00000 2007ReportCover_NoText 3/23/07 10:31 AM Page 1
ACT ATTRACTIONS direct visitor expenditure and visitation patterns study
Brent W. Ritchie and Tracey J. Dickson ACT ATTRACTIONS
Technical Reports The technical report series present data and its analysis, meta-studies and conceptual studies, and are considered to be of value to industry, government and researchers. Unlike the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre’s Monograph series, these reports have not been subjected to an external peer review process. As such, the scientific accuracy and merit of the research reported here is the responsibility of the authors, who should be contacted for clarification of any content. Author contact details are at the back of this report.
Editors Prof Chris Cooper University of Queensland Editor-in-Chief Prof Terry De Lacy Sustainable Tourism CRC Chief Executive Prof Leo Jago Sustainable Tourism CRC Director of Research
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication Ritchie, Brent W. ACT attractions: direct visitor expenditure and visitations patterns study.
Bibliography. ISBN 9 78192096 5037.
1. Tourism – Australian Capital Territory. 2. Tourism – Economic aspects – Australian Capital Territory. 3. Tourists – Australian Capital Territory. I. Dickson, Tracey J. II. Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism. III. Title.
338.4791947
Copyright © CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 2007 All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. Any enquiries should be directed to General Manager Communications & Industry Extension [[email protected]] or Publishing Manager [[email protected]].
Acknowledgements The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, an Australian Government initiative, funded this research. Special thanks go to the National Capital Attractions, the Canberra Region Visitors Centre and the Jolimont Bus Station for allowing visitors to be surveyed on their premises and for supporting this project. Australian Capital Tourism should also be thanked for providing secondary data on holiday/leisure and visiting friends and relatives visitors, which were vital for checking the representativeness of the sample and to calculate the total direct visitor expenditure.
ii Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
CONTENTS
CONTENTS______III
SUMMARY ______VII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ______1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ______2 DEFINING ECONOMIC IMPACT______2 DEFINING ATTRACTIONS______2 ATTRACTION ECONOMIC IMPACT/VISITOR EXPENDITURE STUDIES ______3 TOURISM MOBILITY AND TRAVEL PATTERNS ______4
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHOD______5 STUDY AND SURVEY DESIGN ______5 SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION ______5 DATA ANALYSIS ______6 LIMITATIONS______6
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS: SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHICS, TRAVEL PROFILE AND ATTRACTION MOTIVATIONS ______8 STUDY SAMPLE PROFILE______8 Gender______8 Age______9 Educational level______9 Employment status and occupation ______9 Household income ______10 Visitor origins ______11 Summary ______11 TRAVEL PROFILE ______12 Previous visitation______12 Main purpose of visit______13 Accommodation ______14 Transport to ACT______15 Day of arrival ______15 Length of stay ______15 Group composition ______16 Children______16 Summary ______17 ATTRACTION MOTIVATIONS: ROLE OF ATTRACTIONS IN ACT VISITATION ______17 Attribution factor______17 Substitution factor ______17 Summary ______20
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS: DIRECT VISITOR EXPENDITURE IN THE ACT ______21 DIRECT EXPENDITURE DATA ______21 TOTAL ATTRIBUTION AND SUBSTITUTION EFFECTS ______24 SUMMARY______25
CHAPTER 6 RESULTS: ACT ATTRACTIONS VISITATION PATTERNS ______26 ATTRACTION OWNERSHIP______26 ATTRACTION VISITATION ______26 INFLUENCES ON ATTRACTIONS VISITED ______28 Travelling with or without children______28
iii ACT ATTRACTIONS
Main reason for travel______30 Domestic and international visitors______32 Major domestic markets ______33 Gender______34 NCAA MEMBER CROSS-VISITATION AND CORRELATIONS______35 TRAVEL PATTERNS BETWEEN ALL ATTRACTIONS ______43 Top 20 attractions ______43 Travel patterns and mode of transport ______45 Other attractions visited before and after on Day 1 ______45 Travel patterns and the tourist gaze ______51 Length of stay at attractions ______52 Recommended attractions and length of stay ______53 TRAVEL DIARIES______56 Travel plans – importance of information sources ______56 Day and time of attraction visitation______56 Length of stay of visit______57 Other activities apart from visiting attractions ______57
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ______59 PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND MARKETING RECOMMENDATIONS ______60 RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS______60
APPENDIX A: VISITOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT ______62
APPENDIX B: TRAVEL DIARY ______68
APPENDIX C: ATTRACTION SURVEY INSTRUMENT ______72
REFERENCES ______74
AUTHORS______76
List of Tables
Table 1: Study sample gender compared with NVS/IVS (n=1326) ______8 Table 2: Study sample age distribution (n=1328) ______9 Table 3: Study sample highest educational qualification (n=1311) ______9 Table 4: Study sample employment status compared with NVS/IVS (n=1315)______9 Table 5: Study Sample Occupational Classification (n=1315) ______10 Table 6: Study sample total household income per annum (A$) (n=1225)______10 Table 7: Study sample international origins compared with IVS (n=171) ______11 Table 8: Study sample domestic origins compared with NVS (n=1123) ______11 Table 9: Study sample repeat visitation levels (n=1336) ______12 Table 10: Study sample year and month of last visit (n=796-808) ______12 Table 11: Statistical differences by visitation in last five years ______13 Table 12: Study sample main purpose of travel (n=1341) ______13 Table 13: Study sample accommodation use compared with NVS/IVS (n=1223) ______14 Table 14: Study sample transport mode compared with NVS/IVS (n=1341)______15 Table 15: Study sample length of stay compared with NVS/IVS (n=1231) ______15 Table 16: Study sample group composition and average size (n=1341)______16 Table 17: Study sample children composition and average size (n=1341) ______16 Table 18: Importance of ACT attractions for visit decision (n=1328) ______17 Table 19: Substitution if ACT attractions did not exist (n=1341)______18 Table 20: Attribution vs. substitution cross tabulation (n=1207) ______18 Table 21: Statistical differences between attribution factor and travel behaviour ______19 Table 22: Statistical differences between substitution factor and travel behaviour ______20 Table 23: Total expenditure by holiday/leisure/VFR visitor (n=1341)______21 iv Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Table 24: Expenditure by holiday/leisure/VFR day tripper (n=112) ______21 Table 25: Expenditure by overnight holiday/leisure/VFR visitor (n=1223) ______22 Table 26: Statistical differences between total average spend and travel behaviour/socio-demographics _____ 23 Table 27: Total visitor expenditure attribution estimate ______24 Table 28: Substitution visitor expenditure estimate ______24 Table 29: Visiting ACT attractions – holiday, leisure and VFR (tick box responses) (n=1315) ______27 Table 30: Statistical differences for top 25 attractions – summary ______28 Table 31: Influence of children on visiting top 25 attractions (n=1306)______29 Table 32: Statistical differences: influence of children on visiting top 25 attractions ______30 Table 33: Statistical differences: influence of reason for travel on visiting top 25 attractions ______31 Table 34: Statistical differences: influence of country of origin on visiting top 25 attractions______32 Table 35: Statistical differences: influence of state of origin from three largest markets on visiting top 25 attractions ______33 Table 36: Statistical differences: influence of gender on visiting top 25 attractions______34 Table 37: Australian Institute of Sport (n=106) ______36 Table 38: Australian National Botanic Gardens (n = 240) ______36 Table 39: Australian War Memorial (n = 766) ______36 Table 40: Blundell’s Cottage (NCA) (n=43)______36 Table 41: Calthorpe’s House (n=21)______37 Table 42: Canberra Deep Space Communication (n=45) ______37 Table 43: Canberra Space Dome (n=72)______37 Table 44: Casino Canberra (n=76) ______37 Table 45: Cockington Green (n=262) ______37 Table 46: CSIRO Discovery Centre (n=38) ______38 Table 47: Electoral Education Centre (n=66) ______38 Table 48: Geo-Science Australia (n=9)______38 Table 49: Kamberra Wine Tourism Complex (n=18)______38 Table 50: Lanyon Homestead (n=24) ______38 Table 51: National Archives of Australia (n=87) ______39 Table 52: National Capital Exhibition/Regatta Point (n=140) ______39 Table 53: National Carillon (n = 120)______39 Table 54: National Dinosaur Museum (n=83) ______39 Table 55: National Gallery of Australia (n=565) ______40 Table 56: National Library of Australia (n = 251) ______40 Table 57: National Museum of Australia n = 411______40 Table 58: National Portrait Gallery (n=346)______40 Table 59: National Zoo and Aquarium (n=111) ______41 Table 60: Nolan Gallery (n=20) ______41 Table 61: Old Bus Depot Markets (n=52)______41 Table 62: Old Parliament House (n=621) ______41 Table 63: Parliament House (n=597) ______42 Table 64: Questacon (n=245) ______42 Table 65: Royal Australian Mint (n=255)______42 Table 66: Screensound Australia (n=97)______42 Table 67: Southern Cross Cruises (n=29) ______43 Table 68: Telstra Tower and Black Mountain (n=420)______43 Table 69: Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve (n=43) ______43 Table 70: Top 20 Attractions visited over four days – % of all ______44 Table 71: Top 10 attractions visited over four days: cross tabulation with main type of travel to ACT______45 Table 72: Australian War Memorial – pre and post visitation, Day 1______45 Table 73: Parliament House – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______46 Table 74: Old Parliament House – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______47 Table 75: National Gallery – pre and post visitation, Day 1______47 Table 76: National Museum – pre and post visitation, Day 1______48 Table 77: Telstra Tower and Black Mountain – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______48 Table 78: ANZAC Parade and Memorials – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______49 Table 79: Questacon – pre and post visitation, Day 1______49 Table 80: Cockington Green – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______50 Table 81: National Library – pre and post visitation, Day 1______50 Table 82: Attractions with the highest percentage of visitors who do not go onto another attraction ______52 Table 83: Day 1 average length of stay at top 10 attractions (minutes) ______53 Table 84: Recommended attractions______54
v ACT ATTRACTIONS
Table 85: Recommended order of visitation and recommended length of stay ______54 Table 86: Recommended attractions itinerary: to ‘Order 3’ ______55 Table 87: Top recommendations: travelling with and without children ______55 Table 88: Information sources to plan travel______56 Table 89: Peak visitation times ______56 Table 90: Length of stay (days) ______57
List of Figures
Figure 1: Study sample gender compared with NVS/IVS (%) ______8 Figure 2: Study sample employment status compared with NVS/IVS (%)______10 Figure 3: Study sample accommodation use compared with NVS/IVS (%)______14 Figure 4: Day of arrival______15 Figure 5: Study sample group composition (%) ______16 Figure 6: Substitution if ACT attractions did not exist (%) ______18 Figure 7: Statistical differences between attribution factor and travel behaviour (rank mean score) ______19 Figure 8: Comparison of expenditure category by type of visitor (%) ______22 Figure 9: Statistical differences between total average spend and travel behaviour/socio-demographics (rank mean score by $)______23 Figure 10: Visitation by attraction ownership______26 Figure 11: Example of calculating Jaccard measures ______35 Figure 12: Proportion of total daily visitation – top 10 attractions ______44 Figure 13: Australian War Memorial – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______46 Figure 14: Parliament House – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______46 Figure 15: Old Parliament House – pre and post visitation, Day 1______47 Figure 16: National Gallery – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______47 Figure 17: National Museum – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______48 Figure 18: Telstra Tower and Black Mountain – pre and post visitation, Day 1______48 Figure 19: ANZAC Parade and Memorials – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______49 Figure 20: Questacon – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______49 Figure 21: Cockington Green – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______50 Figure 22: National Library – pre and post visitation, Day 1 ______50 Figure 23: Location of top 20 attractions – Day 1 ______51 Figure 24: Day 1 length of stay at top 10 attractions (minutes) ______53 Figure 25: Travel diaries: Day 1 ______57 Figure 26: Travel diaries: Day 2 ______57 Figure 27: Travel diaries: Day 3 ______58 Figure 28: Not attending attractions ______58
vi Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
SUMMARY
Objectives of Study This study has two aims. Firstly, to examine the direct expenditure of Australian Capital Territory (ACT) attractions through analysing direct tourist expenditure attributable to the attractions as well as the expenditure by the attractions themselves within the ACT economy. Secondly, to explore the visitation patterns of the ACT attractions by analysing tourist visitation, length of stay and travel recommendations. Data was collected on visitor expenditure patterns related to the attractions, as well as attraction visitation and travel patterns.
Methodology The research was conducted by undertaking a survey of 1341 holiday/leisure and visiting friends and relatives (VFR) visitors to the ACT from October 2004 to June 2005. Additionally, 400 travel diaries were distributed to visitors to obtain further insights into their visitation patterns and information sources. The first section of the survey collected data on respondents’ visitation to the ACT to assess their travel motivations, behaviours and group characteristics. Importantly, respondents were asked in this section the extent to which the attractions played in their decision to visit (the attribution factor) and if the ACT attractions did not exist would they have travelled elsewhere (the substitution factor). Both of these concepts are discussed in the literature and were used by Carlsen and Wood (2005). The second section of the main survey asked respondents about their total spending patterns in the ACT, covering seven economic sectors. They were also asked to provide the number of people their total expenditure covered. Section three included questions on travel patterns and section four included socio-demographic questions. Some of the questions in sections one and four were used to examine the representativeness of the sample and to examine differences in the spending of visitors (based on origins, travel purpose, travel party etc). The travel diary sought to provide insight into the information sources visitors used when making their travel decisions, as well as an understanding of what other activities people were participating in, such as shopping, while they were visiting the ACT.
Key Findings
Travel profile • The study sample comprised slightly more females than males, with 60% aged between 40 and 60 years. The study sample were highly educated;, employed as professionals, managers or in clerical positions; and earned high combined household incomes. • 86.6% of respondents were domestic visitors, with approximately 55% from New South Wales, 20% from Victoria and 13% from Queensland. • Compared to NVS and IVS data on holiday/leisure/VFR visitors, the sample was fairly representative, although there were slightly more females, a greater number of respondents from Victoria and Queensland compared with those from New South Wales, and more international respondents from the United Kingdom and United States compared with China. This could be due to changing visitor profiles not yet evident in the NVS/IVS data. • 73.9% of respondents were visiting for holiday/leisure purposes, compared with 26.1% who were visiting friends and relatives. • 79% of respondents used their own vehicle or a rental vehicle to get to the ACT, while 8.6% used air transport. • The length of stay of respondents was 4.1 days and 3.6 nights on average (3.5 for domestic overnight visitors and 6.0 for international overnight visitors). • A total of 37.6% indicated this was their first visit to the ACT in the last five years. More visitors aged 20- 29 and 50-59 years indicated this along, with more from Victoria and Queensland and those that were in the ACT for holiday/leisure purposes.
Economic expenditure • A total of 62.6% of respondents were deemed to have been significantly motivated by ACT attractions, based on their response to a question on the importance of the ACT attractions to their visit decision and
vii ACT ATTRACTIONS
thus their expenditure can be attributed to the ACT attractions. This compares conservatively with between 88% and 92% of visitors in Carlsen and Wood’s (2005) study related to natural attractions in Western Australia. • Domestic day trippers indicated the attractions as more important than overnight visitors (66.4% compared with 61.4%). • When asked the scenario question concerning an estimation of the substitution factor, a total of 61.5% noted they would have travelled to the ACT even if the ACT attractions did not exist, compared with 38.5% who would have travelled elsewhere (with their likely spending foregone). • More recent visitors in the ACT for holiday or leisure purposes, travelling with children who stayed overnight in the ACT for between one to seven nights, were more likely to be motivated highly by the attractions and would be more likely to have substituted their trip if they did not exist. • On average approximately $212 was spent in total per person in the ACT, with only 7% of this expenditure spent directly on the attractions sector. The three biggest economic sectors to capture spending were accommodation (33% of spend), food and beverages (30%) and shopping (16%). • Day trip spend was approximately $52 per person, with one-third spent on shopping, 26% on food and beverages and 22% on transport. NVS statistics indicate a holiday/leisure average spend of $109 per person and VFR visitor spend of $68 per person. • Total overnight spend was approximately $228 per person during their trip, with over one-third spent on accommodation, 31% on food and beverages and 16% on shopping. This compares with between $74 and $146 for domestic overnight holiday and VFR visitors and $60 and $103 for international overnight visitors from NVS/IVS data. • In total, respondents who spent significantly more than other visitor groups in the ACT included those on their first visit to Canberra in the last five years, holiday/leisure visitors, those aged 50-59 years, those from Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania, and those travelling without children. • Based on economic sectors, the accommodation sector received higher spends from those who were on their first trip in the last five years, holiday/leisure visitors and those aged 50-59 years. The retail sector received more expenditure from visitors aged 50-59 years and those from states/territories other than New South Wales. • Based on secondary data related to the number of holiday/leisure/VFR visitors in the ACT at the end of June 2004, a total of $249-265 million is estimated to be attributable to ACT attractions per annum. This includes approximately $217 million from domestic and international overnight visitors and $40 million from domestic day trippers. • Based on the total amount attributable to the ACT attractions, this translates to approximately $85 million per annum in direct spending to the accommodation sector, $76 million per annum to the food and beverage sector, $43 million per annum to the shopping and retail sector, $28 million per annum to the transport sector and $5 million per annum to the entertainment sector. • A total of $96-102 million is possibly foregone if the attractions did not exist, based on the application of a scenario question to the attribution figures. This includes approximately $83 million per annum from domestic and international overnight visitors and $16 million per annum from domestic day trippers.
ACT attractions visitation • The top 10 attractions account for 60% of visitation; the remaining 40% was spread over more than 150 other attractions, activities and events. • Statistical differences were noted: o Those travelling with children and those travelling with no children; o Reason for travel: holiday/leisure versus visiting friends and relatives; o Major domestic markets: New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland; o Domestic versus overseas visitors; and o Gender. • On Day 1, up to 51% of visitors do not go onto another attraction that day after visiting one of the top 10 attractions. • 55% of visitation is to attractions within the parliamentary triangle and along the axis from Mt Ainslie Lookout to Parliament House. • The average length of stay at the top 10 attractions is between one and 2.75 hours. • Eight of the top 10 recommended attractions are also within the top 10 visited attractions. • The recommended attractions varied between those travelling with and without children. • Information drawn from previous visits to the ACT and from the visitor’s centre were the two main sources of travel information.
viii Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
• Shopping is another major activity for visitors to the ACT, in addition to visiting attractions. This is a contributing factor to the nearly 60% of visitors in any two-hour time period who may not be visiting an attraction.
Future Action Recommendations from this research include: • That ACT attractions examine ways to develop and produce supply side data and consider data collection on business traveller spend. • That ACT attractions support Australian Capital Tourism’s marketing into new states/territories as they are more likely to be more recent and higher spending visitors with spending more attributable to the attractions. • That ACT attractions develop a coordinated strategy to encourage greater support (perhaps through sponsorship and joint marketing activities) from the economic sectors which benefit from attraction- motivated spending on a year-round basis. • That Australian Capital Tourism encourage higher spending segments evident from this research, such as holiday/leisure visitors aged 50-59 years who travel without children from states/territories other than New South Wales. • Developing marketing strategies to build upon visitors’ previous experience as well as informing the local market as part of reaching the VFR market. • Further investigation of what is influencing travel decisions, feedback on the ease of travel and navigation around the ACT as well as visitor awareness of other attractions would assist in understanding how best to encourage visitors to move beyond a limited area within the parliamentary triangle. • Research into the following topics to support product development and marketing: o Exploring what ‘packaging’ of diverse attractions would be of interest to visitors (e.g. cultural attractions, shopping and food and beverage), including thematic tourist routes that incorporate a wider array of attractions and geographic locations (e.g. heritage, natural heritage, food and wine); o Attraction itinerary recommendations, mapped across several days as well as what other activities would be appealing in the context of an attraction itinerary (e.g. shopping, playgrounds, recreational activities etc.); o The importance of shopping as a specific attractor to the ACT; and o Exploring what is influencing low attraction visitation levels following attendance at major attractions.
ix ACT ATTRACTIONS
x Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
To date there has been a lack of research on the attractions sector including their role in tourism and economic development and visitation patterns. Perhaps this is not surprising considering that attractions (such as museums, galleries and science centres) have only recently developed an interest in their contribution to local, regional or national economies. A study by Garnett (2002) demonstrated that from over 180 publications on the impact of science centres and museums, a total of 87% concentrated on personal impacts, while 9% examined societal value and only 4% examined economic value. With respect to cultural and heritage institutions, Hansen, Christoffersen and Wanhill (1998, p.27) explain that the evaluation of cultural and heritage attractions on a wider platform, including their tourism impact, is particularly required if such attractions are funded by government. However, researchers interested in tourism economic impact studies have devoted little attention to the economic impact of attractions, despite the fact that attractions can be considered core tourism assets or primary elements of a tourism destination (Dybedal 1998; Jansen-Verbeke 1985). As with research on the role of attractions in the economic development of a region, there is also a dearth of research on the travel patterns of visitors between attractions within an area, particularly within one city (Law 2002). Most mobility or travel pattern research looks at movement between countries or continents, not between attractions at the local level. This study sought, therefore, to gain further understanding on two aspects of the attractions sector and had two aims. Firstly, to examine the economic impact of Australian Capital Territory (ACT) attractions through analysing direct tourist expenditure attributable to the attractions as well as the expenditure by the attractions themselves within the ACT economy. Secondly it aimed to explore the visitation patterns of the ACT attractions through analysing tourist visitation, length of stay and travel recommendations. This study was supported by the National Capital Attractions Association and Australian Capital Tourism. The report begins in the next chapter by briefly outlining previous studies associated with the economic impact of attractions and tourism, and notes that despite the importance of attractions for tourism destinations, few studies have been undertaken concerning the economic impact of attractions. Previous studies on tourism mobility are then considered. These highlight the lack of research at the micro level of tourism within an urban area. Secondly, the report outlines the research method and parameters of this study. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the report present and discuss the results of the study. Finally, conclusions and recommendations covering product development, marketing and further research recommendations are outlined. These recommendations may be applicable or of interest to tourism destinations with large numbers of attractions.
