Social Aspects of Aircraft use in Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park

|

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: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

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: [email protected] Email: [email protected]