Pre-departure Destination Brief: Milford Sound Shuo Yang (3940194) Brock University
Milford Sound, New Zealand
Instructor: Dr. Dave Brown Course: TREN3F94 Ecological Regions and Tourism Destinations in New Zealand Due: Feb, 18 th , 2010
Introduction Milford Sound ( Piopiotahi in Māori) is a fjord on the south west coast of the
South Island within Fiordland National Park and the Te Wahipounamu World Heritage site in New Zealand (Inglis, Gust, Kospartov, Peacock, 2008). It has been described by Rudyard Kipling as the ‘eighth wonder of the world’ (Transit New Zealand, 2007).
The valley walls drop steeply to water depths, especially Mitre Peak, has been one of the most well known tourism icons (Becken, 2005). Its unique natural attractions, many wildlife, and marine biota attract a huge number of tourists to visit Milford
Sound on annual basis. For example, Visitor numbers to Milford Sound / Piopiotahi have grown from 247,000 in 1992 to approximately 470,000 in the 2004 /2005 season
(Fiordland National Park Management Plan, 2007). The rate of growth continues over the life of management plan (Fiordland National Park Management Plan, 2007).
Indeed, economically, the large influx of tourists can definitely contribute to the increment of local revenue. Nevertheless, the increase in commercial and tourists activity in Milford Sound has put ever greater pressure on its natural character and landscape, wildlife and marine biota (Sirota, 2006). Sirota (2006) has also pointed out that perceptions of natural landscape and wilderness values are attenuated when synergies are formed between commercial tourist vessels, air traffic, high road usage and large influxes of visitors within a confined area. A vast number of researches pertaining to the sustainability of tourism in Milford Sound have shown that at present unsustainable indicators appear to outweigh those sustainable ones for the destination.
The current carrying capacity for Milford Sound appears to have been reached, if not slightly exceeded (Sirota, 2006, p.10). In this report, the environmental impacts of tourism development on Milford Sound will be examined, in the backdrop of the tension between the commercialization of its abundant tourism resources for economic values and the conservation of its local ecology and biodiversity. Environmental Impacts of Tourism Development on Milford Sound Milford Sound as the “focal point for tourism in Fiordland National Park” was to be the blueprint by which tourism could move ahead (Department of Conservation,
2002), as it was presumed to be clean, green and most importantly natural (Riddell,
2004). However, these great expectations in an economic sense do not mean Milford
Sound has managed to escape a wide range of environmental effects associated with tourism and large influxes of tourists. For example, there are more than 50 buses and
4,000 visitors in Milford Sound on daily basis (Becken, 2005). It has been estimated that among all travelers visiting New Zealand, 35% of them tend to choose Milford
Sound as one of their destination as it has been successfully promoted as a sightseeing attraction in a commercial sense (Carey, 2003). Thus, the issue of carrying capacity of the number of travellers at Milford Sound has been put forward (Carey, 2003; Becken,
2005; Sirota, 2006).
The congestion and the great intensity of tourists in Milford Sound not only bring environmental concerns, but also may negatively influence the perceptions held by tourists towards this popular sightseeing destination and therefore its commercial values. Moreover, in addition to the economic benefits and environmental concerns, the impacts of tourism on local communities should also draw wide attention.
