, what
to present as findings, how the discussion is constructed, and finally, he decides what conclusions
56
can be drawn from the study. To aid the understanding of how the researcher has influenced this
study, the role of the researcher is presented thoroughly in the following section.
33..66..11 TThhee rroollee ooff tthhee rreesseeaarrcchheerr
Social researchers have come to terms with the fact that qualitative research is not objective and
that any information will be significantly affected by the researcher’s ‘self’. Consequently, the
researcher’s self needs to be taken into account when analysing the data (Denscombe 2003). This
is particularly true when information is gathered by conducting interviews. Denscombe refers to
this as the ‘the interviewer effect’. “Interviewees, and interviewers come to that, have their own
preferences and prejudices, and these are likely to have some impact on the chances of
developing rapport and trust during an interview” (2003, p. 170). This taken into account,
interviews carried out for this research have been affected by the researcher’s personality and
identity, and for that reason it is important to outline a few characteristics of the researcher which
possibly have influenced the research (Glesne 1999).
The researcher is from Norway and has a recreational background grounded in Norwegian
outdoor traditions. The Norwegian outdoors traditions are based on ideals of simplicity,
sustainability and non-mechanised recreation and activities such as trekking and cross-country
skiing have been an integrated part of the ‘Norwegian identity’ for more than a century. As
motorised transport is prohibited in natural areas in Norway (with the exception of utility or
commercially based concessions, given to reindeer farmers, hut owners and, naturally, SAR),
recreational or commercial use of aircrafts, snowmobiles, 4WD’s or ATV’s is not allowed in the
outdoors with the exception of designated snowmobiling trails which are in high demand. This,
together with the ideals of our outdoor traditions has contributed to a strong practice of non-
motorised outdoors recreation in Norway.
Coming from this point of view, the New Zealand outdoor traditions where access to back-
country areas can be achieved by motorised means was originally somewhat difficult to
comprehend. However, after a year of experience living and recreating in New Zealand, some
comprehension of the different conditions in the two countries had been reached. In addition the
researcher spent a summer working for DOC in South Canterbury, involved in recreational
57
research in a newly established conservation park. This experience also contributed to the
researcher’s understanding of New Zealand recreational conditions and culture, which has been
invaluable for this research.
The fact that the researcher is a foreigner with English not being his first language, can cause an
interviewee to assume that the researcher does not have a full understanding of New Zealand
conditions, which is absolutely true. This can in many ways affect the interview and the
information it generates. Firstly, it may cause the interviewee to elaborate excessively in order to
provide a contextual explanation. But it may also cause some reservation if the interviewee
senses a lack of understanding in the researcher’s objectives and insight. In some interviews the
researcher felt a need to ‘prove’ himself in order to create some common ground between the two
parties. A similar notion was picked up in relation to familiarity with climbing and
mountaineering and the AMCNP area itself. In some instances it seemed like the participant was
hesitant in choice of words and what to say due to his/her lack of knowledge of the researcher’s
insight into issues regarding mountaineering and the AMCNP. Again, the researcher sometimes
felt a need to ‘prove’ his knowledge of mountaineering in order for the participant to fully open
up. When the participants learned that the researcher had a moderate climbing background, had
participated in mountaineering in the AMCNP, and lived in New Zealand for some time, they
seemed more assured that they were being understood and also seemed to become more
interested in the dialog and the research. This confirmation of the researcher’s knowledge was
sometimes prompted by a question from the interviewees side, such as; “are you familiar with the
area?”. For those reasons the ethnicity and background of the researcher (except the climbing
background usually) was usually mentioned before the interview commenced.
33..66..22 LLiimmiittaattiioonnss ooff tthhee ssttuuddyy
This research presents recreational climbers and professional guides as the two major user groups
of the high alpine areas of the AMCNP. There is one other important user group however, and
that is the guided clients. There are no clients represented in this study and therefore this research
will not claim to have explored guided clients’ experiences by any means. The guides can
provide some insight into their experience, but not at all to a full extent. The clients are not
represented because it was considered sufficient to only get the recreational climbers’ and
58
mountain guides’ views in relation to this study, since they can draw on numerous experiences,
not just one experience which would be the case with most clients.
It is also important to be aware that the results of this study cannot be generalised to apply to
other areas with similar conditions. It is a qualitative case study and that implies that it is meant
to provide in-depth understanding of this particular case.
33..77 SSUUMMMMAARRYY
This chapter has presented the research approach and the methods used in order to achieve the
aims and objectives of this study which are to:
1. explore the complex issue of how recreational and professional users of the AMCNP
relate to the use of aircraft;
2. explore how aircraft affects users’ experiences in the AMCNP;
3. establish the benefits and disadvantages of aircraft use in the AMCNP;
4. investigate if aircraft use is a source of conflict in the AMCNP;
5. disclose any issues of conflict between mountain guides and recreational users of the
AMCNP.
As shown in this chapter, the study is based in the phenomenological tradition as it is an
exploratory study of a particular case or phenomenon, being social aspects of aircraft use in the
AMCNP. The study applied in-depth semi structured interviews as the main method of gathering
information because this method is well suited for exploratory studies which involve a number of
unknown factors. Thirteen interviews were undertaken in order to provide rich information about
this particular case. The participants were divided in two groups; professional users (mountain
guides) and recreational users (recreational climbers and ski-tourers). The interviews were
transcribed verbatim and the quote sections (and their contexts) of interest were sorted after
themes relating to the aims and objectives of the research and the topics identified in the literature
review. These sections constitute the research findings and are presented in the following chapter.
59
Chapter 4. FFiinnddiinnggss
44..11 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN
This chapter will present the findings from the interviews. First, it presents the mountain
professionals’ relation to aircraft use and their opinions on issues related to aircraft use (Section
4.2). Second, it presents the recreationists’ use of aircraft and their opinion on issues related to
the use of aircraft (Section 4.3). The findings from the two user groups are organised and
presented in separate sections, thus allowing the reader to examine findings from either group in
a structured manner.
The findings are structured in order to directly relate to the aims and objectives of the study. In
order to understand this relation, a repetition of these is perhaps necessary. The research aim is to
explore the complex issue of how recreational and professional users of the AMCNP relate to the
use of aircraft. To achieve this aim the objectives of the study are to:
1. establish the benefits and disadvantages of aircraft use in the AMCNP;
2. explore how aircraft affects users’ experiences in the AMCNP;
3. investigate if aircraft use is a source of conflict in the AMCNP;
4. disclose any issues of conflict between mountain guides and recreational users of the
AMCNP.
The main aim of the research relates to all findings from this research. The first objective relates
to findings concerning what participants consider benefits and disadvantages of aircraft use
(Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, and also 4.3.2 and 4.3.3); the second objective relate mainly to findings
concerning participants’ perception of aircraft effect on user experiences (Sections 4.2.4 and
4.3.4); the third objective relates to findings concerning the participants attitudes towards, and
acceptance of aircraft use (Sections 4.2.5 and 4.2.6, and also 4.3.5 and 4.3.6); and the fourth
relates to findings concerning the relationship between guided and recreational parties in the
AMCNP (Section 4.4). The discussion concerning these findings takes place in Chapter 5.
The findings also reflect the topics that were covered in the interviews. This is considered to be
the most appropriate way to present the findings as they will be less out of context than if they
60
were fully rearranged. The data from the interview process will be presented by using quotes.
This is thought to give the reader a good idea of the interviews and also give the reader a chance
to make his or her own interpretations of the data. Also, there is hardly any better way of
presenting someone’s opinions and experiences than using his or her own words. The participant
quotes that are presented in this chapter are used either to show the diversity of opinions; because
they embody a particularly strong point; or to show how many of the participants agree with a
certain point. Often, one quote will present much the same view as the previous, but introduce
additional information which adds to the understanding of the complexity of the relevant issue.
The reader will sometimes notice that if a particular point of view is shared by many, the author
will refer to that with statements like “some of the guides…”, “many of the guides…” or several
of the recreationists…”. It is a deliberate decision by the author not to emphasise exact numbers
since they are irrelevant in this context. That is because a population size this small would not
yield any statistical significance and because the strength of a qualitative study lies in the depth
and coverage of meaning, not in quantifiable data (Davenport and Borrie 2005). Another reason
is that other participants might share a particular view, but that might not have come through in
their interview and as such, any numbers used could be misleading.
44..22 PPRROOFFEESSSSIIOONNAALLSS’’ RREELLAATTIIOONNSS TTOO AAIIRRCCRRAAFFTT
44..22..11 EExxtteenntt ooff aaiirrccrraafftt uussee
The interviews with the mountain guides reveal that almost all guided trip and instructional
course in the AMCNP is carried out using aircraft to gain access to the climbing areas and the
associated huts. This is especially true for the high alpine areas with which this research is most
concerned. It rarely happens that any of the guide participants take clients on trips where aircraft
is not used for access (unassisted trips would occur less than once a year according to some
guides). Also, it was commonly stated during the interviews that guiding in this region could not
be sustained without the use of aircraft. The guide participants explain that this is due to a
number of factors:
61
1. the glaciated terrain of the AMCNP is extremely demanding, and access has become more
difficult in later years;
2. the clients rarely have a good enough level of fitness; and
3. the physical stress on the guides would most likely reduce the length of their working life.
The guides use either ski-planes, which depart from Aoraki/Mount Cook Airport or helicopters
which depart from Glentanner Station, which is approximately 15 km south of the Aoraki/Mount
Cook Airport. Due to this distance alone, using a helicopter is usually more expensive than a ski-
plane because they have to burn more fuel in order to fly the extra distance. As previously shown
in Figure 3, the most used landing zones are on the upper Tasman Glacier where you find
Kelman Hut and Tasman Saddle Hut, and the Grand Plateau where you find Plateau Hut.
According to the participants, the use of aircraft for guiding really became common when access
up Tasman Glacier became increasingly difficult due to glacial recession. Other factors involved
were the increasing use of ski-planes for taking clients skiing down parts of the Tasman Glacier,
and the increasing demand for tourist scenic flights in the Southern Alps.
Below are some reasons the guides gave as to why they choose to use aircraft for access into the
high alpine areas of the AMCNP:
“I don’t think it was until the lower Tasman started to pose a problem that people started looking at flying in. You used to be able to catch the bus and climb up Garbage Gully and in 30 minutes you would be on the ice and then straight up to one of the huts in 4-5 hours. Now that trip is a whole day, it’s 2.5 hours of walk just to get that far [from road end to Garbage Gully]. The terrain has really changed on both sides of the mountain.” (Hamish, guide).
“I mean you could walk in, but there are some areas you can’t walk into because of the danger to yourself and your clients. For example to walk up to Plateau Hut to climb Mt Cook would take two days, and it’s quite an unsafe route because of the glacier retreating and all of the loose moraine walls that you’ve got to climb up. […] It’s probably once every two or three years you might do a walk in at Mt Cook, cause it has to be quite a fit person that you’re taking” (Adam, guide).
As Bill points out below, also the large majority of recreational parties use aircraft to access the
higher areas of the AMCNP:
“Most recreational users also use aircraft for access. In fact, the percentage is probably identical for commercial trips as it is for private, recreational groups. […] I would say at least 90 percent [author’s note: a figure of speech] of all recreational climbing in the park, climbing and ski touring, is done by aircraft access” (Bill, guide).
62
It is not only the difficulty of access which makes guided parties prefer to use aircraft access.
Both guided as well as recreational climbers are often short on time and many prefer to spend the
majority of their time away from work and the everyday, doing quality climbing instead of long,
draining approaches in difficult terrain. Short time windows are often coupled with short weather
windows which are typical for the climate in the Southern Alps. As many of the guides (and also
the recreationists as Section 4.3.1 will show) point out, time constraint is a major factor as to why
they choose to use aircraft access:
“[We use aircraft] to get in and out of the mountains because with most of my clients, time is short. With the fickle maritime climate that we have in NZ sometimes, the windows of opportunity that we have with the weather are quite short so you need to be able to travel quickly to get to a certain spot to attempt an object. […] A lot of it is to do with the rough access. I have noticed that the access into the mountains over the past 20 years has gotten more difficult, and the clients don’t like doing it. To get into some of the classic areas like the head of the Tasman glacier for example, you fly in, and sometimes you walk out. Most people fly in and then fly out again” (Ian, guide).
“The scale of the area has always been a factor [as to why people use aircraft for access] but over the last thirty years that I’ve been here there’s been a deterioration in the conditions with glacier ablation, road access up the Tasman Valley has decreased in terms of the distance you can get, the moraine cover on the lower glaciers has increased, the amount of time that people have available for climbing has decreased, and the overall level of physical ability of people in the mountains has also tended to decrease” (Bill, guide).
“I think today’s professional people are short on time, these days it’s only the university students that get sufficient time to go and do some of these fabulous trips. Most people, if they can get ten days, then that is a luxury. It’s a couple of days for travelling at either end of that, and you’re faced with seven days if you’re lucky” (Hamish, guide).
“The fact is that for a lot of these areas to get into them you need to have good weather, and with a maritime alpine climate, the weather here is such that those two days of good weather may be your only climbing window, and physically a lot of the access approaches would be beyond a lot of people in terms of carrying heavy loads up difficult terrain. [Without aircraft access] you can simply write off commercial and recreational climbing in Mt Cook national park” (Bill, guide).
In the AMCNP there are few guided trips that do not involve using aircraft access. These would
be the Ball Pass crossing, which is a commonly guided route, and any trips going into the Hooker
or Mueller Valleys, which are no-flight zones. Consequently, in peak periods (which is during,
and around the Christmas vacation) there is, as several of the guides acknowledge, a fairly large
amount of aircraft activity in the AMCNP. The areas referred to as relatively busy by the
participants, are exclusively the area surrounding Aoraki/Mt Cook and the Grand Plateau, and the
Upper Tasman Glacier:
63
“At the busy huts, like Plateau Hut, it’s just people coming in and out! Like, if it’s been a big day on [Aoraki/Mt] Cook, you know, there will be four or five parties who’ll get flown out at the end of the day, and if the weather’s fine for the next day, there’ll be four or five coming in the morning. But in those areas it’s not just guided parties, there will be an equal number of recreational users, particularly on Mt Cook” (Dave, guide).
However, as a whole, the guide participants do not consider the AMCNP to have problems
related to crowding:
“The Mt Cook National Park is underutilised, so you can be in there quite often, particularly if you’re not right in the end of December beginning of January period, and you can quite often hear on the radio schedule; ‘one zone, one party’, [which means you are] the only party in the park. So it’s an underutilised area and it’s a good training ground” (Fritz, guide).
As a rule, (mostly) all guided trips are arranged and equipped to be able to walk out from the
mountains. For many years, walking out was also the norm of egress from the mountains. Today
however, flying out is more common than walking out:
“I very rarely walk out. It depends if the people are up for it, it’s quite a long walk. Even walking out you need infrastructure there to pick you up. For example, you walk all the way out and you still have 8 or 9 kilometres of walking and it’s quite rough. There is not really any public service or something to pick you up, so that contracts from the experience” (Ian, guide).
“To finish off a trip with trucking down the Tasman moraine with clients is just a big downer and none of them know what moraine is really. And they just come out thrashed. So you’re tending to try and fly out as well. [...] I mean, most people in their climbing life will walk either up or down the Tasman once. And once you’ve done it you go; ‘Right. I’m over that.’ (Glen, guide).
44..22..22 BBeenneeffiittss ooff aaiirrccrraafftt uussee
The participants were asked what they consider as benefits of aircraft use in the AMCNP or
alpine areas in general. The guide participants were quite unanimous in their answers, and some
of the more often mentioned benefits are:
1. bypassing the arduous approaches;
2. the ability to exploit the weather windows;
3. increasing chances of meeting objectives;
4. the ability to start climbing with a rested body;
5. the aircraft importance for SAR;
6. the aircraft contribution to cleaner huts and a cleaner mountain;
7. minimising the need for permanent structures in the mountain; and
64
8. enabling parties to use better and fresh food.
These, and other benefits highlighted by the guide participants are presented in the quotes below:
“[Benefits of aircraft use include] safely getting to the climbing and getting there in a timely fashion so you’re actually there when the weather is good and not spending the good weather window actually getting to the base of the mountain. It’s a good backup – good for rescue, good for keeping the huts clean, getting the rubbish out and keeping the mountain free of trash” (Adam, guide).
“It benefits everyone, because everyone is using them to go into the hills” (Ian, guide).
“Eliminating Himalayan scale access walks, really. It’s just bypassing the terrain features that provide very laborious and arduous access” (Bill, guide).
“I think if people have limited time frames then it is attractive, it means you can get into the high alpine region instantly. Where as if they only have 4 days to try and walk into some of those regions, it’s not really possible. Aircraft make it possible to get into some of those areas quickly. There is an adverse affect too; on occasions some people aren’t ready for the high mountains, and you get the odd person that feels a little bit uncomfortable that you’ve flown in, where as they would benefit from walking in. It is up to the guide to assess the client’s needs and experience” (Hamish, guide).
As mentioned above by Adam, one of the benefits of having a strong presence of aircraft in the
mountain region is their invaluable contribution to SAR situations. Several of the guides
mentioned this in their interview:
“I don’t know how big that is in peoples’ minds about either the ticket out at the end of the trip or being able to be rescued but they all know that rescue happens with aircraft in New Zealand and without helicopters being able to operate and having experienced pilots who know that area from flying there every day, you’re gonna have a hell of a harder job rescuing people” (Glen, guide).
It was commonly mentioned by the participants, both recreational and professional, how aircraft
use contribute to a cleaner mountain by providing an easy way to carry out waste, and limiting
the need for permanent structures in the mountain to ease the access.
“It means you can take fresh food, food gets quite heavy, and if you are flying out, then you can take all your rubbish out. In the old days, people used to chuck their rubbish down a crevasse or have a big burn up outside the hut, which was quite common and was actively encouraged by [the] Lands and Survey [Department]. [Today] all the rubbish gets carried out, it goes in the aircraft. Which is a major benefit, definitely” (Ian, guide).
“I guess if you hadn’t had [aircraft] 30 years ago when we started modern guiding, when they did start using helicopters, they probably would have ended up with a lot more fixed structures on the mountains to safely pass those areas, like in Europe, so there might have been cables bolted to mountain faces, and fixed ropes like in the Himalayas. So you might have had a lot of other visual garbage around the place to make the routes safer. […] So, New Zealand mountains, even though you have helicopters with a bit of perceived noise
65
pollution, they are very clean and pristine because of the helicopters. And there’s not rubbish everywhere” (Adam, guide).
44..22..33 DDiissaaddvvaannttaaggeess ooff aaiirrccrraafftt uussee
This section presents some of the findings as to what the guide participants perceive as being
disadvantages of aircraft use. In general, most guide participants consider the disadvantages to be
outweighed by the benefits, as described in the following quote:
“I don’t actually think that there are a lot of disadvantages, I think that there are more benefits. Only the noise, and the theoretical lack of wilderness experience, but the huts people have been staying in are there because the aircraft flew the materials there, the huts are maintained by people who fly into the mountains. You can’t have everything” (Ian, guide).
Noise is mentioned by several as a disadvantage, even though none of the professional
participants consider it to be a problem, except in relation to irresponsible or illegal flying which
can occur in no-flight zones and wilderness areas. A general attitude towards aircraft use amongst
the guide participants is that some noise effects is a necessary sacrifice which is weighed up for
by the ease of access and the perceived benefits outlined in the section above.
“Any [disadvantages] I can see is noise pollution, cause they’re obviously noisy and we can’t do much about that” (Adam, guide).
“There are noise effects, and even if you have flown into the mountains by aircraft, often if you’re there you may find the noise slightly intrusive which of course is very hypocritical of us, but you know. But a lot of that is mitigated by agreed operation conditions by the aircraft operators. They observe certain flight paths, they observe certain minimum height conditions, so generally the actions taken by the aircraft operators would mitigate about 90 percent of the noise effect on people on the ground” (Bill, guide).
“There is the visual effect; there’s the sound of them; there’s the loss of the wilderness experience; pollution isn’t really an effect I wouldn’t say for such an area and there’s the risk for the aircraft themselves. There have been aircraft accidents in the Tasman area or up the Rudolph at least” (Fritz, guide).
“I think that the bone of contention is noise, but it’s not a problem for me. There is very rarely that I have ever been annoyed by the noise” (Ian, guide).
“The no flight valleys in Mt Cook [National Park] like the Hooker and the Balfour, when you’re climbing in there, and I’ve been climbing in both areas a lot, and when you’re climbing in there, there’s always noise from helicopters and airplanes cause the scenic’s still fly over the valleys. So you still have noise pollution even there’s nowhere to land in the valley. Even though they’re ‘no-flight’ zones they’re not quite”(Adam, guide).
66
Bill (guide) also expressed that he felt the aircraft noise to sometimes be slightly intrusive but
that this is weighted up for by the benefits of using aircraft himself. As shown in the following
quote, Glen (guide) also finds the noise to be weighted up for by other benefits:
“We guide in Europe [occasionally], and over there, there is very little aircraft noise, incredibly small amounts. But you use lifts instead, so over here we don’t have the lifts but instead we use the aircraft as a lift. But it comes and goes and it’s gone. And you haven’t left infrastructure all over the mountain” (Glen, guide).
Some disadvantages of aircraft are related to crowding in huts and concerning the contentious
issue of groups flying in and occupying space that a walk-in party had relied on. The latter is an
issue which has caused some debate amongst climbers in New Zealand (according to comments
during the thesis field work).
“I guess a lot of people talk about the noise and stuff like that, but that doesn’t actually worry me too much. To me the biggest impact is just if you go to an area and you’re ski touring or something, and then an aircraft comes in and drops people off” (Dave, guide).
Several of the guides mention that if the climbers were forced to walk instead of fly in, they
would get fitter (and thus more capable climbers) and they would also gain valuable knowledge
about the area and terrain leading into the climb, making them able to more accurately plan a
retreat plan and exit route. This would increase the safety of the exit compared to exiting through
unfamiliar terrain. In relation to this, Chris states that:
“In that respect they would have had a fuller understanding of the whole place” (Chris, guide).
One interesting finding is illustrated with the following quote, where Dave describes how the use
of aircraft has changed the social atmosphere surrounding the climbing on Mt Aspiring. He
further suggests that that is the case with most areas where aircraft access is common. Especially
the hut environment is subject to change in Dave’s experience. Climbers on Mt Aspiring are most
often based in the Colin Todd Hut, and during the last two decades it has become common to use
helicopters for access to nearby Bevan Col.
“In Aspiring [National Park] where 15 years ago people didn’t fly in, there used to be a six person hut – the old Colin Todd Hut- and there was always room, and if there wasn’t room then people would just move over and everybody had sort of run the same gauntlet to get there. Whereas now, with flight access to Bevan Col, they had to build a bigger hut cause all of a sudden hordes and hordes of people where going there that wouldn’t have maybe made the effort to walk. And now, the new hut that’s got 20 beds or whatever, is too small and there is people bivy’d [sleeping out] everywhere. You might also find that if you do walk in, a group might fly in just a head of you and take the bunks, and to me that’s not a very nice culture. Another thing is that it’s just a
67
much better feeling in the huts when everyone has gone through the same thing. In huts where lots of people have flown in, like Plateau Hut, there are lots of groups of two planning to climb Mt Cook and people don’t really have anything in common so there might be another party in the hut that you’ve hardly said boo to, cause they’re just another person who’s flown in and is competing for space in the hut. Whereas once everybody has actually walked in, it actually provides a better experience for everybody in a way. I mean, there is no going back, I just hope that it doesn’t spread to other areas cause I’ve seen in the last 15 years how Aspiring has changed, and that has had a negative impact on the area I think” (Dave, guide).
It was apparent that the participants have contemplated the attributes of the different types of
aircraft, as they differentiate between types of aircraft when discussing their effects. Hamish
(guide) stated that there are differences in noise emissions from different types of aircraft:
“To me the noisiest aircraft are the fixed wing aircraft. Helicopters are a lot quieter, and they are certainly 90% better at getting you into the mountains. Fixed wings have such a set criteria of what they need to be able to take off and land, so there is an advantage of certain aircraft over others” (Hamish, guide).
This is supported by Glen, who states that airplanes have more of a noise impact than helicopters:
“Especially Cessna’s. It’s 40 year old technology that hasn’t been upgraded. […] They’re really noisy airplanes, whereas [some helicopter models] are completely designed to be quiet. And as [helicopter] operators upgrade their machinery, which they do, they just get more eco-friendly type machinery. Whereas, you’re not gonna get that happening with fixed-wing from what I can see so far” (Glen, guide).