1 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This section will outline seminal studies related to the research topic, which provided the direction and conceptual support for this research. First this section will define and consider what is meant by the terms direct economic impact and expenditure and attractions. This is followed by a discussion of studies concerned with attraction economic impact/expenditure assessment and tourism mobility and travel patterns.
Defining Economic Impact In economic impact studies the total economic impact is the combination of the direct, indirect and induced impacts. The direct economic impacts include spending by visitors on frontline tourism businesses (such as hotels, attractions etc). The indirect economic impacts are a result of the enterprises that supply these frontline businesses, while the induced impact is a result of the additional spending of wages and incomes from employees and owners on new goods and services as a result of the direct and indirect impacts (Fretchling 1994). The overall economic impact depends upon the degree that the circulation of money remains in the economy and does not leak out of the local area due to the importation of goods and services. The indirect and induced economic impacts are often expressed as ratios, commonly called economic multipliers, which are applied to the direct economic impact data to measure the indirect and induced economic impact. A range of multipliers exist for measuring the economic output, income and employment associated with the direct economic impact. Some express scepticism about the use of multipliers or simple input-output models in particular (e.g. Harris 1997; ACT Auditor-General 2002; Dwyer, Forsyth & Spurr 2004; Stynes 2004) partly due to their misapplication and the fact that there are often delays between increased spending from visitors or attractions themselves and their resulting multiplier effect. Researchers suggest that more accurate, realistic and useful results are obtained through a standard cost-benefit analysis or through a computer general equilibrium (CGE) model (Dwyer, Forsyth & Spurr 2004). However, researchers note that these models are expensive to undertake and require substantial expertise and time to undertake correctly. Previous research undertaken through the Sustainable Tourism CRC suggests collecting and reporting only direct expenditure can reduce the confusion over the use of multipliers and allow for direct comparison between investment in tourism-related resources. Direct expenditure figures can be gathered from two possible sources: business surveys undertaken with organisations; and visitor surveys to attribute direct spending of visitors to the local area. Usually researchers prefer to undertake visitor surveys, as collecting data from organisations can be difficult due to issues surrounding confidentiality and the ability of the data to be directly comparable and easily aggregated. One of the major issues in economic impact assessment studies is defining the local study area. The choice of ‘local area’ can make a significant difference to the economic impact of attractions. Their impact on the immediate area may be large in a small area, but this could be at the expense of other areas. If the study area is too large then the impact may well be insignificant because resources are merely being shifted within the area. Thus is it important for parameters to be developed to enable research to assess the economic impact in the study area only (excluding expenditure outside of the designated study area).
Defining Attractions Attractions can be defined from both ideographic and organisational approaches (Lew 1987). An ideographical typology can be created to identify the types of attractions, which can be rather heterogeneous, and according to Dybedal (1998) can comprise: • Particular objectives and places to see such as cultural features (monuments, museums, historic or sacred places) and natural features (spectacular scenery, viewpoints, nature parks and landmarks); • Activity and recreation attractions such as leisure parks, sports facilities, heritage centres, shopping malls (which require at least a day’s visit), ski and beach resorts, holiday camps and spas; and • Events including festivals, sport events etc. A tourist attraction, according to Leiper (1990, p.178), is a “system comprising three elements: a tourist or human element, a nucleus or central element, and a marker or informative element. A tourist attraction comes into existence when the three elements are interconnected”. This definition suggests that an attractions system is
2 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study a subsystem of the larger tourism system in an urban area (Page 1995). Furthermore, the definition also suggests that lookouts or sites in which these three elements interconnect could be defined as tourist or visitor attractions.
Attraction Economic Impact/Visitor Expenditure Studies As outlined in the introduction, many researchers interested in tourism economics have ignored the economic impact of attractions. Most research concerning the economic impact of tourism and visitor expenditure has been undertaken on the events sector and other sectors such as the cruise ship industry (see Bull 1996; Dwyer & Forsyth 1996; Braun, Xander & White 2002; Chase & McKee 2003). Johnson and Thomas (1992) were one of the first to highlight the link between tourism, attractions and economics. However, despite this initial study in 1992, only limited research has been undertaken on the economic impact of attractions. Previous research has covered a range of attraction types including built, cultural and natural attractions ranging in scale from individual attractions, groups of attractions and the contribution of attractions to overall destinations. Such studies include: • The economic impact of the West Edmonton Mall (Finn & Erdem 1995); • A series of studies on individual attractions such as the Eden project (Jasper 2000), the Maritime Museum in Norwalk (United States of America) (Scott, Kenney & Partners 2003), North Carolina Museum of Life and Science (United States of America) (Krakauer 2001), The Tech Museum of Innovation (San Jose, California, United States of America) (Morey & Associates 2001); • A study of a group of museums in the south-west of England (Brand, Gripaios & McVittie 2000) and a study of the economic impact of a nine-museum group that comprise the Museums In the Park consortium (Metro Chicago Information Center 2001); • Studies on the economic impact of cultural heritage on mining towns in Australia (Cegielski, Janeczko, Mules & Wells 2001) and a number of historical sites in Pennsylvania, United States of America (Strauss & Lord 2001); and • Studies on the economic impact of tourism to natural areas including specific parks and sites (Stynes, Propst & Sun 2002; Mules, Faulks, Stoeckl & Cegielski 2005; Carlsen & Wood 2005). The research methods employed in these studies varied greatly depending on whether they were attempting to estimate the visitor expenditure or the direct, indirect, induced economic impact, and in some cases, the economic value associated with the attractions under study. Some take a supply side approach, using data from the organisations themselves (surveying businesses) and apply this to multipliers to estimate the total economic impact. Several undertake visitor research only and use the expenditure patterns of those visitors attributable to the attractions to estimate the economic impact. Only a small number of studies undertake both supply (organisational) and demand (visitor) research to provide a more complete picture of the direct expenditure or economic impact. As Persson (2000) suggests, in discussing the economic impact of science centres, it can be useful to combine information from tourism surveys with science centre information, to allow estimates of spending by visitors from outside the local area. In the case of this research, the project attempted to gather information primarily from visitors on the spending attributable to the ACT attractions and to supplement this with supply side organisational data based on local income, expenditure and employment attributable from ACT attractions. One aspect in agreement by researchers is the need to understand the amount of direct spending attributable to the attraction(s) under study, initiated either by visitors or by the attractions themselves (Dybedal 1998; Hansen, Christoffersen & Wanhill 1998). Similar to event economic impact studies, only the economic impact attributable to visitors as a result of the attraction(s) should be included in any direct economic impact assessment (sometimes referred to as visitor expenditure additionality). As Hansen, Christoffersen and Wanhill (1998, p.33) suggest with respect to groups or clusters of attractions, a single attraction may have a limited ability to generate additional or new visits, while the drawing power of a group of attractions is greater than the sum of their individual powers in opening up or sustaining markets that might otherwise not come. According to Johnson and Moore (1993), questions should be asked in visitor research to ascertain the proportion or importance of the trip devoted to the resource (the attribution factor), as well as whether visitors would have undertaken the trip if the resource was not available (the substitution factor). Carlsen and Wood (2005) applied both the attribution and substitution factor to their assessment of visitor spending in Western Australia’s natural areas to estimate their associated economic impact. They discovered $70.5 million per annum of direct expenditure attributable to the Southern Forest Region and $138 million per annum in the Gascoyne Coast Region of Western Australia, with 88% and 92% of all visitor spending attributable respectively. Carlsen and Wood (2005) asked respondents if the natural areas did not exist would they have travelled interstate or overseas, and estimated that 9.2% of respondents in the Southern Forest Area would have substituted their trip if this resource did not exist, losing $5.7 million for the state. In the case of the Gascoyne Coast Region 18.5% or $23.5 million would have been foregone as respondents would have substituted their trip interstate or overseas if this resource was not available.
3 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Uncertainty often exists over tourist motivations for visiting a destination and whether their spending can be attributable to certain attractions. However, a smaller study area for assessing economic impacts should reduce the uncertainty concerning visitor motives and expenditure attribution, according to Dybedal (1998).
Tourism Mobility and Travel Patterns Most travel mobility and travel pattern literature is written from a macro level, with mobility between locations, particularly cities or countries the main level of analysis (e.g. Crompton & Tan 1973; Richardson & Crompton 1988; Ritchie 1998; Bowden 2003). However this analysis is primarily at the micro-level, looking at movements between attractions within the one destination, the ACT, which begins to fill the gap in the literature noted by Law (2002, p.88) who said that “there are few surveys which measure the pattern of visiting in cities” and whether there is some level of interchange of customers between attractions. Efforts to assess this interchange would assist in understanding whether the “attraction market was unified, segmented or discrete” (Law 2002, p.88). As a planned city, Canberra is a unique tourism destination, based upon a design that is best seen from above, something for the tourist to gaze upon, to reflect upon the grand plan (cf, Urry 2002). It may be a tourism space which is designed to look at more than a place to be in. Yet people not only look upon, but also move within, that tourism space and experience each locality uniquely and differently. A destination’s attractiveness as a tourism destination may be related to the interaction of its accessibility and the utility gained by those who visit. Accessibility is influenced by distance, where distance, as explored by Hall (2005, p.69) in the context of travel behaviour in space and time, includes physical and non-physical space: • Time-distance: how long it takes to travel between locations; • Economic distance: the costs of overcoming the physical distance; • Cognitive distance: how people perceive the distance between locations; and • Social distance: related to difference between social classes. In the context of the ACT, time-distance and economic distance have been impacted positively by cheaper airfares during the period of the study, however economic distance was also impacted negatively by petrol prices in the latter part of the period of the study. Cognitive distance will be influenced by people’s previous experiences of the place and also information from friends and relatives in the ACT. Travel decisions that incorporate the impact of space and time will aim to minimise the effects of distance, however there are some constraints discussed by Hall (2005, p.77) that will also impact upon those decisions: • Capability constraints including physical capability; • Coupling constraints that require people to be in set places and set times; and • Authority constraints that limit where and when people can be at certain places. Understanding tourism mobility and travel patterns will assist in the management and development of secondary elements and supply side tourism such as accommodation, restaurants, shopping and transport (Hall & Page 2002) and enable attractions to more effectively position themselves in an ever more competitive marketplace.
4 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHOD
This chapter outlines the design of the study and the survey instruments used to collect data on the expenditure of visitors and organisations in the ACT. It also discusses how the surveys were implemented and the sample size on which the results are based. Finally, this section outlines how the data were analysed and the limitations of the study.
Study and Survey Design As discussed in the previous section, choosing a study area that is appropriate both for economic impact and visitation pattern studies is an important consideration in order to effectively assess the economic impact as well as ensuring an accurate representation of tourist flows. Uncertainty often exists over tourist motivations for visiting a destination and whether their spending can be attributable to certain attractions. However, the smaller the size of the area for which the impacts are analysed, and the fact that the visitor study was on the ACT attractions as a whole should reduce the uncertainty concerning visitor motives and expenditure attribution (Dybedal 1998). In this case the study was on ACT attractions, which allowed for a study area of the ACT. Attractions were defined broadly based on Leiper’s (1990) definition including cultural, sporting, and natural attractions in the study area. The visitor survey (see Appendix A) was designed with a number of sections to directly address the research objectives and overall aims. At the same time as data was collected on visitor expenditure patterns related to the attractions, respondents were also asked questions concerning their attraction visitation and travel patterns. The first section of the survey collected data on respondents’ visitation to the ACT to assess their travel motivations, behaviours and group characteristics. Importantly, respondents were asked in this section the extent to which the attractions played in their decision to visit (the attribution factor) and if the attractions did not exist would they have travelled elsewhere (the substitution factor). Both of these concepts are discussed in the literature and were used by Carlsen and Wood (2005). The second section of the survey asked respondents about their total spending patterns in the ACT covering seven economic sectors. They were also asked to provide the number of people their total expenditure covered. Section three included questions on travel patterns, while section four included socio-demographic questions. Some of the questions in section one and section four were used to examine the representativeness of the sample and to examine differences in the spending of visitors (based on origins, travel purpose, travel party etc). It should be noted that the visitor study was targeted at holiday makers and the visiting friends and relatives (VFR) market only. Although it is noted in the next part of this section that some surveys were returned by business and other travellers it was determined to be too complicated to include them in this study and the results section refers to only those surveys completed by holiday/VFR respondents. To gain further detail about visitor travel patterns, a travel diary (Appendix B) was also distributed to a smaller sample size. The travel diary sought to provide insight into what information sources visitors used when making their travel decisions, as well as an understanding of what other activities people were participating in, such as shopping, while they were visiting the ACT. The survey designed for attractions themselves to complete was created in a similar way to a 2004 study on the economic impact of science centres (Groves 2005). Questions were asked concerning attraction income and expenditure sources and employment (including volunteers). Attraction managers were asked to complete a spreadsheet on these inputs and also differentiate between ACT and non-ACT income, expenditure and employment, as the study area was ACT only. A copy of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix C.
Survey Implementation The visitor survey study period commenced in early October 2004 after a pilot study testing the survey distribution method at three significant attractions in September 2004. Based on the results of the pilot study several questions were amended to ensure respondents fully understood the questions. During the implementation period a range of attractions were used as sample points as well as the Canberra and Region Visitors Centre and the Canberra Jolimont Bus Station. A sample of sites other than attractions was used because the target groups included both holiday makers and friends and relatives visitors. For 15-20 days each month (for six hours each day) fieldworkers approached visitors at the locations and asked filter questions to determine whether the respondent was a visitor to the ACT. If so they asked if they would be willing to
5 ACT ATTRACTIONS undertake a survey and if agreed they were provided with a survey to complete at the conclusion of their visit. Their contact details were also collected and the survey envelope coded and recorded and on a database to allow for follow up procedures. If respondents were international visitors their contact details were not collected for follow up procedures. A prize incentive of a draw for $500 cash at the conclusion of the project was used and respondents had to complete a prize slip which was detached from the survey instrument prior to analysis. Respondents were checked off the database once the surveys were returned and no follow up procedure was required. For those that did not return the survey within approximately four weeks, a reminder letter enclosed with another copy of the survey was sent. No other additional follow up was undertaken. A total of 2777 surveys were distributed by the end of June 2005 and 1501 useable surveys were returned by early August, indicating a response rate of 54%. A total of 160 surveys were completed by travellers other than holiday/VFR visitors and were thus excluded from the study. Therefore, the final number of useable surveys for the study was 1341. During the financial year ending 2004, a total of 2.6 million overnight and day trip holiday/leisure/VFR visitors travelled to the ACT. Based on the target population size the results are confident to +/-3% margin of error at the 95% level of confidence. The travel diary was piloted in 2004 with a revised format distributed to 400 people in May 2005 (Appendix B) with a one-week return time. An incentive of a $20 gift voucher was offered along with the cash prize incentive of $500. The response rate was 57%. Specific categories of activities were used that were based upon the results of the pilot. This diary sought additional information regarding sources of information used in making travel decisions, specific usage in hourly blocks of one day of their visit and length of stay. The attraction organisation survey was emailed to National Capital Attractions Association (NCAA) members in August 2005 with a cover letter explaining that the survey may need to be passed onto finance departments or financial controllers. A follow up reminder was sent several weeks after the initial email asking respondents to email, fax or post the completed survey. From the follow up a total of seven completed survey returns were received from a total of 39 NCAA members. The response rate was only 18% indicating the difficulties in receiving economic impact information from organisations. Unfortunately, the vast majority of respondents were unable to break the data down into ACT and non-ACT sources, deeming the data unusable for this project. Therefore, the supply side data is not reported here and recommendations are made at the conclusion of the report concerning the future collection of supply side data from ACT attractions.
Data Analysis The visitor survey data were entered into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and frequency and cross tabulations were undertaken. Statistical analyses were undertaken on respondents’ travel behaviours and socio-demographics compared with their travel and spending patterns through either the use of ANOVA (analysis of variance) tests and independent sample t tests or chi square tests (depending on the type of data) and only differences at the 95% level of confidence are reported. Some data, in the visitor profile section of the results, were recoded to ensure comparability with Tourism Research Australia data from the 2004 National and International Visitor Surveys (NVS/IVS) to check the representativeness of the sample. In particular, purpose of travel, length of stay, employment status, transport and accommodation use were all recoded to allow comparability. The final economic impact estimate was gained by using data gathered in the survey (on visitor spending, attribution, substitution) along with secondary data on holiday/VFR visitor numbers and travel behaviour provided by the Australian Capital Tourism research unit. This data originates from the NVS and the IVS (year ending June 2004) produced by Tourism Research Australia. The highest 1% of expenditure estimates made by respondents in the survey were removed to ensure that the estimates were more accurate prior to analysis. It became obvious that these responses were total trip expenditure and not expenditure related to the ACT specifically and this was more common amongst international than domestic visitors. This procedure to remove outliers, and in this case the top 1% of expenditure items, is common in economic impact studies and was applied across all economic categories. Chi-square tests were also used, where appropriate, to test the levels of significance between variables and Jaccard Measures and Phi 4-Point Correlations were used to explore relationships between NCAA member attractions.
Limitations All research has limitations as a result of time and financial constraints. This research had several limitations that the reader should bear in mind, including the following: • This research focused on the holiday and VFR market only. A separate study would be required on the economic impact of attractions and expenditure of the business market, schools tourism and
6 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
events/conferences. Other studies have already examined the economic impact and of the business events and school market (see Deery, Jago, Fredline & Dwyer 2005; Smith, Ritchie & Filo 2004). • The VFR market is hard to capture in research projects such as this. Although the Canberra and Region Visitors Centre and bus station were used it is expected that a larger proportion of leisure/holiday makers were surveyed because of the difficulty in accessing the VFR market. • What respondents may understand by ‘ACT attraction’ may vary greatly. • While the response rate for the travel diaries was 57%, for some questions, such as length of stay, only 36% of respondents provided answers. • This research was undertaken during a defined time period (October 2004 to June 2005) and provides a snapshot estimate of the economic impact. Data should be collected on a more regular period (every three to five years) so validity and reliability can be checked. • This research examines the direct expenditure associated with the attractions sector. It was not undertaken to provide a cost/benefit analysis of the attractions sector, but to assess the direct spending from visitors attracted to the ACT because of the attractions. • This research does not use or apply multipliers because of concerns over their misapplication, although multipliers based on permanent attractions (such as those involved in this study) may be more useful and accurate than those applied to irregular events or festivals.
7 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Chapter 4 RESULTS: SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHICS, TRAVEL PROFILE AND ATTRACTION MOTIVATIONS
This section begins with an outline of the profile of respondents who answered the survey before discussing their travel behaviour (profile) and attraction motivations. The section will then outline their expenditure patterns, differences in spending and the total direct visitor expenditure estimate based on the visitor survey and secondary data relating to holiday/leisure and VFR visitor numbers. This will be followed by the levels of visitation to the ACT attractions, travel and relationships between NCAA member attractions, the travel patterns of respondents and finally the presentation of the results from the travel diaries.
