Prepared for: TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island CB Contact: Naomi Downer, Account Director Phone: (08)

Transcription

1 Prepared for: TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island CB Contact: Naomi Downer, Account Director Phone: (08) Issue Date: 14 November, 2016 Project number: TOMM0002

2 Contents. Addressing the TOMM Indicators... 9 Summary of TOMM Indicators Summary of Economic Indicators Summary of Experiential Indicators Summary of Environmental Indicators Introduction Background Research Objectives Research Methodology Weighting Questionnaire Design Restructuring & Reanalysis of Previous Wave Data Confidence Intervals Data cleaning Limitations of the Research Overall Findings & Considerations Economic Indicators Annual average number of nights stayed (EC1d) Recommendation of Kangaroo Island to others as a holiday destination (EC1e) Average expenditure per visit (EC1f) Annual number of visitors (EC1g) Satisfaction with customer service received (EC2c) Satisfaction with professionalism of tourism operators (EC2d) Compliments and complaints (EC2e) Average spend per night over $200 (EC3c) Summary of sub-groups scores for economic indicators Experiential Indicators Viewed wildlife in natural environment (EX1b) Experienced scenic variety without crowds (EX1c) Experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement (EX1d) Experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes (EX1e) Experienced areas of untouched natural beauty (EX1f) Experienced farming and rural landscapes (EX1g)

3 Experienced local Kangaroo Island produce (EX1h) Kangaroo Island offers one of Australia s top three nature & wildlife experiences (EX1i) Kangaroo Island has a friendly local community (EX1j) Agreement with positioning statement (EX1k) Matching expectation set by marketing materials (EX1l) Satisfaction with overall experience (EX1m) Seeing native wildlife in its natural environment (EX2a) Opportunity to learn more about the Island s natural environment (EX2b) Opportunity to learn more about the Island s history (EX2c) Range, quality and availability of activities (EX2d) Quality of accommodation (EX2e) Range, quality and availability of Kangaroo Island produce (EX2f) Quality of public tourism infrastructure (EX2h) Recommendation of Kangaroo Island as holiday destination (EX2i) Repeat visitation (EC2j) Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning (continued) Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition The majority of visitors leave the Island highly satisfied with their experience Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition The majority of visitors leave the Island highly satisfied with their experience (continued) Environmental Indicators Visits to natural areas occurring on managed sites (EN2b) Locations visited Awareness of quarantine regulations prior to arriving (EN2e) Visitor Profile Visitor Origin Age profile Incidence of repeat visitation Travel party Types of Accommodation Satisfaction with accommodation Credible vs. Experienced Attributes & Attractions Reasons for Dissatisfaction Suggestions for Improvement Exploration of those dissatisfied overall

4 Appendix A: Visitor Expenditure Incidence of Package Bookings Expenditure per visitor Appendix B: VES Questionnaire

5 Index of Tables Table 1: Margin of Error per number of responses 17 Table 2: Very Satisfied and Satisfied with overall experience on Kangaroo IslandError! Bookmark not defined. Table 3: Locations Visited on Kangaroo Island over time 70 Table 4: Awareness of quarantine regulations by first time and repeat visitors this wave 74 Table 5: Interstate Visitor Origin over time 76 Table 6: International Visitor Origin over Time 77 Table 7: Age profile of visitors (includes entire travel party) 79 Table 8: Repeat Visitation to Kangaroo Island by Visitor Origin over time 80 Table 9: Travel party by visitor origin over time 82 Table 10: Accommodation used over time 83 Table 11: Accommodation Used by Visitor Origin 84 Table 12: Satisfaction with accommodation types across waves 85 Table 13: Satisfaction with accommodation types this wave 86 Table 14: Credible vs. experienced attributes and attractions 87 Table 15: Satisfaction with Attributes 88 Table 16: Reasons for dissatisfaction 89 Table 17: Suggestions for improvement 90 Table 18: Who was dissatisfied? 91 Table 19: What were they dissatisfied with? 92 Table 20: Reasons for dissatisfaction (Q20) 93 Table 20: Booking Type by Visitor Origin 95 Table 21: Average expenditure per visitor 96 Table 22: Average daily expenditure per visitor 97 5