A potential disadvantage of aircraft use is their almost unlimited range. There are few places in
New Zealand a helicopter cannot reach, provided aircraft use was not restricted by regulations.
Some see the range of movement as mainly a benefit, while others see it as a potential problem
which needs to be regulated so that no more areas are opened up for aircraft access. As can be
understood from the following quotes, Dave has concerns for the future scope of aircraft access
in the New Zealand mountains:
“Like in Europe, while the mountains are overrun by people who make use of mechanised ways of getting into the mountains, at least it takes them all to the same point. Whereas with the helicopter, you know, it can take you further and further. At least in Europe people are limited to certain places where they can get with mechanised transport. With a helicopter there is really no limit” (Dave, guide).
“I think one of the big values of the new Zealand mountains in the future is that there is a lot of areas where it’s relatively wilderness, where there aren’t people flying in and out all the time. You can get to areas that feel very remote but at the same time you’re only a day or two days walk from a road end. We’ve got the road running all the way up the West Coast and we’ve got roads going up every major East Coast valley so you can get into some amazing places where you’ll be the only people in there and I think in the future that’s gonna be very valuable to people, so I’m quite concerned that we hang on to that – that aircraft access doesn’t become a ‘free for all’ and you can fly everywhere” (Dave, guide).
68
44..22..44 GGuuiiddeess’’ ppeerrcceeppttiioonn ooff aaiirrccrraafftt eeffffeecctt oonn uusseerr eexxppeerriieenncceess
The use of aircraft is likely to affect the user experiences in various ways. This section presents
findings related to such effects on guides and their clients, although the guides did not reveal
much in terms of how aircraft affects themselves personally. Their own experience of aircraft is
generally positive in that it allows them to work and guide in the high mountains of the AMCNP.
As discussed in Section 3.6.2, the clients’ experiences cannot be fully accounted for given that
this study relies on the guides’ description of the clients’ experiences.
As noted in Section 4.2.1, aircraft access allows park users to get into the high mountains without
spending precious energy needed to perform on the actual climb. It also makes it easier for them
to achieve their recreational objectives, which are usually to summit Aoraki/Mt Cook or one of
the other prominent peaks in the area. As the statement below indicates, such goals are not for
anyone to achieve without the aid of aircraft access:
“There’s probably an elite few [of New Zealand climbers], the 10 or 20 percent of them [author’s note: figure of speech] that are physically strong enough, and have the time and good fortune for the weather, to walk in and climb something and walk out. Whereas, you know, 80 percent [author’s note: figure of speech] of NZ climbers, probably most of our clients, they are not physically strong enough to walk in and climb the mountain and they don’t have enough time to conversate with the weather we get here in New Zealand cause it changes so fast. The successful climbers in New Zealand are the ones that wait for the good weather windows and fly in and then do their climbing quickly before the weather gets bad and then they can walk out in the bad weather” (Adam, guide).
Many guided climbers have limited experience in the AMCNP and therefore also limited
experience with aircraft in the AMCNP. Many guided climbers are foreign visitors, a lot of them
visiting the park for the first time, and since using aircraft access for climbing is uncommon in
many other places in the world, foreign visitors are often not familiar with small planes or
helicopters. This can make the aircraft ride part of the attraction of the guided product or
influence the experience of the trip in a positive way. For those who understand what it entails to
access the high mountain by foot, the swift access provided by aircraft and the ability to climb
while rested, can certainly make the aircraft an attractive part of the product. The below quotes
from the guide participants consider their clients’ experiences of aircraft use, but only as the
guides experience their clients. No clients were interviewed for this research, for reasons
discussed in Section 3.5.5. As such, the following quotes should only be considered as the
guides’ perception of their clients’ experiences:
69
“Generally, [aircraft use] heightens their experience, they enjoy it more because it’s quite a thrill to ride in a helicopter or land on a glacier in a ski plane, so I think it probably adds to the experience” (Adam, guide).
“I think a hundred percent [authors’ note: figure of speech] of the clients that fly in and fly out are very happy that they are able to do that. […] I think really the majority of people that I’ve had, they are fascinated by watching aircraft movements, and how they set up landings, etcetera” (Hamish, guide).
“It is a positive [effect on the client], mainly. It means you have a fast access into the mountains. They are in the mountains and they are fresh. If you walk into some of those places, you might need a rest day after having walked in, in which case you might lose that window of opportunity with the weather” (Ian, guide).
All guide participants acknowledge that the helicopter or ski-plane ride to a certain degree is an
attractive and exciting part of the product for the clients. However, they express an uncertainty
about how much the use of aircraft actually influences the clients’ experience and how much of
an attraction it is. Fritz points out in his statement below that the importance of the aircraft flight
is perhaps coherent with how big the role of the aircraft is relevant to other activities on the trip,
such as climbing or skiing.
“It’s a big part of their [the clients’] trip on the short trips particularly. On ‘ski the Tasman’ it’s maybe… let’s say a third of their excitement or something like that. When they’ve flown in there and landed on the snow and you get out and the plane flies off, a lot of them will already have had the best day of their life. And certainly by the time they’ve skied down through the glacier! It’s a good experience as a guide on that product hearing people say that it’s the best day of their life, which is quite common. For going in there for climbing… yeah, people do get a bit of a kick out of it but it’s a pretty small part of a larger programme and I think by the end of it, when they’ve seen planes coming in and out quite a few times, it is really no big deal to them at all” (Fritz, guide).
As stated earlier, how the clients actually perceive the use of aircraft cannot be concluded from
this research, but the following quote provide some insight into how the guides perceive the
clients experience of the extent of aircraft use in the AMCNP:
“They [the clients] would comment on the frequency of [the aircraft], and the number of them, but a lot of them would be just interested in them and interested in watching them landing and what they’re up to. It’s part of the culture of the area. I’ve never heard people talk with extremely strong views on it, probably because they’ve all flown in themselves” (Fritz, guide).
One very interesting finding is that most participants are of the opinion that an area such as the
AMCNP, which has aircraft corridors, landing areas and a hut system, cannot provide wilderness
experiences for the users:
“I think that people going backcountry, have to realize, that if they are going into somewhere that has air access set up, then they are not really in the wilderness. You can’t really call AMCNP a wilderness area, because of the number of people that inhabit it during the summer as tourists, and the number of over flights
70
that you have there. You have the odd individual who gets pretty upset about it but they just have to realize that if they want a wilderness experience then they have to go to a real wilderness place that doesn’t have any air corridors around it” (Hamish, guide).
“All the areas that have got aircraft access, it’s not wilderness, it just mountains you know. I feel it’s important to preserve that wilderness aspect because we’re so lucky in New Zealand because most places are not more than two days walk from somewhere and in the future people are gonna really value that, and if we’re not careful we can lose that” (Dave, guide).
“[Aircraft does] remove the experience of wilderness from [the users], but partly because of the two good huts that are in there [at the Upper Tasman Glacier] and the aircraft, it isn’t really a wilderness area. […] So if people are going for a wilderness experience, it’s just not the place to go” (Fritz, guide).
The above quotes reveal that the participants consider the use of aircraft to limit the experience of
solitude and wilderness. Some participants however, counter-argue this as they think a wilderness
experience can be obtained in most natural areas if conditions allow:
“Plenty of times when you fly in by helicopter, it’s gone and then there is nothing. And then, as soon as there’s a little bit of weather, it shuts all that down and you’re up there, and you’re in the wilderness. And people are just blown away. […] The weather in New Zealand will always create opportunities of wilderness with aircraft” (Glen, guide).
As the following quote shows, Bill suggests that aircraft use enables more park users to achieve
their goals and objectives. This is a view shared by many of the guide participants. If they were
not able to use aircraft, fewer clients would be able to access the high alpine areas and also, for
reasons outlined in Section 4.2.2, achieve their recreational objectives:
“I think it has a positive effect in that it’s more likely to deliver their goals than not. […] They’re able to get into the mountains in the first place, they are able to usually meet their objectives in terms of having a great trip and possibly a successful climb” (Bill, guide).
That said, a few participants (such as Dave and Marcus) are of the opinion that perhaps it should
not be for everyone to achieve their objectives if they are not experienced and skilled enough to
do so under their own steam. This is further discussed in Section 5.3.5.
44..22..55 AAttttiittuuddeess ttoowwaarrddss aaiirrccrraafftt uussee
The guides’ attitudes towards aircraft use do to a certain degree emerge in the above sections as
the interviews tend to overlap because of the close relation between the questions. During the
interviews the participants were never asked directly about their attitudes towards aircraft, but
71
these nevertheless come across in many statements. Various statements illustrating the
participants’ attitude concern the actual use of aircraft for access in the AMCNP. This is a
contentious issue which is widely discussed amongst users of the park (also in relation to other
national parks in New Zealand) as described in Section 2.4.2. The quotes below reveal that there
is a common acceptance of aircraft access to the Aoraki/Mt Cook area, but they also show that
there are many factors influencing this acceptance:
“Over the years the attitudes changed from, just really, people not being able to even think about air transport to go in to do a climbing course for example, to it becoming almost a completely accepted part. But if you’re gonna do a climbing course [today] you’re almost certainly gonna fly in, and that came by for several reasons. To a degree, flying got cheaper, became more accepted as a way of getting in and out the park. But also, access became much, much more difficult. So what used to be in the old days a grunty long day going up the Tasman Glacier, suddenly was not possible in two days. By the time that people got to the place where they wanted to do the course, they were exhausted because they carried these big loads of food and everything they needed for a fourteen day course” (Chris, guide).
“I see [aircraft access] as a necessary feature of the scale of this area, and the conditions that they have developed over time. I think that if someone proposed to remove aircraft access you would remove everyone from the park essentially, except for day walks” (Bill, guide).
“There are certain areas in new Zealand where there is a lot of aircraft access – it has become the norm – and that’s up the Tasman flying to the Grand Plateau, the West Coast glaciers, and Aspiring which is a more recent one. 15 years ago it was pretty unheard of flying in there, but now it has sort of become the norm, and I think there will be no going back on that, and a lot of people enjoy the benefits of that because if you walk into a lot of these places, particularly at Mt Cook, it will take a day or two days carrying all your food and you’ll have to allow a day or two to get out, so that’s four days worth of food you got to carry just for getting in and out” (Dave, guide).
The extent of scenic flight operations is an issue causing some debate amongst the participants.
As illustrated with the following quote from Adam, a few of the guides perceive the general
public discourse to put too much responsibility of the air traffic in the Southern Alps on climbers
and ski tourers, while neglecting that most of the air traffic is due to scenic flights. This
distinction is very important to some of the guides:
“For example, you can be climbing on Mt Cook and you can be near the summit and the helicopter can fly a hundred meters above you. People think it’s climbers but climbers only fly to the huts, and the machine goes out again so there’s not actually noise pollution around the summits, whereas a lot of the noise on the mountain is from the people flying around looking. It doesn’t generally bother you that other people are flying in, and that there’s noise down low. It’s really the planes that are above you and around your head that’s got the scenic passengers, that annoys you if anyone. I mean, [the scenic flights] are not that annoying either, it’s just a misconception that all the noise is from climbers. Scenic flying around isn’t that bad, it’s just important for me that people understand the difference between the two different noise pollutions if you can put it that way” (Adam, guide).
72
A few of the guides (like Adam in the previous quote) discussed the issue of scenic flights
causing noise and disturbance for ground-based users of the park, like climbers and ski tourers.
According to participants, some users are of the opinion that scenic flights should not have the
same right of operation as the transport flights that guides and climbers use. Apparently
(according to some participants) such attitudes exist within the guiding and recreational climbing
communities, even though none of the guide participants support such views. Some of the guides
on the other hand, really oppose this notion and suggest that people who are of such an opinion
and complain about noise from scenic flights put themselves in a hypocritical position since they
too use aircraft access.
“I know that sometimes guides, when they are talking about this issue, talk about how the impact of scenic flights buzzing over them, and to me that is just completely wrong because they are having such a huge impact themselves by flying in” (Dave, guide).
“What I do see, is a heck of a lot of hypocrisy. Time after time I’ve had this discussion with amateur parties in the hut and they’re moaning about the fact that these damn ski-planes area coming over heads or these damn helicopters are coming too close. [Author’s note: this would be people who flew in themselves.] What a load of bullshit! Why are you in your recreation any different to this person who has never had a pack on his back? He also has recreational needs and he chooses to do it by getting on a plane and looking at mountains from above. And he in his own way is absorbing and enjoying the mountains just as you are in your way’ (Chris, guide).
Other guides hold a balanced view on the above issue, expressing an understanding that climbers
and scenic tourists have a symbiotic relationship, and that climbers are dependent on tourism in
order to sustain aircraft access in the AMCNP. Without the helicopter and ski-plane companies
being able to service the scenic tourists they would not be able to sustain their business in the
AMCNP area. That would be a severe disadvantage in terms of SAR and access for guided and
recreational users, and also for mountain guide operations.
“Certainly some [climbers and clients] have mentioned ‘well it’s [ok to fly in for] those who are coming in to stay here, but not for all of those tourists coming in for the walk around on the snow and flying back out again’. But that is pretty infeasible really. The climbers are a pretty small part of the total market and most of the money made by the ski-planes is on tourists, we’re sort of a nuisance as much as anything for them” (Fritz, guide).
“I think it’s a bit egotistical to think that people who have walked in have more right to the space than people that have flown in” (Ian, guide).
As illustrated in the quotes below, some of the guides embrace the opportunity for everyone to
experience and use the AMCNP in their own way, and Glen’s comment implies that there is too
73
little emphasis on use of the park contrasted to conservation of the park. Ian expresses that he
sees the use of aircraft in the AMCNP as a natural progression since the park contains some of
the biggest attractions in New Zealand.
“That whole concept of Harry [Wigley]'s was to get people into this national park and to this fantastic area, so they can see what’s there! Otherwise all they do is they see it on the telly, but part of the National Parks Act is to actually use your park, not just preserve it, and that I get really hot under the collar with DOC about, cause they just focus on locking it up. They just keep going down that road, conserve, conserve, conserve. But for what? I mean, unless the people can go and touch the snow and walk on the glacier, and not just the elite fit people…” (Glen, guide).
“Aircraft are a modern fact of life, live with it. You buy a house near an airfield; you have to live with the fact that it’s going to be noisy. You choose to go to an area that has the highest mountains in New Zealand, other people are going to want to see them as well, and their way of seeing them is to fly over in an aircraft, as opposed to your way of doing it by walking through it” (Ian, guide).
Several of the participants express that they consider the AMCNP to be somewhat of a casualty
in terms of aircraft use. That implies that having aircraft accessed climbing and scenic flights
condensed in a few areas is acceptable as long as there are other areas with stricter aircraft
regulations where one can expect to experience solitude and wilderness. The following quote
express this view:
“[Noise is] only not a problem in the sense that it is somewhat of a casualty. If that was the case anywhere that you went to in New Zealand to get into the mountains, then it would be a shame, and New Zealand would be the lesser for it. But I don’t find it that bad, it’s uncommon for aircraft to get very close unless you’re on a landing strip and I don’t find it a problem personally, and I don’t think that the clients generally find it unreasonable given that they’ve flown in” (Fritz, guide).
During the interviews, Dave was the only participating guide advocating strongly for more
conservative regulations of aircraft overflights and landings in mountain regions. Although, that
is not to say that any of the other guides does not share this view. Dave does however, supports
the use of aircraft in the Aoraki/Mt Cook area, and (as others also do) considers it a necessary
sacrifice in order to keep other areas free of aircraft.
“People now expect to fly in, and that expectation comes because that is now the status quo and I don’t think we can ever go back. And it would be hard for the guiding industry if it did go back but I personally think it would be a better thing [and] I think it would be adding more value to the mountains for those that are prepared to go in there and seek it out. […] We can’t really go back but we can make sure we preserve all the areas where there are no aircraft landings at the moment. We can preserve them and make sure that is set in stone, that’s where I think we should go” (Dave, guide).
74
Another perspective on sustainability can be found with Fritz, as he questions the sustainability of
the scenic flight businesses since they consume considerable energy in order to transport people
up the mountain and back down again over a short time span.
“I would think that the trend should be for longer stays in the mountains. It’s not really efficient with the way the world’s resources are going, for people to use all of that energy to fly in and stay for a few minutes and fly out again. So that’s my overall opinion on it, but putting the environmental things to the side, I don’t think they’ve [scenic flights] got any less right to make the noise pollution” (Fritz, guide).
44..22..66 AAcccceeppttaannccee ooff tthhee uussee ooff aaiirrccrraafftt iinn cclliimmbbiinngg
Some of the interviewees were asked if they considered there to be any ethical issues related to
the use of aircraft for access. However, this question raised some uncertainty as to the meaning of
the question. Many did not feel there was much in terms of ethical issues related to the use of
aircraft for access. The question then was rephrased to involve the use of aircraft as an aid for
climbing since this implied that the question was referring to climbing ethics. This generated
more response. Most guides saw the use of aircraft as an aid to the climbing, something which
can be considered as opposing certain ethical guidelines within the climbing community.
However, none of the guides shared those ideas, and rather argued that climbers should climb the
mountain in relation to their own personal belief of what is a good way of climbing it. As long as
climbers are honest about how they climb, it does not conflict with local climbing ethics as long
as they do not permanently modify the rock, for example by installing bolts (which require
drilling holes). The two following quotes represent the view of most of the guide participants:
“I think it comes back to your own belief as to what is the proper way to conduct the climb. And some people say ‘I want to walk from Mt Cook Village with all my gear on my back and do the climb from there, and another guy, […] he cycled to Mt Everest from his home [Sweden] because he believed that that was the proper way to do it” (Chris, guide).
“I don’t feel there are any ethical issues as long as people are honest about what they’ve done. I think that if there are limits then they should be stuck to” (Fritz, guide).
Even though Dave supports the above view, he still sees the disadvantages of aircraft use for
mountaineering. In the following quote he reflects on how aircraft use can interfere with what
might be the basic force behind the sport of mountaineering, namely the challenge the mountains
represent precisely because of their physical nature:
75
“[It is an aid,] so in a way it lessens the challenge, it really does. Which is a shame, really, cause that’s the thing that attracts people to the mountains, and if they don’t wanna climb mountains that are so big, that takes so many days to get into, well then there’s heaps of smaller mountains you know. I guess it’s just a modern sort of culture where everything is made available to everybody and it doesn’t matter that you’re really unfit – we’ll fly you half the way up the mountain so you can climb it. Whereas really the case should be that somebody like that should go and climb a smaller mountain which they are actually capable of. […] By using aids such as aircraft it lessens the challenge, and surely the value of it is that we got to try and meet the challenge rather than make the challenge smaller” (Dave, guide).
44..33 RREECCRREEAATTIIOONNAALLIISSTTSS’’ RREELLAATTIIOONNSS TTOO AAIIRRCCRRAAFFTT
44..33..11 EExxtteenntt ooff aaiirrccrraafftt uussee
The interviews with recreational participants indicate that recreational users of the AMCNP are
more likely to also go on trips (in the AMCNP) without using aircraft. This can be attributed to
the cost of chartering aircraft on a regular basis, and that recreational users are possibly more
likely than guided groups to choose lesser known and smaller trip objectives. All of the
recreational participants have utilised aircraft for access in the AMCNP but they have also
ventured on long trips without aircraft access.
“I have used a helicopter to fly into Mt Aspiring once, and I use helicopters every time I go to the West Coast glaciers. I have done trips there were I have skied in and skied out, I’ve done trips where I have flown in and skied out, but normally I fly in and fly out, using helicopters. And the same on the Tasman glacier, I’ve used ski-planes and helicopters” (Jeff, recreationist).
“I sometimes use aircraft access but it depends on the nature and location of the trip. [I use them] mainly to fly in and mainly in winter for a ski trip” (Lisa, recreationist).
Evan has made use of aircraft (ski-planes) on two occasions, one for access to the Grand Plateau
and the other to the head of the Tasman Glacier on a ski touring trip. In the following quote he
explains why:
“The first one up to the Plateau was for time efficiency and the second one was because we were going in for over a week and so it was helping us with basically carrying supplies. We would have taken us three days probably of ground travel compared with half hour air traffic each way. […] On all the other trips I’ve walked in, so there is only two out of, say, fifteen trips where aircraft were used” (Evan, recreationist).
In the following quote, Kate explains the reasons as to why she chooses to use aircraft for many
of her trips in the Southern Alps:
76
“[Aircraft] is a necessity, it’s not a bonus. It’s often got to do with time limitations, if we were going to do a ski tour we’d have to plan it 2 months in advance, and you can’t plan fine weather two months in advance, so if we are going to do a weekend thing, then [we would use aircraft] because we couldn’t do it any other way” (Kate, recreationist).
44..33..22 BBeenneeffiittss ooff aaiirrccrraaffttss uussee
The recreational participants were asked similar questions as the professionals and when it came
to perceived benefits of aircraft use in the AMCNP and in mountain environments in general,
their answers were very similar to those of the guides. As the next few quotes will show, the most
important benefits perceived by the recreationists are:
- better use of time and weather windows;
- eliminating the access walk;
- SAR purposes; and
- hut maintenance and waste disposal.
“To walk into Centennial Hut would probably take 12 hours, and you can fly in for $130 per person, so it means I can save that extra day by flying in. All too often in New Zealand I have walked in somewhere and you get half way there and the weather craps out, so you have to turn around or you don’t get your objective. […] I’ve found that my climbing and skiing ability has increased since I have started flying in because it has meant more time on snow and more time on ice, where the technical skills are most needed” (Jeff, recreationist).
“So it takes you 8 or 10 hours to walk in [to Plateau Hut] and that’s the first day, and you want to get up and try and climb [Aoraki/Mt Cook] the second day, but you’ve just spent 10 hours walking the previous day, so you’re exhausted, and you need another day to walk out, so that 4 days, and trying to find a 4 day weather window in NZ can be pretty rare. On top of which climbing Mt Cook is a 20 hour day potentially. Day to walk in, day to rest, day to climb, day to rest after your 20 hour day, that’s 4 days, day to walk out, that’s 5 days, trying to find a 5 day weather window is even harder, so there’s a lot of little things like that” (Jeff, recreationist).
“Time. There is nowhere that they can’t take you, I would do it if there was a limitation of time” (Kate, recreationist).
“It is for hauling gear. It is the convenience, and because [the aircraft option] is there in a way. If it wasn’t there, I’d probably still go [on the same trip]. But it would make access harder [and] it would mean that you have less time up the head and you would be more limited in what you could do. But I do those kind of trips elsewhere in the country, and if there was aircraft access at those other places it would make things easier, it would mean that I could go further, but I wouldn’t want to see that happen” (Lisa, recreationist).
The following quotes from Jeff and Lisa highlight the importance of aircraft for SAR purposes,
and how it affects their thinking in terms of having a safety net in the mountain:
77
“We are past the heroic age, where you say I’m going to climb this mountain and if I die… that’s just the way it is. Having that helicopter waiting, if you have an accident, is no guarantee that you are going to survive. It doesn’t mean that you’re not going to get killed anyway. But it’s there, like having an ambulance in a city, and I know that if something does go wrong, I can get help” (Jeff, recreationist).
“In some ways in those heavy aircraft areas you have more of a safety blanket because you can always radio someone and get a flight out” (Lisa, recreationist).
Similar to the guides, some of the recreational climbers mention the positive impact aircraft have
on waste management and hut conditions:
“[Other benefits are] the maintenance for the huts and flying the toilet waste in and out, which I do think is a lot better than dumping it back down a crevasse. It’s a hell of a lot better than that. It means that the huts are maintained better because the helicopters can get in and out. It is a far better way to do things” (Jeff, recreationist).
“Most of the huts will produce three to four tanks over a 1000 litres of effluent and human waste every year, which is 1000 litres that isn’t going into the glacier, which is great - it is far better” (Jeff, recreationist).
“I see human waste as a far bigger problem in the mountains than some fumes from planes” (Kate, recreationist).
44..33..33 DDiissaaddvvaannttaaggeess ooff aaiirrccrraafftt uussee
This section presents findings in relation to what the recreational participants perceive as
disadvantages of aircraft use in the AMCNP and alpine environments in general. As with the
guide participants, most of the recreationists argue that they perceive the benefits to outweigh the
disadvantages in relation to the AMCNP. The following quotes outline the key disadvantages,
such as potential loss of natural quiet and increased crowding due to the easy access.
“There are huge disadvantages as well, being buzzed all day, which as I said, has annoyed me in the Darrans but not so much in Mt Cook, because flying in then was probably nowhere near as big as it is now. There is the air, and noise pollution and visual and spiritual pollution that can happen sometimes, so it can affect my experience when I’m climbing” (Marcus, recreationist).