On one hand, the increasing number of tourists can definitely generate more revenue for local economy. For instance, The Helicopter Line (THL) announced in 2008 that Milford sales and the sale of an Auckland coach line will generate proceeds of $26 million and one off gains of about $9 million (Hartley, 2008). On the other hand, an ever increasing flow of tourists to Milford Sound causes congestion and overcrowding not only at Milford Sound and but also its road corridors (Riddell, 2004;
Becken, 2005). The congestion issues are plaguing many key localities of Milford
Sound and surrounding areas such as water ways, terminus, and road access
(Department of Conservation, 2002). While the primary reason that account for the congestion on the waterways has been identified by some researchers as the lack of limit put on the number of vessels in Milford Sound, others argue that the reasons lie in the excessive number of tourists on a boat (Riddell, 2004). Particularly, large international cruise ships which use the waterways on a regular basis, in conjunction with local tourist boat cruises, constitute another form of commercial boating activity in Milford Sound ( Sirota , 2006). Therefore, when the issue of the carrying capacities of the sightseeing attractions are examined, it is highly suggested that neither aspects should be neglected, namely, the lack of limit put on its infrastructural facilities, as in this case, the total number of its vessels, and the excessive number of tourists. In addition to its waterways, around the peak time the terminal area becomes over crowded when tourists arrive en mass to meet boat departures (Riddell, 2004).
Besides, during the peak times, buses which frequently drive by to drop off passengers are unable to find a parking space at the terminal (Riddell, 2004, p.80).
The situation of crowdedness is further compounded by “the one way single egress”
(Riddell, 2004, p.83) leading to the popular attraction. The only road for ground transportation to get to Milford Sound is an alpine traffic corridor that provides the only road access for a growing number of tourists, operators, workers and suppliers to
Milford Sound (Riddell, 2004).
All these issues may lead to the negative perceptions amongst visitors towards
Milford Sound. As a result, in recent years, the Milford Sound’s initial target groups including New Zealand and Australian Free and Independent Travelers (FIT’s) have been considerably reduced partly due to the negative visitor perceptions (Riddell,
2004). The revenue that can be generated from the local tourism industry would decrease because tourists may choose other sightseeing destinations such as Doubtful
Sound instead of Milford Sound as the result of their negative images towards Milford
Sound. Consequently, the negative perceptions of stakeholders towards Milford
Sound would also decrease the interest in investment (Riddell, 2004) . Interestingly, possibly due to the cultural differences among tourist from different backgrounds,
Asian tourists who tend to move and travel in large tour groups tend to have greater tolerance towards the intensity of people at tourism attraction as in the case of Milford
Sound, to which most tourists from European, Australian, American and New Zealand markets, on the contrary, dislike (Riddell, 2004). For instance, one of the major groups visiting Milford Sound is Japanese (Riddell, 2004). Nevertheless, in Milford
Sound, the noise from the aircraft (Becken, 2005) and the commercial vessels and cruise ships (Sirota, 2006) would affect the perceptions of natural quiet, visitor enjoyment and safety concerns (National Park Service, 1994, cited in Cessford, 2000).
Although tourists from different backgrounds may demonstrate disparities in their perception towards certain attraction with great intensity of tourists, there is less possibility that any tourist for the purpose of sightseeing will favor places which are environmentally contaminated or have other ecological problems due to overcrowding and congestion.
However, it is also worth noticing that the ever increasing number of tourists may put greater pressure on local infrastructure (e.g. toilets and sewage disposal system)
(Riddell, 2004; Becken, 2005). To make the matter worse, despite the relatively greater tolerance towards the high tourist intensity at certain tourism attraction among
Asian tourists, they tend to move in large tour groups so that the effects are massive on the infrastructure, water supply, effluent disposal and so on (McIntyre, 1998).
Indeed, some improvements to infrastructure have been carried out by local government including an upgrading of the wharves at Freshwater Basin more recently.
