[emilyfm]

I've been travelling on a road trip in NZ for the last month or so (with a few more weeks to go). Even now, tail end of the summer season, the country is packed.

I like to drive around with just a rough route, see a place I like and stop for a while, but that just hasn't been possible if I want somewhere comfortable to sleep. Motels are mostly very small (6-12 rooms) so there's not a lot of availability. I've had to book in advance (and have a super-flexible route, skipping some full towns and even regions) to be able to get anything at all.

There's chronic under-investment in hotels and motels. It doesn't look like much (outside the cities) has been built since the 60's and 70's. It's like if the US never built Holiday Inn Expresses, Hampton Inns and so on and was just relying on mom-and-pop downtown motels to house everybody, or if there were no Premier Inns in the UK and it was still just seaside B&B's.

That does give what little accommodation there is more character with a more personal service, but it's still mostly poor quality and a tiny number of rooms. With some motels (luckily a minority) it's been clear that the near 100% occupancy all the time means they just don't care, somebody will rent the room however bad it is.

I don't think it would be much different with a motorhome or camping, official campsites look full and unofficial campsites are everywhere (and many of those campers do trash the place, giving campers and tourists a bad name and building some real dislike of them in the country).

There are also a few high-profile cases of tourists driving on the wrong side of the road (or just badly) and causing accidents and deaths.

The growing (and very understandable) anti-tourist feeling in NZ should correct the problem in the long run, as tourists feel less welcome and tell their friends that.

It would have been better if the government funding for attracting people to NZ (too fast) had instead been spent on infrastructure (including help with building brand-new motels).

[nickthemagicman]

Unless I'm missing your point I think that unspoiled natural feeling is the appeal.

It's still a little wild but not dangerous.

Why bother going there if it's just another strip of Hard Rock cafes, Holiday Inns, Tourist shops selling wallaby trinkets?

You could just save the plane ticket and go to Hawaii instead.. if motels and Hard Rock Cafes are what you want.

And that's what American developers will turn it into....evidenced by...every culturally exploited tourist city in America.

Because capitalism is most profitable catering to the lowest common denominator spring break middle American hordes who prefer the safety and comfort of an Applebees and Holiday Inn over the possible discomfort of something unpredictable.

Seriously, Hawaii and Cozumel have everything you're looking for.

[te_chris]

+1 if the Americans are unhappy because it's not a wasteland like America can be then I'm sure there's other places to go.

[pm90]

I think you are being rather unfair to the poster. I don't think (s)he is advocating an American style system exist in NZ; only that traveling is made much harder by the lack of it (and exactly how that is made difficult).

In fact, I think the "mom and pop" shops could do a win-win by investing in expanding capacity and providing better service to tourists.

Of course, that is slightly difficult if they don't want tourists. But in that case, it should be made clear to visitors...don't dupe them into coming to your country and then provide terrible service just because you can get away with it.

BTW America is not a "wasteland" by any means. Sure, there are many parts that are like that, but there are an equal number of incredibly beautiful natural sanctuaries. Actually I'm not even sure what you mean by that term.

[bitexploder]

Ya know, America is a huge place. We have vast tracts of unspoiled nature larger than many New Zealands put together. Sorry if this sounds defensive but it is. I think parent gets it, but for anyone who thinks tourism in America is only some consumer mass product... that is just wrong. The scope of America's wilderness is staggering. It always amuses me when "people" think they have to leave the country to see some unspoiled wilderness.

[Taniwha]

We didn't really have a culture of summer travelling and staying in hotels, or even usually motels - I grew up camping with my parents, and occasionally staying in a camping ground (most small towns have one) that means hot showers and a tent or cabin (bring a sleeping bag) - as the article says we have had a sudden influx as the GFC retreats ... we're also seeing a lot of Chinese visitors who used to only take block bookings in hotels from coach tours and now are becoming more adventurous and travelling by themselves like you are.

Really as a rule we don't have a problem with "freedom camping" - it's what I grew up doing, a very kiwi thing - and many (I think most) people would like to encourage it ... except for the problem with foreign freedom campers not cleaning up after themselves (if you are planning on crapping on the side of the road please bring a chemical toilet)

[madaxe_again]

It really depends where you go and what you do.

I was in South Island for a fortnight a month ago, rented a people carrier with a mattress in the back, and went hiking all over the shop.

Some places and campsites were heaving - but in others, we saw nobody for days at a time, staying in the very well maintained DoC huts which dot the mountains.

Up near Arthur's pass, for instance, all of the listed DoC camp sites were crowded and in pretty unpleasant locations - but if you're prepared to tramp for five hours over rough terrain, fording rivers and what not, you get the mountains and the huts to yourselves. Crow hut stands out as a "I can't believe nobody else wants to come here" moment.

In Franz Josef, we eschewed a glacier hike and instead tramped up Alex Knob - saw maybe a dozen others doing the same - but looking back at the glacier through binoculars was like looking at ants on a cake.

Following this we went to East Antarctica, and saw nary a soul - but then you get to the peninsula and it's like a bad day on the M25.

I dare say part of the issue here is distribution of tourists and their activities - for whatever reason (reviews? recommendations? advertising? "If it's free it must be bad"?) people tend to go where other people already are, and don't go to those places which are less frequented.

The only place that felt oppressively busy was Queenstown on our first night, where we stayed in a £250/night fleapit motel.

Sustainability in tourism isn't just an NZ problem, it's global and growing - and it's not just about infrastructure, but also at what point does the popularity of a locale cause such crowding that it becomes unappealing and self-destructs?

Oh, and I write this from Ushuaia, which exists these days largely due to the tourist trade and likewise seems to be struggling to keep up with demand growth - new developments are springing up on the outskirts while city centre frontage sits abandoned, and locals mutter about water shortages.

[subpixel]

"at what point does the popularity of a local cause such crowding that it becomes unappealing and self-destructs?"

I think the problem is that this process used to take generations, but in the era of Instagram and FB can happen in what feels like an instant.

[madaxe_again]

Not only that, but it seems many travel solely to take a selfie in the same spot as 10,000,000 others have, without actually stopping to take in the view.

But then, many went on grand tours not to have experiences, but to be able to say they had, so little has changed other than accessibility.