“There is, or can be a loss of the natural quiet. But I guess at the places that I have flown into I have found that it’s not such a big issue. I find it really frustrating when I am in somewhere that I have walked into, and it’s a long way from anywhere and I feel really remote, and a helicopter or plane flies over. But somewhere like the Tasman glacier or the West Coast glaciers, I’ve flown in there nine times out of ten, so it’s not such a big deal that there’s a plane going over my head. I think that the loss of natural quiet can be a problem in some areas but it just doesn’t bother me” (Jeff, recreationist).
Similarly to Dave (see Section 4.2.3) Marcus is of the opinion that crowding issues are much a
result of aircraft access, especially at a place like Colin Todd Hut in the MANP.
78
“Crowding in the huts, like I have found at Colin Todd, can be a disadvantage. I first went up there 20 years ago and there was no flying in then, and the hut was in balance with the number of people that were going in, where as now it is just crowded with guide parties and so on, so it is quite a squeeze in there, and I would put that down as pretty much 100% to flight access” (Marcus, recreationist).
In the following quote Marcus also expresses a notion that aircraft use can lead to inexperienced
climbers accessing areas which are potentially too serious for their skills and experience.
“You are getting a few people high up in the mountains that shouldn’t be there, they don’t have feeling of the mountains or the actual skills to cope with the environment that they are in. I think that there is an economic push from guides more and more to get people in there that maybe shouldn’t be there. They have the money to pay for it but, you know, the extreme of that is when you look at the Himalayas and Everest or somewhere like that, but it is happening to a lesser degree here in New Zealand as well, especially on mountains like Cook and Aspiring. you know, when I was just in Aspiring recently, and there were two people there that shouldn’t have been there with a guide you know, but they really should have been somewhere a bit lower, and/or somewhere that was more suited to their skills” (Marcus, recreationist).
Jeff also spoke about this thus confirming that this is a somewhat common perception amongst
climbers. However, Jeff does not support this notion himself, saying that it is not based in actual
facts and according to him, most of the fatalities that have happened in the Mt Aspiring area
happened with people who have walked in.
“From the best of my knowledge, the majority of accidents happen with people who have walked in. One of the arguments against aircraft access in that area is that the people that fly in are often inexperienced. But in the past five years, bar one person, all the fatalities that have occurred on the glacier has been people that have walked in, not flown in” (Jeff, recreationist).
44..33..44 HHooww rreeccrreeaattiioonniissttss ppeerrcceeiivvee aaiirrccrraafftt ttoo aaffffeecctt tthhee rreeccrreeaattiioonn eexxppeerriieennccee
In this section the findings related to how the recreationists perceive the aircraft effect on their
recreational experiences will be presented. All participants do perceive some noise intrusion but
as one can understand from the following quotes, most participants do not find aircraft noise to be
unduly impairing on their experience in the AMCNP.
“[Air traffic] was very noticeable on Ball Pass, because we were there on a beautiful day and it was just constant [air traffic] overhead, really constant. I guess they might be sightseeing ones because they spent a lot of time over Ball Pass, if they were [transporting climbers] they would have been going into Plateau or been elsewhere, but we were very aware of a lot of traffic. I don’t particularly like it, but it doesn’t really bother me” (Kate, recreationist).
Kate specified after making the above statement, that it was not the presence of aircraft she later
remembered about the trip and she only thought of it because of the topic of this particular
79
interview situation. She points out that the noise from the aircraft is far more intrusive than the
sight of the aircraft but it is not enough to ruin the experience of being in the mountains. She sees
it as a disturbing rather than a destructive element.
“I think that probably the word is disruption. That would be a term that I would use to describe it. It’s a selfish thing you know, in that you have worked and sweated to get to that place and this external impact comes…” (Kate, recreationist).
The following quotes outline other aspects of how aircraft affect the participants’ experience.
Lisa mentions the loss of feeling of remoteness and how walk-in approaches provide a sense of
journey whereas aircraft access provides a greater focus on the activity, and Jeff and Marcus
discuss the differences in both the challenge and experience of climbing Aoraki/Mt Cook with or
without the use of aircraft access. Marcus has ascended the mountain three times over a span of
15 to 20 years, twice by walking in and out and the last time by flying in to the Grand Plateau,
climbing the mountain and walking out.
[When using aircraft] you don’t feel so remote, so isolated, so self reliant, which is one of the big things that I go into the hills for, so I definitively see it is a different experience […] I suppose a lot of the trips I do, are about the whole experience, the journey, and it’s about being somewhere quite remote, which is quite important to me, and definitely Franz, Fox and Tasman, don’t feel remote at all. […] If you are going more to ski or more to climb, than rather for the whole journey, I see those as different experiences and I think whether it is tramping or ski touring, if you are doing it all on foot, those times are kind of the payment you make for the good times later, they make the whole experience better in some ways” (Lisa, recreationist).
“I do still hope to go back to Aoraki/Mt Cook one day and walk in and walk out, do the whole trip, it is still a goal. But it doesn’t take away from the trip that I did; it is just a different challenge. We certainly had the skill and the confidence to be there, and we certainly could have walked in and out if we had wanted to” (Jeff, recreationist).
When asked how the experiences of climbing Aoraki/Mt Cook by aircraft access and by foot
access compared to each other, Marcus answered that they were:
“Very different, incredibly different. It’s still rewarding in its own way, you know, [aircraft access] allowed me to get a weather window and climb Mt Cook in two days from Dunedin basically, which if I had to walk in, we would have never done it. It was great, it was kind of consumer climbing of Mt Cook, that’s what it felt like, cause it’s pretty hard accessing the Grand Plateau, and dangerous too for that matter, by foot. But I suppose I still have that old style ‘from the valley floor up to the mountain and back down again’ attitude, and I really like that feeling of walking from the bottom to the top. Not for any ethical reasons really, just because I like the flow that it gives you, instead of just being popped up there automatically, and then doing the interesting bit at the top, you know, I’ve always had more satisfaction out of alpine climbing from the bottom to the top and then back down again. […] I certainly got a lot more satisfaction out of the climbing the two times that I climbed Mt Cook from the valley floor for example, I actually felt like I had really climbed the mountain, where as it was almost too easy being dropped in at Plateau, and then that night just whipping up the East Ridge, still fresh as
80
a daisy at the top, perfect weather, not having to worry about the weather, so I definitely didn’t feel as though I got that sense of really climbing the mountain from flying in” (Marcus, recreationist).
Marcus also discussed how aircraft use can interfere with his experience in certain areas such as
the Darran Mountains in Fiordland, but not while in the Aoraki/Mt Cook area or Mt Aspiring:
“It’s often the feeling you have before you select a place, and you sort of say well where will I go? Do I want to have a wilderness experience or just go in, and not care about it? If I am going into Lake Adelaide or somewhere else in the Darran mountains, I will often select a place like that because I want to be a bit more isolated from the real world, and then when the choppers comes buzzing over the saddle, I don’t like that so much. Not after the fifth or the tenth one anyway! […] But I can’t really say that a small amount of over flights really affects my experience and I consider myself a hypocrite if I thought it did, because I use flights myself as well, and I like other people to have access even if they are just looking at the mountains” (Marcus, recreationist).
A comparison between the two participant groups show that just like the guides, the recreationists
do not consider the AMCNP to be a wilderness area:
“The reality in Mt Cook, I don’t consider it a remote area, the only part that I would consider remote is the Hooker valley, which is a no fly zone, and I quite like that it is quiet and there is minimal aircraft traffic. […] I guess [it’s due to] historical precedence because there has always been aircraft activity there, and the majority of people will use it to access the area, so they accept it” (Jeff, recreationist).
“I suppose a lot of the trips I do are about the whole experience, the journey, and that about being somewhere quite remote, is quite important to me, and definitely the Franz, Fox or the Tasman, don’t feel remote at all, and the main reason they don’t feel remote is because of the aircraft” (Lisa, recreationist).
In addition, Lisa stated that aircraft somewhat removes the feeling of remoteness and self reliance
which is important to her. But then again, she said she would not choose to go to certain areas
within the AMCNP if remoteness was her recreational objective. This view is supported by the
majority of the participants.
Some participants have a different view on wilderness experiences than the majority. Jeff
expressed a similar opinion as Greg (guide), who stated that wilderness can be experienced also
in the AMCNP, depending on prevailing conditions (see Section 4.2.4):
“I want the feeling of being remote or the appearance of being remote, so once the helicopter goes you’re alone, you are remote. How you got there is different but if the cloud comes in and the helicopter can’t fly and you fall over and break your leg, you may as well be a million miles away, or a hundred meters. You are remote, how you got there at that point doesn’t matter. I take a beacon or a mountain radio when I go into the hills because I’m testing myself to the point that I might need to get out. It is only used in an emergency, but it’s that modern sense of remoteness, rather than being truly a million miles away” (Jeff, recreationist).
81
44..33..55 AAttttiittuuddeess ttoowwaarrddss aaiirrccrraafftt uussee
This section outlines findings which concern the recreationists’ attitudes towards aircraft use. The
most interesting finding relating to user attitudes towards aircraft is that the participants clearly
differ in their attitudes depending on the site, or place, in question. For example, Jeff expresses
no issues with using aircraft for access in the AMCNP but he strongly opposes the use of aircraft
in the Darran Mountains or any areas of wilderness status. When asked why aircraft in the
AMCNP does not bother him he answers:
“Because it is more acceptable, I do just accept it. If I was ski touring on the Olivine Ice Plateau or on the Gardens of Eden in South Canterbury and a plane flew past, I’d be quite annoyed because I consider those areas remote. But when I’m somewhere like the AMCNP… […] It’s what I expect when I go there; if it’s a fine day I expect lots of planes to be honest” (Jeff, recreationist).
Similarly, Marcus is supportive of aircraft use in certain areas for the very same reasons as Jeff,
and has now come to accept Aoraki/Mt Cook as well as Mt Aspiring as flight-access mountains
since it provides easily accessible climbing and having those areas, which include the most
attractive peaks in New Zealand, available from aircraft helps keep other areas aircraft free.
Marcus also expresses support of the no flight zones in the AMCNP, especially Hooker Valley,
since it provides an ascent route up Aoraki/Mt Cook where aircraft are not allowed. To Marcus,
that means that climbers can climb the mountain in a, as he puts it, “consumerised” way or by a
more committing route with less aircraft disturbance:
“I like having areas where you’re not having choppers buzzing over you, and you don’t have the option of [flying] in there. Even within Mt Cook it’s very different going up the Hooker from going up to Plateau. I’ve got no problems with people flying into Plateau, but I would hate to see helicopter access up the Hooker, or even choppers in the air. Again, I see Mt Aspiring now as being a helicopter/flight access mountain, in a way. I accept [aircraft access] when I go up a mountain like that. I sort of don’t mind having some routes or areas almost sacrificed to helicopter access, cause that also keeps other areas clear, so you have a choice between if you want something consumerised, which inevitably you will get with helicopter access, or you want something remote and committing. As long as you can get that, then I’m quite happy to sacrifice (in a way) a mountain like Mt Aspiring to chopper access, which I think it has been” (Marcus, recreationist).
As the following quotes show, Marcus differentiate between Aoraki/Mt Cook and Mt Aspiring,
where he accepts aircraft use, and the Darran Mountains (similarly to Jeff), which he considers a
place where one can expect to experience isolation, and where he does not accept aircraft use to
the same degree. This is also supported by Lisa, who accepts aircraft in some areas but would
react to seeing aircraft in areas that she considers remote:
82
“If I am going into Lake Adelaide or somewhere else in the Darran Mountains I will often select a place like that because I want to be a bit more isolated from the real world, and then when the choppers comes buzzing over the saddle, I don’t like that so much” (Marcus, recreationist).
“I suppose I see the Tasman, Franz and Fox as being areas where there is always going to be extensive aircraft traffic. If I go into those areas I sort of accept that, but there is a lot of more remote places I go where I wouldn’t want to see that type of aircraft traffic encroaching, or even a much smaller amount of aircraft” (Lisa, recreationist).
These findings indicate that users’ attitudes towards aircraft use are not based on a two-
dimensional for-or-against spectrum, but are rather based on a complex set of factors which
include considerations about the attributes of the site of the activity.
Some of the recreationists expressed concerns towards the extent of aircraft use and highlighted
the importance of preventing further extensions of legal landing zones and also getting more
measures in place to regulate aircraft overflights:
“I quite strongly believe in not extending aircraft access beyond the areas where they currently exist, I want the Hooker to continue to be a fly free zone, and in a sense it’s not completely flight free in that there is actually always aircraft flying over when you are in the Hooker Valley. […] I’d much rather have it concentrated in one place where it is really quite concentrated rather than see it spread. With that said, I do use aircraft access [myself]” (Lisa, recreationist).
“It’s been an incremental increase in the number of flights that are being permitted over the last 20 odd years and its gotten to a stage now where recreationalists are actually realizing how much this is starting to affect them. I’m sorry that it hasn’t occurred earlier, but at least that it’s happening is a welcomed sign.[…] I don’t really know how you can justify the regular use of aircraft in a national park which is supposed to be founded on preserving interests of national values, and that includes natural quiet. Increasingly I’m less and less supportive of the use of aircraft in a national park context. In an area which is not a national park I see grounds for recreational opportunities using mechanised access but, I’m not in favour of aircraft, except for management purposes and search and rescue purposes” (Evan, recreationist).
For Evan, the issue of aircraft use in the AMCNP boils down to one simple question:
“I mean why do you have a national park? You got to come back to that sort of basic question. And I think it’s really sad that people say ‘let’s have a national park’, but then it’s not an actual national park” (Evan, recreationist).
Evan is of the opinion that the values national parks are based upon, conflict with the use of
aircraft within the parks. In that respect, users should respect national park values and act in line
with those values since they are a part of that particular climbing environment. He also says that
some of the properties that make a natural area stand out and considered precious enough for
83
national park status, such as natural quiet and remoteness, are potentially threatened by aircraft
activity.
Marcus expressed a more neutral point of view in regards to aircraft access, given that without
the option of aircraft access, some mountains, like Aoraki/Mt Cook, would not be climbed if it
was not for aircraft access. That said, Marcus also expressed that he would not like to see aircraft
access in areas which he considers remote and where he would go with objectives of
experiencing solitude, such as the Darran Mountains (see Section 5.6.2).
I think there has to be some compromise [in regards to aircraft access]. As I said I’ve used flight access myself, and I can see how people who would not get a chance to get amongst those high mountains [can benefit from it], especially now with glacial recession. It was desperate [climbing up to the Grand Plateau] when I went up there in the past and I’m sure it’s a lot worse now, climbing those moraine walls. [Aoraki/Mt Cook] would hardly get climbed if you didn’t have helicopter access” (Marcus, recreationist).
As described earlier, some guides and recreationists have a negative perspective on scenic flights,
but this is not a common perception amongst the guide participants as shown earlier (see Section
4.2.5) and it was not a common view amongst the recreationists either. Rather some of them
expressed an understanding of the attraction of scenic flights and the importance of the scenic
flight industry for the option of chartering access flights:
“There is also the scenic access thing, which I think must be fantastic for people that have never seen a glacier, to fly the plane and then land on the glacier is just awesome and would be a great experience” (Jeff, recreationist).
“I fully recognise the enormous benefits of them being there, and for them to be there they must be sustained by something, and if that thing that sustains them is tourists flights, I am happy with that. It’s an annoyance rather than a disadvantage when you are in an environment and they are there. But there are lots of places in NZ where planes aren’t allowed to go, you know, so If it really bothered me, then there are places that I could go where it I wouldn’t be bothered by it, lots and lots of places. I found it worse in Fiordland than Mt Cook, a lot worse. When we were on the Gertrude saddle, it was a lot worse; we were being buzzed every five minutes” (Kate, recreationist).
As a measure to enable users of the AMCNP to experience the natural landscape of the AMCNP
accompanied exclusively by the natural soundscape, Lisa discussed the possibilities of
establishing no-flight times in the AMCNP. She added however, that flights of more valuable
purposes should be exempt from such a regulation:
“All this [regulation] I am talking about is kind of the recreational tourist aspect, for search and rescue purposes, I don’t think there should be any limits. I think if it’s search and rescue that fly wherever; that’s fine,
84
and also for pest control purposes I’m happy for there to be more flights, although I think the times for those should be coordinated in an appropriate way and maybe also made public” (Lisa, recreationist).
44..33..66 AAcccceeppttaannccee ooff aaiirrccrraafftt uussee ffoorr cclliimmbbiinngg
As described earlier (see Section 4.2.6) the participants were originally asked whether they
considered there to be any ethical implications involved in using aircraft for access for
mountaineering. This phrasing proved too vague for most interviewees so to put this into an
understandable concept the question was rephrased to involve the use of aircraft as an aid for
climbing, since this implied that the question was referring to climbing ethics. As Section 4.2.6
shows, the guide participants did not perceive aircraft use to conflict with climbing ethics and
were of the opinion that climbers should climb the mountain in relation to their own personal
belief of what is a good way of climbing it. The recreational participants are of similar opinions.
From Evans point of view, the aircraft can be seen as an aid in climbing a mountain, but he thinks
that climbers whose objectives are climbing a specific route do not necessarily see it the same
way. For them the actual route is the goal and not the mountain, and the route usually starts at the
bottom of the mountain, not at the beginning of the approach. All recreationists express that this
issue depends on the climbers personal beliefs in how the mountain should be climbed, and it
does not become an ethical dilemma unless someone is dishonest in how they climbed it.
“I don’t know if it’s an ethical issue or not, I think it’s a style issue, it’s how you feel, I don’t see it as an ethical issue, I see it as a feeling of satisfaction that you get yourself” (Marcus, recreationist).
“The ethics of how you climb is really your choice, and I don’t mind someone climbing something in a way that I wouldn’t ethically choose to do it, but if they are doing it in a way that intrudes on my experience then that’s going to bother me. For a lot of places in New Zealand I suppose the access is a significant portion of the difficulty of the climb. I mean, if you fly into Colin Todd, you have probably flown in half the height of the climb [of Mt Aspiring]” (Lisa, recreationist).
“I think it is difficult to classify where the climb starts, because in Mt Aspiring, which is a really good example, people really believe that the flying in is cheating, you fly into 1800 meters and you climb the last 1200. People think that you should walk all the way from the car park, but I also argue that the car park used to be another 20 km further down the valley, which would have added another days’ walk onto your trip 40 to 50 years ago. So does that mean that modern climbers that walk in from raspberry flat have less of an achievement than climbers that did it 50 years ago? It is splitting hairs. I think the thing about climbing is that it is you against the elements, so by flying it is seen that you reduce your ability to handle the elements, because you have only climbed the bit in the middle, because you flew in and flew out. It is a valid enough view, but I don’t give it a lot of thought” (Jeff, recreationist).
85
Jeff also explains that there is a notion amongst some climbers that using aircraft access is not a
proper way of climbing a mountain which suggests that they think using aircraft is a breach of
climbing ethics:
A lot of people are very anti, and belittle the achievement of not walking in and out. There is rarely a time that I think that it is that much of an aid. […] There is certainly a segment [within the climbing community] that think that if you fly in and fly out, that you didn’t do the whole climb, you only started climbing from half way up” (Jeff, recreationist).
Marcus, being a very experienced climber and coming from an older generation of climbers, is of
the opinion that using aircraft and hiring guides do aid some less experienced climbers in
achieving big goals, such as climbing Aoraki/Mt Cook, whereas they could perhaps benefit from
setting themselves smaller objectives that they are more capable of achieving:
“I suppose that I’m a little bit old school in that I think that it’s good to build up to those bigger mountains. If you have it all done for you to get to the top, basically you are cutting corners with your skills and your fitness and things like that, so you get to the top of Mt Aspiring or Mt Cook and in a way you really haven’t paid your dues. You’ve paid your money but that’s about all, so you know, like I say that could be an elitist point of view, but it is sort of the old school way of mountaineering, where you start tramping and then you go a bit higher and you gradually build up the fitness and the skills. Then you’ve earned your right to climb the big mountains to some degree” (Marcus, recreationist).
This view is as shown earlier (see Section 4.2.6), shared by Dave (guide) to a certain extent. They
both recognise that it is a difficult distinction to make since a lot of climbers using aircraft and
guides are indeed quite experiences climbers, and there can be numerous reasons for them
choosing to do so.
44..44 RREELLAATTIIOONNSSHHIIPP BBEETTWWEEEENN GGUUIIDDEEDD AANNDD RREECCRREEAATTIIOONNAALL PPAARRTTIIEESS
This section presents findings related how the participants perceive the relationship between
guided and recreational parties. This relationship was explored partly because of the assumption
that inter-group conflict can occur if population density leads to an increase in encounters, or
users’ perceptions of crowding. Given that guided groups use aircraft almost exclusively, and that
aircraft use presumably increases the population density of an area, an exploration of this
relationship could give insight into any conflict issues related to aircraft use. This section presents
findings from both participant groups in order to provide a direct comparison.
86
There are few user groups in the AMCNP and those that are there seem to have understood the
importance of keeping a mutually good relationship. As the following quotes will show, the
guides express a respect for the amateur climbers and some express that ultimately, the amateur
style is the true way of climbing. Also, guides sometimes provide favours and services to the
recreationists which aid in keeping the relationship beneficial for the amateur climbers:
If [recreational users] approach me, my first priority is to my clients. I’m responsible for their safety and they pay me for teaching them so obviously they will be my priority, but I always try and give advice when I can and help when I can and lend them stuff when I can. We’re all part of the same team I would say” (Fritz, guide).
“Often you give them help with different things, telling them the best way to go or about hazards and things. Ninety-nine percent of the time [the relationship is] very friendly, and you often leave your extra food with them when you’re leaving and you fly out their rubbish for them if you’re flying out and you help them out if you can” (Adam, guide).
“We’ve [the guides] gotta watch that we don’t overuse the huts and make it like it’s our huts sort of thing, and make them feel unwelcome” (Glen, guide).
“I do as much as I can to maintain a very, very good relationship with recreational parties because, after all, all I am is a commercial operator, so I should take second, you know, I’m just there making money you could say. It’s more than that to me but, I think it’s really important that the recreational users of the park actually take precedent really. And I do everything I can to have good relationship you know, to be friendly and helpful in the huts. Guides sort of tend to take on a role of managing the huts a little bit, trying to keep things clean and tidy. If you are flying in or flying out you should try and help people out if they need gear flown out or rubbish and all that stuff. And generally that gets really good reception” (Dave, guide).
In general the recreationists on the other hand see how they benefit from the guides and when
asked if he benefits from the guides, Jeff answered:
“Absolutely, they will give you route information and weather information. Their interpretation of the weather will be far better as they are professionals, they are very good at saying; your technique needs to improve and this is how you should do it, without putting you down, because their concern is safety. There is a massive benefit to having the guides in the hills, they are often seen as taking up hut space, or that it’s not true mountaineering. But the guides are professional, they know what they are doing, and they are always willing to pass those skills on, particularly in the aspect of safety” (Jeff, recreationist).
This is largely supported by Lisa:
“Most guides are amateurs themselves as well, and most of them climb for themselves independent of their job, and certainly have climbed as amateurs before they were guides, so most of them understand, and most of them are quite good at giving advice appropriately to less experienced parties” (Lisa, recreationist).
87
In general, it appears to be a reciprocal relationship between the two groups but the interviews
also reveal that there is, or has been some dismay amongst recreational climbers in regards to
mountain guides. Among the participants, this is only noticeable with Evan, who is the only
recreational participant expressing conservative views in regards to guided commercial activity in
the AMCNP:
“I’m a member of the Alpine Club and I find that Alpine Club huts are often dominated by commercial groups or non-members of the Alpine Club and I’m very uncomfortable with that. I really wonder you know, whether there should be just commercial huts, so that the club huts can remain the amateurs’” (Evan, recreationist).
Evan explains that his concerns are essentially about mixing commercial interests with national
park values, which is also why he is opposed to aircraft use in national parks. Nevertheless, this
confirms that there is some contention about guided activity in the AMCNP. Adding to that,
some participants expressed that they think there is a minority of recreational climbers who rather
have no commercial guiding in the mountains, but this is most likely not a substantial group:
“There are certainly some people out there who, that would be the minority, sort of wish that guides didn’t exist at all, and are annoyed by the fact that there are guides in there. I can sort of see their point of view to some extent, they see it as an amateur sport which it generally is, and they rather just have everyone just being there on their own, under their own skills and steam” (Fritz, guide).
