%20300ppiPNG.png)
Pay to Play
Should We Have to Pay to Enjoy
Our Own Backyard?
By: Anaru Shadbolt
At a time when the cost of living is skyrocketing, fresh fruit and vegetables are becoming unaffordable, and homeownership feels out of reach, how would you feel about having to pay to visit a park?
The Department of Conservation (DOC) has proposed changes to modernise New Zealand’s conservation system. Among the is the potential introduction of access fees for some public conservation land. While DOC argues that this could provide much-needed funding for conservation efforts, critics warn of unintended consequences that could threaten accessibility and environmental sustainability.
Why is DOC Considering Access Fees?
New Zealand's public conservation land, managed by DOC, covers around a third of the country (over 8 million hectares), including 13 national parks, numerous conservation parks, and thousands of reserves and other protected areas (Department of Conservation, 2024, p.14).
For the 2023-2024 financial year, DOC’s budget sits at $644.2 million, but the agency claims it has been left “spread too thin” (Department of Conservation, 2024, p.15; Nine To Noon, 2025).
Meanwhile, tourism remains a powerhouse of the economy, generating $22.1 billion in 2023 (Stats NZ, 2024: Tourism New Zealand, n.d.). DOC notes that around half of all international visitors explore a national park during their stay (DOC, 2024, p.21), and that doesn't include other conservation areas they may visit. Yet, only a fraction of the revenue tourism generates is reinvested in conservation.
DOC estimates that conservation-related tourism contributes around $3.4 billion annually, yet its budget equates to just 20% of that (Department of Conservation, 2024, p.14-15). This estimate is based on discontinued Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) databases, so the accuracy of these figures is unclear.
To bridge this funding gap, DOC suggests that introducing access fees could support conservation education, facilities, and ecological restoration efforts (DOC, 2024, p.10). It could also help maintain huts, tracks, and structures, which are currently underfunded (Williams, 2023).
Similar models exist overseas, such as in Yellowstone National Park, where visitors pay $32 USD per person per day or $56 per vehicle (DOC, 2024, p.25). But is this the right approach for Aotearoa New Zealand?
The Case Against Charging for Access
Critics argue that charging for access commodifies nature, creating barriers for lower-income families, Iwi, and local communities. Research shows that user fees disproportionately affect marginalised groups, limiting their ability to connect with nature (NPCA, 2022; Ostfeld & Simpson, 2018).
As New Zealanders, our connection to the environment isn't just about recreation, its woven into our national identity (Dürr, 2007, p.64: Department of Conservation, 2024, p.15). The Green Party states that being in nature is "a huge part of being a New Zealander" and that "free and equal access to the places that support our mental and physical wellbeing” is critical (Green, n.d.).
There is also growing concern that commercialising conservation could shift priorities from protecting ecosystems to maximising revenue (Brown, 2024; Reuters, 2024).
A possible unintended consequence? People unwilling or unable to pay to access commercialised conservation areas may flock to unmanaged spaces, leading to environmental degradation in places with no funding for oversight or restoration (Gupta et, al., 2024).
So, What's the Real Question?
We alla gree that protecting our taiao (environment) requires investment. But is charging for access to public land the right solution?
A user-pays model risks
-
Locking our lower-income whānau (families) who already fund conservation through their taxes.
-
Encouraging a profit-driven mindset, where access is tied to financial contribution rather than environmental responsibility
-
Shifting the focus of conservation from protection to revenue generation, potetnially undermining its core purpose.
If DOC needs more resources, shouldn't we be asking whether it should receive a greater share of government funding? Tourism is a $22.1 billion industry, yet conservation gets just 20% of the revenue it helps generate.
Rather than debating whether to charge or not charge for access, the real conversation should be:
-
How important is our conservation estate to New Zealanders? Not just for recreation, but for our wellbeing and economy.
-
Should more of central government's budget be allocated to conservation?
-
Who should manage conservation land? If these lands exist to protect nature and serve communities, should Iwi, local councils, and communities have greater control over the places that matter to them?
New Zealand's conservation estate belongs to all of us. If access fees are on the table, then so should a national conversation about the future of conservation management and funding.
What do you think?
References
Brown, K. (2024, August 15). The problem with people: How more tourists and a growing population are taking their toll on the Galápagos islands. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/aug/15/dying-species-and-garbage-the-downsides-of-the-galapagos-tourism-dependency
Department of Conservation. (2024). Exploring charging for access to some public conservation land: Discussion document. https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/getting-involved/consultations/2024/access-charging/exploring-charging-for-access-to-some-public-conservation-land-discussion-document.pdf
Dürr, E. (2007). Reinforcing cultural hegemony : Pākehā perceptions of brand New Zealand. Journal of New Zealand Studies (Online).
Green. (n.d.). Submit today: Keep our conservation lands for all. Green Party. https://action.greens.org.nz/conservation_access_sub_guide
Gupta et, al. (2024). Sustainable tourism development: Balancing economic growth and environmental conservation. Migration Letters. https://www.researchgate.net publication/379252547_Sustainable_Tourism_Development_Balancing_Economic_Growth_And_Environmental_Conservation
National Parks Conservation Association. (2022, December 6). Perspective on national park visitation. NPCA. https://www.npca.org/articles/3398-perspective-on-national-park-visitation
Nine To Noon. (2025, February 5). Funding DOC facilities as the government drives for more tourists. RNZ. https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018973609/funding-doc-facilities-as-the-government-drives-for-more-tourists
Ostfeld, J., & Simpson, K. (2018, February 6). The negative impact of higher entrance fees at national parks. NRPA. https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2018/february/the-negative-impact-of-higher-entrance-fees-at-national-parks/
Tourism New Zealand. (n.d.). Tourism impact: Themes and opportunities to how visitors contribute to New Zealand. https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/insights/tourism-impact/
Reuters. (2024, December 12). Trying to attract tourists, Venezuela builds infrastructure in fragile ecosystems. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trying-attract-tourists-venezuela-builds-infrastructure-fragile-ecosystems-2024-12-11/
Stats NZ. (2024, February 29). Tourism satellite account: Year ended March 2023. https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/tourism-satellite-account-year-ended-march-2023/#key-estimates
Williams, D. (2023, September 21). ‘Rich’ conservation department is actually stretched and struggling. Newsroom. https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/09/21/rich-doc-is-actually-stretched-and-struggling/