Study Sample Profile Study sample respondents were asked a number of socio-demographic questions to examine the nature of the holiday/VFR sample and compare, where appropriate, with secondary data from the NVS/IVS. Data collected included gender, age, educational level, occupation, income and origin. The profile of visitors was also used to further analyse visitor attraction motivations and spending patterns, which are outlined in Direct Expenditure in the ACT section.
Gender Approximately 60% of total sample respondents were female compared with 61.7% of domestic overnight respondents and 56.3% of international overnight respondents. A total of 57.8% of domestic day trippers were female. These results suggest that compared to the NVS and IVS, the study sample comprises approximately 10% more female respondents (see Table 1 and Figure 1).
Table 1: Study sample gender compared with NVS/IVS (n=1326) Domestic International Domestic Day Gender Frequency Sample % Overnight* Overnight* Trip* Female 807 60.9 61.7 (52.0) 56.3 (48.0) 57.8 (48.0) Male 519 39.1 38.3 (48.0) 43.7 (52.0) 42.2 (52.0) *ACTC comparable figures are provided in brackets alongside the sample percentage.
Domestic Daytrip (NVS)
Domestic Daytrip (Sample)
International Overnight (IVS) Male Female International Overnight (Sample)
Domestic Overnight (NVS)
Domestic Overnight (Sample)
0 10203040506070
Figure 1: Study sample gender compared with NVS/IVS (%)
8 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Age As Table 2 indicates, over 47% of respondents were aged between 40 and 59 years of age, while over 10% of respondents were aged under 29 years and 27.2% were aged 60 years or over.
Table 2: Study sample age distribution (n=1328) Age Frequency % Under 19 11 0.8 20-29 129 9.7 30-39 201 15.1 40-49 292 22.0 50-59 335 25.2 60-69 261 19.7 70-79 83 6.3 Over 80 16 1.2
Educational level Respondents were highly educated, with the largest category holding a university degree (30.6%) and 18.4% having a postgraduate qualification. Table 3 also illustrates a total of 20.2% of respondents had either a college or TAFE diploma while only 3.9% had an apprenticeship. Year 10 or 12 was the highest educational level for 23.4% of respondents.
Table 3: Study sample highest educational qualification (n=1311) Qualification Frequency % University degree 401 30.6 College/TAFE diploma 265 20.2 Post graduate degree 241 18.4 Year 12 140 10.7 Year 10 153 11.7 Apprenticeship 531 3.9 Other 60 4.6
Employment status and occupation The vast majority (88.2%) of respondents were employed in full- or part-time employment, while only 11.9% were retired, studying, undertaking home duties or refused to answer this question (Table 4). However, compared to available NVS and IVS data, the study sample appeared to consist of more respondents in the other category.
Table 4: Study sample employment status compared with NVS/IVS (n=1315) Domestic International Domestic Employment Status Frequency Sample % Overnight* Overnight* Day Trip* Working part- or full-time 1160 88.2 90.0 (97.9) 73.6 (NA) 86.3 (98.0) Other (retired, studying, 155 11.9 10.0 (2.1) 26.4 (NA) 13.7 (2.0) home duties)/refused *ACTC comparable figures are provided in brackets alongside the sample percentage. NA = data not available
9 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Domestic Daytrip (NVS)
Domestic Daytrip (Sample)
International Overnight (IVS)
Other/Refused Working part or full time International Overnight (Sample)
Domestic Overnight (NVS)
Domestic Overnight (Sample)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 2: Study sample employment status compared with NVS/IVS (%)
Table 5 illustrates that the majority of those employed held professional or related positions (45.6%), followed by managers/administrators (19.2%) and clerical workers (11%). Few respondents were employed in trades (4.1%), manual work (1.0%) or as drivers or equipment operators (1.9%).
Table 5: Study Sample Occupational Classification (n=1315) Classification Frequency % Professional and related 599 45.6 Manager/administrator 252 19.2 Clerical 144 11.0 Other 143 10.9 Sales/service 85 6.5 Tradesperson 54 4.1 No response 12 2.1 Driver/equipment operator 25 1.9 Manual 13 1.0
Household income Respondents were asked to identify their total household income per annum before tax. The results in Table 6 demonstrate that over 25% of respondents had a combined household income of over AUD$100,000. Between 16 and 20% of respondents had incomes of AUD$20,000-79,999, while only 8.8% of respondents noted that their total household income was less that AUD$20,000 per annum.
Table 6: Study sample total household income per annum (A$) (n=1225) Income Frequency % Less than 20,000 108 8.8 $20,000 to $39,999 203 16.6 $40,000 to $59,999 242 19.8 $60,000 to $79,999 214 17.5 $80,000 to $99,999 147 12.0 $100,000 + 311 25.4
10 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Visitor origins A total of 86.6% of overnight visitors in the sample were Australian compared with 91.9% from the NVS/IVS statistics, suggesting a greater number of overnight international holiday makers or VFR visitors were surveyed. From those that were from overseas countries, Table 7 illustrates that 40.3% of the total international sample were from the United Kingdom, who comprised 40.7% of international overnight visitors (a much higher number than IVS statistics captured in 2004). Furthermore, a greater number of international overnight visitors from the United States were surveyed (13.1% compared to 8.9% from the IVS) and fewer respondents from other countries and China were surveyed (16.2% and 1.3% compared to 37.8% and 7.1% from IVS).
Table 7: Study sample international origins compared with IVS (n=171) International Country of Origin Frequency Sample % Overnight* United Kingdom 69 40.3 40.7 (21.7) Other 26 15.2 16.2 (37.8) United States of America 23 13.4 13.1 (8.9) Germany 18 10.5 10.6 (7.0) New Zealand 16 9.4 9.4 (6.4) Canada 8 4.7 5.0 (4.0) Netherlands 8 4.7 3.7 (6.3) China 3 1.8 1.3 (7.1) *ACTC comparable figures are provided in brackets alongside the sample percentage.
With respect to domestic visitor origins, Table 8 demonstrates that the largest proportion of respondents originated from New South Wales (54.6% of the sample), followed by Victoria (19.9%) and Queensland (13.2%). However, New South Wales respondents were fewer compared to NVS figures for the ACT in both domestic overnight statistics (51.7% compared with 70.5%) and domestic day trip statistics (83.8% and 98.7% respectively). Figures for other states and territories are higher especially for Victoria, South Australia and Queensland. This could be because the NVS Figures are from year ending June 2004 and ACTC promotion and marketing to South Australia and Queensland in 2004 and 2005 may have led to an increase not yet evident in the NVS statistics.
Table 8: Study sample domestic origins compared with NVS (n=1123) Domestic Domestic Day Origin Frequency Sample % Overnight* Trip* New South Wales 613 54.6 51.7 (70.5) 83.8 (98.7%) Victoria 223 19.9 21.0 (16.9) Queensland 148 13.2 14.1 (6.7) South Australia 60 5.3 5.7 (3.0) 16.2 (1.3%) Western Australia 57 5.1 Tasmania 16 1.4 2.2 (3.0) Northern Territory 6 0.5 *ACTC comparable figures are provided in brackets alongside the sample percentage.
Summary The study sample comprised slightly more females than males, with 60% aged between 40 and 60 years of age. The study sample was highly educated, employed as professionals, managers or in clerical positions and earned high combined household incomes. Over 85% were domestic visitors (with over half from New South Wales) and 15% were international visitors (most from the United Kingdom, United States of America or other countries). Compared to 2004 NVS/IVS holiday maker/VFR data, the sample appeared to be comprised of slightly more females, and had more respondents who are not employed and a greater proportion of domestic visitors from Victoria and Queensland compared with New South Wales. Furthermore, more international visitors in the sample were from the United Kingdom and the United States compared to those from China or other countries. Some of these differences may be due to changing visitor profiles and a time difference between
11 ACT ATTRACTIONS the study sample and NVS/IVS data collection. These differences should be kept in mind when examining the following results.
Travel Profile This section of the results outlines previous visitation levels to the ACT, the main purpose of visit from the study sample and information concerning respondents’ travel behaviour such as their use of accommodation, transport, day of arrival, length of stay and travel party composition. Along with socio-demographics, such data was used to compare with respondents’ attraction motivations, expenditure patterns and relevant NVS and IVS data.
Previous visitation Respondents were asked if they had visited the ACT in the last five years. A total of 37.6% indicated that this was their first visit in the last five years, while 15.3% had visited once before and 10% indicated two previous visits. A total of 16% of respondents had visited seven times or more in the last five years (see Table 9).
Table 9: Study sample repeat visitation levels (n=1336)
Visit Number Frequency % First time 502 37.6 1 205 15.3 2 133 10.0 3 103 7.7 4 72 5.4 5 71 5.3 6 36 2.7 7 or more 214 16.0
Table 10 illustrates the year and month of respondents’ last visit to the ACT. The majority of those that had visited in the last five years visited in 2004 (42.3% of the sample), followed by 2005 (21.3%) and 2003 (14.5%). The most popular season for previous visitation was summer (31.7% of previous visits), followed by spring (28.9%), autumn (25.6%) and winter (13.8%). The most popular months for previous visits were January (15.1%), April (10.9%) and September (10.6%).
Table 10: Study sample year and month of last visit (n=796-808)
Year Month
N=808 Frequency % N=796 Frequency % 1960s 5 0.6 January 120 15.1 1970s 7 0.9 February 54 6.8 1980s 7 0.9 March 68 8.5 1990s 37 4.6 April 87 10.9 2000 30 3.7 May 49 6.2 2001 29 3.6 June 31 3.9 2002 62 7.7 July 47 5.9 2003 117 14.5 August 32 4.0 2004 342 42.3 September 84 10.6 2005 172 21.3 October 72 9.0 November 74 9.3 December 78 9.8
12 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Visitors who travelled to the ACT within the last five years had considerably fewer respondents from New South Wales (see Table 11) and considerably more proportionally from other states/territories including Victoria (28% instead of 20% expected) and Queensland (19% instead of 13%).
Table 11: Statistical differences by visitation in last five years First visit in last five years Not first visit in last five years Difference in: Actual % Expected % Actual % Expected % Origins: • New South Wales 31 55 66 55 • Victoria 28 20 16 20 • Queensland 19 13 10 13 • South Australia 8 5 4 5 • Western Australia 10 5 3 5 • Tasmania 3 1 <1 1 • Northern Territory <1 <1 <1 <1 Age: • Under 19 years <1 <1 <1 <1 • 20-29 years 13 10 8 10 • 30-39 years 14 15 16 15 • 40-49 years 21 22 23 22 • 50-59 years 27 25 24 25 • 60-69 years 19 20 20 20 • 70-79 years 6 6 7 6 • 80 years and over <1 1 2 1 Trip purpose: • Holiday/leisure 85 74 67 74 • VFR 15 26 33 26 Origins chi square: v=136.550, df=6, p=0.000 Age chi square: v=15.372, df=7, p=0.032 Trip purpose chi square: v=51.807, df=1, p=0.000
Furthermore, a greater number of visitors who were visiting for the first time in the last five years were aged 20-29 and 50-59 years compared to slightly fewer older respondents. Trip purpose also generated statistical differences between those that had or had not visited Canberra in the last five years. A total of 11% more holiday/leisure visitors indicated this was their first trip in the last five years compared to VFR visitors (15% instead of 26% expected).
Main purpose of visit Respondents were asked their main reason for travelling to the ACT and 73.9% noted holiday/leisure purposes compared with 26.1% who suggested VFR (see Table 12). Based on the sampling procedures and potential limitations outlined in Chapter 3, it is not surprising that a larger proportion of holiday/leisure visitors were surveyed during the study period.
Table 12: Study sample main purpose of travel (n=1341)
Purpose Frequency %
VFR 350 26.1 Holiday/leisure 991 73.9
13 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Accommodation From those that stayed overnight in the ACT (91.6% of the total sample), 42.2% stayed in a hotel, resort, motel or motor inn followed by 30.7% who stayed with friends and relatives and 27.1% who stayed in other accommodation. Similar results are illustrated in Table 13 between domestic and international overnight visitors, with slightly more international overnight visitors staying with friends and relatives and in other accommodation compared with their domestic counterparts.
Table 13: Study sample accommodation use compared with NVS/IVS (n=1223)
Domestic International Accommodation Frequency Sample % Overnight* Overnight*
Hotel, resort, motel or 516 42.2 42.3 (24.5) 40.5 (19.4) motor inn With friends/relatives 375 30.7 30.6 (65.1) 31.3 (59.8) Other 332 27.1 27.1 (10.4) 29.2 (20.8) 8.4% of the total sample did not stay overnight *ACTC comparable figures are provided in brackets alongside the sample percentage.
Compared with the NVS and IVS data (Table 13 and Figure 3) the study sample findings illustrated a greater proportion of commercial accommodation use for both domestic and international visitors and a greater use of other accommodation (such as hostels, camping and caravan parks) compared with the NVS/IVS data. Such use of commercial accommodation has resulted in fewer numbers who stayed with friends and relatives. This is not surprising as the majority of respondents stated that their main purpose was holiday/leisure and not VFR (as mentioned in the previous section).
International Overnight (IVS)
International Overnight (Sample)
Other/not asked With friends/relatives Hotel, resort, motel or motor inn
Domestic Overnight (NVS)
Domestic Overnight (Sample)
0 10203040506070
Figure 3: Study sample accommodation use compared with NVS/IVS (%)
14 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Transport to ACT Approximately 79% of respondents used either their own vehicle or a rental vehicle and drove to the ACT. Only 8.6% used air transport and 12.9% used other means or did not state what transport they used (see Table 14). Domestic visitors had a greater tendency to use a vehicle as their main mode of transport (particularly day trippers) compared with international overnight visitors who used air or other transport (such as coaches) in greater numbers. Compared to available NVS/IVS data the study sample appears similar in their transport use.
Table 14: Study sample transport mode compared with NVS/IVS (n=1341)
Domestic International Domestic Day Transport Frequency Sample % Overnight* Overnight* Trip* Vehicle/drive 1053 78.5 81.5 (83.8) 50.3 (49.6) 92.1 (94.0) Air 115 8.6 8.6 (10.5) 12.9 (17.1) 2.9 (NA) Other/not stated 173 12.9 9.1 (6.5) 36.8 (33.3) 5.0 (6.0) *ACTC comparable figures are provided in brackets alongside the sample percentage. NA = data not available
Day of arrival Arrivals on Friday and Saturday accounted for 43% of visitors, and are approximately twice the rate of each of the other five days (Figure 4). This pattern of visitation has implications for how products and services may be positioned to promote mid-week visitation as well as how the marketing message may be enhanced to position the ACT as a place to be visited for more than a long weekend, given the average length of stay of 3.6 nights as reported in the following section.
Tues Mon 11% Wed 11% 11% Sun Thur 11% 13%
Sat Fri 21% 22%
Figure 4: Day of arrival
Length of stay The average length of stay of respondents was 4.1 days and 3.6 nights (3.5 for domestic overnight visitors and 6.0 for international overnight visitors). The average length of stay from NVS/IVS data suggested an average length of stay of 2.9 nights for domestic holiday/VFR visitors and 3.8 for international overnight visitors. A total of 68.8% of respondents stayed between one and three nights in the ACT, compared with 22.8% who stayed for between four and seven nights and 8.4% who stayed eight nights or more. Compared to available NVS and IVS data, the study sample appeared to be staying slightly longer in the ACT (see Table 15).
Table 15: Study sample length of stay compared with NVS/IVS (n=1231) Domestic International Length of Stay Frequency Sample % Overnight* Overnight* 1-3 nights 847 68.8 69.1 (80.1) 64.2 (83.2) 4-7 nights 281 22.8 23.4 (15.2) 21.6 (NC) 8 nights or more 103 8.4 7.5 (4.7) 14.2 (NC) *ACTC comparable figures are provided in brackets alongside the sample percentage. NC = not compatible categories
15 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Group composition Respondents were asked to note their travel party composition and the average group size, with the results presented in Table 16 and Figure 5. The results indicate that the majority of respondents (74.8%) travelled with family members, followed by friends (18.4%) and a tour group (1.6%), while 0.5% travelled with work colleagues. The average group size was highest with those who travelled in a tour group (approximately 35), followed by work colleagues (2.17), family members (1.99) and friends (1.81).
Table 16: Study sample group composition and average size (n=1341)
Group % Average Size Family member 74.8 1.99 Friends 18.4 1.81 Tour group 1.6 34.50 Work colleagues 0.5 2.17
Work Colleagues 0.5% Tour Group 1.7% Friends 19.3%
Family Member 78.5%
Figure 5: Study sample group composition (%)
Children A total of 24% of the study sample travelled with children during their visit to the ACT, which compared favourably with 29% of domestic overnight visitors and 33% of domestic day trip visitors from the NVS. A total of 11.6% travelled with an average of 1.44 children aged six to 10 years (see Table 17). A total of 9.8% travelled with just over two children aged between 11 and 14 years.
Table 17: Study sample children composition and average size (n=1341)
Age % Average Size
0-five years 8.3 1.39 6-10 years 11.6 1.44 11-14 years 9.8 2.06 15-18 years 4.3 3.29
16 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Summary This section of the results demonstrates that the study sample included a high number of visitors who travelled to the ACT for the first time in the last five years. A greater proportion of those aged 20-29 and 50-59 years were discovered from this group along with more from states and territories other than New South Wales and more holiday/leisure visitors. Previous visitation by the sample has been undertaken more recently (in the 2000s) with summer as the most popular season to visit followed closely by spring and autumn. The main arrival days were Friday and Saturday (43% of respondents). The main purpose of travel appeared to be holiday making although approximately 26% of the sample were VFR. The purpose of visit affects accommodation use, with a higher degree of commercial accommodation used by the sample compared to NVS/IVS data, and fewer respondents using friends and relatives for accommodation. A high degree of vehicle/driving was used to get to the ACT, especially from the domestic market, while the international market had a slightly higher use of other transport (coaches, train, bus) compared to IVS data. The average length of stay of the study sample was slightly higher than NVS data and substantially higher than the IVS data (six nights compared with 3.8 nights). The majority of respondents travelled with family members, with 24% comprising children (slightly lower than NVS figures).
Attraction Motivations: Role of Attractions in ACT Visitation This section briefly presents the results related to the importance of the attractions for decision making. This data is important to develop the attribution and substitution factors, which are applied to the direct expenditure data collected and discussed in Chapter 5.
Attribution factor As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, to attribute any visitor expenditure to a specific event, attraction or group of attractions, data on visitor motivations or the extent to which their visit was determined by that event, attraction or group of attractions is required. To achieve this, Carlsen and Wood’s (2005) attribution question was modified and applied to respondents in this survey. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which the ACT attractions were important in their decision to visit the ACT on their subsequent trip on a scale ranging from one (not important) to five (very important). Table 18 indicates the impact the attractions had on visitation to the ACT. Ratings toward the upper end of the scale (four and five) were used as an indication of the importance of the ACT attractions as a decision to visit and thus respondents who noted these scores were classified as being significantly motivated by the ACT attractions (the attribution factor) and comprised 62.6% of all visitors. Domestic day trippers indicated the attractions were more important in their visit decision compared with overnight domestic and international visitors (66.4% compared with 61.4% of the sample respectively). Carlsen and Wood (2005), in their study of natural areas, found between 88% and 92% of respondents were highly motivated by the natural areas under study and therefore their expenditure could be attributed to these areas.
Table 18: Importance of ACT attractions for visit decision (n=1328)
Importance Frequency %
1 Not important 184 13.9 2 190 14.3 3 123 9.3 4 349 26.3 5 Very important 482 36.3
Substitution factor The Carlsen and Wood (2005) study also used the concept of substitution to ascertain the amount of expenditure that would be foregone if the natural areas did not exist. To estimate the substitution factor, a scenario question was asked to ascertain if respondents would have changed their travel destination if the ACT attractions did not exist. A total of 61.5% of respondents stated that they would have travelled to the ACT anyway, compared to 38.5% who suggested that they would have either travelled to another Australian state/territory or another country if the ACT attractions did not exist (Table 19 and Figure 6) The Carlsen and Wood (2005) study
17 ACT ATTRACTIONS estimated 9.2% and 18.5% of respondents in the two natural areas would have substituted their trip for another destination.
Table 19: Substitution if ACT attractions did not exist (n=1341)
Substitution Frequency %
Travelled to the ACT anyway? 746 61.5 Travelled within another Australian state? 455 37.5 Travelled to another country? 12 1.0
Travelled to another country 1.0%
Travelled within another Australian state 37.5%
Travelled to the ACT anyway 61.5%
Figure 6: Substitution if ACT attractions did not exist (%)
As Table 20 suggests, from a cross tabulation between the importance of the attractions in respondents’ visit decisions and their destination substitutions, as the importance of the ACT attractions in their decision increased, so too did their desire to substitute a visit to the ACT with another destination if the attractions did not exist. A total of 72.9% of respondents who stated that the ACT attractions were very important in their decision to visit the ACT suggested that if the ACT attractions did not exist they would have travelled interstate or overseas.