“I think a lot of it is tied up in how much flight access we give to them, as [conflict] is a population pressure thing. Climbers will resent guided parties if they are crowding out all the huts and the routes, so it is probably about getting a little bit of balance” (Marcus, recreationist).
That said, the recreational participants in general expressed little concern about the guiding
activity, and the following comment comes close to summing up the essence of how
recreationists relate to guided parties:
“I’ve never had an issue with a guide and a client being in a hut, they are just people, and often the guides will share their food, because if they have flown in, they will have really good food and will share it. […] I can’t look down on a guide or a client, they are just doing it differently, they aren’t doing it better or worse, just different” (Jeff, recreationist).
44..55 SSUUMMMMAARRYY
This chapter has presented the research findings which comprise information from the 13 in-
depth interviews with mountain guides and recreational climbers. Several themes have been
88
covered in order to provide information which furthers the understanding of the issues that make
out the aims and objectives of this research. The findings presented relate to:
1. the extent of aircraft use in the AMCNP and the reasons for use;
2. perceived benefits and disadvantages of aircraft use;
3. participants’ perception of how aircraft use affect user experiences;
4. the participants’ attitudes towards aircraft use;
5. how the participants consider the use of aircraft in relation to climbing ethics; and
6. the relationship between guided and recreational parties in the AMCNP.
This thesis will now proceed to discuss these findings.
89
Chapter 5. DDiissccuussssiioonn
55..11 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN
The main aim of this research was to explore the ways in which recreational and professional
users of the AMCNP relate to aircraft use in the Park and how it affects their experiences of using
the park. This chapter will discuss findings in relation to this aim as well as the research
objectives. Other issues that emerged through the interview process and which are of particular
interest will also be discussed. This chapter will show that users’ relation to aircraft use in the
AMCNP is an issue of significant complexity and that factors such as historic use (including
aircraft and mountaineering history), user objectives, others’ experience opportunities (ensuring
opportunities for recreational experiences for others), concentration of aircraft use to certain
areas, safety, and waste management are important when users form their overall opinion about
how they feel about aircraft use in the AMCNP. As such, it appears that experienced users do not
have single minded opinions for or against aircraft use (or other activities such as snowmobile
use), rather they try to make informed decisions related to the specific area, based on these and
other factors.
This chapter will discuss the following themes:
1. Benefits and disadvantages of aircraft use in the AMCNP;
2. The effect of aircraft on users’ experiences and what experiences the AMCNP can
provide;
3. Users’ attitudes towards scenic flights and general aircraft use in the AMCNP; and
4. Whether aircraft use causes conflict in the AMCNP.
A detailed assessment of the benefits and disadvantages reveal that participants consider the
benefits to outweigh most drawbacks. In regards to users’ attitudes towards the use of aircraft,
this chapter will show that numerous properties attributed to the specific location or place, factor
in on these attitudes. This is based on the fact that most participants accept and use aircraft in the
AMCNP, while being opposed to aircraft use in other, seemingly similar areas. Accordingly,
attitudes towards aircraft activity can be seen as site-specific. In regards to conflict, this chapter
90
will show that there are no strong indicators of conflict in relation to aircraft or between user-
groups in the AMCNP.
55..22 EEXXTTEENNTT OOFF AAIIRRCCRRAAFFTT UUSSEE AANNDD RREEAASSOONNSS FFOORR UUSSEE
This section discusses the findings related to the extent of the participants’ (from both user
groups) use of aircraft in the AMCNP area. The discussed findings are previously presented in
Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.1.
Both recreational users and guides use aircraft extensively in the AMCNP. Guided groups almost
exclusively use aircraft for their trips (with the notable exception of guided trips over Ball Pass,
which is only done by few guides however). That is not to say that guide participants exclusively
use aircraft when they are recreating in their spare time, but this issue is outside the aim of this
study. Mostly, guided groups operate on the Upper Tasman and Murchison Glaciers, especially
for instruction courses, and from the Grand Plateau for ascents of Aoraki/Mt Cook (and other
peaks). The reasons as to why guides use aircraft are mostly related to the difficult access to these
areas, which require up to two days (possibly three) of walking in very difficult terrain. That
combined with the short amount of time that clients usually have available, and considerations
towards providing clients with good products, simply make aircraft access the best option. Guides
also have to consider the physical abilities of their clients, and the general perception is that very
few people would be able to access these areas by foot and still be able to climb Aoraki/Mt Cook
or attend a four day mountaineering course, and then walk out again. A few of the guides also
specified how much an egress down the Tasman Glacier detracts from the overall experience for
their clients. Based on these findings it is reasonable to conclude that the current level of guiding
and course activity in the high mountains of the AMCNP cannot be sustained without the use of
aircraft for access.
Recreational users, although using aircraft access extensively, seem more likely to also
commence trips with the objectives of experiencing wilderness, experiencing “climbing the
whole mountain”, or trips of smaller objectives such as lower or less remote peaks. As such, they
might not be dependent on aircraft access for all their activity in the park. Of course, there is a
cost issue involved here. Many recreational climbers cannot afford to use aircraft very often, and
91
if they go on a trip say, every three weeks, they are likely to use aircraft only for a limited
number of their trips. That said, when recreational users want to access the Upper Tasman, the
Grand Plateau or the Franz and Fox glaciers, they more often use aircraft than not.
55..33 BBEENNEEFFIITTSS OOFF AAIIRRCCRRAAFFTT UUSSEE
Aircraft use has several benefits for both recreational climbers and guided parties. This section
will discuss findings from the interviews that concern such benefits. The findings that are
discussed here are presented in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.3.2. A summary of the benefits of aircraft use
in the AMCNP as perceived by the participants is presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2: Benefits of aircraft use as perceived by professional and recreational users
Perceived benefits of aircraft use in the AMCNP Perceived
by guides?
Perceived by
recreationists?
Eliminates the physically hard approaches which are typical for the AMCNP Yes Yes
Saves time – approaches usually takes 1-3 days (depending on destination) Yes Yes
Provides good SAR-options and ensures pilots are well trained and familiar
with area
Yes Yes
Enables exploitation of good weather windows Yes Yes
Better waste management (contributes to cleaner huts and cleaner mountains) Yes Yes
Provides better chances for users to meet their recreational objectives Yes Yes
Enables users to engage in their objective (e.g. the climb) with a rested body Yes Yes
Allows users to bring more gear and more and better food Yes Yes
Increase people’s skill levels by providing more time doing the desired activity --- Yes
55..33..11 SSaavveess ttiimmee aanndd eelliimmiinnaatteess lloonngg aapppprrooaacchheess
One of the most two most commonly mentioned benefits is the fact that aircraft eliminates the
long approaches which were said to be almost “Himalayan scale”. The nature of the approach
terrain in the glaciated valleys of the AMCNP has been severely deteriorated during the last few
decades due to glacier recession. This has resulted in increased moraine on the glacier, but also
92
increasingly high and unstable moraine walls on the valley sides which one has to climb in order
to access many of the huts in the park. This is recognised by all participants and they perceive the
access to have been much less severe only a few years back. The other most commonly
mentioned benefit of aircraft use is that is saves time. It will usually take a party a full day to get
to the Grand Plateau and one day for the return. To reach the Upper Tasman Glacier would take a
minimum of two days. In addition, most parties would have to take a rest day before commencing
the climb. This makes it really difficult to plan according to both weather windows, which are
usually short in the Southern Alps, and people’s time off from work. Extra days of walking and
rest days also require extra days’ worth of food, and this increases the weight of the load
significantly. These are important factors as to why people choose to use aircraft access in the
AMCNP.
The elimination of the approach and the time savings achieved by using aircraft has several
benefit-aspects to it. First, users are allowed to engage in their objectives (such as climbing
Aoraki/Mt Cook) in a rested state, and not in exhaustion from the heavy and difficult full day
approach. Second, climbers, skiers and guided groups are able to focus more on the activity they
are heading into the mountains to engage with. They can get flown in within minutes and engage
in the activity in a very short time span; flying in enables more time in the desired terrain, which
enables users with more time doing their desired activity (e.g. climbing, ski-touring,
mountaineering course). Third, more time spent doing an activity increases both individual’s and
teams’ skill levels. This is particularly highlighted by Jeff and Lisa (recreational climbers). Lisa
actually compared aircraft assisted activity to skiing in a resort. She likes to do both, but when
skiing in a resort she gets a much needed quantity of skiing in which helps in developing her
skiing ability. But the experience of skiing in a resort is entirely different from the experience of
skiing in the backcountry, where the quantity of skiing is less, but the whole experience is usually
richer. The same can be said for a walk-in approach to climb a mountain versus using aircraft
access.
55..33..22 SSaaffeettyy aanndd SSAARR
Most of the participants express that they find security in the aircraft presence as it means there
are aircraft available for SAR in case of emergency. Jeff compared it to having an ambulance in a
93
city. Park users know that a quick rescue is a possibility, but they also know that it is not a
complete safety net. This correlates with findings from Booth et al. (1999), who identified two
perceptions of impact from aircrafts related to safety. The first, which correlates with the findings
from both this research and the US National Park Service study (NPS 1994), is the increase in
safety experienced by recreationists when helicopters are present in an area should there be a
need for SAR. The other identified issue is the distraction posed by the aircraft which can
possibly cause climbers and others to lose concentration and consequently make dangerous
mistakes (Booth et al. 1999). The latter issue found no support in the findings from the current
study however. Squires’ (2007) findings also suggest that increased safety and chance of rescue is
perceived as a benefit. In Squires’ study of the MANP, this was mentioned as a positive impact
by 52 percent of those who found that seeing helicopter landings had a positive impact on their
experience. This study supports Squires’ findings in that regard.
An important point was made by Glen (guide) who stated that the safety net provided by aircraft
in mountain regions in New Zealand would not be as good and safe was it not for the invaluable
training and experience which mountain pilots get from flying scenic flights. Also, there would
not be as many pilots and planes available if not for the scenic tour offer and demand.
The fact that aircraft enables climbers to commence a climb while being rested can also be
argued to have some aspect of safety to it, as exhausted people are more likely to make mistakes.
55..33..33 WWaassttee mmaannaaggeemmeenntt
Several comments were made underlining the importance of aircraft for waste management and
hut maintenance. In previous times (according to a few of the participants), the general practice
was to dispose of garbage and human waste on the glacier, often down a crevasse, or to burn the
garbage in proximity to the huts. Now, the common practice is that all waste, including human
waste from the hut toilets, gets carried out by aircraft. It is common practice in the huts that users
gather up garbage from their party when a plane has available space to carry it out. According to
some of the guide participants it is often guides who take charge and make sure this happens. In
addition, aircraft are essential in hut maintenance for transporting materials and workers. Most
participants acknowledge this as a major benefit of aircraft use in the AMCNP.
94
55..33..44 LLeessss nneeeedd ffoorr ppeerrmmaanneenntt iinnffrraassttrruuccttuurree
Increased recreational pressure on natural areas and national parks has in many cases led to an
increase in infrastructural developments (Newsome, Moore and Dowling 2002), although in
many natural areas infrastructure is a result of industries such as logging and mining rather than
recreation. Big scale infrastructure development in national parks such as roads and railroads, has
been a part of the visitor strategies for national parks almost since their conception (NPS 2009).
This research does not refer to that type of infrastructure, but rather small scale infrastructure
specialised to bring people from the road end so to speak, up into the mountains, such as lifts and
helicopters. Infrastructural developments aiming to improve access to remote alpine areas are
found in most of the worlds mountain regions. However, several different strategies have been
implemented in order to meet the particular circumstances of the relevant region. Apart from the
obvious environmental impact, the development of infrastructure and facilities for visitors,
greatly increase the number of visitors to the affected areas. Consequently, issues such as
crowding and loss of natural quiet arise due to increased user encounters, transport of visitors and
management traffic (Table 3).
A few of the participants from both groups expressed that they preferred having aircraft traffic in
the mountain instead of fixed structures, such as lift systems in place. None of the participants
expressed a concern for the fuel emissions from the aircraft. Such emissions were considered not
to have a significant impact on the local environment and climate considering the amount of
fossil fuel emissions on a larger scale. Visible pollutions such as garbage as well as human waste
were considered more damaging.
95
TABLE 3: Development strategies for access to mountain areas
Type of development strategy Found where? (examples) Impact of development Benefits of strategy
Cable cars/gondolas, ski lifts and
tunnels
European Alps (France, Italy,
Switzerland, Austria, Germany), North
America, Scandinavia
Large scale permanent structures in mountain
areas which are both visual and irreversible;
large transport capacity increase number of
people in the area which can have negative
impact on flora and fauna and user
experiences
It is stationary so it keeps users
contained; high transport
capacity
Aircraft: helicopters, ski-planes and
water-planes
Aoraki/Mt Cook NP, DNPP and Grand
Canyon NP
Noise pollution; can detract from user
experiences; ‘unlimited’ range makes
‘everything’ accessible; can increase
crowding; high carbon emission per
passenger (Cessford 2000; Squires 2007)
SAR (DOC 2004; Tranel 2006);
effective for carrying out waste,
mobile; can prevent crowding
by spreading users over a larger
area
Cable routes, also known as ‘via
ferrata’, consisting of bolts and
cables in often steep terrain
European Alps (particularly France and
Italy)
Small scale permanent structures on the
mountain; somewhat irreversible; aging
equipment is potential safety hazard
No noise; little visual impact;
can be removed (except bolts);
small people capacity
Snowmobiles and snowcats (large
belted, passenger vehicle)
Many North American natural areas
incl. YNP, and Sweden
Noise pollution; can detract from user
experiences; vast range; carbon emissions on
the ground; creates tracks; potential high
impact on fauna (Davenport et al. 2005)
SAR; mobile; can prevent
crowding by spreading users
over a larger area
Fixed ropes (and semi-permanent
base camps)
Several Himalayan areas, such as in
the Khumbu region
Provides no efficient way of carrying out
waste from the mountain
Reversible so no permanent
infrastructure; no noise or
carbon emission
96
55..33..55 IInnccrreeaasseedd cchhaanncceess ooff aacchhiieevviinngg oobbjjeeccttiivveess
Several of the participants from both groups expressed that aircraft significantly increases their
chances in achieving their trip objectives. This presumably also increases their satisfaction with
the trip and the guides. Consequently, aircraft enable guides to assist more clients in meeting their
objective, and thus probably perform better as commercial actors. That being said, Ewert (1993)
found that climbers felt that many objectives were met even when they did not achieve the
ultimate objectives, which was to summit Denali. Consequently, users of the AMNCP are likely
to achieve several other objectives even if the ones referred to here are not met (the main
objectives are usually to summit a peak). The findings did not provide enough detail on this issue
to sustain a further discussion on this topic, but several of the participants from both groups
perceive this as a benefit of aircraft use.
55..33..66 OOtthheerr bbeenneeffiittss
Aircraft is also seen by both user groups as a big advantage in dealing with the short weather
windows and difficult weather conditions in the Southern Alps of New Zealand. An aircraft has
obvious shortcomings in dealing with strong winds and poor visibility, but they can quickly
transport people if there is a short weather window. Some of the participants perceive that as a
benefit, as they will rather be in the high mountains dealing with the prevailing weather
conditions there (which might be different than in the lower take off zones) and maybe get some
climbing or skiing done if a short weather window should occur, rather than spending a day (or
more) of walking to get into the high mountain and risk not getting any climbing done.
Another argument for using aircraft access is the option to bring more food and equipment along.
This allows for longer stays in the mountain and for more comfort. Several of the guides and a
few recreationists emphasise this factor, but it is clearly more important for guides, since
providing good food enables them to enhance the experience for their clients.
Other added benefits for the professional users, are mainly that they can transport their clients
into the high alpine areas safely, and without exhausting them on the approach. The approach is
on long and loose moraine ridges where people easily get injured because the footing can be
97
treacherous. The fact that clients are physically rested when starting a mountaineering course or a
guided climb mean that they will be more susceptible to learning and they will have more energy
to spend on the actual activity or objective they came for.
55..44 DDIISSAADDVVAANNTTAAGGEESS OOFF AAIIRRCCRRAAFFTT UUSSEE
In this section the findings relating to what can be considered disadvantages of aircraft use in the
AMCNP will be discussed. The findings discussed here are previously presented in Sections
4.2.3 and 4.3.3. A summary of the disadvantages of aircraft use in the AMCNP as perceived by
the participants is presented in Table 4.
TABLE 4: Disadvantages of aircraft use in the AMCNP as perceived by the participants
Perceived disadvantages of aircraft use in the AMCNP
Perceived by
guides?
Perceived by
recreationists?
Noise impact Yes Yes
Potentially increases crowding Yes Yes
Loss of natural quiet Yes Yes
Disturbs the experience of solitude and wilderness -- Yes
Difficult to use in bad weather and poor visibility Yes --
55..44..11 NNooiissee iimmppaacctt aanndd lloossss ooff nnaattuurraall qquuiieett
As shown in section 4.2.3 and 4.3.3, aircraft noise is perceived as the main disadvantage by all
participants, but that is not to say they are all negatively affected by it. Many of the participants
express that they cannot complain about aircraft noise if they use aircraft themselves. This
finding confirms that noise is mostly a psychological construct (Mace et al. 2004).
Several participants express that they find noise impact from an aircraft to be fluctuant and when
the plane is gone and the noise fades, the annoyance (if there was any) also fades and they can
still feel like they are in a remote place. This correlates with findings from previous research done
by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA) which points out that
98
people’s levels of annoyance usually decrease with time after the aircraft encounter (USDA 1992
in Booth et al. 1999: 27).
As the findings from this research show, neither user group considers noise from aircraft to be an
issue of significant concern in the AMCNP.
Noise is the prominent issue wherever there is interaction between aircraft and people (Mace et
al. 2004; Krog and Engdahl 2004). The AMCNP Management Plan recognises aircraft use as a
potential source of conflict or dissatisfaction, with noise impact being the most contentious issue:
“Contentious issues surrounding aircraft use include how much aircraft use is desirable, what
types of aircraft should be involved, the choice of landing sites and over-flying of the Park by
aircraft based outside the Park. [...] The biggest complaint raised against aircraft is the noise they
generate in an otherwise largely undisturbed mountain environment” (Department of
Conservation 2004, p. 36).
DOC has implemented in the Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy (CCMS) (DOC
2000) (see Appendix 2) that older technologies such as the Cessna and Pilatus Porter aircraft
which are considered noisy, should be phased out as new and quieter technologies become
available. DOC can influence this process through the conditions in concessions and states in the
CCMS that it will actively work towards “the adoption of quieter technologies that will have less
effect on natural quiet and other values that the land may contain” (DOC 2000, p. 239).
The findings of this study suggest that users of the AMCNP presently are tolerant towards the
aircraft activity of the area, mainly because of their own application of aircraft. Bradsher (2003)
and Cessford (2003) suggest that users with past experience with an activity are more tolerant
towards that activity because they have more knowledge about the other users’ requirements.
This can be applied to the acceptance of aircraft use in the AMCNP as well. The participants
display knowledge of other user groups’ needs and this influences their attitudes towards other
activities. The findings suggest that the aircraft activity is at a tolerable level in the AMCNP.
However, findings also reveal that the noise is the most disturbing element of the aircraft and
consequently it is recommended that measures which can limit the noise emissions such as
utilizing new and more silent technology, should be put in place if available and sustainable.
99
As shown in Section 2.5.1, several factors have been hypothesized to influence people’s
perception of noise. Fidell and Teffeteller (1981) suggested that a focus on foreground tasks takes
the focus away from the noise, and Fidell et al (1996) suggested that people’s self-noise drown
out other sources of noise. This study found no evidence of this, but can confirm Gramann’s
(1999) assumption that a perceived need for mechanical noise affects park users’ evaluation of
noise. Participants clearly expressed that they accepted aircraft use in relation to SAR- flights and
for management related flights. Adding to that, some even expressed dismay about scenic flights
because they had less purpose than other flight operations.
55..44..22 CCrroowwddiinngg
Crowding is often perceived when there is a large concentration of people using a limited
geographical area (Hall and Shelby 2000). Such is the case in the vicinity of Aoraki/Mt Cook
during the peak climbing season of December and January. Some participants stated that
crowding was somewhat an issue during that period but since it is such a limited time period,
users who feel displaced can easily choose to go at a different time. As such, there is a potential
that temporal displacement (ibid) occurs to a limited degree in the AMCNP. However, the data
cannot support that this occurs at any scale. Most of the participants say that the AMCNP is far
from being crowded, except during the high season on Aoraki/Mt Cook. Crowding then would
also be limited to the Plateau Hut area and perhaps on the most popular climbing route.
Not many of the participants reflected much on the issue of crowding since it appears almost
absent from the AMCNP. Dave (guide) however, stated that he considers that being crowded in
mountain areas is a more negative impact of aircraft use than the noise. He explains that he has
sometimes been “skied down upon” by heliski parties who have flown into areas where he has
been ski touring. That implies that a heliski party skied down where Dave and his party were
planning to ski, consequently ‘ruining’ the mountain face with tracks.
Dave (guide) also suggests that the use of aircraft negatively affects the hut environment
compared to the atmosphere in a hut where everyone has walked in and there is a feeling of
everybody having been through the same tiring approach. He sees this as a notion that fosters
unity. This can also be understood in light of the mountaineering principle that when a tired party
100
arrives at a hut, it is customary to offer hot drinks and some space in order for the newly arrived
to recover. It is maybe something like this cooperative, considerate spirit Dave feel is missing in
some of the big huts where there are multiple parties who have all flown in and where most of
them are only concerned with their own objectives. This supports Squires’ (2007) suggestion that
aircraft use has affected the climbing culture of the MANP.
55..44..33 LLoossss ooff wwiillddeerrnneessss eexxppeerriieennccee
Several of the participants mention that their own aircraft use and the presence of other aircraft
minimizes the experience of solitude. This is of course a disadvantage of aircraft use but it is also
a very significant impact on the users’ experiences and consequently it will be discussed in
Section 5.5.1 along other factors influencing users’ experiences.
55..44..44 OOtthheerr ddiissaaddvvaannttaaggeess
Some participants suggest that walking access provides the user with valuable knowledge of the
area and the exit route. That implies that using aircraft can prevent people from gaining such
information and the terrain could look easier from above, giving people the wrong impression of
the terrain. But then again, an aircraft provides a good overview of an area which also provides
valuable information of the terrain and possible routes. Also, some suggest that walking in
contributes to a fuller understanding of the area which can lead to a greater appreciation of the
area. These notions can be seen as disadvantages of aircraft use but there are not enough findings
to sustain these arguments further.
Marcus (recreationist) and Dave (guide) expressed that aircraft can provide access for
inexperienced climbers into areas with conditions they do not possess the necessary experience to
handle. With that in mind, one can understand why some argue that less experienced climbers
could benefit from taking on smaller challenges, and build their experiences until they are
properly prepared for the bigger challenges like Aoraki/Mt Cook. Perhaps it should not be for
everyone to achieve such objectives if they are not experienced and skilled enough to do so under
their own steam. Jeff (recreationist) on the other hand argues that the record of fatalities in the
Southern Alps does not support this assumption and suggest that perhaps climbers who have
101
walked in are in greater danger of injuring themselves as they are likely to fatigue during (and
likely on the return of) their climb. No literature supporting either assumption was found, and
consequently, this study refrained from making any assumptions in this matter as it is beyond its
scope. However, these assumptions could be investigated in future research related to safety
aspects of aircraft use.
As noted in Section 5.3.1, aircraft allow users to exploit weather windows but they also have
severe shortcomings when it comes to operating in bad weather or poor visibility. This can make
aircraft a complicated affair for some. Some participants expressed that it can be very
complicated dealing with aircraft because they require certain flying conditions. Plans depending
on aircraft use might be overturned by conditions that especially those with little experience
planning with aircraft, might not have sufficient knowledge about to anticipate. Experienced
guides will most likely, as also expressed in the guide interviews, have enough in depth
knowledge about the weather systems to plan confidently, but a recreational party with little
experience with the area, or with aircraft, might find this difficult.
55..55 EEFFFFEECCTT OOFF AAIIRRCCRRAAFFTT OONN UUSSEERR EEXXPPEERRIIEENNCCEESS
In this section the findings that relate directly to how aircraft use and aircraft presence affect the
users’ trip experience will be discussed. These findings were previously presented in Sections
4.2.4 and 4.3.4.
The mountain guides participants do not express that aircraft has any particular impact on their
experiences, except that they enable them to work in the high alpine areas of the Southern Alps.