Nevertheless, these measures do not substantially benefit the local people for them to have a quality life (Riddell, 2004). According to Nitsch and Straaten (1995), any changes necessary to accommodate tourists should not be detrimental to community needs. Therefore, the influx of tourists not only puts stress on the environment at
Milford Sound, but also brings socio economic concerns and the sustainability of
Milford Sound would be considerably threatened. Environmental Impacts of Tourism Development on Wildlife and Marine Biota in Milford Sound Aside from the negative environmental impacts on Milford Sound, the increase in commercial and tourists’ activities have put pressure on wildlife and marine biota in
Milford Sound (Sirota, 2006). Higham, Kearsley and Kliskey (2000) also point out that increasing waterborne traffic in the fiords of Fiordland National Park may threaten the wilderness status of this area. More specifically, first of all, the presence of high intensity of tourist boats operating in the fiord influences the dolphins that visit Milford Sound directly ( Fairbairn, 2003). For example, high speed vessels would harm dolphins due to collisions, especially when dolphins are trying to avoid vessels
(Riddell, 2004; Sirota, 2006). It had been estimated over the period of time of the study by Lusseau (2005) that on average four individuals from a population of between 45 and 55 dolphins had propeller marks from collisions with boats. Also, two of the four had collided with over the study period, one of which (a two week old calf) disappeared after being hit and presumed dead. Lusseau’s study (2005) also indicates that commercial sea surface activities have impacts on the time spent by pods of dolphins in Milford Sound, as it has shown that dolphins tend to spend less time in
Milford Sound when traffic is heavy. The similar behavior trend of dolphins can also be found in the study by Sirota (2006), who states that cetaceans (whales and dolphins) move away from boat when interactions become intrusive or too lengthy, as the results of acoustic disturbance or the risks of personal injuries (Sirota, 2006).
Secondly, the noises from the diesel engines of the large vessels within Milford Sound may hinder the ability for dolphins to communicate in synchronized diving efforts for in fiord species (Sirota, 2006, p.6). Also, fur seals are disturbed by tourists coughing, making seal noises, hissing or shouting at them. For example, ther is also sufficient evidence showing that the hissing from venting scuba tanks disturbs them as well
(Sirota, 2006). The current levels of commercial vessel traffic disturb whales to enter Milford Sound ( Constantine, 1999). Thirdly, the commercial vessel traffic also affects the marine biota (Sirota, 2006). For example, the alteration of the hydrograph of two main basins including Deep Water Basin or Fresh Water Basin would change the conditions within the water layers and thereby affect marine biota (Hanning, 1998),
Also, black coral conies are sensitive to changes in oxygen concentrations and the presence of hydrogen sulphide and would be unlikely to survive in conditions of low oxygen concentration (Kai, 2000). Fourthly, the exhaust fumes, smoke, and oil leak from the large international cruise ships pose great threat to Milford Sound and wildlife in Milford Sound (English, 2000; Riddell, 2004; Siorta, 2006). In addition, litter from boat, human waste, and waste food also considerably affect the wildlife and biota in Milford Sound. Therefore, it has been demonstrated by these examples that the tourism development in Milford Sound is threatening its abundance of wildlife and mammals. Last but not least, the negative impacts on local wild life will also affect the area economically in the long run. Based on a survey on tourists in
Milford Sound by O’Neill (1994), one of the most common features is wildlife viewing, such as seals. Thus, if the wildlife and mammals are under threat, visitors’ enjoyment might decrease and thereby the economic sustainability of the attraction will be ultimately influenced due to the reduction of tourists. Conclusion Due to the negative environmental impacts on Milford Sound and wildlife and marine biota, the policy making is significant to provide a guideline to make Milford Sound more sustainable. For one thing, Fiordland National Park Management Plan (2007) has suggested a four stage process that reduces the congestion and overcrowding and ensures national park values are preserved. The four stages including
Stage One better direction on site management through the use of zoning prescriptions, Stage two– redirection of visitor flow patterns at Milford Sound / Piopiotahi; Stage Three – option for the development of a marina facility at Deepwater Basin to provide for small scale nature based tourism; Stage Four – should Stages Two and Three not occur (or at least not have begun implementation to a level accepted by the Department of Conservation); or it be demonstrated through research that the perception of crowding and congestion are not reduced, then visitor number limits will be implemented; and Stages Two and Three could occur concurrently (p.202).