Table 20: Attribution vs. substitution cross tabulation (n=1207)
If the ACT attractions did not exist you would have…
Question Total Importance Travelled to the Travelled interstate ACT anyway (%) or overseas (%)
1 Not important 93.3 6.7 100.0 How important 2 87.1 12.9 100.0 were the ACT Attractions in 3 86.6 13.4 100.0 your decision to visit the ACT? 4 62.9 37.1 100.0 5 Very important 27.1 72.9 100.0 Total/Avg 61.5 38.5 100.0
18 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Furthermore, several statistical differences were found between visitor groups and their motivations and levels of attribution and substitution. Table 21, Figure 7 and Table 22 illustrate that visitors who were on their first visit to the ACT within the last five years were more highly motivated by the ACT attractions and were more likely to travel interstate or overseas compared to those that had visited previously in the last five years.
Table 21: Statistical differences between attribution factor and travel behaviour
Question Difference in: Mean score T or F value df Significance
First visit in last five years 3.83 5.110 1326 0.000 Not first visit in last five years 3.41 Holiday/leisure visitors 4.00 Importance of 21.135 1326 0.000 ACT attractions VFR visitors 2.30 in visit decision 1-3 nights 3.65 making 4-7 nights 3.54 19.057 1219 0.000 8 nights or longer 2.73 Travel party include children 3.82 3.596 1326 0.000 Travel party excludes children 3.49 Note: Underline indicates that statistical differences exist between that length of stay and the remaining categories.
Holiday/leisure visitors
First visit in last 5 years
Travel party include children
1-3 nights
4-7 nights
Travel party excludes children
Not first visit in last 5 years
8 nights or longer
VFR visitors
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Figure 7: Statistical differences between attribution factor and travel behaviour (rank mean score)
A greater proportion of holiday/leisure compared to VFR visitors noted that the ACT attractions were important in their decision making. More VFR visitors noted they would have travelled to the ACT anyway, whereas holiday/leisure visitors were more likely to substitute their trip if the ACT attractions did not exist. A greater proportion of those staying eight nights or longer noted that the attractions were less important in their visit decision making and they were more likely to have travelled to the ACT anyway, compared with those who stayed seven nights or less. Finally, those respondents who travelled with children were more motivated by the ACT attractions and were more likely to indicate substitution in greater numbers compared to those who did not travel with children. No other differences were found to exist based on other socio-demographics or travel behaviours.
19 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Table 22: Statistical differences between substitution factor and travel behaviour Travelled to the ACT Travelled interstate or anyway overseas Difference in: Actual % Expected % Actual % Expected %
First visit in last five years 51 61 49 39 Not first visit in last five years 68 61 32 39 Holiday/leisure visitors 49 62 51 38 VFR visitors 93 61 7 39 1-3 nights 59 62 41 38 4-7 nights 62 62 38 38 8 nights or longer 90 62 10 38 Travel party includes children 51 61 49 38 Travel party excludes children 65 60 35 40 Previous visit chi square: v=34.889, df=2 p=0.000. Trip purpose chi square: v=195.197, df=2 p=0.000 Length of stay chi square: v=37.248, df=4, p=0.000. Travel party and children chi square: v=19.193, df=2, p=0.000
Summary A total of 62.6% of respondents were deemed to have been significantly motivated by the ACT attractions, based on their response to a question on the importance of the ACT attractions to their visit decision, and thus their expenditure can be attributed to the ACT attractions. This compares conservatively with the results of between 88% and 92% in Carlsen and Wood’s (2005) study related to natural attractions in Western Australia. When asked the scenario question concerning an estimation of the substitution factor, a total of 61.5% noted they would have travelled to the ACT even if the ACT attractions did not exist, compared with 38.5% who would have travelled elsewhere (with their likely spending foregone). Those respondents who were more highly motivated by attraction visitation and would have substituted their visit if the attractions did not exist tended to be new visitors in the ACT for holiday or leisure purposes, travelling with children who stayed overnight for between one and seven nights.
20 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Chapter 5 RESULTS: DIRECT VISITOR EXPENDITURE IN THE ACT
This chapter of the results outlines the average spend per person based on the total sample as well as overnight stays and day trippers. The data is broken down into a number of different economic categories and statistical differences between visitor spending are presented. Finally, the attribution and substitution ratios are applied to provide an estimate of the total direct economic impact to the ACT economy as a result of ACT attractions.
Direct Expenditure Data Respondents were asked to indicate their total expenditure within the ACT over a total of seven economic sectors. Respondents were also asked to note how many people these estimates covered. The average spend per person could be calculated from these figures and is shown in Table 23 and Figure 8. The table and figure illustrate that on average $212.25 was spent in total per person in the ACT.
Table 23: Total expenditure by holiday/leisure/VFR visitor (n=1341) Average Per Person $ Expenditure Category % of Expenditure (avg. 2.88 people in travel party) Accommodation 70.39 33.0 Food and Beverages 64.18 30.0 Shopping 35.23 17.0 Transport 23.80 11.0 Attractions 13.72 7.0 Entertainment 3.70 2.0 TOTAL AVERAGE 212.25* 100.0 *The average spend per person over the seven categories does not add to the total average spend because of errors associated with adding mean scores. The difference is approximately $1.05.
However, only 7% of this expenditure was spent directly on the attractions sector, with 33% or $70.57 being spent on accommodation and 30% or $64.18 on food and beverages. Shopping accounted for 17% of expenditure or over $35, while transport accounted for 11% of expenditure or approximately $24 per person. Entertainment only accounted for 2% or $3.70 per person. Tables 24 and 25 and Figure 8 break the expenditure data down by day trip and overnight visitor.
Table 24: Expenditure by holiday/leisure/VFR day tripper (n=112) Average Per Person $ Expenditure Category % of Expenditure (avg. 4.81 people in travel party) Shopping 16.75 33.0 Food and Beverages 13.43 26.0 Transport 11.38 22.0 Attractions 8.98 17.0 Entertainment 1.20 2.0 Accommodation - - TOTAL 52.11* 100.0 *The average spend per person over the seven categories does not add to the total average spend because of errors associated with adding mean scores. The difference is approximately $0.37.
21 ACT ATTRACTIONS
The tables and figure illustrate that day trip spend was approximately $52 per person, with one-third spent on shopping, 26% on food and beverages and 22% on transport. NVS statistics for the year ended 2004 indicate that holiday/leisure day trippers to the ACT spent $109 per person and VFR visitors spent $68 per person on average. Table 25 indicates that overnight holiday/leisure/VFR visitors spent approximately $228 per person in total during their trip, compared with between $74 and $146 for domestic overnight holiday/VFR visitors and between $60 and $103 for international overnight holiday/VFR visitors. This increase could be because of a higher sample length of stay compared to NVS/IVS figures and the fact that this sample size has less error compared to NVS/IVS data.
Table 25: Expenditure by overnight holiday/leisure/VFR visitor (n=1223)
Average Per Person $ Expenditure Category % of Expenditure (avg. 2.70 people in travel party)
Accommodation 77.22 34.0 Food and Beverages 69.17 31.0 Shopping 37.10 16.0 Transport 25.02 11.0 Attractions 14.21 6.0 Entertainment 3.95 2.0 TOTAL 227.72* 100.0 *The average spend per person over the seven categories does not add to the total average spend because of errors associated with adding mean scores. The difference is approximately $1.05.
Accommodation
Food and Beverages
Shopping
Total Expenditure Overnight Visitor Day Tripper
Transport
Attractions
Entertainment
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 8: Comparison of expenditure category by type of visitor (%)
Statistical analysis was undertaken to examine differences in total spend by socio-demographics and travel behaviour. The results are presented in Table 26. The results illustrate that those who spent more per person were those that were on their first visit within the last five years ($29 more per person), respondents who were holiday/leisure visitors ($30 per person) and those who travelled without children ($63 per person). Those who
22 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study were aged 50-59 years spent between $61 and $65 more than those aged 20-49 years, while respondents from New South Wales spent between $68 and $155 less on average than respondents from Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania.
Table 26: Statistical differences between total average spend and travel behaviour/socio-demographics Mean T or F Difference in: df Significance spend ($) value First visit in last five years 230 2.650 1325 0.008 Not first visit in last five years 201 Holiday/leisure visitors 220 2.488 1325 0.013 VFR visitors 190 Travel party includes children 164 -4.997 1325 0.000 Travel party excludes children 227 Under 19 years 195 20-29 years 189 30-39 years 193 40-49 years 189 3.832 1313 0.000 50-59 years 254 60-69 years 218 70-79 years 227 Over 80 years 131 New South Wales 179 Victoria 221 Queensland 247 South Australia 234 7.745 1111 0.000 Western Australia 302 Tasmania 334 Northern Territory 290 Note: Underline and italic indicates that statistical differences exist between this group and all other underlined groups only.
TAS WA NT 50-59 years QLD SA First visit in last 5 years 70-79 years Travel party excludes children VIC Holiday/leisure visitors 60-69 years Not first visit in last 5 years Under 19 years 30-39 years VFR visitors 40-49 years 20-29 years NSW Travel party includes children Over 80 years
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Figure 9: Statistical differences between total average spend and travel behaviour/socio-demographics (rank mean score by $)
Note: Not all categories represent statistical differences between groups. Please refer to table for statistical differences by age and origin.
23 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Differences also emerged with respect to spending across the economic categories. For instance, visitors on their first visit to Canberra within the last five years spent more on accommodation ($32 per person) than those who were on their second or more visit. VFR visitors spent more per person on shopping ($18) and entertainment ($3), while holiday/leisure visitors spent $57 more on average on accommodation than VFR visitors. Respondents who travelled with children spent less across all sectors compared to those who travelled without children, apart from entertainment (where there were no differences). Those aged 50-59 years spent more on accommodation ($15 more on average), food/beverages ($12) and shopping ($45) than both younger and older age groups. Visitors from New South Wales on average spent less than others on accommodation ($9), food/beverages ($11) and shopping ($5).
Total Attribution and Substitution Effects Based on the data previously presented, this subsection outlines the total direct visitor expenditure associated with the ACT attractions and an estimate of the amount foregone through trip substitution if the ACT attractions did not exist. Table 27 presents the number of visitors multiplied by the proportion indicated that they were highly motivated by the ACT attractions in their decision to visit (four or five on the five point scale). This resulted in 951,752 overnight visitors and 769,576 day visitors based on NVS/IVS data supplied by ACTC. This figure is then multiplied by the average spend per person to estimate the amount of spending attributable to the ACT attractions. This direct visitor expenditure attributable to the ACT attractions is estimated to be over $216 million per annum (or between $249 and $265 million applying margins of error).
Table 27: Total visitor expenditure attribution estimate Proportion of sample Average spend Total attributable Number of visitors motivated by attractions (A) per person (B) spend amount (A x B) International and Domestic Overnight Holiday/Leisure/VFR 61.4% of 1,550,085 (951,752) $227.72 $216,732,965 Visitors (year end June 2004) – 1,550,085 Domestic Day Trip Holiday/Leisure/VFR 66.4% of 1,159,000 $52.11 $40,102,605 Visitors (year end June (769,576) 2004) – 1,159,000 TOTAL DIRECT VISITOR EXPENDITURE $256,835,570 $249-$265 million per ESTIMATE (including margins of error at +/-3%) annum
Table 28 provides an estimate of the amount of expenditure foregone if respondents substituted their visit if the ACT attractions did not exist. Using the attribution visitor expenditure figure, a total of 38.3% of overnight visitors suggested that they would have travelled elsewhere if the attractions did not exist, resulting in a potential foregone amount of approximately $83 million per annum. A slightly higher number of day visitors (41%) would have substituted their trip to the ACT, losing over $16 million in direct expenditure. In total the scenario question estimated that over $99 million per annum could be foregone if the ACT attractions did not exist (or between $96 and $102 million per annum taking into account margins of error).
Table 28: Substitution visitor expenditure estimate Total Attributable Proportion of Sample Who Substitution Visitor Group Spend Amount (A) Would Substitute Visit (B) Amount (A x B) International and Domestic Overnight $216,732,965 38.3% $83,008,726 Holiday/Leisure/VFR Visitors Domestic Day Trip Holiday/Leisure/VFR $40,102,605 41.0% $16,442,068 Visitors TOTAL DIRECT SUBSTUTION FACTOR $99,450,794 $96-$102 million ESTIMATE (including margins of error at +/-3%) per annum
24 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
These figures do not include international day visitors, school excursions, and business or other visitors. For further information on the economic impact or visitor expenditure associated with some of these groups please see Deery et al. (2005) and Smith, Ritchie and Filo (2004). Based on the allocation of respondents’ expenditure, the ACT attractions help generate approximately: • $85 million per annum of direct visitor expenditure to the accommodation sector; • $76 million per annum of direct visitor expenditure to the food and beverage sector; • $43 million per annum of direct visitor expenditure to the shopping and retail sector; • $28 million per annum of direct visitor expenditure to the transport sector; and • $5 million per annum of direct visitor expenditure to the entertainment sector.
Summary This chapter demonstrated that respondents spent approximately $212 per person ($52 per day tripper and $227 per overnight visitor). The three largest economic sectors related to overnight spend included accommodation (34% of spending), food and beverages (31%) and shopping (16%). For day trippers, the three highest sectors included shopping (33% of spending), food and beverages (26%) and transport (22%). Respondents on their first visit to Canberra in the last five years, and who identified themselves as holiday/leisure visitors, aged 50-59 years and from Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania or travelling without children all spent significantly higher amounts than other groups. Based on economic sectors, the accommodation sector received higher spends from those who were on their first trip in the last five years, holiday/leisure visitors and those aged between 50-59 years. The retail sector received more from visitors aged 50-59 years and those from states/territories other than New South Wales. Based on secondary data related to the number of holiday/leisure/VFR visitors in the ACT at the end of June 2004, a total of between $249 and $265 million of direct visitor expenditure is attributable to the ACT attractions per annum, with between $96 and $102 million per annum possibly foregone if the ACT attractions did not exist.
25 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Chapter 6 RESULTS: ACT ATTRACTIONS VISITATION PATTERNS
This section is based upon responses to Question 1 of Section Three of the main survey (Appendix A) where respondents were asked to indicate, from a list of 39 attractions in the ACT, which attractions they had visited on their current trip. This information was entered in the data package either as a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ with respondents having the option of listing up to three ‘Other’ attractions. Table 29 summarises all responses of people visiting the ACT for holiday/leisure and VFR as to which attractions they visited. ‘Rank’ is based upon ‘Count’ (e.g. the number of people who visited that attraction). Ownership is a mix of Federal Government, ACT Government, Private and International Government. Each respondent could have multiple responses.
Attraction Ownership Of the 39 listed attractions, 54% (n=21) were federally owned, 23% (n=9) were privately owned, 21% (n=8) were owned by the ACT government and 3% (n=1) were internationally owned. In contrast, the federally owned attractions accounted for 74% of the visits, privately owned 8%, ACT government owned 14% and international 4% (Figure 10).
8% 4%
14% Federal Govt ACT Govt Private International Govt
74%
Figure 10: Visitation by attraction ownership
The top five privately owned attractions were: • Cockington Green (Rank 10); • National Zoo and Aquarium (Rank 20); • National Dinosaur Museum (Rank 24); • Casino Canberra (Rank 25); and • Canberra Space Dome and Observatory (Rank 26). The top five ACT government attractions were: • Mt Ainslie Lookout (Rank 15); • Canberra Museum and Gallery (Rank 16); • Blundell’s Cottage (Rank 29); • Tidbinbilla Reserve (Rank 30); and • Lanyon Homestead (Rank 34).
Attraction Visitation With 7,617 responses from 1,315 people, the average number of the listed attractions visited was 5.8. The top two ‘Other’ attractions indicated by respondents were the Old Bus Depot Markets, Kingston (n=52) and Floriade (n=51), which would rank them as numbers 28 and 29 between the Electoral Education Centre and the Deep Space Communication Complex in Table 29. Furthermore, Kamberra Wine Tourism Complex was also identified under ‘Other’ by approximately eighteen respondents (or 1.4% of respondents), ranking it as number
26 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
37 between the Nolan Gallery and Mugga Mugga. However, a total of 1.5% of respondents (n=19) mentioned wineries under ‘Other’ which could have also included the Kamberra Wine Tourism Complex.
Table 29: Visiting ACT attractions – holiday, leisure and VFR (tick box responses) (n=1315) % of % of All Attractions “Yes” Rank Owned Responses Cases Australian War Memorial 766 10.1 58.3 1 Fed Old Parliament House 621 8.2 47.2 2 Fed Parliament House 597 7.8 45.4 3 Fed National Gallery of Australia 565 7.4 43.0 4 Fed ANZAC Parade & Memorials 456 6.0 34.7 5 Fed Telstra Tower/Black Mountain 420 5.5 31.9 6 Pvt National Museum of Australia 411 5.4 31.3 7 Fed National Portrait Gallery (OPH) 346 4.5 26.3 8 Fed Embassies (Drive/Circuit/Tour) 303 4.0 23.0 9 Int Cockington Green 262 3.4 19.9 10 Pvt Royal Australian Mint 255 3.3 19.4 11 Fed National Library of Australia 251 3.3 19.1 12 Fed Questacon/National Science & Technology 245 3.2 18.6 13 Fed Australian National Botanic Gardens 240 3.2 18.3 14 Fed Mt Ainslie Lookout 235 3.1 17.9 15 ACT Canberra Museum/Gallery 210 2.8 16.0 16 ACT High Court of Australia 163 2.1 12.4 17 Fed National Capital Exhibition/Regatta Point 140 1.8 10.6 18 Fed National Carillon 120 1.6 9.1 19 Fed National Zoo & Aquarium 111 1.5 8.4 20 Pvt AIS 106 1.4 8.1 21 Fed Screen Sound Australia 97 1.3 7.4 22 Fed National Archives of Australia 87 1.1 6.6 23 Fed National Dinosaur Museum 83 1.1 6.3 24 Pvt Casino Canberra 76 1.0 5.8 25 Pvt Canberra Space Dome & Observatory 72 0.9 5.5 26 Pvt Electoral Education Centre (OPH) 66 0.9 5.0 27 Fed Deep Space Communication Complex 45 0.6 3.4 28 Fed Blundells' Cottage 43 0.6 3.3 29 ACT Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve 43 0.6 3.3 30 ACT CSIRO Discovery 38 0.5 2.9 31 Fed Southern Cross Cruises 29 0.4 2.2 32 Pvt Australian Reptile Centre 27 0.4 2.1 33 Pvt Lanyon Homestead 24 0.3 1.8 34 ACT Calthorpes House 21 0.3 1.6 35 ACT Nolan Gallery 20 0.3 1.5 36 ACT Mugga Mugga 11 0.1 0.8 37 ACT GEO-Science Australia-AGSO 9 0.1 0.7 38 Fed Bywong Mining Town Village 3 0.0 0.2 39 Pvt Total (Multiple responses possible) 7,617 100.0 Note: Fed = federally owned; Pvt = privately owned; Int = internationally owned; ACT = ACT government owned
27 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Influences on Attractions Visited Five variables were investigated for their impact upon attraction visitation: • Travelling with children; • Main reason for travel (holiday versus VFR); • Domestic versus overseas visitors; • Three major domestic markets (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland); and • Gender. Table 30 provides an overview of those attractions, of the top 25 (based on the results presented in Table 29), with a statistical difference, as determined by chi-square tests, in their visitation due to the impact of the five variables. This analysis was conducted for each of the top 25 attractions. The following sections provide additional discussion of each influencing factor.
Table 30: Statistical differences for top 25 attractions – summary
Travelling Main Major Domestic vs. Attraction with Reason for Domestic Gender Overseas Children Travel Markets Australian War Memorial 9 9 9 9 Old Parliament House 9 9 9 9 Parliament House 9 9 9 9 National Gallery 9 9 9 ANZAC Parade 9 9 9 9 Telstra Tower 9 9 9 National Museum 9 9 9 National Portrait Gallery 9 9 9 Embassies 9 9 Cockington Green 9 Royal Australian Mint 9 9 9 9 National Library 9 Questacon 9 9 9 9 Australian National Botanic 9 9 Gardens Mt Ainslie Lookout 9 9 Canberra Museum/Gallery 9 9 9 High Court of Australia 9 9 National Capital Exhibition 9 National Carillon 9 National Zoo And Aquarium 9 AIS 9 9 Screensound Australia 9 National Archives 9 National Dinosaur Museum 9 Casino Canberra 9 Total 13 10 13 18 5
Travelling with or without children A chi-square test demonstrated a significant difference between females travelling with children (26%) compared with males (19%) (v=6.593, df=1, p=.010). Table 31 summarises what proportion of those people who did and did not travel with children indicated they had visited each of the top 25 visited attractions.