The guides do perceive noise to some degree, but they maintain that it does not bother them much
and as such does not have much effect on their experience. Given that the guides were so
withholding of information in this regard, this study is not able to thoroughly explore aircraft
effect on guides’ experience. The guides do however consider aircraft use to have an effect on
their clients’ experiences. All guide participants perceive their clients to enjoy and benefit from
the use of aircraft due to the scenic/flight seeing aspect, the thrill of flying a small aircraft and
landing on the glacier, and the ability it creates to achieve their trip objectives. Most of the guides
themselves do not express any attraction to the actual flight.
102
As Fritz (guide) pointed out in section 4.2.4, the attractiveness and experience of the aircraft
might be relevant to the role of the aircraft on a particular trip. On a day trip or an overnight trip
where the client is not overly exposed to other activities, the aircraft might be a large part of the
experience. Whereas if the client has spent four days or a week on the mountain, and climbed
Aoraki/Mt Cook for instance, the exposure to these other experiences could be likely to
‘outshine’ the aircraft experience. This suggestion is likely to be relevant to recreational users as
well, as they also expressed that aircraft to a degree provide valuable experiences. The role of the
aircraft is then smaller in significance to the overall trip. The relevant objectives also play
significant roles in this regard. If the objective of the park user is to climb Aoraki/Mt Cook, there
is a very high level of commitment involved. It is likely that with highly committing objectives,
the aircraft serve only as transport and is purely a necessity. Whereas partaking on a product like
“Ski the Tasman”, a full day guided product consisting of two ski runs down central parts of the
Tasman Glacier assisted by three ski-plane rides (Alpine Guides 2009), can hardly be seen as
equally committing. Thus, the aircraft is a more significant part of this type of product and can
also be considered part of the attraction. Future research on the relationship between user
experience of aircraft (or other motorised modes of transport), and trip objectives and aspects
(length, activity, etc), is recommended as it can contribute with some understanding of
recreationists motivation for using motorised modes of transport.
Recreational participants perceive the use of aircraft mostly as a necessity, but they also consider
aircraft to provide valuable experience in that that they get a scenic flight included, which also
provides them with a view of the current situation on their exit route. Given that the participants
are experienced users with multiple experiences with aircraft, it is possible that less experienced
users consider aircraft to be an even bigger attraction.
As noted earlier, aircraft noise is widely considered to affect the users’ experience of natural
areas (Kariel 1990; Cessford 2000; Mace et al. 2004). The findings from the current research
support this to a degree. Almost every participant mentions the noise as one of the main
disadvantages of aircraft. But only very few actually say that it bothers them. Those who consider
the noise to have an impact, also point out that they are in no position to complain about others’
use of aircraft since they occasionally use aircraft themselves. This is in relation to the AMCNP
however, and it is likely that the participants would create a different opinion for themselves if in
103
an area where they consider aircraft presence to be improper and consequently have not used
aircraft themselves. Kate (recreationist) points out for instance, that she felt exposed to aircraft at
several places in the park, especially along the Ball Pass crossing where the route follows the
main aircraft corridor of the Tasman Valley. She was not however annoyed or bothered by the
noise, rather considered it a disturbing element which did not significantly impair the recreational
experience. In this regard, annoyance with aircraft can be described as a fleeting emotion which
is often gone when the noise disappears.
As noted earlier, aircraft access can increase visitation to an area which can lead to an increase in
perceived crowding (Squires 2007). Some current findings indicate that social relationships and
the community atmosphere at huts or in particular locations can change as result of more crowded
huts. Dave (guide) expressed a feeling of a different social atmosphere in huts where most people
fly in, with less interaction, “community feel” and empathy among users. He attributed that to
aircraft access or increased commercial pressure in huts. This coincides with Squires’ (2007)
findings from the MANP, where the social conditions at Colin Todd Hut are believed to have
decreased since aircraft access became common and a larger hut was built in 1996. Squires
suggest specifically that the emerging climbing culture is becoming more and more like that of
the AMCNP. This subject could benefit from more research in the future in order to determine
the impact aircraft use has on the climbing culture of an area and/or how it affects relations
between climbers or parties.
Another factor of aircraft use which affects users of the AMCNP is the option for rescue which
the aircraft represents. It affects the user experience since it provides some sort of security and
might be an important factor in decisions related to commencing or withdrawing from potential
dangers for instance. This is a valued factor by all participants from both user groups, even
though some recreational climbers emphasize that they value the independence in being totally
self-reliant and trust their own judgment and skills to keep them away from dangers.
Finally, Dave (guide) argued that aircraft use lessens the challenge of mountaineering and also
detracts from the true spirit of mountaineering (see Section 4.2.6). This is somewhat supported by
Marcus’ statement (see Section 4.3.6) about how aircraft enables less experienced climbers who
have not ‘paid their dues’ or gained the necessary experience or training to get there by
104
themselves, to access and climb mountains that could be considered too much of a challenge for
them. One can understand these arguments given the fact that the transport flight eliminates a
significant part of the climb, although not the technical climbing. It also makes the climb
somewhat easier since the climber can start with a fresh body and is not worn out by the
approach. However, other participants argue that when they fly in, it is with different objectives,
they want to experience great alpine climbing and for various reasons outlined in Section 5.2,
they do not want to spend three to four days walking in and out of the mountain. Marcus
(recreationist) said he had climbed Aoraki/Mt Cook both with and without the assistance of
aircraft and considered it two entirely different experiences, mostly because his body was fresh
when commencing the summit route after having flown in. He does however consider both to be
great experiences, although very different. He considers it more rewarding to climb the mountain
from the valley to the summit because it is harder and a greater achievement, and probably
because he was closer to his own limits. Jeff (recreationist) has climbed the mountain only by
aircraft access and considered it a very challenging endeavour and a great personal achievement.
Still, he expressed a desire to climb it without the assistance of aircraft, since he considers that to
be the optimal way of climbing Aoraki/Mt Cook. Neither of the two would belittle the
achievement of climbing the mountain using aircraft access though, and maintain that it is up to
each individual to decide how they want to carry out the climb. This discussion is relevant to
what in the climbing world is known as ethics, which basically is a set of norms associated with a
given climbing location or culture. For instance, in many areas it is considered unethical to install
bolts to secure a route, especially without asking permission from the first ascender. Some purist
climbers might consider using aircraft access unethical, but all participants in this study argue
that every climber is free to climb the mountain in whichever way he/she finds appropriate, as
long as they are honest about what they achieve and how they achieve it. Consequently, the
ethical aspect does not seem to influence users’ acceptance of aircraft use in the AMCNP.
55..55..11 WWhhaatt eexxppeerriieenncceess ccaann tthhee AAMMCCNNPP pprroovviiddee iittss uusseerrss??
This section discusses findings related to what experiences that can be obtained, and should be
possible to obtain in the AMCNP, as well as users’ recreational expectations. Users utilize a
natural area to fulfil recreational objectives such as a physical trip objective (climbing a mountain
105
or a specific route), or experiencing specific properties of the area such as solitude, wilderness, or
a forest, glacier or mountain environment (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Ewert 1993). There are no
areas within the AMCNP that are classified as Wilderness Area by DOC, despite the rugged and
inaccessible nature of the park. This is partly due to the present infrastructure such as mountain
huts and the active and historic use of the area (DOC 2004). As stated earlier (see Section 2.3.1),
research has suggested that wilderness experiences can be had within most natural settings, as
long as they coincide with the users’ perception of what constitute a wilderness experience
(Higham et al. 2000). The findings suggest that the AMCNP is generally not perceived as a
wilderness area by the either the professional or the recreational participants. As this section will
show, this is mostly due to the long history of human use and aircraft access in the AMCNP, and
its long time status as an international climbing destination. However, some participants suggest
that experiences of wilderness or solitude can be had in the AMCNP because conditions can
render anyone isolated in this area since SAR and particularly aircraft are rather immobilized in
bad weather conditions. This implies that these participants consider wilderness as more than a
physical construct (Higham et al. 2000). It is worth noting that the park includes areas that are
rarely visited, but the participants most often refer to the wider area around Aoraki/Mt Cook and
the Upper Tasman Glacier, when they speak of the AMCNP since these are the more popular
climbing areas.
The findings suggest that the participants consider the use of aircraft to limit the feeling of
solitude from the mountain experience. For instance, Lisa (recreationist) stated that aircraft
somewhat removes the feeling of remoteness and self reliance which is important to her.
Although, she also said she would not choose to go to certain areas within the AMCNP if
remoteness was her recreational objective. This is supported by the majority of the participants.
Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that the AMCNP is considered an area or destination
based around activities such as climbing and ski touring and the objectives of experienced (and
thus informed) users are rarely to experience concepts such as wilderness or solitude. In order to
make sure users are satisfied with their experiences, it is thus important that an emphasis is
maintained on informing new users about the nature of the use of the area so that they enter the
park with wrong expectations.
106
Some participants also suggest that aircraft use eliminates feeling of experiencing wilderness.
The notion of wilderness is to some extent related to the notion of solitude. Since wilderness can
be considered a psychological construct (Higham et al. 2000) it is difficult to know what the
participants mean when they refer to wilderness or solitude. The two terms could indeed have
similar meaning for some people. However, most of the participants say that if they want to
experience solitude or wilderness, they would most often choose to go to other areas than the
AMCNP, places with fewer overflights or where there are landing prohibitions. This supports the
notion that users’ expectations are critical for the evaluation of the experience (Shelby 1980;
Booth et al. 1999). The participants also express that they expect aircraft presence in the
AMCNP, and they accept the loss of solitude or wilderness especially because of their own use of
aircraft. The participants appear to be satisfied with the lack of wilderness experience the area
provides them with and the findings suggest that this is partly due to the large amount of
additional areas which can provide such experiences. These are experienced users of the AMCNP
however, and it is important to note that first time users might not share similar expectations.
Consequently, it is important that measures are taken to inform new users about the aircraft
culture in the AMCNP.
Counter-arguing that aircraft access eliminates possibilities of having wilderness experiences,
Glen (guide) and Jeff (recreationist) suggested that even with the use of aircraft, users can
experience feelings of solitude or wilderness. Incoming weather, which can limit or terminate the
option of flying, can certainly leave one feeling disconnected from the rest of the world. Poor
weather also reduces visibility which increases the feeling of solitude or isolation. As such, Glen
and Jeff differ between the concept of a wilderness area and that of wilderness experiences. This
supports the notion that what constitutes a wilderness experience, is entirely up to the individual
to decide based on his or her ideas of what wilderness is. This notion is based on Higham et al.
who argue that “the highly purist required a pristine ecological wilderness, but the majority could
find wilderness values in places that had been developed in part” (Higham et al. 2000, p. 219).
107
55..66 AATTTTIITTUUDDEESS TTOOWWAARRDDSS AAIIRRCCRRAAFFTT UUSSEE IINN TTHHEE AAMMCCNNPP
This section discusses users’ attitudes towards aircraft use in the AMCNP, and also the
differences in attitudes between the two participating user groups (guides and recreationists).
Some of the discussed findings are previously presented in Sections 4.2.5 and 4.3.5.
There are several factors influencing park users’ attitude towards aircraft use in the AMCNP. The
most prominent factors identified in this study are that:
1. it is relatively cheap to charter an aircraft;
2. the high alpine areas are difficult to access;
3. flying in has become the norm in the AMCNP and is part of the mountaineering culture
and history here; and
4. the AMCNP is considered a sacrifice which keeps aircraft pressure off other areas (as
discussed later in this section).
As previously noted, most of the participants consider parts of the AMCNP to be areas
appropriate for relatively intensive use in which they do not mind high aircraft activity.
Specifically, the area surrounding Aoraki/Mt Cook and the area surrounding the upper Tasman
and Murchison glaciers seem to be accepted by all participants as areas of high aircraft activity.
They are actually considered a ‘necessary sacrifice’ by some, in order to keep aircraft activity and
pressure low in other areas. As noted earlier, and as the following quotes also show, some
participants consider the AMCNP (and the MANP) to play an important role in relieving other
areas of aircraft pressure:
[Aoraki/Mt Cook] is a casualty, which is good in some ways in that it keeps the other places free for people who want to be there on their own” (Fritz, guide).
“I sort of don’t mind having some routes or areas almost sacrificed to helicopter access, cause that also keeps other areas clear” (Marcus, recreationist).
Several of the other participants express views that indicate that they share the notion that the
AMCNP is a casualty or sacrifice which indirectly relieves pressure on other regions which might
be perceived as ‘more’ wilderness. This view shares some common ground with the previously
discussed topic of how users with previous experience in the AMCNP, have different objectives
when going into the AMCNP.
108
Another point which possibly influences users’ attitude towards aircraft is that most recreational
users of the AMCNP (except front-country users) utilize aircraft for access at one point or
another. Once someone has used aircraft they could be more likely to have more positive
attitudes towards that activity. This notion supports Cessford (2003) who found that hikers who
also occasionally mountainbike, had a more positive perception of (and attitudes towards)
mountainbikers on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand. He also suggests that conflict is
less likely to occur between user groups the more knowledge they get about the other group.
Cessford points out that many conflict issues are based on perceptions of the other group, based
on preconceptions and often misconceptions. Whereas the actual encounters might not trigger any
conflict at all. In fact, Cessford suggested, based on his findings, that hikers perceived less
conflict the more often they encountered bikers. This can contribute to understanding that people
who use aircraft occasionally and have knowledge about the scenic flight industry’s importance
for the transport flight business show tolerance towards aircraft use in the AMCNP.
A few of the participants highlighted the obvious contentions between aircraft use and
conservation but the general opinion of both user groups is that areas such as the AMCNP should
be available for the public to use. That is in line with the management objectives as well,
providing the use does no damage or unduly impairs on others’ experiences (DOC 2004). Both
Fritz (guide) and Evan (recreational) pointed out that aircraft access using fossil fuels within a
protected natural area is not a sustainable activity and that this issue might have to be addressed
sometime in the future, especially because of increased focus on lowering carbon emissions due
to its proposed effect on global warming, and also because fossil fuels can become a more scarce
resource in the future.
Many of the guides expressed that they would not use aircraft if there were other good options
(and walking in the Tasman glacier is not seen as a good option due to glacier recession), and
consequently, the only reason they use aircraft is because of their transport abilities. Guides see
aircraft as a necessity in order to achieve their and their party’s objectives and to achieve more
quality climbing rather than spending precious time and energy on approaches. This notion is
found with all recreationist participants too. Guides and experienced recreational users perceive
the aircraft mostly as a means for achieving certain objectives, not as an attraction in itself even
though they often enjoy the actual flight because of aspects such as scenic value. This finding
109
relates to a previously mentioned study by Davenport and Borrie (2005) (see Section 2.3.3) who
investigated the meaning snowmobilers applied to snowmobiling in YNP. As noted, they found
that snowmobilers altered their recreational objectives when snowmobiling in YNP compared to
other places. Many users perceived snowmobiling as just a means to experience the wildlife and
nature in YNP and not as a recreational objective in itself. Davenport and Borrie’s (2005)
findings, as well as findings from this study, indicate that experienced users do not necessarily
have a generalised attitude towards aircraft use in natural areas. Rather they form their opinion
and attitude through a complex reflective process in which many factors are considered.
Especially, each specific place or location is considered individually and depending on its natural
attributes, conservational and recreational value, and how it compares to other areas, the opinion
and attitude is formed. As such, the forming of attitudes towards aircraft use (and possibly other
activities) is highly site-specific and cannot be generalised based on demographics, activity, or
user groups. This will be discussed further in Section 5.6.2.
If comparing the two user groups in this study, there seems to be a more conservative attitude
towards aircraft use amongst the recreational climbers than the professional ones. This could be
partly because guides are more dependent on aircraft to do their job and to provide an attractive
product. However, to truly determine if recreational climbers are more conservative towards
aircraft a bigger sample size is needed. This can be an interesting topic for future research
especially if additional factors such as experience, main climbing discipline (since the discipline
of climbing has fractured into specialised discipline such as bouldering, sport climbing,
traditional climbing and alpinism), and perhaps age is included in the study.
55..66..11 PPeerrcceeppttiioonn ooff sscceenniicc fflliigghhttss
Perceptions about scenic flights amongst the participants appear to be quite diverse. Most
participants have no trouble understanding the attraction of scenic flights. The general opinion is
that it must be great to experience the alpine landscape from above in an aircraft. They generally
also express an appreciation of the ability aircraft give other people who either do not have an
interest in mountaineering or are not physically capable of it, to experience such landscapes in
their own way.
110
Most participants accept scenic flights because they feel that scenic tourists have just as much
right to be there as themselves. A few participants also explain that they understand that in order
for aircraft companies to be able to provide the charter service for climbers, skiers and guided
parties, they are relying on the income from the scenic flights, which is their main business.
Without the tourists the flight industry in the mountain regions will most likely not be able to
operate on the scale it is currently, or deliver such services at the current rate.
A couple of the participants commented about the scenic tours including the ground users of the
park in their tours. Lisa (recreationist) says she sometimes feels like the aircraft particularly seek
them out and she feel that is a bit intrusive. Hamish (guide) said he felt like he was part of
someone else’s experience sometimes, referring to contact with the scenic flights, but he never
felt bothered by it, only slightly personally intrigued the first few times it happened.
Unfortunately this study could not gather enough information on this particular issue, but it was
stated more than once in relation to this fieldwork that it used to be a fairly common occurrence
to have scenic flights approaching climbers on route. It is obvious why climbers on a mountain
are an attraction to scenic tourists, and it is also obvious why climbers can get severely annoyed
and distracted by having helicopters in close proximity. This is one of the issues that has been
dealt with through the MWNPAUG, who in their ‘Code of Practice’ (see Appendix 3) state that
aircraft should avoid flying in proximity to the summit of Aoraki/Mt Cook and also strictly stay
above the minimum ground distance (in any direction), especially in popular user areas. At
present, according to some of the participants, this problem does not occur to the same degree as
it used to.
The final point which concerns attitudes towards scenic flights is that some participants argue
that scenic flights cause more noise than the climbing charter flights. As shown below, this is a
sensitive issue as there are participants positioned on both sides of this argument. To Adam
(guide) it is important to increase awareness that the aircraft below a climber, flying into a hut for
instance, does not generate much annoying noise to the climber. But the aircraft flying at his level
or above create a much more annoying noise level, and Adam says he wants people to
“understand the difference between the two different noise pollutions”. Probably, based on the
findings, there are guides and climbers with stronger (negatively) views on scenic flights than the
selection for this study, because there were only a few views expressed during the interviews that
111
were negative towards scenic flights. For instance Dave (guide) thinks it is completely wrong of
guides to talk about the impact of scenic flights when they have such an impact themselves by
flying in. Chris (guide) explains that he has seen the same attitude multiple times with amateur
(recreational) parties who have used aircraft access and he thinks it is a very hypocritical attitude.
From statements such as these, it is reasonable to suspect that anti scenic-flight views do occur in
the climbing and guiding environment related to the AMCNP. Some common denominators
between the participants who do not possess anti-scenic flight views, is that they are experienced
users of the park and they have a clear conception of the relationship between the scenic flight
operations and the climbing charter operations, and they are of the opinion that others should be
free to experience the park in their own way. This could indicate that those who do express anti-
scenic flight views have an egocentric (in terms of activity) or elitist view on what is appropriate
use of the park. There are possible environmental attitudes factoring in here, but that seems
unreasonable given that most people use aircraft access themselves. Another alternative is that
the number of scenic flights is so high during fine weather periods in the high season that people
feel that they cannot get much natural quiet or “escape” from the noise. That certainly appears to
be the case in other areas which the participants recreate, such as the Darran Mountains. Many of
the participants independently stated that they have a much bigger problem with noise from
scenic flights in the Darran Mountains. It is fairly uncommon for climbers to use aircraft for
access in that area, but it is possible that most of the annoyance is caused by scenic flights
operating from Milford Sound (Harbrow 2007). Research has also shown there is substantial
dismay about the level of aircraft noise in other areas adjacent to Milford Sound (Cessford 2000;
Harbrow 2007).
55..66..22 SSiittee aattttrriibbuutteess iinnfflluueennccee aattttiittuuddeess ttoowwaarrddss aaiirrccrraafftt uussee
Most of the participants make a clear distinction between their experience of, and attitudes
towards, aircraft in the AMCNP and aircraft use in other locations. In other words, they express
different attitudes towards aircraft use depending on which area, or site, they are referring to.
Thus, attitudes towards aircraft use are highly site-specific. Previous research has demonstrated
that social impacts of aircraft are site-specific by showing that peoples’ reactions towards aircraft
noise vary drastically between sites with often seemingly similar attributes (NPS 1994; Booth et
112
al. 1999). Consequently, they concluded that “recreationists’ reactions to aircraft at one site
cannot be extrapolated easily to another site” (Booth et al. 1999, p. 25). These studies did not
however provide much understanding as to why social impacts are site-specific. Rather, it was
suggested that it is a result of a “complex interaction of site attributes” (ibid). The current
research demonstrates that not only are reactions to aircraft site-specific, but that so is the case
also with attitudes towards aircraft use. This has been previously suggested by Booth et al.
(1999): “The comparison across sites is not appropriate in any statistical way because of the site
specific nature of aircraft activity and the likelihood that some recreationists’ reactions are also
site-specific” (Booth et al. 1999, p.32).
In order to understand how attitudes towards aircraft are site-specific, one can consider how Jeff
and Marcus (Section 4.3.5) segregate between accepting aircraft activity in the AMCNP and the
MANP versus not accepting it in the Darran Mountains. This distinction is based on a complex
set of factors which include considerations about the attributes of the site of the activity. Also
illustrating this is that all participants consider noise to be a disadvantage of aircraft, but in
relation to the AMCNP, most of them do not find that it interferes with their experience. Some
influencing factors in this regard are that:
1. they do not consider large parts of the AMCNP as being remote or wilderness areas;
2. they expect and accept encounters with aircraft in the area;
3. most users of the park use aircraft themselves for access; and
4. they consider the AMCNP as “a casualty” which to a certain degree relieves other areas
from aircraft pressure.
In a similar manner, some participants differ between the purposes of flight when assessing their
attitudes towards aircraft activity. Most commonly, a management or SAR flight would be
considered as very purposeful and thus accepted, whereas scenic flights were considered less
necessary and thus, serving little purpose in the eyes of the participants, could be subject to less
positive attitudes. As such, one can argue that attitudes are also specific to the activity or purpose
of the flight.
113
55..66..33 FFaaccttoorrss iinnfflluueenncciinngg tthhee aacccceeppttaannccee ooff aaiirrccrraafftt uussee iinn tthhee AAMMCCNNPP
As previously discussed, most participants accept and to a degree embrace aircraft access in the
AMCNP. The acceptance of aircraft activity is based on many factors as shown in Figure 4.
Some of the previously discussed benefits and also that the AMCNP is considered a sacrifice in
regards to aircraft use (in the figure this is covered under ‘Other sites’ attributes’), influence this
acceptance. Participants are of the opinion that by having aircraft assisted climbing in the
AMCNP (and to a degree in the AMNP) it relieves pressure of aircraft use in other areas, and
they would rather have it contained in popular areas such as the AMCNP in order to experience
natural quiet, solitude and wilderness elsewhere without aircraft interference (noise and
crowding). Since aircraft limit the experience of solitude and wilderness for many users, it is
imperative that the ability for people to recreate in (recreationally) attractive areas without
encountering aircraft (or other significant impact) is secured and maintained. Participants are very
clear that the only reason they accept aircraft use and the attached disadvantages in the AMCNP,
is because there are other areas that can provide natural quiet, solitude and wilderness. Another
factor influencing the acceptance of aircraft in the AMCNP is that climbers like having the option
of “consumerised” (Marcus, recreationist) climbing, which imply fast access into the mountain to
do the activity, instead of having to go through additional stages prior to doing the activity.
FIGURE 4: Factors influencing users’ acceptance of aircraft use in the AMCNP.
USERS' ACCEPTANCE OF AIRCRAFT USE IN THE
AMCNP
Aircraft allows for other
recreational experiences of the area
Site attributes
The attributes of
other sites
Perceived benefits
vs. perceived disadvantages (see
Table 2 and Table 4)
Type of
experience wanted by the
user
User
expectationsAMCNP as 'sacrifice'
which keep aircraft pressure off other
areas Significance of
aircraft to climbing culture
Historical use
of aircraft in the AMCNP
Majority of use
of the AMCNP rely on aircraft
Reliance on scenic
flight operations to sustain aircraft access
option
114
55..77 DDOOEESS AAIIRRCCRRAAFFTT UUSSEE CCAAUUSSEE CCOONNFFLLIICCTT IINN TTHHEE AAMMCCNNPP??
