• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

Visitor Survey of the Lower Waitaki Valley

1 Introduction

2 Method

3 The Traveller Survey

4 The Holiday Visitor Survey

Conclusions

Reference

Appendix 1: Visitor Survey Forms

3 The Traveller Survey

All but one of the sample of 201 considered themselves to be visitors to the Waitaki district; the sole exception was a resident of Oamaru who was out driving for pleasure.

The majority of respondents, some 70 percent had never visited the lower Waitaki valley before; the full range of responses is set out in Table 3.1. In this and all other tables, figures are presented as percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. For this reason, totals may not always exactly equal 100 percent.

Table 3.1: "How often have you travelled through the lower Waitaki valley before?"

Patterns of travel were ascertained by asking respondents where they had come from that morning and where their intended destination was for that night. Table 3.2 sets out the origins of the day's travel.

Table 3.2: "Where did you leave from this morning?"

In addition, a limited number of minor origins were mentioned just once.

The lower Waitaki can be approached from a number of directions. The main axes of flow, from inland or from the coast, are similar in volume. A total of 40 percent came from the east coast to the south of the Waitaki, primarily Dunedin and Oamaru; similar numbers came from within the upper Waitaki Catchment, primarily Mount Cook and the emerging resorts of Tekapo, Twizel, Omarama and Otematata. These are closely associated with the hydro lakes and the larger glacial water bodies. In addition, small numbers came from Central Otago (6 percent) presumably via the Lindis Pass, 7 percent had come from the Maniototo or Dansey's Pass itself and 4 percent had come from Christchurch and Timaru. Two percent had made the long trip from Franz Josef on the West Coast.

Most respondents had their destination already planned; these are set out in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: "Where do you intend to travel to tonight?"

As before, a limited number of destinations were mentioned just once.

The patterns of movement are broadly similar to those set out in Table 3.2, which, given that most respondents did not intend to stay in the lower Waitaki itself, is not surprising since most travel is through the valley in one direction or another. Three percent indicated that they would stay in Kurow and a further 2 percent nominated Dansey's Pass, so that 5 percent in total were intending to stay within the broader lower Waitaki region. The dominant destination area was the east coast, primarily Oamaru and Dunedin again, and this accounted for half of all of the destinations mentioned. Thirty percent listed Mount Cook or the various resorts and townships within the upper Waitaki, while 5 percent intended to go through to Christchurch and a further 3 percent suggested that they would aim for Queenstown.

The overall pattern of flow is thus primarily to and from Dunedin and Oamaru, connecting with Mount Cook and the lakeside resorts of the upper Waitaki. Smaller numbers enter and leave the catchment by a number of entry and exit points, mainly the Lindis and Dansey's Pass, but also, in small numbers, via Burkes Pass and Fairlie. Most of these are trips of reasonably lengthy duration, leaving little time for activity or expenditure within the lower Waitaki itself.

Respondents were then asked for how long they intended to stop in the lower Waitaki, if at all; responses are set out in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4: "How long do you intend to stop for in the lower Waitaki valley?"

As can be seen, the majority of respondents only intended, or had taken, a brief stop at best. More than three-quarters said that they would travel straight through or else stop only briefly. By contrast, only 11 percent stated that they would stay a night or more. Given the destinations cited in Table 3.3, it is clear that, despite the careful explanations given, many respondents had confused the lakes with the lower Waitaki. A total of 8 percent of the sample said they had stopped, or would stop, briefly at Kurow, almost always with the intention of eating or buying a drink; a further 5 percent indicated that they would view the Maori rock drawings, as well as the large numbers who were interviewed there. Clearly, the Maori rock art site is the principal and only stopping place for many. Around 6 percent mentioned, or were interviewed at, fossil sites, principally Elephant Rocks. Smaller numbers mentioned the café at Duntroon, the fruit stalls, the Heritage Centre at Kurow and the Kurow Visitor Information Centre.

Virtually everyone encountered was on a holiday of some kind; many used campervans and a significant few were cycling. Most respondents said that they were touring, sightseeing or on a general holiday, but a small number, less than 5 percent, specified a particular focus for their trip. These included fishing, swimming, following the Vanished World fossil trail or visiting friends who were already on holiday.

Respondents were then asked to identify the relative significance of the lower Waitaki as a part of their overall trip; responses are set out in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: "How important is the lower Waitaki valley as a part of your trip?"

Clearly, the lower Waitaki itself was not seen as a major part of the trip and, in fact, fully two-thirds saw it as a minor part of the overall trip or else just somewhere on the way and this was, in fact, by far the largest single response. For those who said that the valley was a significant part of the trip, many were not staying in the area, having come from Oamaru or nearby and intending to return the same day.