28 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Substantially higher rates of visitation by people travelling with children than those travelling without children were experienced by the following attractions: • Questacon (49% of those with children vs. 9% without children); • Cockington Green (34% vs. 16%); • National Zoo and Aquarium and the AIS (15% vs. 6%); and • National Dinosaur Museum (12% vs. 4%). Those attractions with substantially higher rates of visitation by people travelling without children than those travelling with children were: • National Library (11% vs. 22%); and • Casino Canberra (3% vs. 7%).
Table 31: Influence of children on visiting top 25 attractions (n=1306)
Children No Children Attraction (n=310) (n=996) % %
Australian War Memorial 60 58 Old Parliament House 38 51 Parliament House 47 46 National Gallery 33 47 ANZAC Parade 32 36 Telstra Tower 39 30 National Museum 31 32 National Portrait Gallery 17 29 Embassies 22 24 Cockington Green 34 16 Royal Australian Mint 34 15 National Library 11 22 Questacon 49 9 Australian National Botanic 15 20 Gardens Mt Ainslie Lookout 17 19 Canberra Museum/Gallery 11 17 High Court of Australia 12 13 National Capital Exhibition 8 12 National Carillon 10 9 National Zoo And Aquarium 15 6 AIS 15 6 Screensound Australia 6 8 National Archives 6 7 National Dinosaur Museum 12 4 Casino Canberra 3 7
29 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Table 32 summarises the chi-square tests testing the impact of travelling with children on attraction visitation. These tests revealed that 13 of the attractions had statistical differences (p values underlined) between actual and expected levels of visitation between those travelling with children and those travelling without children. Of the top 10 attractions, the Australian War Memorial, Parliament House, the National Museum and ANZAC Parade and Memorials were not significantly influenced by whether people were travelling with children or not.
Table 32: Statistical differences: influence of children on visiting top 25 attractions
Children Children With No Attraction Expected Expected Value df p Actual n Actual n n n
Australian War Memorial 187 180 579 586 0.731 1 0.393 Old Parliament House 117 146 504 475 13.434 1 0.000 Parliament House 145 140 452 457 0.306 1 0.580 National Gallery 103 133 462 432 14.529 1 0.000 ANZAC Parade 99 107 357 349 1.072 1 0.301 Telstra Tower 120 99 300 321 8.379 1 0.004 National Museum 96 97 315 315 0.000 1 0.995 National Portrait Gallery 54 81 292 265 15.538 1 0.000 Embassies 68 71 235 232 0.170 1 0.680 Cockington Green 104 62 158 201 46.462 1 0.000 Royal Australian Mint 104 60 151 195 51.221 1 0.000 National Library 34 59 217 192 16.317 1 0.000 Questacon 153 58 92 187 250.518 1 0.000 Australian National Botanic 46 56 194 184 2.754 1 0.097 Gardens Mt Ainslie Lookout 51 55 184 180 0.393 1 0.531 Canberra Museum/Gallery 33 49 177 161 8.376 1 0.004 High Court of Australia 38 38 125 125 0.000 1 1.000 National Capital Exhibition 25 33 115 107 2.421 1 0.120 National Carillon 31 28 89 92 0.403 1 0.526 National Zoo And Aquarium 47 26 64 85 22.802 1 0.000 AIS 45 25 61 81 21.898 1 0.000 Screensound Australia 18 23 79 74 1.135 1 0.287 National Archives 20 20 67 67 0.013 1 0.909 National Dinosaur Museum 39 20 44 64 27.182 1 0.000 Casino Canberra 8 18 68 58 7.534 1 0.006 Note: Underline indicates that statistical differences exist between people travelling with and without children.
Main reason for travel The chi-square test exploring differences in attraction visitation between those people whose main reason for travelling was for holidays or leisure compared with those travelling mainly to visit friends and relatives (VFR) is presented in Table 33. Ten of the top 25 attractions showed a statistical difference between holiday/leisure travellers and VFR, with six of the top 10 attractions having statistical differences.
30 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
While the following four attractions demonstrated lower than expected levels of visitation from people whose main reason for travel was holidays, they also demonstrated higher than expected levels of visitation by people whose main reason for travel was VFR: • National Library; • Australian National Botanic Gardens; • Mt Ainslie Lookout; and • National Zoo and Aquarium (Table 33). This raises a question regarding the impact locals (e.g. the friends and relatives being visited) have upon the marketing of these attractions and how they might be used to increase the visitation of the VFR market to other attractions.
Table 33: Statistical differences: influence of reason for travel on visiting top 25 attractions Holiday VFR Attraction Expected Expected Value df p Actual n Actual n n n Australian War Memorial 617 566 149 200 40.137 1 0.000 Old Parliament House 485 459 136 162 10.175 1 0.001 Parliament House 498 441 99 156 49.644 1 0.000 National Gallery 429 418 136 148 1.906 1 0.167 ANZAC Parade 372 337 84 119 20.524 1 0.000 Telstra Tower 339 310 81 110 14.212 1 0.000 National Museum 339 304 72 107 21.991 1 0.000 National Portrait Gallery 267 256 79 90 2.358 1 0.125 Embassies 227 224 76 79 0.147 1 0.701 Cockington Green 205 194 57 68 2.912 1 0.088 Royal Australian Mint 215 188 40 67 17.043 1 0.000 National Library 183 186 68 66 0.101 1 0.751 Questacon 198 181 47 64 7.002 1 0.008 Australian National 169 177 71 63 1.626 1 0.202 Botanic Gardens Mt Ainslie Lookout 170 174 65 61 0.268 1 0.605 Canberra Museum/Gallery 167 155 43 55 4.083 1 0.043 High Court of Australia 130 121 33 43 2.961 1 0.085 National Capital Exhibition 113 104 27 37 3.379 1 0.066 National Carillon 31 28 89 92 0.403 1 0.526 National Zoo And 79 82 32 29 0.326 1 0.568 Aquarium AIS 87 78 19 28 3.541 1 0.060 Screensound Australia 79 72 18 25 2.678 1 0.102 National Archives 73 64 14 23 4.831 1 0.028 National Dinosaur Museum 66 61 17 22 1.448 1 0.229 Casino Canberra 63 56 13 20 3.379 1 0.066 Note: Underline indicates that statistical differences exist between people travelling for Holiday/Leisure vs. VFR.
31 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Domestic and international visitors Thirteen of the top 25 attractions showed significant statistical differences between domestic and overseas visitors, including seven of the top 10 attractions. The only three attractions from the top 10 that did not have statistical differences related to country of origin, as demonstrated via chi-square tests, were: • Telstra Tower; • National Portrait Gallery; and • Cockington Green (Table 34).
Table 34: Statistical differences: influence of country of origin on visiting top 25 attractions
Domestic Overseas Attraction Value df p Actual n Expected n Actual n Expected n
Australian War Memorial 639 661 122 100 12.686 1 0.000 Old Parliament House 522 536 95 81 4.908 1 0.027 Parliament House 467 515 126 78 60.775 1 0.000 National Gallery 506 490 58 74 6.419 1 0.011 ANZAC Parade 374 393 78 59 9.780 1 0.002 Telstra Tower 355 363 63 55 1.816 1 0.178 National Museum 339 353 67 53 5.479 1 0.019 National Portrait Gallery 309 298 34 45 3.771 1 0.052 Embassies 250 262 51 40 4.592 1 0.032 Cockington Green 235 226 25 34 3.089 1 0.079 Royal Australian Mint 233 221 21 33 5.939 1 0.015 National Library 213 218 38 33 0.910 1 0.340 Questacon 222 211 21 32 4.735 1 0.030 Australian National 193 208 46 31 8.985 1 0.003 Botanic Gardens Mt Ainslie Lookout 192 203 42 31 5.332 1 0.021 Canberra Museum/Gallery 175 180 32 27 1.188 1 0.276 High Court of Australia 130 141 32 21 6.498 1 0.011 National Capital Exhibition 105 121 34 18 16.459 1 0.000 National Carillon 99 103 20 16 1.569 1 0.210 National Zoo And 102 96 8 14 3.048 1 0.081 Aquarium AIS 97 92 8 14 2.515 1 0.113 Screensound Australia 90 84 7 13 2.655 1 0.103 National Archives 80 76 7 11 2.094 1 0.148 National Dinosaur Museum 76 72 7 11 1.698 1 0.193 Casino Canberra 69 66 7 10 1.075 1 0.300 Note: Underline indicates that statistical differences exist between people from Australia compared with those from overseas.
32 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Major domestic markets A chi-square test was conducted to compare values for the three largest Australian markets: New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland (as per Table 8). There were only seven attractions from the top 25 that did not have statistical differences between those visitors from New South Wales and those from Victoria and Queensland, as demonstrated via chi-square tests. The seven are: the National Gallery, Cockington Green, National Library, National Capital Exhibition, National Zoo and Aquarium, National Dinosaur Museum and Casino Canberra (Table 35). As an example of the level of differences between the major domestic markets; Parliament House had approximately 50% more people from outside New South Wales visiting than would be expected (actual=208, expected=140), and only two-thirds of the number from New South Wales actually visited compared to what would be expected (actual=163, expected=231).
Table 35: Statistical differences: influence of state of origin from three largest markets on visiting top 25 attractions New South Wales Victoria Queensland Attraction Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual Expected Value df p n n n n n n Australian War 276 326 136 119 111 79 50.129 2 0.000 Memorial Old Parliament House 221 266 114 97 92 64 40.095 2 0.000 Parliament House 163 231 124 84 84 56 85.533 2 0.000 National Gallery 267 269 100 98 64 65 0.132 2 0.936 ANZAC Parade 148 185 76 67 73 45 37.951 2 0.000 Telstra Tower 130 179 87 65 70 43 52.812 2 0.000 National Museum 146 171 70 62 59 41 16.944 2 0.000 National Portrait Gallery 128 155 63 56 57 37 21.083 2 0.000 Embassies 89 125 59 46 53 30 39.703 2 0.000 Cockington Green 123 127 39 46 41 31 5.985 2 0.050 Royal Australian Mint 90 120 57 44 45 29 25.484 2 0.000 National Library 109 106 31 39 30 26 2.815 2 0.245 Questacon 99 118 54 43 36 2 9.783 2 0.007 Australian National 68 102 54 37 42 25 37.476 2 0.000 Botanic Gardens Mt Ainslie Lookout 75 97 41 35 39 23 19.409 2 0.000 Canberra 45 81 47 29 37 19 48.702 2 0.000 Museum/Gallery High Court of Australia 31 61 42 22 25 15 43.946 2 0.000 National Capital 43 53 27 19 15 13 5.869 2 0.053 Exhibition National Carillon 42 53 21 19 22 13 9.922 2 0.007 National Zoo And 52 52 16 19 15 13 1.014 2 0.602 Aquarium AIS 30 47 29 17 16 11 17.792 2 0.000 Screensound Australia 41 46 11 17 21 11 12.360 2 0.002 National Archives 32 42 118 15 18 10 9.535 2 0.009 National Dinosaur 40 40 12 15 12 10 1.089 2 0.580 Museum Casino Canberra 34 34 10 12 10 8 0.897 2 0.639 Note: Underline indicates that statistical differences exist between people from NSW compared with Victoria and Queensland.
33 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Gender Five of the top 10 attractions demonstrated a significant difference, tested via a chi-square test, in visitation based upon gender (Table 36). They were: • Australian War Memorial; • Parliament House; • National Gallery; • ANZAC Parade and Memorials; and • National Portrait Gallery. Both the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery had higher than expected rates of female visitors, with the reverse being true for the Australian War Memorial, Parliament House and ANZAC Parade and Memorials, with lower than expected rates of female visitors.
Table 36: Statistical differences: influence of gender on visiting top 25 attractions
Female Male Attraction Value df p Actual n Expected n Actual n Expected n
Australian War Memorial 429 461 328 296 12.587 1 0.000 Old Parliament House 365 375 251 241 1.124 1 0.289 Parliament House 337 359 253 231 5.966 1 0.015 National Gallery 371 343 192 220 10.058 1 0.002 ANZAC Parade 250 274 200 176 7.712 1 0.005 Telstra Tower 247 253 168 162 0.378 1 0.539 National Museum 238 247 168 159 1.100 1 0.294 National Portrait Gallery 226 208 116 134 4.985 1 0.026 Embassies 182 183 118 117 0.000 1 0.992 Cockington Green 158 159 103 102 0.002 1 0.961 Royal Australian Mint 145 155 109 99 1.687 1 0.194 National Library 145 151 103 97 0.614 1 0.433 Questacon 144 149 100 96 0.337 1 0.562 Australian National 150 144 87 93 0.597 1 0.440 Botanic Gardens Mt Ainslie Lookout 137 141 95 91 0.299 1 0.584 Canberra Museum/Gallery 116 127 92 81 2.684 1 0.101 High Court of Australia 90 99 72 63 1.933 1 0.164 National Capital Exhibition 83 84 55 54 0.008 1 0.929 National Carillon 78 72 41 47 1.205 1 0.272 National Zoo And 65 67 45 43 0.087 1 0.768 Aquarium AIS 61 64 44 41 0.251 1 0.617 Screensound Australia 55 58 41 38 0.403 1 0.525 National Archives 49 52 36 33 0.394 1 0.530 National Dinosaur Museum 56 50 26 32 2.027 1 0.155 Casino Canberra 41 47 35 30 1.617 1 0.203 Note: Underline indicates that statistical differences exist between females and males.
34 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
NCAA Member Cross-Visitation and Correlations This section focuses upon visitation to and between National Capital Attractions Association (NCAA) member attractions based upon responses to the list of 39 attractions in the ACT that respondents had visited on their current trip. The following highlights, for each NCAA member, what the top five other NCAA member attractions visited were (from the list of 39) by those 1,341 people visiting the ACT for holiday/leisure or to visit friends and relatives. Eight of the original 39 attractions were eliminated for the purposes of analysis of cross-visitation and correlations as they were not on the NCAA Members list. The eight attractions were: ANZAC Parade and Memorials, Australian Reptile Centre, Bywong Mining Town, Canberra Museum and Gallery, The Embassies, High Court of Australia, Mt Ainslie Lookout and Mugga Mugga. Tables 31-69, presented in alphabetical order, list the top five other NCAA member attractions visited by those who indicated that they had visited each of the 31 NCAA member attractions. The percentage indicates the proportion of those who visited the primary attraction who also visited the other attractions (e.g. 79% (n=84) of those who visited the AIS also visited the Australian War Memorial). Two measures of proximity are calculated for those attractions with visits greater than 80 (e.g. 19 of the attractions). The Jaccard Measure finds the proportion of cases that have ‘yes-yes’ when the total excludes the ‘no-nos’, e.g. the number of times a person visited both attractions divided by the number of times a person visited one or other or both of the attractions. As an example, the Jaccard measure for the AIS and Australian War Memorial (AWM) is calculated as follows: • 106 people indicated they visited the AIS; • 766 indicated they visited the AWM; • Of those people who visited the AIS and the AWM, 84 people visited both attractions; • 22 (e.g. 106-84) visited the AIS only; so • 682 (e.g. 766-84) visited the AWM only. Thus the Jaccard Measure = 84/(84+22+682) = .107, or 10.7% of all people who visited the AIS and/or the AWM visited both of the attractions as represented in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Example of calculating Jaccard measures
The Phi 4-Point Correlation finds the correlation between the two columns of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ (range is from -1 to +1). A positive correlation (e.g. a positive number) indicates that an increase in attendance at one is related to an increase in attendance at the other, while a negative correlation (e.g. a negative number) indicates that an increase in attendance at one is related to a decrease in attendance at the other. These results have implications for if and how multiple attractions might be marketed together. These results must also be read in conjunction with the results discussed in the next section as to which attractions were visited before and after. As noted later, there is a strong link between those attractions within the geographical location of the parliamentary triangle as well as along the axis from Mt Ainslie to Parliament House. Additional examples of attractions that demonstrate a relationship with other attractions in similar geographical locations include: • Australian Institute of Sport with Telstra Tower (Table 37); • Australian National Botanic Gardens with Telstra Tower (Table 38); • Blundell’s Cottage with Parliament House and the Australian War Memorial (Table 40); and • Cockington Green and National Dinosaur Museum (Table 45).