Much of the previous research related to aircraft use has been focused on negative social impacts
(such as visitor annoyance) or potential conflicts of aircraft use (Kariel 1990; Sutton 1998; Booth
et al. 1999; Mace et al 2003; Mace et al. 2004; Squires 2007). It is not without reason however,
because noise annoyance and conflict attributed to aircraft have been found to occur in certain
areas. Examples of this can be found in research related to the MANP (Squires 2007), Milford
Sound (see Cessford (2000) for Milford Track impact), Franz Josef Glacier (Sutton 1998) and
Grand Canyon National Park in the United States (NPS 1994). If one was to try and generalise
based on the current body of research on this topic, one could be tempted to assume that
extensive aircraft use is a source of conflict and annoyance in most places where there are ground
based users within hearing distance. The findings of this research indicate however that the use of
aircraft does not seem to cause much conflict in the AMCNP. There are several reasons for this
identified in this study, such as:
1. the historic presence of aircraft in the AMCNP (dating back to 1953);
2. the benefit to all users of the less accessible areas of the park (since most climbers, skiers
and guided parties use aircraft for access);
3. the perception of aircraft as increasing ones safety in case of emergency and the
awareness of aircrafts importance in SAR; and
4. peoples’ perception of the area as not wilderness (visitors do not choose to go to the
AMCNP if they want solitude and true wilderness experiences, rather they go there to
achieve leisurely goals related to an activity such as climbing or skiing).
The current research material discloses few indications of conflict in the AMCNP among
recreational climbers and professional guides, which is related to the use of aircraft. Some
participants display an ambivalent attitude towards the use of aircraft, but justify their use by
arguing their positive effects. If users of the park expressed attitudes which were clearly against
aircraft use, there could be a case of conflicting social values (Vaske et al. 2007). But in all
actuality, all participating users either use aircraft themselves or consider aircraft so beneficial
that it does not conflict with their social values.
115
Indirectly, aircraft can contribute to conflict among user groups in the AMCNP since guided
groups as well as recreational climbers use aircraft to access the high alpine areas and the
associated huts. Also, several participants stated that sustained guiding in the AMCNP is totally
dependent on aircraft access. As such, guiding activity is synonymous with aircraft activity and
that makes the relationship between guides and recreationist interesting for the main objective of
this thesis. For example, there is the possibility that recreational climbers feel crowded by guided
parties and that they relate that crowding to extended aircraft use. With that in mind the
relationship between these two groups was investigated. The findings from this part of the study
were presented in Section 4.4. Generally speaking there are no indications of any significant
conflict between the two user groups, and judging by the findings, this can be attributed to a
number of factors:
1. the guides appear to be very aware that they do not impose upon the recreational users
and often use other huts (they go to Kelman Hut if Tasman Saddle Hut is inhabited) to
prevent crowding;
2. recreational climbers consider guides important sources of information due to their
knowledge of the area and the weather conditions;
3. guides are considered a valuable asset in rescue situation due to their extensive training;
4. guides sometimes take on organising roles and implement standards in order to keep huts
clean and to clear out waste;
5. guides are known to share their excess food with recreational climbers;
6. both groups generally would like to see an increase in recreational climbing, and guiding
and mountaineering courses often generate independent recreational climbers; and
7. both groups seem to respect each other and see the value of each others’ presence in the
mountain.
In much the same way as the participants tolerate aircraft activity in the AMCNP, they tolerate
the presence of the other user group. For example, the guides might get annoyed that
recreationists occasionally do not clean the huts properly after themselves, and the recreationists
might get annoyed that guides occasionally take too much charge in the huts. But both groups
mutually understand the benefits of the others’ presence and the benefits appear to surpass any
disadvantages. Even though there is a relatively low number of participants in this study, the
116
participants combined have such a good knowledgebase about the conditions of the area that it is
fair to conclude that there is currently no particular conflict between guides and recreational
climbers in the AMCNP. That is not to say however, that there are no occasional occurrences of
conflict between the user groups.
None of the participants expressed directly that they felt displaced from the AMCNP.
Displacement is a difficult phenomenon to identify since it can require a thorough psychological
approach to understand why a person chooses to go here instead of there. Is the user required to
go somewhere else in order to meet his/her objective or does he/she deliberately and willingly
choose the other place without considering the first place? Going to these depths on this issue has
been beyond the scope of this thesis and as such, this study cannot conclude whether user
displacement occurs in the AMCNP. However, the fact that participants choose not to go to the
AMCNP if solitude or wilderness is their main objective, can be considered an indication of
spatial displacement (Hall and Shelby 2000). Also, there are indications that some users choose
not to go into the AMCNP during peak season and that can be considered a case of temporal
displacement (ibid).
55..88 CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS AANNDD RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS
Generally speaking, this research has been focusing on social aspects of aircraft use in the
AMCNP. More specifically, it was conducted with the aim of exploring how regular and
experienced users of the AMCNP relate to aircraft use in the park, which includes their attitudes
towards aircraft use, and how it affects users’ experiences. It also aimed at understanding the
meanings the two user groups attach to the use of aircraft. The latter involves exploring how
aircraft use affects the objectives of said user groups. The complexity of park users’ relation to
and attitudes towards aircraft use has been shown by identifying and discussing some of the
influencing factors on this issue. To conclude this research, this chapter will now summarise the
key findings and conclusions from the discussion. A summary of recommendations for future
research and management will also be made.
In regards to the extent of aircraft use in the AMCNP, all participants have used aircraft to access
areas within the park. Recreational users appear to be more likely to do trips in the park without
117
the assistance of aircraft, than parties assisted by guides. Both guides and recreationists
rationalise their aircraft use as a matter of necessity in order to reach their recreational objectives.
The aircraft itself or the experience of flying is not considered a motivation for using aircraft.
55..88..11 TThhee bbeenneeffiittss ooff aaiirrccrraafftt uussee iinn tthhee AAMMCCNNPP oouuttwweeiigghh tthhee ddiissaaddvvaannttaaggeess
The benefits of using aircraft in the AMCNP are many, and according to the majority of
participants the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Aircraft access saves time and eliminates
the long approaches, thus providing users with more time to focus on their main trip objectives
and enables them to be rested before commencing climbs. Aircraft are also valuable in taking
advantage of the often short weather windows of the area. An important benefit is the added
security of aircraft presence. Equipment is being continually used and tested in challenging
conditions and the mountain pilots get continual training, valuable experience and intimate
knowledge of the areas due to the extensive use of aircraft in the area. Consequently, SAR-
operations are of high standards which add a feeling of security for many park users. Aircraft also
contribute to a cleaner mountain environment according to most participants. All waste is
routinely carried out from the high alpine huts, something which is highly valued and make the
Southern Alps some of the cleaner, much used mountain areas in the world. The use of aircraft
also eliminates the need for permanent structures that are used for access in other popular
mountain areas around the world. That means that when the aircraft is gone, there is little
evidence of human presence, except for the mountain huts.
Increased crowding and noise impact are the two main disadvantages identified in this study. As
discussed earlier, crowding is not a big issue in the AMCNP but it does occur in huts in popular
areas during peak season. Crowding is sometimes avoided or mitigated by the consideration of
guides’ who often use other huts or tents if they know that a hut is occupied. Another form of
crowding is illustrated earlier as “being skied down upon”, which implies that the range and
possibilities of a helicopter, enables drop-offs virtually anywhere within a short timeframe, which
has led to occasions (perhaps not in AMCNP) where ski-tourers have toured into an area in which
they thought they were alone, only to have heli-skiers ski down the face they were climbing up.
This is not however believed to be common occurrences. Crowding can however, pose a bigger
problem in the future if use of the park increases. A consequence analysis of stronger regulations
118
such as limitations on flight times is recommended, as well as continued and increased sharing of
information amongst DOC, guides and recreationists about user movements in order to increase
users’ knowledge of the whereabouts of other activities.
As previously noted, noise from aircraft is perhaps what affects park users the most. It can create
annoyance when it is heard, but perhaps more importantly, it detracts from the users experience
by limiting the feeling of solitude and wilderness. Motorised means of access will as far as
technology goes, for the indefinite future produce some level of noise. However, newer
technologies produce less noise and it is recommended that for the benefit of park users that
older, noisier, technologies will be phased out over time. As previously mentioned, all but one
participant considered the benefits of aircraft use to outweigh these disadvantages in relation to
the AMCNP. It is important to note however, that this would most likely not be the case if there
were no other areas in proximity to the AMCNP that could provide users with solitude,
wilderness experiences and natural quiet.
55..88..22 GGuuiiddiinngg aanndd mmoosstt rreeccrreeaattiioonnaall aaccttiivviittyy iinn AAMMCCNNPP iiss rreelliiaanntt oonn aaiirrccrraafftt uussee
The reasons as to why both guides and recreational climbers use aircraft in the AMCNP have
previously been discussed. Many of the guides pointed out that high alpine guiding in the
AMCNP would be near impossible to carry out commercially if it was not for the use of aircraft.
This is probably a very accurate assumption given the severity of the approach terrain. Most of
the terrain which is reasonably accessible without aircraft cannot be considered attractive for
guiding by international standards and one can assume that the industry would not be able to
sustain itself without using aircraft for access. Based on these findings it is reasonable to
conclude that guiding and mountaineering course activity in the high alpine areas of the AMCNP
cannot be sustained without using aircraft. Findings also suggest that recreational climbing would
be very limited if not for aircraft access; although for segments of this user group, decreased
accessibility could be an attraction. Nevertheless, aircraft use is arguably a necessity in order for
the AMCNP to continue to be an important and popular climbing area. Most of the participants,
as well as DOC (2004), highlight the importance of this area for the climbing culture in New
Zealand. As such, there are many factors providing reasons as to why this area shall remain easily
accessible.
119
In addition, some participants also suggest that the charter transport flights that guided and
recreational parties use, cannot sustain the flight companies alone, at least not at the current
chartering price. Consequently, the aircraft activity is dependent on the scenic flight operations.
The scenic flights also contribute to valuable training of mountain pilots, which is crucial for
effective and skilled SAR operations. In this way, all parts are linked and dependent on each
other, and this reciprocal relationship is something that experienced users of the park seem to
have understood.
55..88..33 AAiirrccrraafftt uussee hhaass ssiiggnniiffiiccaanntt eeffffeecctt oonn uusseerrss’’ eexxppeerriieenncceess
It is evident from the findings that the use of aircraft access provides different experiences than
that of accessing the area without any form of mechanised transport. This difference is recognised
by all participants. Even though aircraft assisted climbs are usually considered proper
achievements, unassisted climbs are considered greater achievements. They are perhaps
considered more pure climbs, or as some participants suggested; walking in and out is the
ultimate style of climbing Aoraki/Mt Cook. All participants agree however that both ways are
acceptable styles of climbing (in this particular area that is) and it is up to the individual climber
to decide how he/she wants to carry out a climb.
As discussed, the presence of aircraft also greatly affects the user experiences. All participants
agree that aircraft somewhat removes the feeling of remoteness and solitude and eliminate
options of having a wilderness experience as well as spoiling natural quiet. But they also state
that they would not choose to go to certain areas within the AMCNP if remoteness, solitude or
wilderness experiences were their recreational objectives. In fact, none of the participants
consider the AMCNP to be a remote or wilderness area. This is an indication that most
experienced mountaineers (which comprise the main user group of the high alpine regions),
would share the same interpretation when acquainted with the level of area development. It is
therefore reasonable to conclude that experienced users consider the AMCNP to be an area or
destination based around activities such as climbing and ski touring. Consequently, the objectives
of properly informed users are probably not to experience wilderness or solitude. Taking this into
account, it is recommended that an emphasis is maintained on informing users about the level of
120
area development. This will ensure that users enter the park with accurate expectations which will
increase the chances of them being satisfied with their experiences.
It can however be argued that solitude and wilderness experiences can still occur in the AMCNP.
Some participants argue that solitude and wilderness can be experienced even with the use of
aircraft if factors such as bad weather render aircraft inoperative and leaves users all to
themselves. Thus, if one considers wilderness to be a psychological construct, wilderness
experiences can occur in any natural environment as long as the conditions correspond with the
users’ perception of what a wilderness experience entails. This supports the previously discussed
findings Higham et al. (2000) findings. Findings also indicate that especially solitude and natural
quiet, but also remoteness and wilderness (depending on users’ perception of these concepts) can
be experienced in the AMCNP if the area is visited during off-season.
55..88..44 AAttttiittuuddeess ttoowwaarrddss aaiirrccrraafftt uussee aarree ssiittee--ssppeecciiffiicc
As noted in Section 5.6.2, the findings from this study indicate that experienced users of natural
areas do not generalise their opinions and attitudes towards aircraft use from one area to another.
As shown, they form their opinions and attitudes through complex reflective processes which
take numerous factors into account. Of great importance however, is that users appear to consider
each specific place or location individually in relation to the relevant activity, in this case aircraft
use. Depending on (among other things) the location’s natural attributes, conservational and
recreational value, and how it compares to other locations (in this case; what aircraft spoil in
AMCNP can be found elsewhere); the users form their opinions and attitudes. As such, the
forming of attitudes towards aircraft use is highly site-specific, not just activity specific (which
would imply a holistic opinion/attitude applied to aircraft use in all natural areas). This supports
findings from Davenport and Borrie (2005), who found snowmobile users in YNP to relate
differently to snowmobile use there, compared to other places. There is a high likelihood that this
concept can be applied to other cases, such as users’ attitudes towards snowmobiling,
mountainbiking or boating in natural areas. Further research related to this concept would be
valuable to understanding how users form their attitudes towards activity in relation to place and
also to the understanding of the meanings users attach to a place.
121
55..88..55 CCoonnfflliicctt aanndd ddiissppllaacceemmeenntt iiss nnoott wwiiddeesspprreeaadd iinn tthhee AAMMCCNNPP
This study has not found any significant indications of conflict in relation to aircraft use in the
AMCNP, or any significant indication of conflict between the explored user groups. As a
qualitative study with a small population these conclusions cannot be generalised to involve other
users than the participants but given the participants’ knowledge of the climbing community and
the AMCNP it is likely that information of any conflict would have been disclosed. As such,
these findings indicate strongly that there is currently no significant conflict in regards to the
above mentioned use in the AMCNP.
In regards to displacement which is a difficult phenomenon to identify, there are few indications
in this study that can cast any light on this issue. Going to the necessary depths in order to
properly explore this issue has been beyond the scope of this thesis, and as such this study cannot
conclude whether user displacement occurs in the AMCNP. However, the fact that participants
choose not to go to the AMCNP if solitude or wilderness is the main objective, can be considered
an indication of displacement (Hall and Shelby 2000). It is worth mentioning that according to
Garrard (2007) both crowding and displacement do occur in the Southern Alps. Garrard cites the
president of the Federated Mountain Clubs (FMC) of New Zealand, Brian Stephenson, who says
that “among FMC members, crowding and displacement are common themes of complaint”
(Garrard 2007: 22). More research related to the issue of displacement is suggested as it can be
beneficial to understand this complex phenomenon further.
55..88..66 OOtthheerr
Several participants expressed that they considered helicopters more beneficial than ski-planes
for their use. The only positive comments about ski-planes were the lower cost of chartering
these. However, according to some participants the larger cost of helicopters is mainly due to the
additional distance of 15 km they have to fly from Glentanner compared to the ski-planes who
take off at Aoraki/Mt Cook Airport which is located within the park. The AMCNP Management
Plan states that;
“In Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park the industry preference is currently for fixed-wing, while the reverse is true in the adjoining Westland/Tai Poutini National Park. For both types of aircraft the management issue is their effect and it is not clear cut that one or other type has more or fewer effects” (DOC 2004, p. 109)
122
It could be beneficial for management to examine the implications of basing helicopters at
Aoraki/Mt Cook Airport. Since they appear to present a better option for both recreational users
and guide companies, it is reasonable to assume that increased pressure will be applied on
establishing a helicopter service from this site. However, one has to recognise the complexity of
this issue including possible impacts on the adjacent Aoraki/Mount Cook Village and front-
country users, such as increases in noise pollution. Also worth noting is that Harbrow (2007)
found ground-based users within the Milford Aerodrome to show a lower tolerance towards
helicopters than fixed wing aircraft (see Section 2.4.2). It is suggested that this be taken into
account in an eventual impact assessment.
Based on the findings it is reasonable to assume that most users of the high alpine areas of the
AMCNP accept and value the use of aircraft. But they also highly value that there are no-flight
zones in the park, such as the Hooker Valley, which can provide users with ‘peace’ from aircraft
buzzing and some degree of wilderness experience and solitude. However, some participants do
not feel that this zoning system is adequate. The findings indicate that the Hooker Valley is not
perceived as an area free of aircraft impact since several participants complained that there is still
the noise from aircraft overflights heard in the Hooker Valley. It is recommended that this issue is
addressed at management level in order to investigate if it is reasonable to proclaim the Hooker to
be an aircraft-free zone if aircraft noise impact actually is a reality there. This could also be a
topic for further research.
Squires (2007) suggest that the increased use of aircraft in MANP has altered the climbing
culture of the area to resemble that of the AMCNP. Findings from this research also indicate that
aircraft use and increased commercial pressure can have an impact on the social environment and
culture in mountain huts and in the area in general, but these findings are not conclusive by any
means. More research in order to determine if aircraft access has a significant effect on the
climbing/user culture and the social environment of an area is therefore recommended.
As a final remark many participants expressed, as noted, that they consider the level of aircraft
use in the Darran Mountains in Fiordland to be a much bigger problem to that of the AMCNP.
The potential impact on users of these areas is also recognised by Harbrow who comments that it
is “an important location for remote climbing” with relatively low visitor numbers, but a place
123
where the user “experiences are likely to be more susceptible to aircraft noise” (Harbrow 2007, p.
3). Based on these findings it is recommended that research is carried out in the relation to impact
of aircraft use in the Darran Mountains which appear to be significantly affected from aircraft
overflights from the Milford Sound. This region is also interesting since it is popular among
several types of climbers.
55..88..77 SSuummmmaarryy
This chapter has discussed the research findings in relevance to the research objectives. In order
to demonstrate that these have been met, the research objectives will now be revisited followed
by a summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this study.
The general aim of this study was to explore the complex issue of how recreational and
professional users of the high alpine areas of the AMCNP relate to the use of aircraft in the park.
In order to achieve this aim, a number of research objectives where determined.
The first objective was to identify the benefits and disadvantages of aircraft use in the AMCNP.
The main benefits of aircraft use were identified to be the exclusion of the long and severe
approaches; the time savings; the importance for SAR; the importance for waste management and
contribution to keeping the mountains clean and that it has kept permanent structures in the
mountain down to a minimum. Also very important is that much recreational and most
professional climbing in the AMCNP is dependent on using aircraft for access. The main
disadvantages were identified to be the noise impact and loss of natural quiet; the contribution to
crowding; and the impact on users’ experience such as limiting the possibilities of experiencing
solitude and wilderness. This concludes the first objective.
The second objective was to explore how aircraft affects users’ experiences in the AMCNP. This
objective has been met by determining that aircraft use affect users’ perceptions of solitude and
wilderness, but that most users accept this due to the perceived benefits of aircraft use, and that
objectives such as solitude and wilderness can be experienced elsewhere.
The third objective was to investigate if aircraft use is a source of conflict in the AMCNP. This
research has demonstrated that the participants in general do not perceive any type of aircraft
124
activity in the park to constitute a source of conflict. There are however, indications that there are
people within the climbing community who hold negative attitudes towards aircraft use in
national parks, but given that much of the climbing activity in the AMCNP is dependent on
aircraft, this could be more relevant to other areas than the AMCNP. This concludes the third
research objective.
The fourth and last objective was to disclose any issues of conflict between mountain guides and
recreational users of the AMCNP. This study has revealed that the relationship between mountain
guides and their clients, and recreational users is generally very good and hold certain aspects of
reciprocality. There are indications that there are individuals in the climbing community who
hold negative attitudes towards commercial climbing but that was not positively identified in this
study. This concludes the final research objective and as such the main aim of the study has also
been achieved.
This research has concluded that:
- Participants consider the benefits of aircraft use to outweigh the disadvantages;
- The attractiveness and experience of the aircraft might be relevant to the role of the
aircraft on a particular trip;
- Due to a number of site-specific factors, participants do not consider aircraft noise in the
AMCNP to be problematic or annoying;
- Attitudes towards aircraft use in natural areas are often site-specific;
- The participants in general do not perceive aircraft to have any implications to the so-
called climbing ethics;
- Aircraft affects users’ experiences as it removes the feeling of solitude and limits
wilderness experiences;
- Experienced users of the AMCNP consider the area a destination based around activities
such as climbing and ski touring. As such, their objectives in the AMCNP are rarely to
experience concepts such as wilderness or solitude;
- Guiding and mountaineering course activity in the high alpine areas of the AMCNP
cannot be sustained without using aircraft;
125
- Aircraft use is a necessity in order for the AMCNP to continue to be an important and
popular climbing area;
- Peoples’ attitudes towards aircraft use is highly site-specific;
- Participants accept scenic flights because they respect other’s recreational needs and they
consider their own application of aircraft, as well as SAR, to be dependent on the scenic
flight operations;
- Research findings indicate strongly that there is currently no significant conflict in regards
to aircraft use in the AMCNP.
The following recommendations have been made for future research:
- Investigate the assumption of a relationship between safety and whether users walk or use
aircraft as mode of transport into the mountain;
- Investigate the relationship between user experience of aircraft (or other motorised modes
of transport), and trip objectives and aspects (length, activity, etc), in order to contribute
to the understanding of recreationists’ motivation for using motorised modes of transport;
- Examine attitudinal differences between user groups in regards to aircraft use, considering
factors such as experience, main climbing discipline (since the discipline of climbing has
fractioned into specialised discipline such as bouldering, sport climbing, traditional
climbing and alpinism), and demographics;
- Explore how users form their attitudes towards activities in relation to place (this study
found this to be site-specific);
- Explore the issue of displacement in the AMCNP;
- Examine the effects and implications of the aircraft zoning system in the AMCNP;
- Examine if aircraft access has a significant effect on the climbing/user culture and the
social environment of an area;
- Explore the impact of aircraft use on recreational users of the Darran Mountains.
The following recommendations have been made for management of the AMCNP:
- Carry out a consequence analysis of stronger aircraft regulations such as limitations on
flight times, which can benefit ground based users of the park;
126
- Continue and increase the communication amongst DOC, guides, and recreationists about
user movements in order to increase users’ knowledge of other activities in the park (thus
preventing encounters);
- Maintain emphasis on informing users about the level of area development. This will
ensure that users enter the park with accurate expectations which will increase the chances
of them being satisfied with their experiences;
- Examine the implications of basing helicopters at Aoraki/Mt Cook Airport;
- Investigate whether the zoning of aircraft use in the AMCNP is having its desired effect,
given that the Hooker Valley is perceived to have significant aircraft noise by
participants.
127
RReeffeerreenncceess
Alpine Guides (2009), ‘Pricing for ski the Tasman – 2009’, URL:
http://www.skithetasman.co.nz/skitasman/pricing.htm, accessed 12.07.09.
Ambrose, S. and S. Burson (2004), ‘Soundscape studies in national parks’, The George Wright
Forum, 21(1): 29-38.
Anderson, D.W. (2004), ‘In pursuit of natural quiet: the latest on noise for airport and airlines’,
Air & Space Lawyer, 18(3), The American Bar Association.
Beeton, S. (1999), ‘Hoofing it – on four or two feet? Managing multi-use trails and sites’,
Current Issues in Tourism, 2(2–3): 211–25.
Beeton, S. (2006), ‘Sustainable tourism in practice: trails and tourism. Critical management
issues of multi-use trails’, Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 3(1): 47–64.
Berg, B.L. (1998), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Third Edition, Allyn
and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Berg, B.L. (2007), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Sixth Edition, Allyn
and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Bonington, C. (1992), The Climbers – A History of Mountaineering, BBC Books, London.
Booth, K.L., N.C. Jones, and P.J. Devlin (1999), ‘Measuring the effects of aircraft overflights on
recreationists in natural settings’, Department of Conservation technical series 1172-6873; 18,
Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Borrie, W.T and R.M. Birzell (2001), Approaches to measuring quality of the wilderness
experience’, in Freimund, W.A, Cole, D.N. (comps.), Visitor use density and wilderness
experience: proceedings; 2000 June 1–3; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-20. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
128
Bowles, A.E. (1995), Responses of wildlife to noise, in Knight, R.L. & Gutzwiller, K. J. (eds.)
1995, Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research, Island
Press, Washington, D.C.
Bradsher, D.J. (2003), The relationship between past experience and multiple –use trail conflict,
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science, Parks, Recreation, and
Tourism Management, Raleigh.
