Context

DOC invests heavily in the safety of its visitors through communications and visitor infrastructure. Safety-related communications include general and site-specific information and guidance in DOC publications and on the DOC website. This safety information is supported by up-to-date information on track conditions and hazards communicated through DOC’s website and Visitor Centres. Safety-related infrastructure includes tracks, shelters, barriers, bridges and signage. The integrity and functionality of this infrastructure is maintained through a rigorous inspection and maintenance regime (refer to factsheet: Key types of visitor assets managed by DOC are meeting the required performance standard).

A measure of the performance of these efforts is the extent to which visitors’ perceptions and experiences regarding their own safety and wellbeing met their expectations, and were consistent with DOC’s messaging.

Key findings

Perceptions of safety

Overall, walkers generally felt safe, with 81% of respondents agreeing ‘Totally’ or ‘A lot’ that they felt safe at all times. A further 14% agreed ‘Moderately’ (Table 1). Further analysis is required to better understand what factors have the greatest influence on visitors’ perceptions of safety.

Table 1

Agree I felt safe at all times	Count	Percent
Totally	2047	36
A lot	2540	45
Moderately	795	14
Slightly	188	3
Not at all	81	1

Satisfaction with safety-related services

Similar proportions of walkers were ‘Extremely’ or ‘Very’ satisfied with the ‘Safety information’ and ‘Structures’ provided by DOC (Table 2). Both of these are visible evidence of DOC’s efforts to enhance the safety of visitors, and the findings indicate that these efforts are meeting visitors’ expectations.

Table 2

Satisfied with safety information and structures	Count	Percent
Extremely	1684	31
Very	2806	52
Moderately	732	13
Slightly	160	3
Not at all	53	1

Safety-related issues

Responses indicate (Table 3) that walkers experienced generally low rates of safety-related issues, with the most common issues being ‘Suffering injury or ’Illness’ combined (11%) and ‘Needing better/more clothing or equipment’ (8%).
Nevertheless, over a season these rates represent several thousands of walkers. The majority of injuries were associated with sprains and strains, often associated with fatigue, while clothing/equipment issues typically referenced inadequate footwear and wet-weather clothing. The extent to which these two issues are inter-related requires further analysis.
While only a small percentage (2%) recorded ‘Fearing serious injury or death’, it is notable that this equates to a significant number of walkers, and may warrant further analysis including probing in future surveys. Initial exploration of the data found limited support for breaking down these responses by additional factors such as individual ‘Great Walk’ or nationality, given the small number of responses (n=92).

Table 3

Did you or a member of your party/group at any time ON THE WALK:	No	Yes	Percent
Suffer an injury or illness	4872	578	11
Need better more clothing or equipment	4990	457	8
Want to abandon the journey before reaching the end	5147	297	5
Suffer from exhaustion	5228	213	4
Fear serious injury or death	5355	92	2
Suffer from dehydration heat stress	5369	77	1
Become lost or disorientated	5391	55	1
Need to be rescued evacuated	5381	52	1
Suffer from hypothermia	5402	44	1
Run out of food	5401	43	1

Responsibility for visitor safety

Substantial proportions of respondents from some nationalities agreed totally that they relied on DOC to keep them safe on their ‘Great Walk’. This finding is in marked contradiction to DOC’s stated policy on visitor risk management and DOC communications, both of which emphasise that visitors alone are responsible for their own safety and wellbeing, and that of others in their care.
Total reliance was low for major English-speaking groups (New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom, United States and Canada), but for German, French and the remaining group of respondents, more than 10% agreed totally that they relied on DOC (Figure 1). As this level of reliance represents a substantial number of ‘Great Walk’ customers, further research to understand this ‘contrary’ perspective is required to allow evaluation of any action needed.

Figure 1

Definitions and methodology

The ‘Great Walk Guest Survey’ for 2016/17 comprised an integrated pair of web-based questionnaires that ran for the duration of the ‘Great Walk’ walking season (Oct 2016-May 2017). The questionnaires included both quantitative and qualitative questions.

Data quality

Survey respondents do not constitute a random sample of the ‘Great Walk’ walking population (n=119,413). The sample is biased by:
- All members of the population not having equal opportunity to be selected;
- All respondents are self-selected.
  (No statistical adjustment for these biases has been undertaken)
All respondents for the ‘Pre-visit’ and ‘Post-visit’ surveys were from the population of walkers who provided an email address with their ‘Great Walk’ on-line booking (n=31,070).
‘Pre-visit’ survey respondents (n=3,514) were recruited at the time of booking, while ‘Post-visit’ respondents (n=6,087) were recruited immediately after completion of the ‘Great Walk’.
‘Pre-visit’ survey respondents were incentivised to also complete the ‘Post-visit’ survey in order to enable comparisons to be made between walkers’ preconceptions and preferences, and their actual ‘Great Walk’ experience.
- Completed ‘Pre-’ and ‘Post-’ survey pairs n=1,824.
- Questions comprising paired ‘Pre-’ and ‘Post-’ components were configured as uni-polar Likert scales or for Importance/Performance Analysis.

Relevance

This report relates to the following ‘Outcomes Monitoring Framework’ (OMF) Indicator and Measures for ‘Intermediate Outcome 3: New Zealanders and our visitors are enriched by outdoor experiences’:

Indicator 3.2.2: Opportunities, facilities and services provided meet customer expectations and preferences
- Measure 3.2.2.2: Experiences, facilities and services provided reflect the expectations and preferences of intended customers.
- Measure 3.2.2.3: Experiences, facilities and services provided are safe for intended customers.

Outcomes Monitoring Framework

The Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Outcomes Monitoring Framework (OMF) provides a platform on which DOC and others can assess outcomes in a clear, structured and transparent way (Lee et al., 2005). It has been developed as a logical hierarchy that is based on broad, overarching Outcomes, beneath which are nested Outcome Objectives, Indicators, Measures and Data Elements to provide ever-increasing levels of detail. The framework is scalable, as the indicators and measures remain compatible and consistent whether applied locally, regionally or nationally.

Recently updated and expanded, the OMF provides a roadmap for gathering information to meet the specific objectives of DOC and other agencies (McGlone and Dalley, 2015).

The provision of a national framework with agreed outcomes, indicators and measures supports collaboration with national and regional land management and regulatory agencies, as well as other stakeholder groups. This enables more integrated policy development and status reporting.

DOC has partially implemented a national monitoring and reporting system, whereby priority ‘Indicators’ and ‘Measures’ selected from the OMF are routinely used to report on progress against DOC’s stated objectives and outcomes. This factsheet reports on a measure for the 2016/2017 year.

References

McGlone, M., Dalley, J., 2015. A framework for Department of Conservation inventory and monitoring: Intermediate outcomes 1-5. Landcare Research Contract Report LC2427 (unpublished) for the Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Visitor Experience: Safety on DOC’s ‘Great Walks’ 2016/17