35 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Table 37: Australian Institute of Sport (n=106) Other NCAA Member Attractions Jaccard Phi 4-Point % Visited: Measure Correlation 1. Australian War Memorial 79% 0.107 0.131 2. Parliament House 72% 0.121 0.160 3. Old Parliament House 61% 0.098 0.088 4. Telstra Tower and Black 59% 0.136 0.178 Mountain 5. Questacon 48% 0.170 0.226* Lowest Phi: National Gallery -0.099^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 38: Australian National Botanic Gardens (n = 240)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Jaccard Phi 4-Point % Visited: Measure Correlation
1. Australian War Memorial 66% 0.186 0.082 2. Parliament House 58% 0.199 0.126 3. Old Parliament House 58% 0.191 0.105 4. Telstra Tower and Black 55% 0.248 0.234* Mountain 5. National Gallery of Australia 46% 0.158 0.035 Lowest Phi: National Dinosaur Museum and GEO-Science 0.009^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 39: Australian War Memorial (n = 766)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Jaccard Phi 4-Point % Visited: Measure Correlation
1. Parliament House 60% 0.511 0.364* 2. Old Parliament House 56% 0.442 0.212 3. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 44% 0.390 0.302 4. National Gallery of Australia 39% 0.285 -0.085^ 5. Royal Australian Mint 28% 0.267 0.266 *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 40: Blundell’s Cottage (NCA) (n=43)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: %
1. Parliament House 81% 2. Australian War Memorial 79% =2. Old Parliament House 79% 4. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 63% 5. National Museum 40% =5. National Portrait Gallery 40%
36 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Table 41: Calthorpe’s House (n=21)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % 1. Old Parliament House 91% 2. Australian War Memorial 76% 3. Cockington Green 48% =3. National Gallery of Australia 48% =3. National Portrait Gallery 48% =3. Parliament House 48%
Table 42: Canberra Deep Space Communication (n=45)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: %
1. Australian War Memorial 82% 2. Parliament House 69% =2. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 69% 4. National Museum 62% 5. Old Parliament House 60%
Table 43: Canberra Space Dome (n=72)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: %
1. Australian War Memorial 78% 2. National Museum 61% 3. Old Parliament House 60% =3. Parliament House 60% =3. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 60%
Table 44: Casino Canberra (n=76)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % 1. Australian War Memorial 76% 2. Old Parliament House 68% 3. Parliament House 62% 4. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 51% 5. National Museum 42%
Table 45: Cockington Green (n=262) Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation 1. Australian War Memorial 70% 0.218 0.131 2. Old Parliament House 53% 0.188 0.070 =2. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 53% 0.258 0.235 4. Parliament House 53% 0.193 0.085 5. National Museum 36% 0.160 0.052 Highest Phi: National Dinosaur Museum 0.240* Lowest Phi: National Gallery -0.181^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
37 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Table 46: CSIRO Discovery Centre (n=38)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: %
1. Australian War Memorial 87% 2. Old Parliament House 68% =2. Parliament House 68% 4. National Museum 61% 5. National Botanic Garden 53%
Table 47: Electoral Education Centre (n=66)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: %
1. Old Parliament House 94% 2. Australian War Memorial 83% 3. Parliament House 79% 4. National Portrait Gallery 76% 5. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 61%
Table 48: Geo-Science Australia (n=9)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: %
1. Australian War Memorial 89% =1. National Museum 89% 3. Parliament House 78% 4. Old Parliament House 67% 5. Questacon 56%
Table 49: Kamberra Wine Tourism Complex (n=18)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: %
1. Australian War Memorial 67% =1. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 67% 2. Anzac Parade and Memorials 33% =2. Australian National Botanic Gardens 33% =2. Cockington Green 33%
Table 50: Lanyon Homestead (n=24)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: %
1. Australian War Memorial 71% 2. National Gallery of Australia 63% =2. Old Parliament House 63% 4. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 42% 5. National Portrait Gallery 38% =5. Parliament House 38%
38 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Table 51: National Archives of Australia (n=87) Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation 1. Old Parliament House 72% 0.098 0.138 2. Australian War Memorial 62% 0.068 0.082 =2. National Gallery of Australia 62% 0.090 0.106 4. National Portrait Gallery 56% 0.128 0.184 5. National Library 53% 0.158 0.231* Lowest Phi: National Zoo & Aquarium -0.024^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 52: National Capital Exhibition/Regatta Point (n=140)
Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation
1. Australian War Memorial 71% 0.124 0.099 2. Parliament House 69% 0.150 0.165 3. Old Parliament House 63% 0.131 0.113 4. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 57% 0.167 0.190* 5. National Museum 51% 0.150 0.154 Lowest Phi: National Zoo & Aquarium -0.058^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 53: National Carillon (n = 120)
Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation
1. Australian War Memorial 77% 0.116 0.124 2. Parliament House 69% 0.131 0.155 3. Old Parliament House 67% 0.121 0.128 4. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 51% 0.151 0.188 5. National Museum 48% 0.123 0.120 Highest Phi: Blundell’s Cottage 0.328* Lowest Phi: GEO-Science 0.006^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 54: National Dinosaur Museum (n=83) Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation 1. Australian War Memorial 68% 0.071 0.054 2. Cockington Green 57% 0.158 0.240* 3. Parliament House 52% 0.068 0.038 4. Questacon 51% 0.147 0.215 5. National Museum 47% 0.086 0.091 =5. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 47% 0.067 0.087 Lowest Phi: National Gallery -0.100^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
39 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Table 55: National Gallery of Australia (n=565) Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation 1. Australian War Memorial 52% 0.285 -0.085 2. Old Parliament House 51% 0.321 0.080 3. Parliament House 41% 0.249 -0.059 4. National Portrait Gallery 39% 0.315 0.249 5. National Museum 35% 0.258 0.088 Highest Phi: National Library 0.268* Lowest Phi: Cockington Green -0.181^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 56: National Library of Australia (n = 251)
Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation
1. National Gallery of Australia 70% 0.273 0.268* 2. Old Parliament House 61% 0.211 0.137 3. Australian War Memorial 53% 0.161 -0.036 4. Parliament House 47% 0.160 0.020 5. National Portrait Gallery 45% 0.233 0.211 Lowest Phi: Cockington Green -0.082^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 57: National Museum of Australia n = 411 Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation 1. Australian War Memorial 69% 0.320 0.164 2. Parliament House 61% 0.333 0.225* 3. Old Parliament House 59% 0.310 0.174 4. National Gallery of Australia 49% 0.258 0.088 5. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 40% 0.250 0.130 Lowest Phi: Lanyon Homestead -0.017^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 58: National Portrait Gallery (n=346)
Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation
1. Old Parliament House 86% 0.445 0.471* 2. National Gallery of Australia 63% 0.262 0.249 3. Australian War Memorial 61% 0.236 0.049 4. Parliament House 57% 0.262 0.144 5. National Museum 43% 0.247 0.162 Lowest Phi: National Zoo & Aquarium -0.066^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
40 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Table 59: National Zoo and Aquarium (n=111) Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation 1. Australian War Memorial 64% 0.088 0.042 2. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 45% 0.104 0.089 3. Questacon 42% 0.152 0.187* 4. Parliament House 36% 0.060 -0.051 5. Cockington Green 35% 0.117 0.118 Lowest Phi: National Gallery -0.097^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 60: Nolan Gallery (n=20)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: %
1. Australian War Memorial 90% 2. National Gallery of Australia 80% 3. Old Parliament House 70% 4. National Portrait Gallery 65% 5. Parliament House 60%
Table 61: Old Bus Depot Markets (n=52)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: %
1. National Gallery of Australia 62% 2. Old Parliament House 56% 3. Australian War Memorial 52% =3. Parliament House 52% 5. National Portrait Gallery 46%
Table 62: Old Parliament House (n=621) Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation 1. Australian War Memorial 68% 0.442 0.212 2. Parliament House 62% 0.462 0.327 3. National Portrait Gallery 48% 0.445 0.471* 4. National Gallery of Australia 46% 0.321 0.080 5. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 40% 0.316 0.179 Lowest Phi: National Zoo & Aquarium -0.084^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
41 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Table 63: Parliament House (n=597) Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation 1. Australian War Memorial 77% 0.511 0.364* 2. Old Parliament House 65% 0.462 0.327 3. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 49% 0.403 0.340 4. National Museum of Australia 42% 0.333 0.225 5. National Gallery of Australia 39% 0.249 -0.059^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 64: Questacon (n=245)
Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation
1. Australian War Memorial 69% 0.201 0.113 2. Parliament House 58% 0.203 0.128 3. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 49% 0.222 0.184 4. Old Parliament House 48% 0.156 0.014 5. National Museum 40% 0.174 0.092 Highest: Royal Australian Mint 0.248* Lowest Phi: National Gallery -0.044^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 65: Royal Australian Mint (n=255)
Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation
1. Australian War Memorial 84% 0.267 0.266 2. Parliament House 68% 0.253 0.224 3. Old Parliament House 62% 0.218 0.148 4. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 59% 0.286 0.287* 5. National Museum 44% 0.200 0.135 Lowest Phi: National Gallery -0.121^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 66: Screensound Australia (n=97) Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation 1. Australian War Memorial 82% 0.102 0.143 2. Old Parliament House 73% 0.110 0.151 3. Parliament House 62% 0.095 0.097 4. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 55% 0.114 0.140 5. National Museum 53% 0.112 0.133 Highest Phi: National Archives 0.213* Lowest Phi: National Zoo & Aquarium -0.032^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
42 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Table 67: Southern Cross Cruises (n=29)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: %
1. Australian War Memorial 62% 2. Parliament House 55% 3. Old Parliament House 52% 4. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 48% 5. National Museum 45%
Table 68: Telstra Tower and Black Mountain (n=420)
Jaccard Phi 4-Point Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: % Measure Correlation
1. Australian War Memorial 79% 0.390 0.302 2. Parliament House 70% 0.403 0.340* 3. Old Parliament House 60% 0.316 0.179 4. National Museum 40% 0.250 0.130 5. Royal Australian Mint 36% 0.222 0.287 Lowest Phi: National Gallery -0.133^ *indicates the highest correlation and ^ indicates the lowest correlation
Table 69: Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve (n=43)
Other NCAA Member Attractions Visited: %
1. Australian War Memorial 67% 2. Deep Space Communication Complex 51% =2. Parliament House 51% =2. Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 51% 4. National Gallery 49% =4. Old Parliament House 49%
Travel Patterns between All Attractions This section focuses primarily on the top 10 attractions visited (for stays up to four days) for all people in the ACT for holiday, leisure and VFR, as indicated in Question 2 of Section Three of the main questionnaire (Appendix A). These ten attractions accounted for 60% of all attraction visits over four days. Attractions ranked 11 to 20 accounted for a further 21% of visits. Additional analysis of what attractions were visited before and after each of the top 10 attractions for Day 1 visitation (37% of all holiday/leisure and VFR visits over the four days, Day 2 was 36% of visits, Day 3, 18%, and Day 4, 9%) is provided.
Top 20 attractions As reflected in Figure 12 and Table 70, the top 10 attractions present a reasonably consistent ranking regardless of which day they were visited. Collectively the top 10 account for 60% of all visits and the top 20 account for 81%, with the other 19% of visits being spread over more than 140 other attractions, events and activities. Differences between the results presented here compared with those reported in the previous section (above) (which are based on two different questions in Section Three) may be a result of differences in how people recall their trip, the timing of completing the questionnaire and possibly their knowledge of the names of the places they visited. For example, Old Parliament House is ranked number two based on responses to Question 1 (list of
43 ACT ATTRACTIONS
39 attractions, Table 29) but number three based upon responses to Question 2 (Table 70); the National Carillon is ranked number 19 based on responses to Question 1, but number 24 based upon answers to Question 2.
Table 70: Top 20 Attractions visited over four days – % of all
Attraction Day 1 % Day 2 % Day 3 % Day 4 % Total %
Australian War Memorial 13 11 9 8 11.2 Parliament House 10 8 8 6 8.4 Old Parliament House 8 9 8 5 8.1 National Gallery 9 9 6 5 8.0 National Museum 5 6 7 5 5.4 Telstra Tower & Black 6 5 5 4 5.1 Mountain ANZAC Parade and Memorials 5 3 3 2 3.7 Questacon 3 4 3 5 3.4 Cockington Green 3 3 4 4 3.4 National Library 3 4 2 3 3.3 Royal Australian Mint 3 3 5 5 3.3 Embassies 4 3 3 3 3.1 Mt Ainslie Lookout 4 2 2 2 2.7 Australian National Botanic 2 2 3 6 2.6 Gardens National Portrait Gallery 2 3 3 1 2.4 High Court 2 2 2 0 1.6 National Capital Exhibition 2 2 2 2 1.6 National Zoo and Aquarium 1 2 2 3 1.4 AIS 1 1 2 2 1.3 Screensound Australia 1 1 2 3 1.3 TOTAL 87 83 81 74 81.3
14 Australian War Memoria 12 Parliament House Old Parliament House 10 National Gallery 8 National Museum 6 Telstra Tower Percent 4 ANZAC Parade 2 Questacon 0 Cockington Green Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 National Library
Figure 12: Proportion of total daily visitation – top 10 attractions
44 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Over four days, the top 10 attractions decreased from 65% on Day 1 of total visitation to 47% on Day 4, which may suggest there is an increasing importance of other attractions, events and activities the longer people stay. Eight of the top 10 attractions are within a very limited geographic area, which is discussed further below.
Travel patterns and mode of transport As noted earlier, 79% of visitors used either their own car or a hire car to travel to the ACT. A cross tabulation of the top 10 attractions with the main type of travel to the ACT (Table 71) revealed that a higher proportion of people who used their own cars visited Telstra Tower and Questacon – these are also two of the attractions that tended to attract proportionately more people travelling with children (Table 31). Those with the lowest rate of private car use included Parliament House, Old Parliament House, the National Library, Cockington Green and the National Museum.
Table 71: Top 10 attractions visited over four days: cross tabulation with main type of travel to ACT
Car: Own or Attraction Airline % Bus % Other % Rental %
Australian War Memorial 78 9 7 6 Parliament House 76 10 8 7 Old Parliament House 76 11 8 7 National Gallery 77 11 7 6 National Museum 75 11 8 7 Telstra Tower 81 10 5 5 ANZAC Parade 78 7 8 7 Questacon 81 8 7 5 Cockington Green 75 7 5 7 National Library 71 12 10 7 TOTAL 79 9 6 7
With more than 70% of visitors who used cars for transport to the ACT, there does not appear to be a major impact on visitation to attractions outside those attractions within the parliamentary triangle. For the top 10 attractions further investigation of what is influencing travel decisions, feedback on the ease of travel and navigation around the ACT as well as awareness of other attractions would assist in understanding how best to encourage visitors to move beyond a limited area within the parliamentary triangle.
Other attractions visited before and after on Day 1 The attractions visited before and after on Day 1 have been analysed for the top 10 attractions visited. There are usually around three to four attractions which together account for around 60% of visits before and after visiting each of the top 10 attractions. Of note is the large percentage of people who do not visit another attraction after visiting some of the key attractions. The figures provide a visual representation of the flow of people, where the arrow thickness reflects the percentage values. The following Tables and Figures are in the ‘Top 10’ order of visitation on Day 1 (Table 71) as indicated in responses to Question 2 in Section Three of the main questionnaire (Appendix A).
Table 72: Australian War Memorial – pre and post visitation, Day 1 Attractions Visited Before % Attractions Visited After % ANZAC Parade & Memorials 20 No Other Attraction 42 Parliament House 16 ANZAC Parade & Memorials 12 Old Parliament House 14 Parliament House 7 National Gallery 9
45 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Figure 13: Australian War Memorial – pre and post visitation, Day 1
Table 73: Parliament House – pre and post visitation, Day 1 Attractions Visited Before % Attractions Visited After % Old Parliament House 25 No Other Attraction 28 Australian War Memorial 18 Old Parliament House 23 National Museum 8 Australian War Memorial 8
Figure 14: Parliament House – pre and post visitation, Day 1
46 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Table 74: Old Parliament House – pre and post visitation, Day 1 Attractions Visited Before % Attractions Visited After % Parliament House 38 No Other Attraction 23 Australian War Memorial 12 Parliament House 18 National Gallery 10 National Portrait Gallery 13 Australian War Memorial 9
Figure 15: Old Parliament House – pre and post visitation, Day 1
Table 75: National Gallery – pre and post visitation, Day 1 Attractions Visited Before % Attractions Visited After % Old Parliament House 15 No Other Attraction 49 National Library 13 Old Parliament House 7 Parliament House 11 National Library 6 Australian War Memorial 9 Australian Archives 8
Figure 16: National Gallery – pre and post visitation, Day 1
47 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Table 76: National Museum – pre and post visitation, Day 1 Attractions Visited Before % Attractions Visited After % Australian War Memorial 19 No Other Attraction 46 Parliament House 14 Parliament House 11 National Gallery 11 Old Parliament House 8 Telstra Tower & Black Mountain 8
Figure 17: National Museum – pre and post visitation, Day 1
Table 77: Telstra Tower and Black Mountain – pre and post visitation, Day 1 Attractions Visited Before % Attractions Visited After % Parliament House 16 No Other Attraction 51 Australian War Memorial 15 Australian War Memorial 6 Embassies 10 Royal Australian Mint 9
Figure 18: Telstra Tower and Black Mountain – pre and post visitation, Day 1
48 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Table 78: ANZAC Parade and Memorials – pre and post visitation, Day 1 Attractions Visited Before % Attractions Visited After % Australian War Memorial 51 No Other Attraction 35 Parliament House 10 Australian War Memorial 32 Parliament House 7
Figure 19: ANZAC Parade and Memorials – pre and post visitation, Day 1
Table 79: Questacon – pre and post visitation, Day 1 Attractions Visited Before % Attractions Visited After % National Gallery 17 No Other Attraction 49 Parliament House 11 Parliament House 8 Old Parliament House 11 Cockington Green 8
Figure 20: Questacon – pre and post visitation, Day 1
49 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Table 80: Cockington Green – pre and post visitation, Day 1 Attractions Visited Before % Attractions Visited After % Australian War Memorial 18 No Other Attraction 43 Parliament House 18 National Dinosaur Museum 12 National Museum 12 Australian War Memorial 10 Telstra Tower and Black Mountain 8
Figure 21: Cockington Green – pre and post visitation, Day 1
Table 81: National Library – pre and post visitation, Day 1 Attractions Visited Before % Attractions Visited After % National Gallery 23 No Other Attraction 41 Old Parliament House 15 National Gallery 13 National Portrait Gallery 11 Old Parliament House 9 National Museum 9
Figure 22: National Library – pre and post visitation, Day 1
50 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Travel patterns and the tourist gaze The mapping of the locations of the top 20 attractions visited on Day 1 as per the order of visitation indicated in Question 2 of Section Three (Figure 23) emphasises the apparent impact that Walter Burly Griffin’s design has had upon visitation patterns, with a large proportion of total visitation occurring within a narrow geographical area. This map should be considered in conjunction with the analysis of relationships between attractions in the NCAA Member Cross-Visitation and Correlations section, as well as the discussion at the beginning of this report on tourist mobility and the tourist gaze.
Figure 23: Location of top 20 attractions – Day 1
Canberra, as a planned city, is a design to be seen from above, such as from Mt Ainslie Lookout. The tourist who gazes along the main axis from Mt Ainslie Lookout (13) is also in direct line with another six of the top 20 attractions visited over four days (Table 70): • Australian War Memorial (1); • Parliament House (2); • Old Parliament House (3); • ANZAC Parade and Memorials (7); • Questacon (8); and • National Portrait Gallery (15). Together these seven attractions account for 40% of all visitations over four days. A further four within the parliamentary triangle account for an additional 15% of visitation: • National Gallery (4); • National Library (10); • High Court (16); and • National Capital Exhibition (17). This geographic clustering is a point of consideration as the National Portrait Gallery plans for relocation. The area bounded by Commonwealth Avenue, Kings Avenue and Parkes Way represents 37% of visitation; by including the Australian War Memorial and ANZAC Parade this increases to 52%. While location is important, it is not a guarantee of visitation. For example, the National Carillon (1.0% of visits) and Blundells Cottage (0.4% of visits) are both within the ‘golden triangle’ of visitation, but do not have
51 ACT ATTRACTIONS comparable visitation patterns to the other key attractions. An area for further investigation would be visitor awareness, information and signposting of these attractions to explore why visitors do or do not visit these locations, even though they are convenient to other major attractions. For those outside the top 20 of tourist attractions, there may be an opportunity to position and market themselves either on the back of the other key attractions in similar geographical locations and/or thematically, for example: • Geo Science and CSIRO Discovery working in conjunction with Telstra Tower; • National Dinosaur Museum in conjunction with Cockington Green; • An international relations theme, e.g. Embassies; • A heritage theme, e.g. Calthorpe House, Blundell’s Cottage, National Archives, Bywong Town; • A natural heritage theme, e.g. National Zoo and Aquarium and National Botanic Gardens; and • A food and wine theme, e.g. Kamberra Winery Complex and Fyshwick markets.
Length of stay at attractions Many of the top 10 attractions have a high percentage of visitors who do not go on to another attraction (Table 82). A contributing factor may be the amount of time spent at those attractions, but in the case of an attraction such as the Telstra Tower, as it is often an attraction that is visited second, third or later in the day, it may be more a result of being the final attraction for the day. This is in contrast to an attraction such the Australian War Memorial or the National Gallery, which might be visited first or second, but for extended periods of time up to eight hours.
Table 82: Attractions with the highest percentage of visitors who do not go onto another attraction
Attractions %
Telstra Tower and Black 51% Mountain National Gallery 49%
Questacon 49%
National Museum 46%
Cockington Green 43%
Australian War Memorial 42%
National Library 41% ANZAC Parade and 35% Memorials Parliament House 28%
Old Parliament House 23%
The average length of stay for the top 10 attractions (Table 83 and Figure 24), calculated from arrival and departure times of respondents, shows that for seven of the 10 attractions, the length of stay if visited first (Order 1) ranged from close to two hours (Old Parliament House) to nearly four hours (Questacon), while the other three are just over one hour. The average length of stay for Day 1 visits for all the top 10 ranged from one hour (ANZAC Parade) to more than 2.5 hours for both the Australian War Memorial and Questacon. The length of stay has implications for visitor management strategies such as parking, rest areas and food and beverage provision as well co-promotion and packaging of attractions. For example, the National Gallery has some parking limits of three hours, the average length of stay on Day 1 is from 80 minutes to two hours forty minutes – would people stay longer if there was available parking for more than three hours for gallery visitors? The Australian War Memorial has two cafés, one of which is away from the main building – would people stay longer if there were a variety of cafés/restaurants within the main galleries? The length of stay to ANZAC Parade and Memorials is around one hour – would people stay longer if there were facilities to sit and reflect along the way, or is the area designed to be driven past?
52 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
With respect to co-promotion of attractions, being aware of the length of stay may highlight what other attractions may be packaged, such as meal deals between attractions, shopping breaks and spa treatments at the end of the day or a ‘Canberra Attractions Pass’ giving unlimited access to all participating attractions. Another aspect relates to how a recommended attraction itinerary may be put together and what, if any, creative transport options may be provided, e.g. a ferry between lakeside attractions, or bicycle hire and storage locations around the lake.
Table 83: Day 1 average length of stay at top 10 attractions (minutes)
Day 1 Order 1 Order 2 Order 3 Order 4 Average
Australian War Memorial 189 144 119 116 167
Parliament House 124 116 86 69 112
Old Parliament House 113 86 66 52 88
National Gallery 160 117 95 80 141
National Museum 156 115 119 91 128
Telstra Tower 76 58 81 64 70
ANZAC Parade & Memorials 74 56 40 44 60
Questacon 210 133 173 69 165
Cockington Green 119 89 79 30 110
National Library 82 75 88 57 80
250
AWM 200 PH
OPH 150 NGA Museum 100 Library
Telstra Twr
50 ANZAC Questacon 0 Cockington
Order 1 Order 2 Order 3 Order 4 Library
Day 1
Figure 24: Day 1 length of stay at top 10 attractions (minutes)
Recommended attractions and length of stay Respondents were asked to provide a list of recommended attractions and length of stay at those attractions. The top 6 recommendations are exactly the same as the top six visited attractions and in the same order of visitation (Table 84), with two of the remaining recommendations, the National Botanic Gardens and the Royal Australian Mint, replacing the ANZAC Parade and Memorials and the National Library from the top 10 visited attractions.