For another thing, the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1979 provides for the protection, conservation, and management of all marine mammals such as whales, dolphins and seals within New Zealand and within the New Zealand fisheries waters (which includes the exclusive economic zone of New Zealand) (Fiordland National Park Management Plan, 2007). Siorta
(2006) also suggests that commercial sea surface activities should decrease in order to reduce the negative influences on wildlife and marine biota. Moreover, it is also suggested that public awareness should also be raised with regard to the impact of human activities on the behaviors of local animals such as seals, through public campaigns and community liaisons (Fiordland
National Park Management Plan, 2007). Therefore, it requires all stakeholders to work together to ensure the sustainable development of Milford Sound. However, much has remained uncertain regarding the implementation of these stringent policies, which necessitate further research.
References Becken, S. (2005). The role of tourists icons for sustainable tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing , 11 (1), 21 30.
Carey, P. (2003). Sound and Fury. New Zealand Listener. July 26 August 1, 189 (3298), 1 4. Retrieved Feb. 13 th , 2010, from http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3298/features/382/sound_and_fury.html
Cessford, G.R. (2000). Noise Impact Issues on the Great Walks of New Zealand . USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15 , 4, pp.69 76
Constantine, R. (1999) Effects of tourism on marine mammals in New Zealand. Science for conservation: 106. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
Department of Conservation (2002). Fiordland National Park Management Plan: Review of the Fiordland National Park Management Plan . Retrieved Feb. 13 th , 2010, from http://www.doc.govt.nz/Explore/001~National Parks/Fiordland National Park/ Fiordlad National Park Management Plan Draft/index.asp
Fairbairn, N. (2003) Bottlenose Dolphin Tourism in Doubtful Sound: An analysis of Sustainable Tourism Management in Doubtful Sound, unpublished Post Graduate Diploma in Tourism dissertation, Department of Tourism, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Fiordland National Park Management Plan (2007). Southland Conservancy Conservation Management Planning Series: Department of Conservation
Hanning, P. (1998) Aspects of the physical and chemical oceanography of Milford Sound. , unpublished Master of Science dissertation, Marine Science, University of Otago, New Zealand
Hartley, S. (2008). Skegges pays $17.3m for THL Milford assets (Jun,14, 2008). Otago Daily Times. Retrieved from http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/9527/skeggs pays 173m thl milford assets
Higham, J., Kearsley, G.d, & Kliskey, A.(2000). Wilderness Perception Scaling in New Zealand: An analysis of wilderness perceptions held by Users, nonusers and international visitors . USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS P 15 VOL 2.
Inglis, G., Gust, N., Kospartoy, M., & Peacock, L. (2008). Milford Sound: first baseline survey for non indigenous marine species (Research Project ZBS2005/19). Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests/salt freshwater/milford 2008 resurvey report.pdf
Kai, T. (2000) Reproductive and larval biology of Black Coral, (Antipathes fiordensis). unpublished Master of Science dissertation, Marine Science Department, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Lusseau, D. (2005) Residency pattern of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops spp. in Milford Sound, New Zealand, is related to boat traffic. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 295 , pp. 265 272.
Nitsch, B., & J. van Straaten, J.V. (1995). Rural tourism development: Using a sustainable tourism development approach. In H. Coccossis and P. Nijkamp (Ed.), Sustainable tourism development (pp. 169–185). Avebury: Aldershot.
O’Neill, D. (1994) Socially Sustainable Tourism Development , unpublished Masters dissertation, Tourism Department, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Riddell, P. (2004). Sustainable tourism development: Milford Sound (Master of Regional and Resource Planning Thesis).University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Sirota, P. (2006). The effects of commercial sea-surface activity in Milford Sound: An initial scoping and information gathering report. University of Otago: Department of Geography. Retrieved Feb., 13 th , 2010, from http://www.envirolink.govt.nz/PageFiles/32/40 Esrc201 MilfordReportPaulSiro ta20 02 06.pdf
Transit New Zealand (2007). Driving to Milford Sound? Retrieved from http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/driving milford sound/