6 Index of Figures Figure 1: Length of stay over time 22 Figure 2: Average Number of Nights over Time 23 Figure 3: Average number of nights by visitor origin over time 24 Figure 4: Willingness to recommend 25 Figure 5: Increase in average annual total expenditure per person per visit 26 Figure 6: Increase in annual number of visitors 27 Figure 7: Satisfaction with customer service received 28 Figure 8: Satisfaction with professionalism of tourism operators 29 Figure 9: Number of compliments and complaints received 30 Figure 10: Average spend per night over $ Figure 11: Visitors that viewed Australia s wildlife in natural surroundings 34 Figure 12: Visitors that experienced scenic variety without crowds 35 Figure 13: Visitors that experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement 36 Figure 14: Visitors that experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes 37 Figure 15: Visitors that experienced areas of untouched natural beauty 38 Figure 16: Visitors that experienced farming and rural landscapes 39 Figure 17: Visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce 40 Figure 18: Visitors that experienced Kangaroo Island as one of Australia s top three nature & wildlife experiences 41 Figure 19: Visitors that experienced a friendly local community on Kangaroo Island 42 Figure 20: Visitors who agree that Kangaroo Island is a wild and welcoming destination [...] 43 Figure 21: Visitors stating that their experience matched or exceeded the expectation set by marketing materials 44 Figure 22: Visitors who were very satisfied with their overall experience on Kangaroo Island 45 Figure 23: Visitors who were satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment 46 6

7 Figure 24: Visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island s natural environment 47 Figure 25: Satisfaction with opportunity to learn more about the Island s history 48 Figure 26: Satisfaction with the range activities 49 Figure 27: Satisfaction with the quality of activities 50 Figure 28: Satisfaction with the availability of activities 51 Figure 29: Satisfaction with quality of accommodation 52 Figure 30: Satisfaction with the range of local Kangaroo Island produce 53 Figure 31: Satisfaction with the quality of local Kangaroo Island produce 54 Figure 32: Satisfaction with the availability of local Kangaroo Island produce 55 Figure 33: Satisfaction with the quality of picnic & day use areas 56 Figure 34: Satisfaction with the quality of interpretive & educational signage 57 Figure 35: Satisfaction with the quality of public toilets 58 Figure 36: Satisfaction with the quality of road signage 59 Figure 37: Satisfaction with the quality of campgrounds 60 Figure 38: Satisfaction with the quality of roads 61 Figure 39: Willingness to recommend 62 Figure 40: Repeat visitation 63 Figure 41: Proportion of visitations to natural areas occurring on managed sites 69 Figure 42: Awareness of quarantine regulations 71 Figure 43: Awareness of any quarantine regulations by repeat and first time visitors 72 Figure 44: Awareness of Prohibited Items 73 Figure 45: Visitor Origin over time 75 Figure 46: Profile of respondents 78 Figure 47: Incidence of repeat visitation to Kangaroo Island over time 80 Figure 48: Travel party over Time 81 Figure 49: Trip to Kangaroo Island part of travel package 94 7

8 Disclaimer TOMM does not represent or warrant that this information is correct, complete or suitable for the purpose for which you wish to use it. By using this information you acknowledge and agree to release and indemnify the TOMM for any loss or damage that you may suffer as a result of your reliance on this information. 8

9 Addressing the TOMM Indicators At the core of TOMM is a practical set of indicators that monitor the status of tourism on Kangaroo Island. A review of indicators was completed in the 2013/14 financial year to improve the monitoring of the impact of tourism on Kangaroo Island. The indicators that relate to the visitor experience have been measured through the annual Visitor Exit Survey since This document outlines the findings of the 2015/16 Visitor Exit Survey (VES). 9