When asked whether they intended to use the Waitaki River itself for recreational purposes on that trip, 12 percent said that they would or might, although the majority, 88 percent, said that they would not. The activities listed are set out in Table 3.6, with the percentages of the whole sample and of those that responded positively being set out with the latter in parentheses.

Table 3.6: "What recreational purposes do you intend to use the Waitaki River for?"

Respondents were then asked to give their personal evaluations of the scenery of the lower Waitaki valley. Again, while care was taken to explain the limits of what constituted the valley itself, it seems likely that some responses were modified to a degree by the experience of having travelled down through the lake environments of the Mackenzie Country and the upper Waitaki. However, since half of the sample had travelled up the valley and had not had this experience, the fact that their evaluations are broadly similar in range and value, it is likely that this effect is limited.

Responses to aspects of scenery are set out in the following three tables.

Table 3.7: "How do you personally rate the scenery of the lower Waitaki valley?"

While the modal value in Table 3.7 was 'picturesque', a rating at the middle of the range, the overall distribution of values is strongly positive. Around one in six saw the scenery as 'exceptional' and a further third saw it as 'impressive'. By contrast, only a minimal 5 percent saw it as 'moderate' and no-one at all cited 'dull'. Clearly, then, the valley's scenic values are well regarded.

In a similar vein, respondents were asked to compare the lower Waitaki with other scenery that they had encountered. Clearly, responses are dependent upon previous experience, both immediately and in the longer term, but they provide a further subjective yardstick of how the valley is regarded and in this the two tables are quite consistent.

Table 3.8: "How far does the lower Waitaki valley compare with other scenery that you have seen so far?"

Again, responses are very positive and there is a close correlation between the degrees of response in the two tables, so that those who rated the scenery as 'exceptional' also regarded it as 'among the very best' that they had seen. 'About average' is the modal response, equating to those who saw it as 'picturesque', but a full third saw it as 'better than most'. Overall, then, the scenery of the lower Waitaki is seen as at least average and often better than that. Very few see it in adverse terms.

The third table in this sequence, Table 3.9, asks about the importance of the river itself as a component of the scenery, bearing in mind that, while the line of the channel is clearly visible through its accompanying vegetation, the river itself and its immediate bed are not often seen.

Table 3.9: "Scenically, how important is the Waitaki River itself as a feature of the valley?"

Most people saw the river as a 'fairly important feature', with more than half offering that response. A full 15 percent saw it as the 'most outstanding feature', a response from those who had come from up river, in the main, and to this extent, their perception was probably influenced by their previous encounter with the lake and river systems upstream, but also by the river's clear visibility above Kurow and at the twin bridges. By contrast a quarter saw it as either 'hardly noticeable' or as 'not particularly important', although no-one thought that it was irrelevant. Rather than opting for one of the responses offered, some 6 percent said that the river was 'invisible' or 'could not be seen'.

It is apparent that the Waitaki River itself is seen as an important component of scenery, but it has not been possible to determine whether this is as a result of actually seeing the river, being aware of its scale and character through brief glimpses or by being aware that the whole scenery of the valley is a result of river action. Clearly, though, modification of the river would have an effect upon the scenic evaluations of most respondents, although it is not possible to determine from this study what the nature of that effect might be.

Finally, in this section, respondents were asked if there any particular features that contributed to the valley's scenic attraction; responses are set out in Table 3.10.

Table 3.10: "What do you think are the particular features that make the lower Waitaki scenically attractive, if you think that it is?"

Most respondents thought that there was a degree of scenic attractiveness within the valley (Table 3.10) and most were able to identify specific contributors to this. The principal ones were the mountainous backdrop and the river and its tributary streams; in addition, the braided nature of the river was specifically mentioned. The many outcrops of limestone were frequently remarked upon and the general rural and heritage environment contributes through a series of responses. The impact of the Vanished World fossil trail is also clearly apparent.

Minor responses also included the wild flowers and the Maori rock art. Those who nominated the lakes, some 7 percent, were clearly confusing the wider region with the area specified.

In the final question, respondents were asked to list their normal residence. Two-thirds (68 percent) gave an overseas address as their normal residence; it is not clear how many of those who gave a New Zealand address were permanent residents, although most probably were. The details are set out in Table 3.11, where the percentages quoted are percentages of the whole sample.

Table 3.11: "Where is your usual home?"

In addition to the broad national groups listed, one or two respondents were identified as coming from Thailand, France, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Israel, Sweden and Slovakia. The segment from the United Kingdom is almost entirely from England, mainly the southern parts of the country. Overall, apart from Australia, the overseas group is dominated by England and by the German speaking parts of Europe. Indeed, Britain and northwest Europe comprise some 46 percent of the sample, substantially more than the entire domestic New Zealand segment.