Bronzaft, A.L, K.D Ahern, R. McGinn, J. O’Connor & B. Savino (1998), ‘Aircraft noise: A
potential health hazard’, Environment and Behaviour, 30(1): 101-113.
Bryman, A. (2004), Social Research Methods (2nd Ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, United
Kingdom.
Buckley, R. 2004, Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United
Kingdom.
CAA (2009a), Airspace, URL: http://www.caa.govt.nz/airspace/airspace2.htm, download
07.07.09.
CAA (2009b), Aviation Concerns, URL: www.caa.govt.nz/passengers/aviation_concerns.htm,
download 07.07.09.
Carothers, P., Vaske, J.J. & Donnelly, M. (2001), ‘Social values versus interpersonal conflict
among hikers and mountain bikers’, Leisure Sciences, 23: 47-61.
Carr, A.M. (1997), Guided mountaineering clients in New Zealand’s Southern Alps, in Higham,
J. and G.W. Kearsley (eds.), Proceedings of trails, tourism and regional development, Centre for
Tourism and IGU, University of Otago at Cromwell, New Zealand, 2-5 December 1997, 23-32.
Cessford, G. and P. Dingwall (1997), ‘Wilderness and recreation in New Zealand’, International
Journal of Wilderness, 3(4): 39–43.
129
Cessford, G.R (1998), Visitor satisfactions, impact perceptions, and attitudes toward management
options on the Milford Track, Science for Conservation 87, Department of Conservation,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Cessford, G.R. (2000), ‘Noise impact issues on the Great Walks of New Zealand’, Wilderness
Visitors, Experiences and Visitor Management, 4: 69-76.
Cessford, G.R. (2003), ‘Perception and reality of conflict: walkers and mountain bikes on the
Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand’, Journal for Nature Conservation, 11: 310-316.
Clark, R., and Stankey, G. (1979), The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for
planning, management, and research, USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-98.
Cole, D.N. and P.B. Landres (1995), Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife, in Knight, R.L. &
Gutzwiller, K. J. (eds.) (1995), Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management
and Research, Island Press, Washington, D.C. 183–202.
Cresswell, J.W. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Traditions, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (2nd Ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
Cronon, W. (1995), The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the wrong nature, in Cronon
W. (ed.) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: W. W. Norton
& Co., 1995, p. 69-90. Also available at URL:
http://www.williamcronon.net/writing/Trouble_with_Wilderness_Main.html, accessed 15.04.09.
Davenport, M, & Borrie, T. (2005), ‘The appropriateness of snowmobiling in National Parks: an
investigation of the meanings of snowmobiling experiences in Yellowstone National Park’,
Environmental Management, 35(2): 151-160.
Davidson, L. (2002), ‘The ‘spirit of the hills’: mountaineering in northwest Otago, New Zealand,
1882-1940’, Tourism Geographies, 4(1): 44-61.
130
Denscombe, M. (2003), The Good Research Guide 2nd
edition, Open University Press, Berkshire,
England.
Denzin, N.K and Y.S. Lincoln (1994), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, California.
Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln, (2005), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Third
Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Department of Conservation (1983), General Policy for National Parks, Department of
Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Department of Conservation (2000), Canterbury CMS, Department of Conservation,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Department of Conservation (2003), Visitor Strategy, Department of Conservation, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Department of Conservation (2004), Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park Management Plan 2004,
Canterbury Conservation Management Planning Series, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Encyclopedia Britannica (2009), ‘Attitude’, URL:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/42266/attitude, accessed 01.07.09.
Ewert, A. (1993), ‘Differences in the level of motive importance based on trip outcome,
experience level and group type’, Journal of Leisure Research, 25(4): 335-349.
Fidell, S. & S. Teffeteller (1981), ‘Scaling the annoyance of intrusive sounds’, Journal of Sound
and Vibration, 78(2): 291-298.
Fidell, S., L. Silvati, R. Howe, K.S. Pearsons, B. Tabachnick, R.C. Knopf, J. Gramann, and T.
Buchanan, (1996), ‘Effects of aircraft overflights on wilderness recreationists’, Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 100: 2909–2918.
Fields, J.M. (1993), ‘Effect of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in residential
areas’, Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 93(5): 2753-2763.
131
Freedgood, E. (2000), Victorian Writing About Risk – Imagining a Safe England in a Dangerous
World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Garrard, R. (2005), Monitoring the effects of aircraft on recreationists in Aoraki / Mount Cook
National Park, 2005, report compiled for the Department of Conservation and for the fulfillment
of Masters of Environmental Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, School of Earth
Sciences.
Garrard, R. (2007), ‘Sustaining ‘Godzone’ - New Zealand’s mountains as hot spots for tourism’,
The Climber, Quarterly Magazine of the New Zealand Alpine Club (NZAC), 61: 21-23.
Gearson, K., and R. Horowitz (2002), ‘Observation and interviewing: Options and choices in
qualitative research’, in: May, T., (ed.), Qualitative Research in Action SAGE Publications,
London.
Gilden, J.D. (2004), ‘Culture and conflict in winter recreation: insights from a qualitative study at
Mt. St. Helens’, Portland, Oregon: Institute for Culture and Ecology, URL:
http://www.ifcae.org/projects/publications/downloads/Gilden2004-
WinterRecreationalConflictsPaper.pdf, accessed 12.11.08.
Glesne, C. (1999), Becoming Qualitative Researchers 2nd
Edition, Longman, New York.
Gramann, J. (1999), ‘The effect of mechanical noise and natural sound on visitor experiences in
units of the National Park System’, Social Science Research Review, 1(1): 1-16.
Gray, D.E. (2004), Doing research in the real world, Sage Publications, London.
Hall, T., and B. Shelby (2000), ‘Temporal and spatial displacement: evidence from a high use
reservoir and alternate sites’, Journal of Leisure Research, 32(4): 435-456.
Hansen, P. (1995), ‘Albert Smith, the Alpine Club, and the invention of mountaineering in mid-
Victorian Britain', The Journal of British Studies, 34(3): 300-324.
Harbrow, M. (2007), Effect of air traffic associated with Milford Aerodrome on visitors to
Fiordland National Park, Department of Conservation Southland Conservancy, Invercargill.
132
Henry, W., R. Ernenwein, H. Thompson, and S. Oppermann, (1999), ‘Management of
commercial air tourism over national parks’, Noise Control Engineering Journal, 47(3): 118-124.
Higham, J.E.S., G.W. Kearsley and A.D. Kliskey (2000), ‘Wilderness perception scaling in New
Zealand: an analysis of wilderness perceptions held by users, nonusers and international visitors’,
In: McCool, S.F., D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, [comps] (2000), Wilderness
science in a time of change conference— Volume 2: Wilderness within the context of larger
systems; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Horn, C., P. Devlin, & D. Simmons (1994), ‘Conflict in recreation: the case of mountain-bikers
and trampers’, Department of Conservation, New Zealand, URL:
http://www.mountainbike.co.nz/politics/articles/horn/, accessed: 23.05.09.
Horn, C (2001), Monitoring the effects of aircraft on recreationists in Aoraki / Mt Cook National
Park, Department of Conservation, New Zealand.
Hults, C.K, & S. Burson, (2006), ‘Soundscapes of Denali National Park and Preserve’, Alaska
Park Science, 5(1): 20-22.
Jackson, E. L., and R. Wong, (1982), ‘Perceived conflict between urban cross-country skiers and
snowmobilers in Alberta’, Journal of Leisure Research, 14: 47–62.
Jackson, E.L. (1986), ‘Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes to the environment’, Leisure
Studies, 5: 1-23.
Jackson, S. (2001), ‘Resolving inter-group conflict in winter recreation: Chilkoot Trail National
Historic Site, British Columbia’, research project submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of master of resource management, Simon Fraser University, Canada.
Jacob, G. R. and R. Schreyer (1980), ‘Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective’
Journal of Leisure Research, 12: 368-380.
Jordan, F. and H. Gibson (2004), Let your data do the talking: researching the solo travel
experiences of British and American women, in Phillimore, J. and L. Goodson (eds.) (2004),
133
Progress in Qualitative Research in Tourism: Epistemology, Ontology & Methodology,
Routledge, London.
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan (1989), The Experience of Nature: a psychological perspective,
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Kaplan, S. (1995), ‘The Restorative benefits of nature’, Journal of Environmental Psychology,
15: 169-182.
Kariel, H. G. (1980), ‘Mountaineers and the general public: a comparison of their evaluation of
sounds in a recreational environment’, Leisure Sciences, 3(2): 155-167.
Kariel, H. G. (1990), ‘Factors affecting response to noise in outdoor recreational environments’,
The Canadian Geographer, 34(2): 142–149.
Kearsley, G. and D. Coughlan (1999), ‘Coping with crowding: tourist displacement in the New
Zealand backcountry’, Current Issues in Tourism, 2(2): 197-210.
Krog, N.H and B. Engdahl (2004), ‘Annoyance with aircraft noise in local recreational areas,
contingent on changes in exposure and other context variables’, Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 116(1): 323-333.
Kvale, S. (2007), Doing Interviews, Sage Publications, London.
Kyle, G.T., A.J. Mowen and M. Tarrant (2004), ‘Linking place preferences with place meaning:
An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment’, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 24: 439-454.
Lawson, S. and R. Manning (2001), ‘Crossing experiential boundaries: visitor preferences
regarding tradeoffs among social, resource, and managerial attributes of the Denali wilderness
experience’, The George Wright Forum, 18(3): 10-27.
Lee, J.H, D. Scott and R.L. Moore (2002), ‘Predicting motivations and attitudes of users of a
multi-use suburban trail’, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 20(3): 18-37.
134
Leonard, J.H. (2007), ‘Mountaineering’, from An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, edited by A.H.
McLintock, originally published in 1966, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated
18-Sep-2007, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/1966/M/Mountaineering/en, accessed 15.05.09.
Mace, B.L., P.A. Bell and R.J. Loomis (1999), ‘Aesthetic, affective and cognitive effects of noise
on natural landscape assessment’, Society and Natural Resources, 12: 225-242.
Mace, B.L., P.A. Bell, R.J. Loomis and G.E. Haas (2003), ‘Source attribution of helicopter noise
in pristine national park landscapes’, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 21(3): 97-
119.
Mace, B.L., P.A. Bell and R.J. Loomis (2004), ‘Visibility and natural quiet in national parks and
wilderness areas – psychological considerations’, Environment and Behavior, 36(1): 5-31.
Manfredo, M., B.L. Driver, M.A. Tarrant (1996), ‘Measuring Leisure motivation: a meta-analysis
of the recreation experience preference scales’, Journal of Leisure Research, 28(3): 188-213.
Marcouiller, D., I. Scott and J. Prey (2006), ‘Compatibility and conflict as a conceptual basis for
outdoor recreation planning’, University of Wisconsin, Madison. URL:
http://urpl.wisc.edu/people/marcouiller/publications/06litreview.pdf, accessed 23.05.09.
McManaway, S and R. Bellringer (2002), Monitoring the effects of aircraft on recreationists in
Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park, Department of Conservation, New Zealand.
Miller, N.P. (1999), ‘The effects of aircraft overflights on visitors to U.S. national parks’, Noise
Control Engineering Journal, 47(3): 112-117.
Miller, N. P. (2008), ‘US National Parks and management of park soundscapes: A review’,
Applied Acoustics, 69(2): 77-92.
Mount Cook Ski Planes (2009), ‘History’, URL: http://www.mtcookskiplanes.com/history.htm,
accessed 16.03.09.
National Park Service (1994), Report to Congress - Report on effects of aircraft overflights on the
National Park system, National Park Service, USA.
135
National Park Service (2009), ‘Historic roads in the national park system’, URL:
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/roads/shs0b.htm, accessed 02.07.09.
Newsome, D., S.A. Moore, and R.K. Dowling (2002), Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts,
and Management, Channel View Publications, Clevedon, United Kingdom.
New Zealand Alpine Club (NZAC) (2006), ‘Mountains of New Zealand – A listing based on
topographical merit’, URL:
http://alpineclub.org.nz/documents/publications/The%20Mountains%20of%20NZ%20Jan%2006.
pdf, accessed 06.04.09.
New Zealand Alpine Club (NZAC) (2008), ‘Mt Aspiring National Park – management plan
review’, The Climber, Quarterly Magazine of the New Zealand Alpine Club, Autumn 2008, 63:
16.
New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) (2005), General Policy for National Parks, ISBN
978-0-478-14242-6 (web-pdf), accessed 04.07.2008.
New Zealand Ministry of Tourism (NZMT) (2008), ‘Nature based tourism’, URL:
http://www.trcnz.govt.nz/Documents/Tourism%20Sector%20Profiles/NatureBasedTourismApril
2008.pdf), accessed 04.02.09.
New Zealand Mountain Guides Association (NZMGA) (2009), ‘History of New Zealand
guiding’, http://www.nzmga.org.nz/pages/93/history-of-new-zealand-guiding.htm, accessed
27.05.09.
Nugent, R.E. (1999), ‘Noise assessment of helicopter glacier tours Alaska Region Tongass
National Forest Juneau Ranger District’, U.S. Forest Service, San Dima, California. URL:
http://www.juneau.org/tourism2/documents90-99/tongassNoiseAssessment11-99.pdf, accessed
21.05.09.
Ormsby, J., G. Moscardo, P. Pearce and J. Foxlee (2004), ‘A review of research into tourist and
recreational uses of protected natural areas’, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 79:1-58,
ISBN 1 876945 31 1 (on-line).
136
Otago Section, New Zealand Alpine Club (2007), Mt Aspiring National Park Management Plan
Review, Otago Climber Newsletter, August 2008: 5-10, URL:
http://alpineclub.org.nz/documents/sections/otago/Aug07.pdf, accessed 07.07.09.
Otago Section, New Zealand Alpine Club (2008), Aspiring NP management plan, Otago Climber
Newsletter, February 2008: 6-8. URL:
http://alpineclub.org.nz/documents/sections/otago/Feb08.pdf), accessed 07.07.09.
Robertson, R.A. and J.A. Regula (1994), ‘Recreational displacement and overall satisfaction - A
study of central Iowa licensed boaters’, Journal of Leisure Research 26(2): 174-181.
Rolston III, H. (2003), ‘Life and the nature of life – in parks’, in D. Harmon and A.D. Putney
(eds.) (2003), The Full Value of Parks – From Economics to the Intangible, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Oxford, UK, pp. 103-113.
Seidman, I. (1998), Interviewing as Qualitative Research, 2nd
Edition, Teachers College Press,
New York.
Shelby, B., (1980), Crowding models for backcountry recreation’, Land Economics, 56(1): 43-55.
Shultis, J. (2001), ‘Consuming nature: the uneasy relationship between technology, outdoor
recreation and protected areas’, The George Wright Forum, 18(1): 56-66.
Shultis, J. (2003), ‘Recreational values of protected areas’, in D. Harmon and A.D. Putney (eds.)
(2003), The Full Value of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible, Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers, Inc. Oxford, UK, 59-75.
Squires, C. (2007), Mount Aspiring National Park alpine climber survey 2006-07, Department of
Conservation, Wanaka Area Office, New Zealand.
Stake, R.E. (2005), Qualitative case studies, in Denzin, N & Lincoln, Y. (eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London, 443-466.
Stankey, G. H. and Schreyer, K. (1985) ‘Attitudes towards wilderness and factors affecting
visitor behaviour: a state-of-knowledge review’, Proceedings – National Research Conference:
Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, USA.
137
Staples, S.L. (1998), ‘Comment on ‘‘Effects of aircraft overflights on wilderness recreationists’’
[J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100, 2909–2918 (1996)]’, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 103(3):
1726-1728.
Stein, T.V, and M.E. Lee (1995), ‘Managing recreation resources for positive outcomes: An
application of benefits-based management’, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
13(2): 52-70.
Sutton, S. T. (1998), ‘Visitor perceptions of aircraft activity and crowding at Franz Josef and Fox
Glaciers’, Science for Conservation, 94, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Tal, A. 2004, ‘“Naturally quiet”: towards a new legislative strategy for regulating air space above
national parks in New Zealand’, Otago Law Review, URL:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/OtaLRev/2004/4.html, accessed 18.02.08.
Talbott, E.O., R.C. Findlay, L.H. Kuller, L.A. Lenkner, K.A. Matthews, R.D. Day and E.K. Ishii
(1990), ‘Noise-induced hearing loss and blood pressure’, Journal of Occupational Medicine, 32:
690-697.
Tarrant, M.A., G.E. Haas, & M.J. Manfredo (1995) ‘Factors affecting visitor evaluations of
aircraft overflights of wilderness’, Society and Natural Resources, 8: 351-360.
Tarrant M.A, and E.K. Smith (2002), ‘The use of a modified importance-performance framework
to examine visitor satisfaction with attributes of outdoor recreation settings’, Managing Leisure,
7: 69-82.
Tolich, M. (2001), Research Ethics in Aotearoa New Zealand, Pearson Education New Zealand
Limited, Auckland.
Tranel, M.J. (2006), Denali air taxis: unique relationships with the park and visitors, in Harmon,
D. (ed.) (2006), People, Places and Parks: Proceedings of the 2005 George Wright Society
Conference on Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites, Hancock, Michigan: The George
Wright Society, 242-248.
138
Ulrich, R.S. (1993), Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes, in S.R. Kellert and E.O.
Wilson, The Biophilia Hypothesis, (eds.), Island Press, Washington D. C.
Vail, D., & Heldt, T. 2004, 'Governing snowmobilers in multiple-use landscapes: Swedish and
Maine (USA) Cases', Ecological Economics, 48: 469-483.
Vaske, J.J., M.P Donnelly, K. Wittmann and S. Laidlaw (1995), ‘Interpersonal versus social-
values conflict’, Leisure Sciences, 17: 205-222
Vaske, J.J., M.D. Needham, R.C. Cline Jr. (2007), ’Clarifying interpersonal and social values
conflict among recreationists’, Journal of Leisure Research, 39(1): 182-195.
Walle, A.H. (1997), ‘Quantitative versus qualitative tourism research’, Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(3): 524-536.
Wang, C. and C. Dawson (2005), ‘Recreation conflict along New York's Great Lakes Coast’,
Coastal Management 33(3): 297-314.
Watson, A., K. Knotek, and N. Christensen (2008), ‘On the outside looking in: fly-in recreation
day use visitor experience in the South District of Denali National Park and Preserve’,
International Journal of Wilderness, 14(2): 19-23.
Wilson, J. (2007), ‘Mountaineering’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, URL:
http://www.teara.govt.nz/TheBush/BushAndMountainRecreation/Mountaineering/en?print=true,
accessed 12.04.09.
139
AAppppeennddiicceess
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 11:: SSCCEENNIICC FFLLIIGGHHTT PPAATTHHSS
MMoouunntt CCooookk SSkkii PPllaanneess’’ fflliigghhtt ppaatthhss
The picture beneath illustrates the different flight paths of the Mount Cook Ski Planes scenic
tours. The red line illustrates a 55 minute scenic flight including a 10 minute glacier landing.
The yellow line illustrates a scenic flight of 40 minute duration with glacier landing, or a 25
minutes duration flight with no landing.
FIGURE 5: The scenic flight paths of Mount Cook Ski Planes
Source: Mount Cook Ski Planes (2009), http://www.mtcookskiplanes.com/scenicflights.htm
140
MMoouunntt CCooookk SSkkii PPllaanneess’’ fflliigghhtt ppaatthhss oonn tthhee WWeesstt CCooaasstt
Note that the same company, Mount Cook Ski Planes, also run scenic flights from their base at
Franz Josef on the West Coast, as shown in the picture below. The yellow line illustrates a scenic
flight of 60 minutes duration including a 10 minutes landing, or a 50 minute duration flight with
no landing.
FIGURE 6: Mount Cook Ski Planes' West Coast flight paths. Source: Mount Cook Ski
Planes (2009), http://www.mtcookskiplanes.com/scenicflights.htm
141
TThhee HHeelliiccoopptteerr LLiinnee fflliigghhtt ppaatthhss
The Helicopter Line Aoraki/Mount Cook division operates out of Glentanner Park which is an
approximately 17 km drive south of Aoraki/Mount Cook Airport. From there they do both scenic
flights and charter flights for guided parties and recreational climbers and ski tourers. Their
scenic flights are shown in the first picture below. The two following pictures show their scenic
flights departing from Twizel and from their West Coast bases accordingly.
FIGURE 7: The Helicopter Line’s flight paths from Glentanner Park. Source:
http://www.helicopter.co.nz/mtcook.asp
142
FIGURE 9: The Helicopter Line’s flight paths from Franz Josef and Fox Glacier Villages. Source:
http://www.helicopter.co.nz/glaciers.asp
FIGURE 8: The Helicopter Line’s flight paths from Twizel. Source:
http://www.helicopter.co.nz/mtcook.asp
143
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 22:: LLEEGGIISSLLAATTIIOONNSS AANNDD SSTTAATTUUTTOORRYY FFRRAAMMEEWWOORRKK
The legislative and statutory framework which governs national park management and all private
and commercial activities relative to this research, is presented in this section.
Management of national parks in New Zealand is executed by the Department of Conservation
who are subject to laws passed by parliament which in this case is set out in the National Parks
Act 1980. Whilst this act set out the legislations for national park management, the highest level
of statutory policy for national parks is the General Policy for National Parks (New Zealand
Conservation Authority 2005) which was published in April 2005, replacing the previous from
1983. Each national park has its own specific management plan (MP), in this case the
Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park Management Plan, which must be in accordance with the
National Parks Act 1980.
TThhee NNaattiioonnaall PPaarrkkss AAcctt 11998800
In relation to the purpose of national parks, the Act states that:
“…the provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of preserving in perpetuity as national parks, for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality, ecological systems, or natural features so beautiful, unique, or scientifically important that their preservation is in the national interest.” (Section 4(1), National Parks Act 1980, quoted in DOC 2004, p. 13).
In relation to the use of national parks the Act states:
“They [national parks] shall be preserved as far as possible in their natural state;
[…]
Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the imposition of such conditions and restrictions as may be necessary for the preservation of the native plants and animals or the welfare in general of the parks, the public shall have freedom of entry and access to the parks, so that they may receive in full measure the inspiration, enjoyment, recreation, and other benefits that may be derived from mountains, forests, sounds, seacoasts, lakes, rivers, and other natural features.” (Section 4(2), National Parks Act, quoted in DOC 2004, pp. 13-14).
144
Embedded in these quotes is a recognition that natural areas has intrinsic value, that interacting
with nature can provide experiences of great value for people (which is later discussed in chapter
2.3 and 2.4), and that in order for visitors to enjoy the stated benefits of engaging with the nature
in a national park, it is imperative that they be preserved as much as possible in their natural state.
GGeenneerraall PPoolliiccyy ffoorr NNaattiioonnaall PPaarrkkss
The General Policy for National Parks (2005) is prepared by the NZCA1 and it acts as a “guide
for the interpretation and exercise of discretion contained in the [National Parks] Act and is
directed at achieving the broad objectives of that Act” (DOC 2004).
The following is an excerpt from the GPNP relating to the policy of powered aircraft in national
parks:
POLICIES
Powered aircraft
10.6(a) A national park management plan should specify sites where the landing, hovering and
take-off of aircraft may be authorised and the extent to which the activity may be undertaken at
any site. This may include the number, frequency and purpose of permitted landings.
10.6(b) The landing, hovering and taking off of aircraft should be authorized only where:
i) it is consistent with the outcomes planned for a place; and ii) adverse effects on national park
values, including natural quiet, can be minimised.
10.6(c) The Department should work with aviation controlling authorities, aircraft operators and
other interested parties to prevent the adverse effects of over-flights on national park values,
including the enjoyment of people on the ground.
10.6(d) Aircraft may land anywhere in a national park where essential for national park
management purposes, subject to active consideration of ways to avoid adverse effects on
national park values and the benefit, use and enjoyment of the public.
1 The General Policy is produced by DOC for the NZCA.
145
10.6(e) The use of aircraft for commercial wild animal control may be authorized where
necessary to maximise the effectiveness of actions planned and undertaken to control such
animals, while having regard to, and minimising the adverse effects on, outcomes planned for
places.
10.6(f) A national park management plan should identify monitoring requirements for the use of
aircraft and specify what actions should be taken to mitigate adverse effects arising, including,
but not limited to, a reduction in landing sites, the imposition of “no fly” zones or periods, and
use of quieter aircraft.
10.6(g) Aircraft may land anywhere in a national park for the purposes of search and rescue.
10.6(h) National park management plans should provide direction on how the Department will
advocate the protection of national park values from the adverse effects of aircraft landings on
land and waters adjoining the national park.
