Hiking Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 New Zealand Hiking Statistics for 2026

If you are researching hiking in New Zealand, a booked night, a survey response and an injury claim each tell a different story. None is a substitute for a national count of individual hikers.

This hub combines original tramping research, DOC accommodation records and ACC claims tables. It preserves the reporting periods and separates respondent motivations, facility use and administrative injury records.

Headline figures

  • Adventure Voice respondents selecting connecting with nature as a tramping reason: 53%. (NZ Mountain Safety Council, Mar 2025)
  • Adventure Voice respondents selecting physical or mental difficulty as a tramping reason: 34%. (NZ Mountain Safety Council, Mar 2025)
  • Adventure Voice learning barrier, other commitments: 60%. (NZ Mountain Safety Council, Mar 2025)
  • Kepler Track: 25,021 booked bednights in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Milford Track: 95% reported occupancy in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Lake Waikaremoana Track: +143% year-on-year bednight change in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Pinnacles Hut: 18,053 booked bednights in 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Mueller Hut: 88% reported occupancy in 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • 2024: 8,866 new accepted tramping claims. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • 2024: 10,603 active accepted tramping claims. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • 2024: NZ$11,779,763 active tramping claim costs, excluding GST. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Queenstown-Lakes territorial authority: 815 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)

Why do surveyed New Zealand trampers go outdoors?

Motivation research explains what committed walkers value. Adventure Voice is a voluntary research community, so its answers illuminate respondents' experiences without establishing national participation prevalence.

Which experiences and benefits motivate respondents?

Connecting with nature, discovering landscapes and personal benefits all appear in the survey's reasons for tramping. Respondents could select more than one reason, so these percentages must not be added as though each person belonged to a single category. The survey invited registered day walkers and trampers from the Adventure Voice community. It therefore describes people already engaged with outdoor recreation and safety research. It does not estimate how many New Zealanders hike, or how frequently the average resident goes outdoors.

How do social, physical and identity motives compare?

The remaining reasons show that tramping can serve several purposes at once. These overlapping responses do not measure actual benefits achieved. Time with existing companions is distinct from meeting new people, just as physical exercise is different from identifying oneself as a tramper.

What do ability ratings and learning barriers reveal?

Ability levels are self-assessed and were not established through an observed skills test. The learning-barrier results likewise describe respondents' reported obstacles, with the beginner-specific cost figure using a narrower denominator than the overall results. The survey should not be used to certify competence or to claim that a named barrier causes accidents. It does, however, identify hands-on subjects for training providers to investigate, including time commitments, course availability and affordability.

How busy are Great Walk accommodation bookings?

Bednights measure use of overnight accommodation, not the number of unique hikers or completed routes. Weather disruption, maintenance and available capacity all influence the comparisons.

How many bednights are booked by route?

  • Lake Waikaremoana Track: 8,867 booked bednights in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Heaphy Track: 17,509 booked bednights in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Paparoa Track: 9,765 booked bednights in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Routeburn Track: 18,916 booked bednights in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Tongariro Northern entry: 10,885 booked bednights in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Abel Tasman Coast Track: 20,534 booked bednights in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Milford Track: 21,546 booked bednights in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Hump Ridge Track: 8,196 booked bednights in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Rakiura Track: 7,982 booked bednights in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)

The route figures below come from DOC's summer booking table. Hump Ridge is included where the report supplies a booking count, but its unavailable occupancy and annual-change values are not invented. The report's Tongariro entry is labelled "Tongariro Northern Crossing"; it is retained here as the Tongariro Northern entry and should not be interpreted as a count of day visitors on the Alpine Crossing.

How full is the available accommodation?

  • Lake Waikaremoana Track: 31% reported occupancy in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Heaphy Track: 72% reported occupancy in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Paparoa Track: 92% reported occupancy in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Routeburn Track: 88% reported occupancy in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Tongariro Northern entry: 77% reported occupancy in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Abel Tasman Coast Track: 95% reported occupancy in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Kepler Track: 91% reported occupancy in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Rakiura Track: 88% reported occupancy in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)

Occupancy describes booked use relative to the accommodation available under the report's calculation. It is different from bednight volume: a smaller accommodation supply can be more fully occupied while recording fewer total nights. Seasonal opening arrangements and temporary disruption also affect what can be booked. The values should therefore support discussion of capacity pressure instead of promises about whether a visitor will find a place to stay. Missing Hump Ridge occupancy remains missing.