10 Summary of TOMM Indicators Summary of Economic Indicators Optimal Conditions Ref Indicators Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Results EC1d Annual average number of nights stayed 4-7 nights 4.8 nights Tourism optimises economic benefits for Kangaroo Island EC1e Proportion of visitors that would recommend Kangaroo Island to others as a holiday destination EC1f Average annual total expenditure per visit 5% - 10% 90% - 100% 93% $ [5.9% increase] EC1g Annual number of visitors to Kangaroo Island 0-20%* 4.1% EC2c Proportion of visitors that are very satisfied with the level of customer service they receive 65% - 100% 56% Tourism operators excel in their business professionalism EC2d Proportion of customers that are highly satisfied with the professionalism of tourism operators 65% - 100% 52% EC2e The number of compliments and complaints received from visitors in positive comments in negative comments in positive comments in negative comments Kangaroo Island attracts its high yield target markets EC3c Proportion of visitors whose average spend per night exceeds $200 40% - 60% 35% 10

11 Summary of Experiential Indicators Optimal Conditions Ref Indicators Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Results EX1a Proportion of visitors that believe they experienced an authentic wilderness holiday 80% - 100% Question removed in 2013/14 EX1b Proportion of visitors that viewed wildlife in the natural environment 90% - 100% 96% Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning EX1c EX1d EX1e Proportion of visitors that experienced scenic variety without crowds Proportion of visitors that experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement Proportion of visitors that experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes 90% - 100% 97% 70% - 100% 76% 90% - 100% 99% EX1f Proportion of visitors that experienced areas of untouched natural beauty 90% - 100% 96% EX1g Proportion of visitors that experienced farming and rural landscapes 90% - 100% 90% * Acceptable range changed from 0-3% to 0-20% in

12 Optimal Conditions Ref Indicators Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Results EX1h Proportion of visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce 80% - 100% 83% EX1i Proportion of visitors that believe Kangaroo Island offers one of Australia s top three nature & wildlife experiences 70% - 100% 75% EX1j Proportion of visitors that believe Kangaroo Island has a friendly local community 80% - 100% 92% Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning EX1k Proportion of visitors who agree that Kangaroo Island is a wild and welcoming destination, that will surprise and amaze you, relax your mind, refresh your spirit and make you feel totally alive. It provides an opportunity to view and to discover all the scenic variety of mainland Australia 70% - 100% 84% EX1l Proportion of visitors that state that their experience matched or exceeded the expectation set by marketing materials 80% - 100% 93% EX1m Proportion of visitors very satisfied with their overall experience on Kangaroo Island 90% - 100% 82% 12

13 Optimal Conditions Ref Indicators Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Results The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their experience EX2a EX2b EX2c Ex2d EX2e EX2f EX2g EX2h EX2i Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island s natural environment Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island s history Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the range, quality and availability of activities available Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the quality of accommodation Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the range, quality and availability of Kangaroo Island produce Proportion of visitors that are very satisfied with the level of customer service they receive Proportion of visitors that are very satisfied with the quality of public tourism infrastructure (toilets, roads, campgrounds, picnic areas and signage) provided on Kangaroo Island Proportion of visitors that would recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination to others as a result of their experience 70% - 100% 58% 70% - 100% 45% 70% - 100% 36% 70% - 100% 42% - 47% 70% - 100% 44% 70% - 100% 44% - 52% 80% - 100% 54% 60% - 100% 28-48% 90% - 100% 93% EX2j Proportion of repeat visitation 30% - 50% 32% 13

14 Summary of Environmental Indicators Optimal Conditions Ref Indicators Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Results Visitor activity has minimal negative impacts on the natural environment EN2b EN2e Proportion of visitations to natural areas occurring on managed sites Proportion of visitors aware of quarantine regulations prior to arriving on Kangaroo Island 70% - 100% 76% 70% - 100% 68% 14