Source: NZCA (2005, p. 51)
TThhee CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn AAcctt 11998877
The Conservation Act 1987 also applies to national park management, and is important as it
established the Department of Conservation and sets out its functions. One function of relevance
here is section 6 (e) which states:
“To the extent that the use of any natural or historic resource for recreation or tourism is not
inconsistent with its conservation, to foster the use of natural and historic resources for
recreation, and allow their use for tourism” (DOC 2004, p. 15).
The AMCNP Management Plan clarifies the relationship between the two Acts:
“The general functions of the Conservation Act must be read subject to the National Parks Act.
In consequence, where there is a conflict or difference between the two, the National Parks Act
will apply” (DOC 2004, p. 15).
TThhee CCaanntteerrbbuurryy CCMMSS
The Conservation Act requires each Conservancy to prepare a Conservation Management
Strategy (CMS) with the purpose of “implementing general policies and establishing objectives
146
for the integrated management of natural and historic resources, including any species, managed
by the Department […] and for recreation, tourism, and other conservation purposes.”
(Conservation Act 1987, section 17D(1), quoted in DOC 2004, p. 15)
The AMCNP Management Plan clarifies the role of the Canterbury CMS:
“The Canterbury CMS is the umbrella document which sets the general direction for the
management of all land administered by the Department within the conservancy, including this
National Park. The Canterbury CMS must not derogate from the General Policy for National
Parks and this management plan not derogate from the CMS.” (DOC 2004, p. 15).
The following is an excerpt from the Canterbury CMS which outline its position on the use of
aircraft:
“While the Department recognises the benefits that aircraft can have in allowing visitors to
better appreciate or gain easier access to areas; it also recognises that the effects of aircraft can
significantly impact upon the values of the land that the Department is charged to protect.
Examples of such effects are: disturbance to wildlife; physical impacts at particular sites;
impacts on historical and/or cultural values; the disruption of natural quiet and the values of
solitude, space, scenic and other intrinsic values; effects on the enjoyment, inspiration,
recreation and other benefits that visitors gain from land managed by the Department.
Furthermore, allowing aircraft to position people in areas traditionally accessed by foot, may
also impact on the ‘recreational character’ (a value in its own right) of those areas. The
principal effect of aircraft activity is the impact they have on the value of natural quiet. The
Departments Visitor Strategy (1996) refers to natural quiet as ‘...the natural ambient conditions
or the sound of nature’. Natural quiet is an important component of visitors’ appreciation of
lands managed by the Department. In protecting natural quiet, visitors and the tourism industry
need to be aware of their responsibilities to other visitors. In particular, aircraft flying over
areas managed by the Department require careful management to ensure that aircraft noise does
not detract unduly from visitors’ experience of those areas. The Civil Aviation Act 1990 makes
provision for restrictions to be imposed on airspace for reasons of national security and the
public interest. The Act allows the opportunity for the Department and other parties to seek
restrictions on the use of airspace, for conservation purposes, including the enjoyment of visitors
(Visitor Strategy, 1996).
At present many of the aircraft that the industry operates, particularly fixed-wing aircraft like the
Cessnas and Pilatus Porter, are older and noisier aircraft. As this technology requires
replacement, the industry needs to be aware that the Department will seek and, if necessary,
enforce through conditions in concessions, the adoption of quieter technologies that will have
less effect on natural quiet and other values that the land may contain. It will become
147
increasingly important for the aviation industry to take responsibility for its effects and to work
actively with the Department, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and interest groups if we are to
avoid the experiences of the Grand Canyon National Park in the United States. This is
particularly so in the glacier region, which includes Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park, and to
manage the effects of aircraft flights over areas that are significantly affected or may in the
future be significantly affected, by aircraft activities (something the Department has no statutory
responsibility for). There is an inherent conflict between the effects of aircraft and protecting the
values of lands managed by the Department. In some areas that the Department manages this
conflict has become acute. Because of this the Department will closely examine any new proposal
for aircraft activities on land it manages. In this regard, it is the applicants’ responsibility to
demonstrate that the effects of their activity do not conflict with the values of the land or the
reason why the land is managed; and that the effects can be adequately avoided, remedied or
mitigated. Applications for aircraft activities on land managed by the Department will be
required to include environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that evaluate the potential adverse
effects on natural, cultural, historical, recreational and any other values that a particular area
may have. Close attention will be given to avoiding the adverse effects of aircraft in areas valued
for their natural quiet. (see 5.4.2 Concessions General). Developing robust methods for
monitoring the effects of aircraft will aid the Department in formulating and implementing
acceptable levels of impact.
Source: DOC (2000, p. 239)
TThhee AAoorraakkii//MMoouunntt CCooookk NNaattiioonnaall PPaarrkk MMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPllaann
The MP acknowledges as one of the major issues that it is “subject to two potentially conflicting
sets of values” (DOC 2004, p. 35). The first set of values is based on the protection of an
invaluable natural area which is recognized as a world heritage area and a national heritage area
with great significance for Ngäi Tahu and New Zealand as a whole. The other set of values is
based in the traditions of recreation and right of access to recreate in the New Zealand outdoors.
The MP specifies that there is an increase in pressure for use and development of the park but
that this is mostly commercial in nature and not so much related to private recreation.
Nevertheless, this is the fundamental dilemma for all management of natural areas, and this is
also recognized in the National Parks Act of 1980 which “requires that parks be managed
primarily [emphasis added] for the purpose of preserving their natural state and also for public
entry and access to enable inspiration, enjoyment, recreation and other benefits” (DOC 2004, p.
35). Careful management is needed to prevent those values and objectives to obstruct each other
148
and research and revision of management plans are important tools in the process of ensuring that
the process of meeting these objectives are on the right track.
In terms of aircraft use, the MP acknowledges that there are ‘contentious’ issues involved,
especially in relation to amount of use, allowed landing sites, type of aircraft and overflights by
aircraft based outside the park (DOC 2004, p. 36). The MP sees noise pollution as being the
biggest source of complaints against aircraft use in the AMCNP and it (the MP) states clearly that
some control on aircraft operations needs to be enforced, but emphasises the importance aircraft
services have had and continue to have for park users and management.
149
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 33:: MMOOUUNNTT CCOOOOKK AANNDD WWEESSTTLLAANNDD NNAATTIIOONNAALL PPAARRKKSS RREESSIIDDEENNTT AAIIRRCCRRAAFFTT UUSSEERR
GGRROOUUPP EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL PPOOLLIICCYY
Mission Statement
Aviation allows large numbers of people of all ages and physical ability, who in most cases
would never otherwise have the opportunity, to experience our remoter alpine regions without
leaving any lasting trace and without requiring any infrastructure such as huts, tracks, toilets.
The Group’s policy is to actively foster aviation, and to cultivate and maintain an
environmentally aware culture, in particular awareness and consideration of potential disturbance
to the values of ground based users.
Code of Practice
To develop and maintain an environmentally aware culture, in particular an awareness and
consideration, at all times, of potential disturbance to ground based users.
To consider environmental effects when selecting aircraft types, in particular noise emission and
aircraft capacity.
To develop and regularly review aircraft operating procedures that minimises noise emission,
particularly in sensitive locations.
When safe and practicable, to follow flight paths that minimises impact on the environment.
Pursue a policy of high and wide flight clear of sensitive areas and in particular strict observance
of minimum vertical and horizontal clearances in the vicinity of identified ground user sensitive
areas.
No flying shall take place in close proximity to the summit of Aoraki/Mount Cook.
Each operator is to elaborate in their exposition how they specifically embody this code of
practice in their operation.
Source: DOC (2004, p. 213).
150
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 44:: IINNTTEERRVVIIEEWW GGUUIIDDEESS
Note: These questions guided the research and many other questions and topics emerged during
the interviews. The second level of bullets is indicating probing questions.
IInntteerrvviieeww gguuiiddee ffoorr pprrooffeessssiioonnaall uusseerrss
• Please outline what type of work you do with in the AMCNP and at what locations (and huts)
you usually work?
- How did you become involved in guiding?
• What are your main uses of aircrafts and helicopters in the mountain?
• Purposes of aircraft?
- Are there any viable options (in relation to these purposes) to using aircrafts?
- What would be the implications for your business if you make use of these other options?
• Do you consider the use of aircrafts to be an attractive part of your product?
- Would your clients be less inclined to buy your product if you were not using an aircraft?
• How does the use of aircraft effect you or your client’s experience?
• How do you think the use of aircraft effect other users of the area?
- Do you ever get reactions towards use of aircrafts by clients or other users?
• How often do you encounter recreational parties in the ACMNP?
• How would you describe the relationship btw recr. and prof. parties in the mountain?
• Describe your attitude/reaction as a guide, towards recr. climbers/skiers in the park?
• What are your clients’ attitudes/reactions towards recr. parties?
• What do you consider as benefits of aircraft usage in the AMCNP?
• What do you consider to be disadvantages of aircraft use?
- How do you consider noise from aircraft?
- If problematic, what area viable solutions for this problem?
- Outline different aspects of this issue/problem?
• Can you outline what you think are the ethical implications of using aircrafts in the mountains?
- As aid for climbing?
151
IInntteerrvviieeww QQuueessttiioonnss ffoorr RReeccrreeaattiioonnaall uusseerrss
• Firstly, can you give me a brief account of your climbing background?
• Please outline what types of recreation you do in AMCNP?
• How did you first become involved in climbing in AMCNP?
• Have you ever been on a guided climbing trip?
• Which areas and huts do you mostly visit?
- Common trip objectives?
• Do you use any type of aircraft in relation to these activities?
• Answer YES:
- Which areas do you use / where do you land?
- Can you tell me why you use aircrafts?
- Do you ever consider options to using aircrafts?
- Describe what role the aircraft plays in your trip?
- What would you have done if aircraft access was not an option?
• YES/NO:
• How does the use of aircraft affect the experience of your trip? Why / how?
- Sight
- Sound / noise
• How does the presence of other aircrafts affect the experience of your trip?
• What do you consider to be the benefits of aircraft use in the ACMNP?
• And what are the disadvantages of aircraft use?
- How do you consider noise from aircraft?
• Are there any issues that need to be resolved in relation to aircraft usage in AMCNP?
- If so, what do you consider to be viable solutions for this problem?
• Are there any ethical implications of using aircrafts in the mountains?
- As aid for climbing?
• How often do you encounter guided parties in the AMCNP?
• Describe the relationship btw recr. and prof. parties in the mountain?
- How about the relationship to guided clients?
152
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 55:: EETTHHIICCSS PPRROOPPOOSSAALL
Form devised May 1995; updated May 1997; June 1998; May 1999, Dec 2000, June 2002
EETTHHIICCAALL AAPPPPRROOVVAALL AATT DDEEPPAARRTTMMEENNTTAALL LLEEVVEELL OOFF AA
PPRROOPPOOSSAALL IINNVVOOLLVVIINNGG HHUUMMAANN PPAARRTTIICCIIPPAANNTTSS ((CCAATTEEGGOORRYY BB))
1. PLEASE read the important notes appended to this form before completing the sections below
NAME OF DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM
TITLE OF PROJECT:
Effects and Impacts of Motorised Transport and Aircraft Use in
Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park
PROJECTED START DATE OF PROJECT: 1st of May 2008
STAFF MEMBER RESPONSIBLE FOR PROJECT: Dr. Anna Thompson
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT:
The purpose of this research is to explore issues related to motorized transport in the
Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park with a particular interest in the increase of airplane and
helicopter landings and overflights. The social impacts and possible recreational conflicts
appearing as a result of this increase are of particular concern, as well as exploring the
positive effects of air traffic. Research suggests that social impacts of air traffic are not
properly addressed in current management plans (Tal 2004) which can be seen as not being in
accordance with some of the key objectives of National Parks, namely providing “solitude,
peace and natural quiet” (ibid) for visitors. Noise is thought to prevent those who seek the
silence and solitude of the wilderness from achieving their recreational goals and as such,
aircrafts in mountain areas are a source of conflict (Jacob and Schreyer 1980; Carothers et al
2001; Vail and Heldt 2004; Tal 2004). The Department of Conservation has acknowledged
these issues in the current Management Plan and are currently requesting more research
related to this topic in the specified location (Department of Conservation 2004).
The overall aim of the project is to provide new insight into a field which is currently lacking
a deeper understanding of the complexity of the above mentioned issue. This will involve
exploring social aspects, positive impacts of aviation in mountain regions and differences
related to commercial and non-commercial aviation (rescue and management flights) in terms
153
of impact and tolerance. Issues related to aircraft use in the Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park are
complex much due to the historic importance of such use in the park and its importance for
access. The fact that many aircraft users belong to the climbing community is adding to the
complexity since the climbing community is also lobbying to decrease the use of aircrafts in
National Parks, much due to noise impact and disturbance of solitude.
The findings of this study will be incorporated into suggestions for the revision of the Aoraki /
Mt Cook National Park Management Plan.
The study will be conducted using in-depth interviews with user group representatives and
other stakeholders such as climbing club members, high users of the area, management staff
and commercial operators. The identities of the participants and any sensitive information will
be treated as confidential and protected as discussed later.
DETAILS OF ETHICAL ISSUES INVOLVED:
Anonymity
The anonymity of the interviewees will be guaranteed by their identity not being mentioned in
the transcription or in the final text. Instead they will be assigned general names such as a
pseudonym or “Subject A”. The data (audio-tapes) will be destroyed at the conclusion of the
project but any raw data on which the results of the project depend will be retained in secure
storage for five years, after which it will be destroyed.
Business details
Operators, and other participants, might feel that they are revealing sensitive information
about their company. If so, they will be asked to speak in general terms. If collected data is
perceived by the researcher as sensitive, that data will be generalized in order through
aggregating quotations etc to make it less sensitive and recognizable.
QUALITATIVE ISSUES
The interviews will be recorded and the anonymity of the interviewees will be guaranteed by
their identity not being mentioned during the interviews. Instead they will be assigned general
names such as “Subject A”. I will conduct semi structured interviews, and use probing
technique in order to unravel layers of new information. The interviews will last up to about 1
hour and the interview subjects will be made aware that they are free to withdraw at any time.
The selection of possible interviewees is handpicked based on their connection with the area
and their knowledge of the chosen topic of study. In addition other interview subjects might
be suggested by the interviewees (generally referred to as the snowball effect). A total of up to
20 interviews will be undertaken with recreationists to the area including climbers, local pilots
and tourism operators.
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
• What is your relation to Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park (recreationist or commercial
operator)?
• For what type of activity do you use the area in question?
154
• What do you consider the main issues related to motorised transport, tourism and
recreation in the Tasman Valley/Glacier area?
• How do you feel about motorized transport and recreation in this area?
• What are the positive/negative impacts of the different motorized activities in the
area?
• Describe issues related to airplane and helicopter landings in the area.
GENERAL ISSUES
The data collection will mostly take place in the vicinity of Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park
although there will most likely undertaken interviews other places as well. Permission to
conduct the study has been granted by e-mail from the proper authority within the Department
of Conservation, that being the Area Manager.
Each interview subject will be given their own copy of an Information Sheet giving all the
necessary details concerning the project, and the role and rights of the participants. They will
also be asked to sign a Consent Form before the interview is being executed.
ACTION TAKEN ���� Approved by Head of Department ���� Approved by Departmental
Committee
���� Referred to University of Otago Human Ethics Committee ���� Referred to another Ethics
Committee
Please specify:
.......................................................
...........
DATE OF CONSIDERATION: ..................................
Signed (Head of Department): ...................................................
Please attach copies of any Information Sheet and/or Consent Form
155
Notes concerning Category B Reporting Sheets
1. This form should only be used for proposals which are Category B as defined in the policy document
"Policy on ethical practices in research and teaching involving human participants", and which may
therefore be properly considered and approved at departmental level;
2. A proposal can only be classified as Category B if NONE of the following is involved:-
• Personal information - any information about an individual who may be identifiable from the data
once it has been recorded in some lasting and usable format, or from any completed research;
• The taking or handling of any form of tissue or fluid sample from humans or cadavers;
• Any form of physical or psychological stress;
• Situations which might place the safety of participants or researchers at any risk;
• The administration or restriction of food, fluid or a drug to a participant;
• A potential conflict between the applicant’s activities as a researcher, clinician or teacher and their
interests as a professional or private individual;
• The participation of minors or other vulnerable individuals;
• Any form of deception which might threaten an individual's emotional or psychological well-being.
If any of the above is involved, then the proposal is Category A, and must be submitted in full to the
University of Otago Human Ethics Committee using the standard Category A application form, and before
the teaching or research commences;
3. A separate form should be completed for each teaching or research proposal which involves human
participants and for which ethical approval has been considered or given at Departmental level;
4. The completed form, together with copies of any Information Sheet or Consent Form, should be
returned to the Manager Academic Committees or the Academic Committees Assistant, Registry, as soon
as the proposal has been considered at departmental level;
5. The Information Sheet and Consent Form should NOT include the statement “This proposal has been
reviewed and approved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee” as this is inappropriate for
Category B proposals. A statement such as statement “This proposal has been reviewed and approved by
the Department of ....., University of Otago” may however be used;
6. Please ensure the Consent Form and the Information Sheet have been carefully proofread; the institution as
a whole is likely to be judged by them;
7. A Category B proposal may commence as soon as departmental approval has been obtained. No
correspondence will be received back from the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee concerning
this Reporting Sheet unless the Committee has concerns;
8. This form is available electronically at the following web address:
http://telperion.otago.ac.nz/acadcomm/categoryb.html
16.04.2008
156
Effects and Impacts of Motorised Transport and Aircraft Use in
Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park
INFORMATION SHEET FOR
PARTICIPANTS
Thank you for showing an interest in this project. Please read this information sheet carefully
before deciding whether or not to participate. If you decide to participate we thank you. If
you decide not to take part there will be no disadvantage to you of any kind and we thank you
for considering our request.
What is the Aim of the Project?
This project is being undertaken as part of the requirements for the Masters of Tourism
degree. The major aim of this project is to explore the social impacts of motorised transport
and aircraft traffic (landings and overflights) in the Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park (more
specifically the Tasman Valley, and provide suggestions for management of this issue.
What Type of Participants are being sought?
Success of this project is relying on interviews with stakeholders such as commercial
operators in the above mentioned area, high users of the area such as climbers, trampers and
ski-tourers, and management staff.
What will Participants be Asked to Do?
Should you agree to take part in this project, you will be asked to undergo and interview with
the researcher. This interview will typically last from 30 minutes up to an hour, depending on
the information given by the participant. The purpose of the interview is to a certain extent to
unravel useful information that the researcher might not know about, therefore not all the
questions and topics will be set before hand. Interviews will have an informal and
conversational character and will be take place at a time and venue that best suit your
schedule.
Please be aware that you may decide not to take part in the project without any disadvantage
to yourself of any kind.
Can Participants Change their Mind and Withdraw from the Project?
You may withdraw from participation in the project at any time and without any disadvantage
to yourself of any kind.
What Data or Information will be Collected and What Use will be Made of it?
This project involves an open-questioning technique where the precise nature of the questions
which will be asked have not been determined in advance, but will depend on the way in
which the interview develops. In the event that the line of questioning does develop in such a
way that you feel hesitant or uncomfortable you are reminded of your right to decline to
answer any particular question(s) and also that you may withdraw from the project at any
stage without any disadvantage to yourself of any kind.
157
Results of this project may be published but any data included will in no way be linked to any
specific participant.
You are most welcome to request a copy of the results of the project should you wish.
The data collected will be securely stored in such a way that only those mentioned above will
be able to gain access to it. At the end of the project any personal information will be
destroyed immediately except that, as required by the University's research policy, any raw
data on which the results of the project depend will be retained in secure storage for five
years, after which it will be destroyed.
What if Participants have any Questions?
If you have any questions about our project, either now or in the future, please feel free to
contact either:
Magnus Kjeldsberg or Dr. Anna Thompson
Department of Tourism Department of Tourism
University Telephone Number: 479 5870 University Telephone Number: 479 8057
Mobile Phone: 0212400963
158
Effects and Impacts of Motorised Transport and Aircraft Use in Aoraki/Mt
Cook National Park
CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS
I have read the Information Sheet concerning this project and understand what it is about. All
my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I understand that I am free to request
further information at any stage.
I know that:-
1. My participation in the project is entirely voluntary;
2. I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without any disadvantage;
3. The data recorded on tape during the interview will be destroyed at the conclusion of the
project but any raw data on which the results of the project depend will be retained in
secure storage for five years, after which it will be destroyed;
4. This project involves an open-questioning technique where the precise nature of the
questions which will be asked have not been determined in advance, but will depend on
the way in which the interview develops. In the event that the line of questioning does
develop in such a way that I feel hesitant or uncomfortable I may decline to answer any
particular question(s) and/or may withdraw from the project without any disadvantage to
me of any kind;
5. The results of the project may be published and available in the library but every attempt
will be made to preserve my anonymity;
6. I understand that reasonable precautions have been taken to protect data transmitted by
email but that the security of the information cannot be guaranteed.
I agree to take part in this project.
............................................................................. ...............................
(Signature of participant) (Date)
159
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 66:: IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTOORRYY LLEETTTTEERR TTOO PPRROOFFEESSSSIIOONNAALL MMOOUUNNTTAAIINN GGUUIIDDEESS
Dunedin, July 24
th, 2008
Research in Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park
Dear Sir or Madam,
My name is Magnus Kjeldsberg and I am currently completing a Masters degree with the
Department of Tourism at the University of Otago. Working under the supervision of Dr.
Anna Thompson (nee Carr), I am conducting qualitative research on social aspects of aircraft
usage in Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park. With this letter I am requesting your cooperation as
a voluntary participant in this study.
This study will explore how aircraft use and aircraft encounters influence the experience of
park users, as well as perspectives on aircraft usage from mountain professionals and
recreational users. For interview participants I am looking for mountain professionals/guides
who frequently use the Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park area for guiding or training (courses)
purposes.
If you fit the above description, it would be greatly appreciated if you are willing to
contribute to my research by partaking in a one-on-one interview which would take about 30-
60 minutes. The interview will focus on your personal experiences and opinions concerning
the above mentioned issues and will be taped with your permission. Ethical approval has been
granted for this research by the University of Otago and all interviews and personal details
will be treated as confidential.
I will be doing trips to South Canterbury and Central Otago during August and September
and hope to arrange an interview with you during that period.
If you would like to participate in this project or if you require some more information, please
do not hesitate to contact me or my advisor. An addressed post-paid envelope is enclosed if
you wish to reply to this letter, or you can email me at the address below. I look forward to
your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Magnus Kjeldsberg or Dr. Anna Thompson (nee Carr)
Phone: (03) 479 5870 Phone: (03) 479 8057 Email: kjema872@student.otago.ac.nz Email: athompson@business.otago.ac.nz
160
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 77:: LLEETTTTEERR TTOO NNZZAACC SSEECCTTIIOONNSS
Research in Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park
Dunedin, July 24th
, 2008
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Magnus Kjeldsberg and I am currently completing a Masters degree with the
Department of Tourism at the University of Otago. Working under the supervision of Dr.
Anna Thompson (nee Carr), I am conducting qualitative research on social aspects of aircraft
usage in Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park. With this letter I am requesting your assistance in
locating suitable interview participants.
This study will examine the impact on visitor satisfaction and experiences from aircraft
overflights and landings, as well as perspectives on aircraft usage from mountain
professionals and recreational users. For my interview participants I need the cooperation of
recreational climbers/mountaineers and/or ski-tourers who have frequently visited the
Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park area over the past several years.
Participants in the research will be asked to contribute by partaking in a one-on-one interview
which would take about 30-60 minutes. The interview will be taped with their permission.
Ethical approval has been granted for this research by the University of Otago and it has also
been approved by DoC. All interviews and personal details will be treated as confidential and
not revealed.
I will be doing trips to Southwest Canterbury and Central Otago during July, August and
September and plan to arrange interviews with potential participants during that period. The
interviews will focus on the participants’ personal experiences and opinions concerning the
above mentioned issues.
It would be much appreciated if you could forward this information to your members through
your newsletter. Also please pass my contact details on to your branch members at the next
NZAC meeting if you think they would like to participate in this research.
Please contact me or my advisor if you have any question in regards to this letter or if you are
able to assist me with this request.
Yours sincerely,
Magnus Kjeldsberg or Dr. Anna Thompson (nee Carr)
Department of Tourism Department of Tourism
University of Otago University of Otago
Phone: (03) 479 5870 Phone: (03) 479 8057
Email: kjema872@student.otago.ac.nz Email: athompson@business.otago.ac.nz
Recommended