How did booking volumes change from the previous season?

  • Heaphy Track: +21% year-on-year bednight change in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Paparoa Track: +8% year-on-year bednight change in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Routeburn Track: -6% year-on-year bednight change in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Tongariro Northern entry: -8% year-on-year bednight change in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Abel Tasman Coast Track: +1% year-on-year bednight change in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Milford Track: bednight volume unchanged year on year in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Kepler Track: -4% year-on-year bednight change in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Rakiura Track: -3% year-on-year bednight change in summer 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)

Year-on-year change compares the reported booking seasons, not a fixed population of returning walkers. A large increase from a disrupted or low prior-year base can coexist with relatively modest absolute use. DOC explicitly notes that weather and track or hut work may materially affect the comparisons. A decline therefore does not by itself establish weaker interest in the destination, and an increase cannot be attributed solely to marketing.

How are other bookable huts used?

The wider hut system supports overnight recreation beyond the Great Walks. Comparing booked nights alongside capacity helps avoid confusing a heavily used large hut with a fully occupied smaller one.

What do the selected North Island hut records show?

  • Cape Brett Hut: 4,211 booked bednights in 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Waitawheta Hut: 5,098 booked bednights in 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Powell Hut: 4,617 booked bednights in 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)

The report shows selected high-use bookable huts, instead of presenting a complete census of every backcountry shelter. The North Island observations below retain each hut as the reporting unit. They concern booked bednights, so repeated stays and multi-night visits can contribute more than one unit. They do not count all people who walked the access track, because day visitors need not book accommodation. Nor do they establish the number of distinct people who stayed during the season. This distinction is useful for service planning: accommodation records can indicate demand on an overnight facility while leaving total trail traffic to counters or a separate visitor study. The values describe the reporting season, not present-day booking availability.

What do the selected South Island hut records show?

  • Angelus Hut: 4,878 booked bednights in 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Welcome Flat Hut: 7,218 booked bednights in 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Aspiring Hut: 5,649 booked bednights in 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Kōhanga Atawhai–Manson Nicholls Hut: 4,182 booked bednights in 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Woolshed Creek Hut: 5,558 booked bednights in 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)
  • Mueller Hut: 4,199 booked bednights in 2024/25. (DOC, Dec 2025)

The South Island entries use the same booking concept and reporting period. Differences reflect the accommodation actually booked and can be affected by capacity, access conditions and seasonal operating arrangements. The report's selected huts should not be ranked as the most visited walking destinations, since many walks have no bookable overnight facility. Mueller's occupancy measure provides a capacity perspective alongside its booked nights without turning those nights into a unique-person count. These records remain useful evidence of overnight demand at named facilities, provided that wider claims about all hikers or all conservation-land visits are kept separate.

How many tramping injury claims does ACC record?

Insurance administration provides a defined record of accepted claims. It does not capture every injury and cannot supply a per-hike accident probability without a matching measure of exposure.

How many new accepted claims are lodged each year?

  • 2020: 6,121 new accepted tramping claims. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • 2021: 7,829 new accepted tramping claims. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • 2022: 7,799 new accepted tramping claims. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • 2023: 7,919 new accepted tramping claims. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • January–September 2025: 7,140 new accepted tramping claims. (ACC, Nov 2025)

New claims are counted by lodgement year in this ACC extract. The accident itself need not have occurred during the same year, so the series should not be described as a count of accidents happening in each period. Only accepted claims coded to tramping are included, and accredited-employer claims are excluded. The final observation covers only the first part of its year and must not be compared with a full year as though the reporting windows matched. The extract is a dated administrative snapshot; later revisions or additional lodgements can change a subsequent release.

What makes an active claim different?

