1. EXPLORING SOCIAL ASPECTS OF AIRCRAFT USE
IN
AORAKI/MOUNT COOK NATIONAL PARK
Magnus Kjeldsberg
Department of Tourism
University of Otago
July 2009
A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Tourism at the
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
|

2. Abstract
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.
ii

3. Acknowledgements
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.
iii

4. Table of Contents
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
iv

5. 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
v

6. 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
vi

7. 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
vii

8. LIST OF TABLES
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
LIST OF FIGURES
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
viii

9. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
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
ix

10. Turning a new page
x

11. Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 RESEARCH CONTEXT
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
1

12. 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
2

13. 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.
1.2 STUDY AREA BACKGROUND – THE AMCNP
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
3

14. 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.
4

15. FIGURE 1: Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park including mountain huts and ROS-sectors (Source:
DOC 2004)
5

16. FIGURE 2: Aoraki/Mt Cook Village with airport (Source: DOC 2004)
6

17. 1.3 RECREATION AND GUIDING IN THE AMCNP
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).
7

18. 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
8

19. 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.
1.4 MANAGEMENT OF RECREATION IN NEW ZEALAND’S NATURAL AREAS
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
9

20. 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
10

21. 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).
1.5 AIRCRAFT USE IN THE AMCNP
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
11

22. 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).
12

23. FIGURE 3: Designated landing areas within the AMCNP (Source: DOC 2004)
13

24. 1.6 RESEARCH PROBLEM
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.
1.7 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
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
14

25. 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.
15

26. 1.8 THESIS OUTLINE
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.
16

27. Chapter 2. Literature Review
2.1 INTRODUCTION
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;
17

28. 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.
2.2 RECREATIONAL USE OF NATURAL AREAS
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
18

29. 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)
2.3 PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS INFLUENCING USER EXPERIENCES
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.
19

30. 2.3.1 Perception of natural areas and wilderness
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
20

31. 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.
21

32. 2.3.2 User expectation and satisfaction
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.
22

33. 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.
2.3.3 Attitudes towards aircraft use
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.
23

34. 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
24

35. 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).
2.3.4 Recreational motives and objectives
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
25

36. 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.
2.4 AIRCRAFT USE IN NATURAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED SOCIAL EFFECTS
2.4.1 International experiences with aircraft use in national parks
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
26

37. 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.
27

38. 2.4.2 New Zealand experiences with aircraft use in national parks
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
28

39. 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.
29

40. 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
30

41. 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
31

42. 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.
2.5 NOISE IMPACT AND THE LOSS OF NATURAL QUIET
2.5.1 Noise impact research
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
32

43. “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.
33

44. 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
34

45. 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”.
2.5.2 Actual effect of noise on recreationists
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.
35