15 Introduction Background Tourism is a key contributor to economic growth and development on Kangaroo Island, next to agriculture, with both boosting productivity and providing a source of stable employment for residents. TOMM (the Tourism Optimisation Management Model) was developed to monitor the effect of tourism from a variety of perspectives (including environmental, economic, socio-cultural and visitor experience) in the interests of both residents and visitors. The model is a community based initiative responsible for monitoring and managing the long term sustainability of tourism on the island. The initiative is overseen by a Management Committee with support and representatives from the community, industry and Government agencies. At the core of TOMM is a practical set of indicators that monitor tourism on Kangaroo Island. These indicators measure changes in the economic, environmental, socio cultural and experiential environments. A review of indicators was completed in the 2013/14 financial year. The Visitor Exit Survey (VES) is a critical source of information with respect to measuring and monitoring the TOMM indicators each year as well as collecting a raft of other information about tourism on the Island. Trends demonstrated through these indicators are provided to agencies in order to facilitate strategic planning for Kangaroo Island. Colmar Brunton Research Services (CBRS) has carried out research with Kangaroo Island visitors as part of the Tourism Optimisation Management Model (TOMM) monitor for the past eleven financial years. The following report details findings from the TOMM Visitor Exit Survey conducted throughout the 2015/16 period. Where possible, tracking has been performed on questions that have been kept comparable across the past thirteen years of the Visitor Exit Survey. 15

16 Research Objectives Research Aim The main aim of this research project is to monitor the effects of tourism on Kangaroo Island. Specific Research Objectives The specific objectives of the Visitor Exit Survey are to assess the following: 6 Profiles of origin and seasonality of visitors to the island; 6 Travel behaviour and experiences on the island; 6 Reasons for visiting Kangaroo Island; 6 Expectations and important factors influencing the decision to visit Kangaroo Island; 6 Valued aspects and visitor satisfaction with those aspects; 6 Overall satisfaction with Kangaroo Island experience; 6 Transportation; 6 Expenditure on Kangaroo Island; 6 Awareness of Kangaroo Island s quarantine regulations; and 6 Demographic profile of visitors. Research Methodology The methodology for this project consisted of a self-completion survey, which visitors were able to pick up at entry and exit points to the Island (airport and ferry departure points) across a full year period from July 2015 to June This methodology was consistent with that employed for the last fourteen Visitor Exit Surveys. From approximately midway through the 2013/14 data collection period surveys were also distributed on tour buses on the island in addition to the entry and exit points (airport and ferry departure points). The aim of this was to increase data collection from day trip visitors. Responses from the bus trip surveys have been analysed as a separate sub-group so that any differences in responses from this relatively new group can be understood. A prize incentive of $500 worth of local Kangaroo Island produce was employed to increase respondent participation. On receipt of all completed questionnaires, CBR edited, coded and entered the data. Questionnaires that had a number of questions incomplete were ignored. Analysis consisted predominantly of frequencies, cross tabulations and general tables. Weighting It was recognised from previous reports that there are significant differences between those visitors reaching the Island by air and ferry, as well as between bus tour visitors and non-bus-tour visitors. This year s data was therefore weighted based on visitor population figures for air, sea, and tour bus arrivals. Weighting is the procedure to correct the distributions in the sample data to approximate those of the population from which it is drawn. This is partly a matter of expansion and partly a matter of correction 16