  • 2020: 6,946 active accepted tramping claims. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • 2021: 9,130 active accepted tramping claims. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • 2022: 9,218 active accepted tramping claims. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • 2023: 9,559 active accepted tramping claims. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • January–September 2025: 9,082 active accepted tramping claims. (ACC, Nov 2025)

An active claim received at least one payment during the relevant reporting period. It can relate to an injury or claim lodged earlier, and the same claim may be active in several different calendar years. These annual counts therefore cannot be added to estimate distinct injured people across the full series. They also should not be combined with new claims, because the categories can overlap. Active claims are useful for understanding continuing demand on the compensation system. They answer a different question from how many new claims arrived, and neither measure establishes the number of walking outings that took place.

What do active claim costs include?

  • 2020: NZ$5,460,804 active tramping claim costs, excluding GST. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • 2021: NZ$6,927,442 active tramping claim costs, excluding GST. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • 2022: NZ$8,224,322 active tramping claim costs, excluding GST. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • 2023: NZ$9,248,668 active tramping claim costs, excluding GST. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • January–September 2025: NZ$9,479,265 active tramping claim costs, excluding GST. (ACC, Nov 2025)

The reported amounts are New Zealand dollars and exclude goods and services tax. ACC also excludes Public Health Acute Services payments from these figures, so the totals are not the full economic or healthcare cost of tramping injuries. The year in which a payment is made can differ from the year a service was provided or an accident occurred. Changes can consequently reflect payment timing, treatment patterns and continuing claims as well as new injuries. The latest partial-year amount should remain labelled with its shorter period. No inflation adjustment or cost-per-hiker estimate has been added to the original figures.

Where are accepted tramping claims recorded?

Geographic counts locate reported accidents within the claims system. They do not rank the danger of regions, because the number and duration of outings in each area are not supplied.

How do North Island accident regions compare?

  • Northland accident region: 259 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Auckland accident region: 1,464 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Waikato accident region: 825 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Bay of Plenty accident region: 476 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Gisborne accident region: 42 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Hawke's Bay accident region: 188 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Taranaki accident region: 234 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Manawatū-Whanganui accident region: 373 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Wellington accident region: 701 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)

These regional observations use the location of the accident, not the claimant's home address or the place where treatment was received. A visitor can therefore contribute to a region's count without living there. Without a comparable exposure denominator, a larger count should not be turned into a higher individual risk estimate.

How do South Island accident regions compare?

  • Tasman-Nelson accident region: 673 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Marlborough accident region: 188 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Canterbury accident region: 1,261 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • West Coast accident region: 322 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Otago accident region: 1,214 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Southland accident region: 450 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)

The same administrative definitions apply to the South Island figures. ACC combines Tasman and Nelson in the regional table, so this combined value should not be confused with either territorial authority separately. The numbers concern tramping-coded accepted claims, instead of every accident on a trail or every mountain rescue. Some injured people may not lodge a claim, while some claims can be lodged after the accident year. The defensible comparison is the number of new accepted claims linked to each accident region in the stated lodgement year.

What do selected territorial authorities add?

  • Christchurch City territorial authority: 758 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Dunedin City territorial authority: 155 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Mackenzie territorial authority: 79 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Ruapehu territorial authority: 133 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)
  • Taupō territorial authority: 158 new tramping claims lodged in 2024. (ACC, Nov 2025)

Territorial-authority figures provide a more local view inside the regional totals. They are subsets of those totals, not additional cases to add to the national count. ACC states that it does not record accident locations at the level of named tracks or walks in this response. These counts therefore cannot identify which individual trail produced a claim, and they should not be presented as evidence about a particular route's safety. Retaining the administrative boundary and lodgement period keeps the local detail useful without implying a precision the source does not contain.

Glossary

Methodology and sources

Every figure on this page comes from the organisation that produced it: regulators, statistics offices, public bodies, research institutes, and companies reporting their own data or surveys. Each one links to the original report or dataset and carries its release date. Survey results keep their population and fieldwork period, and financial figures keep the measure the producer used. Figures from different producers are not added together or ranked against each other. The page is reviewed monthly and updated when a producer releases newer data.