Survey blow to freedom camping
A survey on freedom camping in Kaiko¯ura has found most locals believe it is of little or no benefit to the town, damages the environment and poses a risk to health and safety.
The survey also recommends a rethink of council policy on freedom camping in the wake of Covid19.
The report was commissioned by the Kaiko¯ ura District Council and carried out by NZ Tourism Institute researchers at the Auckland University of Technology over summer and autumn, after the council’s Responsible Freedom Camping Bylaw came into force in December.
Visitors, businesses and residents were quizzed on their experiences and thoughts on freedom camping in Kaiko¯ura and asked for suggestions on how the system might be improved.
While visitors had high praise for Kaiko¯ ura’s attractions, a whopping 87 per cent of community respondents reported concerns about freedom campers. Some 60 per cent disagreed that freedom campers were good for the local economy, and more than 70 per cent felt they had a negative impact on the environment.
‘‘Most respondents vehemently dispute the notion that ‘responsible camping’ visitors bring benefits to Kaiko¯ ura,’’ the survey report found.
Comments included: ‘‘Their cost is both financial in managing them and their waste and a cost to our environment when the many non-self-contained campers defecate and urinate and leave wads of faeces-covered toilet paper when they stay where there are no toilets.’’
Other residents said freedom campers were an ‘‘eyesore’’ in areas the public used.
Forty-four per cent of residents surveyed believed the bylaw was not being properly enforced; 43 per cent reported concerns about health and safety risks posed by freedom campers; 33 per cent cited environmental impact and 34 per cent said freedom camping was affecting their quality of life.
Under the Freedom Camping Act, councils can regulate freedom camping but they cannot absolutely prohibit it.
The Kaiko¯ura council bylaw allows freedom camping for selfcontained vehicles at five sites: the South End railway station car park; West End car park; Jimmy Archer’s beach, the Scarborough St reserve and Pohowera, which is closed in the dotterel summer nesting season. But a third of visitors reported they had stayed at least one night at non-permitted locations Kiwa Rd and Okiwi Bay.
A number of Kaikoura businesses were also unimpressed with the freedom campers.
Forty six per cent said their businesses were directly related to the visitor industry. But 53 per cent disagreed that the campers were good for their business or the local economy, and 60 per cent said they had a negative impact on the natural environment.
The survey canvassed the views of 439 freedom campers over summer and found 68 per cent were New Zealanders and 32 per cent from overseas, mainly Germany. The average stay in Kaiko¯ ura was two nights, and the average spend was $181, with overseas visitors spending slightly less.
Thirty-eight per cent had also stayed at a motel or paid campsite, and 60 per cent said if freedom camping had not also been available they would have left.
Most freedom campers felt they had a positive effect on the environment, with half saying they had also helped the local economy.
As the world navigated Covid19, governments and communities would need to apply a new perspective on ‘responsible’ camping, the report warned. Residents would be less tolerant of overcrowding and that called for stronger approaches to manage camper numbers in Kaiko¯ ura.
The report also asked whether the costs of freedom camping were outweighing the benefits for residents and businesses. ‘‘To some extent, the findings from the surveys point to a ‘yes’ response to both questions,’’ it said.