53 ACT ATTRACTIONS
The fact that the ANZAC Parade and Memorials is not in the top 10 recommendations may in part be due to people not distinguishing the memorials from the Australian War Memorial, which is both the most visited and recommended attraction.
Table 84: Recommended attractions
Top 10 Visited Attractions Top 10 Recommended Attractions Australian War Memorial 81% Australian War Memorial Parliament House 70% Parliament House Old Parliament House 54% Old Parliament House National Gallery 53% National Gallery National Museum 44% National Museum Telstra Tower 41% Telstra Tower ANZAC Parade and Memorials 34% Questacon Questacon 27% National Botanic Gardens Cockington Green 26% Royal Australian Mint National Library 25% Cockington Green
In addition to a recommended order, respondents were also asked to provide a recommended length of stay at each attraction. Table 85 summarises those attractions with the most recommendations as well as the average recommended length of stay for the 1,146 respondents who provided at least one recommendation in Order 1. A few notable points are: • There are four attractions with recommended lengths of stay of four hours or more. The 5.3 hours for the Australian War Memorial may also include visiting ANZAC Parade which received only 1% of recommendations; • The top three attractions account for 67% of recommendations in Order 1, but by Order 3 have dropped to 33% of recommendations; and • By Order 4 the highest recommendation is No Recommendation at 15%, with actual attractions having a highest recommendation of 8%. By Order 5 No Recommendation has increased to 25%, with the highest attraction being 6%. These recommendations provide insight into how people may perceive ‘visitation fatigue’, e.g. how many attractions they could cope with. These results may vary if the recommendations could be mapped across a number of days, and not just a ranking of one to 10. Another variation would be to prompt for what other activities would be appealing, such as playing in a park for people travelling with children.
Table 85: Recommended order of visitation and recommended length of stay
Order 1 Attraction Order 1 Order 2 Order 3 Order 4 Order 5 Ave Hrs
Australian War Memorial 36% 5.3 16% 10% 7% 4% Parliament House 16% 2.7 17% 15% 8% 6% National Gallery 15% 3.4 8% 8% 7% 4% Questacon 7% 4.8 6% 5% 4% 3% National Museum 5% 4.0 9% 7% 5% 5% Old Parliament House 4% 2.6 15% 13% 8% 4% Telstra Tower 2% 1.4 2% 4% 6% 6% Cockington Green 2% 3.0 2% 3% 4% 4% National Zoo and Aquarium <2% 4.4 1% <2% <2% <2% National Botanic Gardens <2% 3.5 3% 3% 4% 3% No recommendation 3% 7% 15% 25%
54 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Table 86 summarises what attractions are recommended in Order 2 and 3 when one of the top 10 attractions is recommended as Order 1. What stands out is the predominance of the top three attractions which are also the top visited attractions: Australian War Memorial, Parliament House and Old Parliament House. Using the average recommended hours from Table 84, the top ranked itinerary in Table 85 would take up to 11 hours of time in the three attractions.
Table 86: Recommended attractions itinerary: to ‘Order 3’
Order 1 n Order 2 Order 3
Australian War Memorial 407 Parliament House (25%) Old Parliament House (21%) Parliament House 178 Old Parliament House (39%) Australian War Memorial (23%) National Gallery 177 National Museum (21%) Australian War Memorial (15%) Questacon 76 Australian War Memorial (30%) Australian War Memorial (19%) National Museum 51 Australian War Memorial (22%) Parliament House (28%) Old Parliament House 50 Parliament House (49%) Australian War Memorial (38%) Telstra Tower 25 Australian War Memorial (24%) Parliament House (22%) Cockington Green 23 Australian War Memorial (26%) Parliament House (36%) National Zoo & Aquarium 20 Australian War Memorial (39%) Questacon (33%) National Botanic Gardens 15 Australian War Memorial (27%) National Gallery (27%)
While there appears to be a consistent reference to the key attractions, a difference is noted when the recommendations are further analysed between those travelling with and without children (Table 87). As with the previous analysis, there are some attractions that appeal more to those travelling with children than those travelling in adult groups. Questacon received six times the number of recommendations to visit it first (Order 1) by those travelling with children. In contrast, the Australian War Memorial received approximately one-third less recommendations from those travelling with children, although the Australian War Memorial stilled ranked number one for both groups.
Table 87: Top recommendations: travelling with and without children
Order 1 Order 1 Order 2 Order 2 Order 3 Order 3 Attraction With No With No With No Children % Children % Children % Children % Children % Children %
Australian War Memorial 27 39 18 16 13 10 Parliament House 13 17 17 17 16 16 National Gallery 14 16 7 9 7 10 Questacon 18 3 13 3 9 4 National Museum 3 5 7 10 9 7 Old Parliament House 4 4 12 16 10 16 Telstra Tower 1 2 3 2 4 4 Cockington Green 3 2 3 1 5 2 National Zoo & Aquarium 4 1 1 1 2 1 National Botanic Gardens 1 1 1 3 4 4
55 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Travel Diaries To obtain additional in-depth data, 400 travel diaries (Appendix B) were distributed, of which 229 (57%) were returned during May 2005. Respondents indicated which day of their trip their diary related to.
Travel plans – importance of information sources Respondents were asked to rate the level of importance of seven information sources from 1 = ‘Not at all important’ to 5 = ‘Extremely important’ (Table 88). Of note are the importance of information from the Canberra and Region Visitors Centre (89% rated as 3-5, 30% rated it as ‘extremely important’), previous experience of the area (79% rated 3-5, 34% rated it as ‘extremely important’) and from friends and/or relatives (60% rated as 3-5). Conversely, information sources with high responses rates to ‘Not at all important’ (e.g. rated as 1) included TV or radio advertising (70%), TV travel shows (63%), information from internet (47%) and brochures from accommodation (41%). The importance of information from previous experiences presents an opportunity to develop marketing strategies and information sources that build upon this previous experience. The role of locals is also significant, thus heightening the need for the local market to be well-informed of changing events, activities and displays at the attractions.
Table 88: Information sources to plan travel
Not at all Extremely Information Source important important
Information from friends and/or relatives 27% 13% 29% 16% 15% My own experience of previous visits to ACT 12% 9% 15% 30% 34% Information from the Visitor’s Centre 5% 6% 19% 40% 30% Brochures from my accommodation 41% 19% 21% 14% 6% Information from the internet 47% 7% 13% 19% 14% Advertising on the TV or radio 70% 13% 9% 6% 2% TV travels shows 63% 15% 11% 6% 5% Other 55% 2% 14% 9% 21%
Day and time of attraction visitation The peak day and time periods reported are represented in Table 89 for those completing the travel diaries, with the peak periods for visiting attractions being Day 2 (10-12pm) and Day 1 (2-4pm).
Table 89: Peak visitation times
Day and Time %
Day 2, 10-12pm 66 Day 1, 2-4pm 57 Day 2, 2-4pm 50 Day 1, 4-6pm 46 Day 2, 12-2pm 43 Day 1, 10-12pm 42
56 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Length of stay of visit Table 90 summarises the 83 responses (36%) indicating how long people were visiting the ACT area. Of the 83 responses, the range was from one to 10 days, with an average length of stay of 2.5 days, this contrasts with the 3.6 nights reported in the main survey (Table 15). However the main survey gathered data from across a range of holiday periods and events and so may be impacted by those factors.
Table 90: Length of stay (days)
Length of Stay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Frequency 18 35 18 5 1 2 3 0 0 1 83 Percentage 22% 42% 22% 6% 1% 2% 4% 0% 0% 1% 100%
Other activities apart from visiting attractions The structure of the diary provided five key activities: attractions, accommodation, shopping, food and beverage and transport (based upon the pilot diaries). An analysis of the diaries, as presented in Figures 25, 26 and 27, demonstrates the distribution of time across those activities. The other major ‘attraction’, apart from essentials such as travel, food and accommodation, is shopping. It is unclear from the data whether this would be a major factor in attracting people from surrounding areas, but it is obviously an activity that many visitors do participate in.
160
140
120 Attractions 100 Accommodation 80 Shopping 60 Food and Beverage Transport 40
20
0 8-10am 10-12pm 12-2pm 2-4pm 4-6pm 6-8pm Time Periods Figure 25: Travel diaries: Day 1
160 140
120 Attractions 100 Accommodation 80 Shopping 60 Food and Beverage Transport 40
20
0 8-10am 10-12pm 12-2pm 2-4pm 4-6pm 6-8pm Time Periods
Figure 26: Travel diaries: Day 2
57 ACT ATTRACTIONS
160
140
120 Attractions 100 Accommodation 80 Shopping 60 Food and Beverage Transport 40
20
0 8-10am 10-12pm 12-2pm 2-4pm 4-6pm 6-8pm Time Periods
Figure 27: Travel diaries: Day 3
Figure 28 presents the percentage of people who indicated they were not attending an attraction for each time period, broken down by which day of their trip they completed the diary. There is a small sample size for Day 3 (n=5). This highlights that at any time between 9am and 5pm around 60% of visitors are not attending an attraction. This result presents a challenge to those marketing attractions.
100%
80%
60% Day 1 (n=47) Day 2 (n=41) 40% Day 3 (n=5)
20%
0% 8-9am 9- 10- 11am- 12- 1-2pm 2-3pm 3-4pm 4-5pm 5-6pm 6-7pm 10am 11am 12pm 1pm
Figure 28: Not attending attractions
58 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Chapter 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study had two aims. Firstly, to examine the economic impact of ACT attractions through analysing direct tourist expenditure attributable to the attractions as well as the expenditure by the attractions themselves within the ACT economy. The approach used was a modified version of Carlsen and Wood’s (2005) study related to the economic impact associated with natural areas, applying the concepts of attribution and substitution to secondary visitor data to provide an estimate of the direct visitor expenditure associated with ACT attractions. Secondly, the study aimed to explore the attraction visitation and travel patterns of tourists in the ACT for holidays, leisure and VFR by analysing tourist visitation, length of stay and travel recommendations. A visitor survey was undertaken for 15-20 days a month between October 2004 and June 2005 at attractions, the Canberra and Region Visitors Centre and the Jolimont Bus Interchange, to capture a sample of holiday/leisure and VFR visitors to the ACT. A total of 1341 surveys were completed from 2777 distributed (indicating a 54% response rate). Data were collected on the attractions visited, the order of visitation, of time spent at attractions, recommendations for future itineraries and the importance of ACT attractions in respondents’ visit decisions (the attribution effect) and whether they would have travelled elsewhere if the ACT attractions did not exist (substitution effect). Expenditure data were then multiplied by secondary data provided by Australian Capital Tourism on the holiday/leisure/VFR market to the ACT to estimate the total visitor expenditure attributable to ACT attractions and the amount likely to be foregone if the attractions did not exist. A supply side survey was designed in order for the ACT attractions to collect local income, expenditure and employment data. However, only seven responses were received, with many unable to disaggregate ACT and non-ACT sources. Therefore, the data that were provided by the attractions themselves has not been used in the report. A second survey conducted via a travel diary investigated more in-depth information on travel patterns on one day of tourists’ visit to the ACT, as well as information used in making travel decisions. The visitor sample was comprised of slightly more females, more respondents who are not employed and a greater proportion of domestic visitors from Victoria and Queensland than New South Wales compared with NVS data. Furthermore, more international visitors from the United Kingdom and the United States were present compared to those from China or other countries. However, overall the sample was fairly consistent with secondary data for holiday/leisure/VFR visitors, with 85% from domestic visitors (with half from New South Wales) and a similar number travelling with children compared to secondary data. Results illustrated a strong proportion of visitors from the sample were on their first trip to the ACT in the last five years. Such visitors included a greater proportion of those aged 20-29 and 50-59 years, from states and territories other than New South Wales and who travelled for holiday/leisure purposes. The purpose of visit affected accommodation use, with a higher degree of commercial accommodation used by the sample compared to NVS/IVS data. The average length of stay of the study sample was slightly higher than the NVS data for domestic visitors and substantially higher than the IVS data for international visitors. A total of 62.6% of respondents were deemed to have been significantly motivated by the ACT attractions thus their expenditure was attributed to the attractions. A total of 61.5% noted they would have travelled to the ACT even if the attractions did not exist, compared with 38.5% who would have travelled elsewhere (with their spending foregone). Those respondents who are more highly motivated by attraction visitation, and would have substituted their visit if the attractions did not exist, tended to be more recent visitors in the ACT for holiday or leisure purposes, travelling with children and staying overnight for between one and seven nights. Overall respondents spent approximately $212 per person ($52 per day tripper and $227 per overnight visitor). The three largest economic sectors related to overnight spend included accommodation, food and beverages and shopping. For day trippers the three highest sectors included shopping, food and beverages and transport. Respondents on their first visit to Canberra in the last five years, and who identified themselves as holiday/leisure visitors, aged 50-59 years, from Queensland, Western Australia or Tasmania and/or travelling without children all spent significantly higher amounts per person than other groups. Based on economic sectors, accommodation received higher spends from those who were on their first trip to the ACT in the last five years, holiday/leisure visitors and those aged 50-59 years. The retail sector received more from visitors aged 50-59 years and those from states/territories other than New South Wales. Based on secondary data a total of between $249 and $265 million of direct visitor expenditure is estimated to be attributable to the ACT attractions per annum, with between $96 and $102 million estimated to be foregone if the ACT attractions did not exist. Visitation to attractions was primarily centred upon ten main attractions which accounted for more than 60% of visitation, with 37% of visitation being within a limited geographic location bounded by Commonwealth Avenue, Kings Avenue and Parkes Way. This raises issues related to marketing those attractions outside this
59 ACT ATTRACTIONS geographic area. The length of stay at these main attractions averaged around two hours, with some visitors indicating that they were at attractions for up to eight hours. Those people who did not go onto another attraction following a visit to one of the top 10 were in excess of 50% of visitors in some cases. The arrival day for visitors was centred on the weekend, with 43% arriving on Friday or Saturday, with the length of stay of just over three nights suggesting a short stay or long weekend travel agenda. Attraction visitation patterns were demonstrated to be influenced by factors such as travelling with children, reason for travel, origin and gender. Travelling with children also impacted recommended attraction itineraries, where eight of the top 10 visited attractions were also in the top 10 recommended attractions. Of the NCAA member attractions, 74% are federally owned. Tests for relationship demonstrated that strong relationships existed between attractions in similar geographic locations. Shopping was another key activity for visitors, which would often consume some of the time of the 60% of visitors who at any one time may not be at one of the main attractions. Based on the results, several recommendations for further research, product development and marketing can be provided, which may be of interest or applicable to tourism destinations with large numbers of attractions.
Product Development and Marketing Recommendations • It is recommended that ACT attractions develop a coordinated strategy to encourage greater support (perhaps through sponsorship and joint marketing activities) from the economic sectors which benefit from attraction-motivated spending on a year-round basis. Only 7% of total visitor expenditure was spent directly on the attractions sector, with the accommodation, food and beverage and transport sectors the biggest beneficiaries. For joint marketing or sponsorship related to the day trip market, the retail industry could be suitable partners as they receive 33% of day trip spend and 17% of overall total spending. • Explore what ‘packaging’ of diverse attractions would be of interest to visitors, e.g. cultural attractions, shopping and food and beverage. • It is recommended that Australian Capital Tourism continue to encourage new holiday/leisure visitors, with a particular emphasis on high-yield visitors identified in this research, including holiday/leisure visitors aged 50-59 who travel without children from states/territories other than New South Wales. They appear to be the higher spending segments that could be considered high-yield visitors from the research presented in this report. • It is recommended that ACT attractions continue to support Australian Capital Tourism’s marketing campaigns into new geographic markets such as Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, as it appears that these origin markets are more likely to be on their first trip to the ACT within the last five years, and therefore more likely to be motivated by the attractions and to have substituted their trip if the attractions did not exist. They are also more likely to spend greater amounts of money in the ACT, as they travel for holiday/leisure purposes and stay in commercial accommodation. • Develop marketing strategies to build upon visitors’ previous experience as well as informing the local market as part of reaching the VFR market.
Research Recommendations • In order for more extensive economic impact research to be conducted in the future, it is recommended that ACT attractions consider ways in which to develop and produce supply side economic data (income, expenditure, employment etc), broken down by ACT and non-ACT sources. This would allow consistency and an ability to provide such data for decision making and lobbying. • It is recommended that ACT attractions consider ways in which to measure the economic impact and visitor expenditure of business travellers and other groups. Although this study focused on holiday/leisure and VFR visitors only, a proportion of business and other travellers were initially surveyed and results indicated that a proportion do extend their stay and spend because of ACT attractions. Further research is needed to quantify the extent of this and provide estimates of this amount. • Further investigation of what is influencing travel decisions, feedback on the ease of travel and navigation around the ACT as well as visitor awareness of other attractions would assist in understanding how best to encourage visitors to move beyond the limited area within the parliamentary triangle. Additionally, further investigation of information and signposting of these attractions to explore why visitors do or do not visit these locations, despite being convenient to other major attractions. • Research into thematic tourist routes that incorporate a wider array of attractions and geographic locations, e.g. heritage, natural heritage and food and wine.
60 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
• Research into attraction itinerary recommendations, mapped across several days as well as what other activities would be appealing in the context of an attraction itinerary, e.g. shopping, playgrounds, recreational activities etc. • Research into the importance of shopping as a specific attractor to the ACT is needed. • Explore what is influencing low attraction visitation levels following attendance at major attractions.
61 ACT ATTRACTIONS
APPENDIX A: VISITOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Dr. Brent Ritchie STCRC ACT Network Coordinator Tourism Program University of Canberra Ph: (02) 6201 5016 Email: [email protected]
ACT Attractions Study
Thank you for agreeing to take part in this important study of visitors to the natural, cultural and sporting attractions in the National Capital (ACT). The information provided in this survey will be used by the National Capital Attractions Association and the ACT Tourism Industry to determine the economic impact and travel patterns of visitors to the ACT. The aims of the study are to understand the economic contribution of visitors to the ACT due to the attractions sector and to determine the order and magnitude of visitation to the ACT attractions. This information will assist the attractions sector to develop more appropriate attraction packages and promotions for visitors
We would be grateful if you could spend a few minutes to complete this questionnaire, and return it via the enclosed reply paid envelope within two weeks of receiving this survey. Please be assured that your answers will be strictly confidential and only collectively analysed together with all other participants. The results of the survey will be produced in summary tables and charts and no individual response will be shown.
As an additional INCENTIVE, all those who complete and return the questionnaire will be entered in a draw for a CASH PRIZE of $500 (Lottery Permit No TP04/4509). To be in the draw you must return your questionnaire by 1st May 2005. Be sure to provide your contact details at the end of the questionnaire. This will be separated from the rest of the survey before analysis commences ensuring the identity of respondents will remain confidential. The prize will be drawn on Monday 30th May 2005. A reply paid envelope is included for your convenience.
If you would like any further information about the survey please contact me at the address provided above.
Yours sincerely
Dr. Brent Ritchie Project Coordinator
62 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
The majority of the questions in this survey relate to your most recent visit to the ACT and any visitation to the natural, cultural and sporting attractions in the ACT.
Section One: Visitation to the ACT All questions in this section relate to your most recent visit to the ACT apart from question 1.
1. Excluding the most recent trip, how many times have you visited the ACT in the past five years?
Number of visits Month and year of your last visit?
2. Please provide the arrival and departure dates of your most recent visit to the ACT. Date of arrival / / Date of departure / /
3. What was the MAIN reason for your visit to the ACT on this trip?
Day Trip Sport Visiting Friends/relatives Short Break Curiosity To see Canberra the Capital Holiday Event/festival Education / training Passing Through Business/conference The Attractions Other (please specify)
4. What type of accommodation did you predominantly use while staying in the ACT?
Did not stay over night Motel Hotel With friends/relatives Caravan park Apartment Hostel B & B/guest house Other
5. How many days and nights did you stay in the ACT during this trip?
Days Nights
6. If your MAIN purpose of travel to the ACT was business/conference related, how many extra days or nights (if any) did you stay in the ACT because of the attractions?
None because of the ACT attractions Extra Days Extra Nights
7. What was your MAIN type of transport used to travel to the ACT for this trip?
Own Car Bus Taxi Rental Car Bicycle On foot Airline Train Other
8. What town/city did you stay in immediately before and after your trip to the ACT?
Night Before Night After
63 ACT ATTRACTIONS
9. How many people did you travel with during this trip?
Family members Friends Tour group Work colleagues TOTAL
10. If you travelled with children please indicate the number of children in each of the following age groups?
0 – five years 6 – 10 years 11 – 14 years 15 – 18 years
11. How important were the ACT Attractions in your decision to visit the ACT?
Not important Somewhat important Neutral Quite important Very Important
12. If the ACT Attractions did not exist would you have…
Travelled to the ACT anyway? Travelled within another Australian state? Travelled to another country?
Section Two: Economic Impact
1. Is you trip to the ACT part of a package? Yes No Æ skip to Question 5
2. How much is this package per person (in Australian dollars)? ______
3. How many nights does this cover? ______nights
4. How many nights in the ACT does this cover? ______nights
5. Please advise how much was spent in total on each of the following activities whilst in the ACT? (Please write spending in Australian dollars. If you cannot give separate amounts for each item, put a total estimation in the total box. If you are a on a package, please only list additional items of expenditure in the ACT and not those covered by the package. If you are a business traveller please list only additional expenditure incurred as a direct result of an increased length of stay due to the attractions).
Accommodation A$______ Transport (fuel, parking tickets etc) A$______ Food & Beverage (meals & snacks) A$______ Shopping A$______ Entertainment (show, movies etc) A$______ Attractions (entry fees, food, souvenirs) A$______Total A$______
6. How many people does the spending listed in this section cover? ______people
64 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Section Three: Travel Patterns
1. What attractions did you visit during your stay in the ACT?
ANZAC Parade & Memorials Mugga Mugga Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) National Archives of Australia Australian National Botanic Gardens National Capital Exhibition/Regatta Point Australian Reptile Centre National Carillon Australian War Memorial (AWM) National Dinosaur Museum Blundells’ Cottage National Gallery of Australia Bywong Mining Town Village National Library of Australia Calthorpes House National Museum of Australia Canberra Museum/Gallery National Portrait Gallery (Old Parl’t House) Canberra Space Dome & Observatory National Zoo & Aquarium Casino Canberra Nolan Gallery Cockington Green Old Parliament House CSIRO Discovery Parliament House Tour Deep Space Communication Complex Questacon/National Science & Technology Centre Electoral Education Centre (Old Parl’t Royal Australian Mint House) Embassies (Drive/Circuit/Tour) Screen Sound Australia Geo-Science Australia – AGSO Southern Cross Cruises High Court of Australia Telstra Tower / Black Mountain Lanyon Homestead Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve Mt Ainslie Lookout Other (list)______ Other (list) Other (list)______
2. For each day of your visit to the ACT please indicate the order in which you visited the attractions and an estimate of your arrival and departure time. You may have visited an attraction on day one and another on day three of your visit in the ACT. If so, you would leave day two blank.
Day One Order of ACT Attraction Arrival Departure Visitation Time Time 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Day Two Order of ACT Attraction Arrival Departure Visitation Time Time 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
65 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Day Three Order of ACT Attraction Arrival Departure Visitation Time Time 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Day Four Order of ACT Attraction Arrival Departure Visitation Time Time 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Additional Days Day ACT Attraction Arrival Departure Time Time
3. In your opinion, did you visit …
A lot fewer attractions than expected Fewer attractions than expected About the same number as you expected More attractions than expected A lot more attractions than expected
4. If you were to recommend a future trip itinerary to friends and family, please list up to ten ACT attractions in the order you would advise them to visit and the amount of that time you would recommend to fully experience each attraction listed.
Order of ACT Attraction Time Required at the visitation attraction (hours) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
66 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Section Four: About You
1. What is your gender? θ Female θ Male
2. In which of the following age brackets do you belong?
Under 19 30-39 50-59 70-79 20-29 40-49 60-69 Over 80
3. What is your highest level of education?
Year 10 Apprenticeship University degree Year 12 College/TAFE Diploma Post graduate degree Other (please specify)
4. What is/was your usual occupation?
Manager/administrator Manual Professional and related Clerical Tradesperson Other (specify) θ Driver/equipment operator θ Sales/service
5. In which of the following categories would your total household income fit into (before tax in Australian dollars)?
Less than $20,000 $40,000 to $ 59,999 $80,000 to $99,999 $20,000 to $39,999 $60,000 to $79,999 $100,000 +
6. Do you live in Australia?
Yes, what is your postcode? No, in what country?
Thank you. This concludes the survey.
Please place the completed questionnaire in the reply paid envelope provided and post it back as soon as possible. Again, thank you very much for taking part in this study! Don’t forget to complete the form below to be included in the prize draw. This form is detached prior to data analysis to protect confidentiality.
------
SURVEY PRIZE FORM
Please enter your details here and return the questionnaire in the reply paid envelope by 1st May
2005 to be in the draw for the $500 cash prize.
Name: ______Telephone: (___)______
Email: ______
67 ACT ATTRACTIONS
APPENDIX B: TRAVEL DIARY
68 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Section One: Travel Plans Please indicate the degree of importance that each of the following had when planning where you went today (circle one number for each) Not at all Extremely important important a. Information from friends and/or relatives 1 2 3 4 5 b. My own experience of previous visits to ACT 1 2 3 4 5 c. Information from the Visitor’s Centre 1 2 3 4 5 d. Brochures from my accommodation 1 2 3 4 5 e. Information from the internet 1 2 3 4 5 f. Advertising on the TV or radio 1 2 3 4 5 g. TV travels shows 1 2 3 4 5 h. Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5
Section Two: Travel Diary Please indicate in the Table below the activities that you undertook today while visiting the A.C.T. in hourly blocks. (Please try to be as specific as possible i.e. include names of cafes, shops, attractions etc and how much money (in Australian dollars) you spent on each activity. This diary is only required for one day of your trip. The following is an example:
Time Activity A$ Spent 8.00am - Breakfast at Brassey’s Hotel (my accom) $17 9.00am Drive past Embassies on way to National Museum 9.00am - Visiting National Museum 10.00am
10.00am Morning tea at National Museum $12 - Travel to Civic to go clothes shopping at $225 11.00am David Jones
1. This diary is for (tick one): Day 1 of my trip Day 2 Day 3 Other (please specify): 2. I am visiting the A.C.T. area for (tick one): 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days Other (please specify):
Time Activity A$ Spent 8.00am Attractions: - Eating: 9.00am Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other 9.00am Attractions: - Eating: 10.00am Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other
69 ACT ATTRACTIONS
Time Activity A$ Spent 10.00am Attractions: - Eating: 11.00am Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other 11.00am Attractions: - Eating: 12.00pm Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other 12.00pm Attractions: - Eating: 1.00pm Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other 1.00pm Attractions: - Eating: 2.00pm Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other 2.00pm Attractions: - Eating: 3.00pm Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other 3.00pm Attractions: - Eating: 4.00pm Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other
70 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
4.00pm Attractions: - Eating: 5.00pm Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other 5.00pm Attractions: - Eating: 6.00pm Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other 6.00pm Attractions: - Eating: 7.00pm Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other 7.00pm Attractions: - Eating: 8.00pm Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other 8.00pm Attractions: - Eating: Evening Shopping: Tours/Sightseeing: Travel: Other TOTAL A$
Thank you. This concludes the survey.
Please place the completed questionnaire in the reply paid envelope provided and post it back within a week. Don’t forget to complete the form below to be included in the prize draw for $500 and to receive your $20 gift voucher. This form is detached prior to data analysis to protect confidentiality.
SURVEY INCENTIVE PRIZE FORM
Name: ______Telephone: (___)______
Home Address: ______
71 ACT ATTRACTIONS
APPENDIX C: ATTRACTION SURVEY INSTRUMENT
EVALUATING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE A.C.T. ATTRACTIONS The information provided here will assist the Sustainable Tourism CRC, University of Canberra, assess the economic impact of the ACT Attractions. All information will be treated in-confidence and only used in aggregate. Either: Print this page, complete and return by mail or fax (6201 2649) OR fill in the spreadsheet and return via email to [email protected]
Thank you for taking the time to assist this research
A. Your staff (at the end of financial year 2003/04) 1. How many staff, including ‘active friends’ and volunteers, worked for your institution? Number Number Total from from Category of staff Number of Notes within outside staff ACT ACT 1.1 Total number of paid full-time staff 0 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4: Please 1.2 Total number of paid part time staff 0 provide the total number 1.3 Total FTE paid staff 0 of people employed / working in each 1.4 Unpaid staff: volunteers and ‘active 0 category. friends’ 1.3, 1.5: FTE = full-time equivalent 1.5 Total FTE unpaid staff 0
B. Your visitors (total attendance for financial year 2003/04) Visitors Visitors from from Total visitors within outside 2. Off-site visitors: exclude visitors to your ACT ACT exhibitions or programs 2. On-site attendance 0 in other locations.
C. Financial information (for financial year 2003/04) 3. TOTAL INCOME: Your institution’s total annual revenue and capital funds received Amount Amount 3.1 Public funding: from from from Total state/territory & federal Income source govt sources. within outside Amount 3.3 Earned income ACT ACT include income from 3.1 Public funding $0 admission fees, educational events & 3.2 Private funding (gifts, donations, $0 fees, subscriptions & sponsorship) membership, retail sales 3.3 Earned income $0 (e.g. café, shop), other trading activities, 3.4 TOTAL INCOME $0 $0 $0 interest & investment income.
72 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
4. OPERATING COSTS: Value of costs associated with your institution’s day-to-day operation
Annual Annual 4.1 ‘Staff salaries & cost for cost for Total Annual wages’ include all Type of payment ACT non-ACT employee benefits Cost sources / sources / (overtime, bonuses, suppliers suppliers employer’s superannuation & 4.1 Staff salaries and wages $0 insurance occupational 4.2 All other operating costs $0 pensions, expenses) & regularly contracted 4.3 TOTAL OPERATING $0 $0 $0 services e.g. security or EXPENDITURE maintenance.
5 Capital expenditure: 5. TOTAL CAPITAL payments during year for $0 EXPENDITURE/INVESTMENT buildings, exhibitions, other fixed assets.
73 ACT ATTRACTIONS
REFERENCES
ACT Auditor-General’s Office (2002). Performance Audit Report. V8 Car Races in Canberra – Costs and Benefits, ACT Auditor-General’s Office, Canberra. Bowden, J. (2003). ‘A Cross-National Analysis of International Tourist Flows in China’, Tourism Geographies, 5: 257-279. Brand, S., Gripaios, P. & McVittie, E. (2000). The Economic Contribution of Museums in the South West, South West Museums Council: Somerset, England. Braun, B., Xander, J. & White, K. (2002). ‘The Impact of the Cruise Industry on a Region’s Economy: A Case Study of Port Canaveral, Florida’, Tourism Economics, 8(3): 281-288. Bull, A. (1996). ‘The Economics of Cruising: An Application to the Short Ocean Cruise Market’, Journal of Tourism Studies, 7(2), 28-35. Carlsen, J. & Wood, D. (2005). Assessment of the Economic Value of Recreation and Tourism in Western Australia’s National Parks, Marine Parks and Forests, Sustainable Tourism CRC, Gold Coast. Cegielski, M., Janeczko, B., Mules, T. & Wells, J. (2001). The economic value of tourism to places of cultural heritage significance: A case study of three towns with mining heritage, Sustainable Tourism CRC, Gold Coast. Chase, G. & McKee, D. (2003). ‘The Economic Impact of Cruise Tourism on Jamaica’, Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(2): 16-22. Crompton, J.L. & Tan, K.T. (1973). ‘A Model of Tourism Flow into the Pacific’, Revue de Tourisme, 33: 12-23. Deery, M., Jago, L., Fredline, E. & Dwyer, L. (2005). National Business Events Study: An Evaluation of the Australian Business Events Sector, Sustainable Tourism CRC, Gold Coast. Dwyer, L. & Forsyth, P. (1996). ‘Economic Impacts of Cruise Tourism in Australia’, Journal of Tourism Studies, 7(2): 36-43. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P. & Spurr, R. (2004). ‘Evaluating Tourism’s Economic effects: New and Old Approaches’, Tourism Management, June: 307-317. Dybedal, P. (1998). Theme Parks as Flagship Attractions in Peripheral Areas, Unit of Tourism, Research Centre of Bornholm, Bornholm. Finn, A. & Erdem, T. (1995). ‘The Economic Impact of a Mega-Multi-Mall: Estimation Issues in the Case of the West Edmonton Mall’, Tourism Management, 16(5): 367-373. Fretchling, D. (1994). ‘Assessing the Economic Impacts of Tourism’, in: Ritchie, B. & Goeldner, C.R. (eds.), Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Garnett, R. (2002). The Impact of Science Centers/Museums on their Surrounding Communities, Questacon, Canberra. Groves, I. (2005). Towards a Model for Assessing the Economic Impact of Science Centres on Their Local Communities, Questacon, Canberra. Hall, C.M. & Page, S.J. (2002). The Geography of Tourism and Recreation; Environment, place and space, 2nd edition, Routledge, London. Hall, C.M. (2005). Tourism: Rethinking the social science of mobility, Pearson Education, Harlow, United Kingdom. Hansen, T., Christoffersen, H. & Wanhill, S. (1998). ‘The Economic Evaluation of Cultural and Heritage Projects: Conflicting Methodologies’, Tourism, Culture and Communication, 1: 27-48. Harris, P. (1997). ‘Limitations on the Use of Regional Economic Impact Multipliers by Practitioners: An Application to the Tourism Industry’, Journal of Tourism Studies, 8(2): 50-61. Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1985). ‘Inner City Tourism: Resources, Tourists, Promoters’, Annals of Tourism Research, 13(1): 79-100. Jasper, A. (2000). The Economic Impact of the Eden Project 1st April to 1st October 2002. Eden Project, Cornwall. Johnson, P. & Thomas, B. (1992). Tourism, Museums and the Local Economy, Edward Elfgar, Aldershot. Johnson, R. & Moore, E. (1993). ‘Tourism Impact Estimation’, Annals of Tourism Research, 20: 279-288. Krakauer, T.H. (2001). The North Carolina Museum of Life and Science: Economic Impact Analysis, The North Carolina Museum of Life and Science, Durham, North Carolina. Law, C.M. (2002). Urban Tourism, 2nd edition Continuum, London. Leiper, N. (1990). ‘Tourist Attraction Systems’, Annals of Tourism Research, 17: 367-384. Lew, A. (1987). ‘A Framework of Tourist Attraction Research’, Annals of Tourism Research, 14(4): 553-75. Metro Chicago Information Center (MCIC) (2001). Museums & the Economy: an Economic Impact Study of Museums In the Park, Metro Chicago Information Center, Chicago. Morey & Associates (2001). Economic Impact Analysis of The Tech Museum of Innovation on Santa Clara County 1999, The Tech Museum of Innovation.
74 Direct Visitor Expenditure and Visitation Patterns Study
Mules, T., Faulks, P., Stoeckl, N. & Cegielski, M. (2005). The economic values of tourism in the Australian Alps, Sustainable Tourism CRC, Gold Coast. Page, S. (1995). Urban Tourism, Routledge, London. Persson P.E. (2000). ‘Community Impact of Science Centers: Is there Any?’, Curator: The Museum Journal 43(1): 9-18. Richardson, S.L. & Crompton, J.L. (1988). ‘Vacation Patterns of French and English Canadians’, Annals of Tourism Research, 15: 430-35. Ritchie, B.W. (1998). ‘Bicycle Tourism in the South Island of New Zealand: Planning and management issues’, Tourism Management, 19: 567-582. Scott, Kenney & Partners (2003). Economic Impact Study: The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk Inc, South Norwalk, CT, Scott, Kennedy and Partners, Westpoint, Connecticut. Smith, A., Ritchie, B. & Filo, M. (2004). Discover What it Means to be an Australian in your National Capital: Size and Effect of School Excursions to the National Capital 2003, Centre for Tourism Research, University of Canberra, Canberra. Strauss, C. & Lord, B. (2001). ‘Economic Impacts of a Heritage Tourism System’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, July: 199-204. Stynes, D. (2004). ‘Economic Impact of Tourism’, viewed 20 April 2004, http://www.msu.edu/course/prr/840/ econimpact/pdf/ecimvol1.pdf. Stynes, D., Propst, D. & Sun, T. (2002). Economic Impacts of Visitors to Mount Rainier National Park, Michigan State University, Michigan. Urry, J. (2002). The Tourist Gaze, 2nd edition, SAGE Publications, London.
75 ACT ATTRACTIONS
AUTHORS
Dr Brent W. Ritchie Brent Ritchie is the network coordinator (ACT) for the Sustainable Tourism CRC at the University of Canberra. Prior to this Brent was a Senior Lecturer in Tourism Management at the University of Brighton, United Kingdom. His research interests include niche tourism markets, sport and event tourism, tourism and rural/regional development, crisis and disaster management for tourism, and tourism planning. Brent was involved in many STCRC projects at the University of Canberra from 1998 onwards including visitor satisfaction monitoring, community attitudes towards tourism, mountain tourism events, sport tourism scoping study and this current study. E-mail: [email protected]
Dr Tracey J. Dickson Tracey Dickson is Research Fellow with the Sustainable Tourism CRC at the University of Canberra where her main focus is developing research in the Snowy Mountains region. This research includes tourism motivations and experiences, snowsport safety and the social impacts of tourism. Prior to working in the academic world Tracey worked in outdoor education where her work and research interests were in the areas of risk management and facilitation of experiential learning. E-mail: [email protected]
76 00000 2007ReportCover_NoText 3/23/07 10:31 AM Page 2
The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC) is established under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program. STCRC is the world’s leading scientific institution delivering research to support the sustainability of travel and tourism - one of the world’s largest and fastest growing industries.
Research Programs
Tourism is a dynamic industry comprising many sectors from accommodation to hospitality, transportation to retail and many more. STCRC’s research program addresses the challenges faced by small and large operators, tourism destinations and natural resource managers.
Areas of Research Expertise: Research teams in five discipline areas - modelling, environmental science, engineering & architecture, information & communication technology and tourism management, focus on three research programs:
Sustainable Resources: Natural and cultural heritage sites serve as a foundation for tourism in Australia. These sites exist in rural and remote Australia and are environmentally sensitive requiring specialist infrastructure, technologies and management.
Sustainable Enterprises: Enterprises that adhere to best practices, innovate, and harness the latest technologies will be more likely to prosper.
Sustainable Destinations: Infrastructural, economic, social and environmental aspects of tourism development are examined simultaneously.
Education
Postgraduate Students: STCRC’s Education Program recruits high quality postgraduate students and provides scholarships, capacity building, research training and professional development opportunities.
THE-ICE: Promotes excellence in Australian Tourism and Hospitality Education and facilitates its export to international markets.
Extension & Commercialisation
STCRC uses its research network, spin-off companies and partnerships to extend knowledge and deliver innovation to the tourism industry. STCRC endeavours to secure investment in the development of its research into new services, technologies and commercial operations.
Australia’s CRC Program The Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program brings together researchers and research users. The program maximises the benefits of research through an enhanced process of utilisation, commercialisation and technology transfer. It also has a strong education component producing graduates with skills relevant to industry needs.
Website: www.crctourism.com.au I Bookshop: www.crctourism.com.au/bookshop I Email: [email protected] 00000 2007ReportCover_NoText 3/23/07 10:31 AM Page 3
Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre
CAIRNS NQ Coordinator Prof Bruce Prideaux DARWIN Tel: +61 7 4042 1039 NT Coordinator [email protected] Ms Alicia Boyle Tel: + 61 8 8946 7267 [email protected] BRISBANE SE QLD Coordinator Mr Noel Scott Tel: +61 7 3381 1024 PERTH [email protected] WA Coordinator Dr Jeremy Northcote NATIONAL NETWORK Tel: + 61 8 6304 2307 [email protected] LISMORE NSW Coordinator Regional Tourism Research ADELAIDE MELBOURNE Dr Jeremy Buultjens Tel: +61 2 6620 3382 SA Coordinator VIC Coordinator [email protected] Gary Crilley A/Prof Sue Beeton Tel: +61 8 8302 5163 Tel: +61 3 9479 3500 [email protected] [email protected] SYDNEY Sustainable Destinations Mr Ray Spurr HOBART CANBERRA Tel: +61 2 9385 1600 TAS Coordinator ACT Coordinator [email protected] Adjunct Prof Malcolm Wells Dr Brent Ritchie Tel: + 61 3 6226 7686 Tel: +61 2 6201 5016 [email protected] [email protected]
INDUSTRY PARTNERS UNIVERSITY PARTNERS SPIN-OFF COMPANIES
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TOURISM
CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd ABN 53 077 407 286 PMB 50 Gold Coast MC Queensland 9726 Australia Telephone: +61 7 5552 8172 Facsimile: +61 7 5552 8171 Chairman: Sir Frank Moore AO Chief Executive: Prof Terry De Lacy Director of Research: Prof Leo Jago Website: www.crctourism.com.au Bookshop: www.crctourism.com.au/bookshop Email: [email protected]