17 or adjustment for both non response and non-coverage. It serves the purpose of providing data that look like the population rather than like the sample. The sample figures, total population figures have not been provided to CBSR. Instead, the Kangaroo Island Council was provided with a file that automatically calculates weights based on population data that is filled in. The Council filled in the commercially sensitive information and provided CBSR with the resulting weights. The population figures are not provided to CBSR or included in this report due to the commercial sensitivity of this information. Unless otherwise specified, all analysis has been based on weighted data. Questionnaire Design In the 2015/16 survey, Q19.8 was changed to read Your opportunity to learn more about the Island s history from Your opportunity to learn more about the Island s cultural history (emphasis added) in previous versions. Aside from the aforementioned change, the 2015/16 questionnaire was identical to the 2014/15 questionnaire. Restructuring & Reanalysis of Previous Wave Data The reader should be aware that before analysis was conducted for the survey data for 2004/2005 year, the TOMM committee expressed their desire to restructure previous data in accordance with each financial year. The board requested this to allow for more accurate trending and tracking information to be obtained. In response to this request, CBSR agreed to restructure previous wave s data (2001 and 2002) to fit into financial years. Confidence Intervals Overall findings from a sample of n=1,604 can be reported within a +/-2.4% margin of error ( n in statistics refers to the size of the sample, i.e. the number of respondents). This means that if 50% of visitors say they stayed on the island overnight, the real response would fall between 48.6% and 52.4%. There are many cross tabulations included within the report with differing base sample sizes. The table below illustrates the different margins of error associated with a series of sample sizes. The reader should be mindful of these margins for error when analysing specific questions and trended information within this report. Additionally, figures presented in this report are subjected to rounding errors. Table 1: Margin of Error per number of responses Number of responses per cell Margin of Error 95% Confidence 2000 ±2.2% 1500 ±2.5% 1000 ±3.1% 500 ±4.4% 17

18 Data cleaning In some cases the data has been cleaned to improve the overall quality of the data. In case of incomplete filled in questions by a respondent, the results for the incomplete question for that respondent has been removed from the data. This is particularly evident for the expenses data where calculations of total expenses are based on all the questions on the financial subject. Respondents that have left out information might influence the overall result resulting in less accurate overall analysis. For example, upon analysing the 2015/16 data, the decision was made to exclude respondent s expenditure data in rare cases where they indicated that they travelled to the Island as part of a travel package, yet failed to specify the Kangaroo Island component of the travel package. In order to make more valid comparisons over time, this data cleaning procedure was applied to not only the 2015/16 wave, but the prior six waves as well. Limitations of the Research The current methodology employed for the Visitor Exit Survey involves visitors being able to collect self-completion questionnaires at exit points from Kangaroo Island. Self-completion questionnaires are cost effective and allow for ample distribution to the sample but often suffer from respondent bias as there is less control over how it is completed. Trained staff are not present to ensure accurate interpretation of the questions and individuals will often skip over sections resulting in non-response bias while also requiring the questionnaire to be short and simple potentially leaving out important information. Furthermore, self-completion surveys often suffer from low response rates as the encouragement to complete the survey is not often there. This results in additional respondent bias as certain demographics are more likely to complete selfcompletion surveys than others (e.g. females). Whilst the data in the research was weighted to account for differentiation of ferry, air, and tour bus sample sizes from the actual figures, the findings must be considered with regard to the overall reasonably low response rate. There were significant differences in the methodology used between 00/01, 01/02 and subsequent years. Again, trends should be considered indicative only, as many of the questions or code frames have differed overtime, along with the methodology used to collect data. Unlike the methodology currently used, surveys in 00/01 and 01/02 were not distributed throughout the financial year meaning that statistical consistency is lost when trying to compare datasets from current years. Finally, the reader should also be aware that some tracked results in this report will differ from the results in previous reports. This is primarily due to the restructuring of the datasets into financial years and the adaptation of analysis techniques for consistency across years. 18

19 Overall Findings & Considerations 2015/16 in a nutshell The results of the 2015/16 Kangaroo Island Visitor Exit Survey were largely consistent with those obtained last year. There were, however, several notable findings concerning economic and experiential indicators, which are outlined below: Economic indicators: 2015/16 saw an increase in average annual total expenditure per person per visit. After increasing by over 20% the previous year, average annual total expenditure per person per visit increased again in 2015/16 by 5.9%. One likely contributor to this increase in expenditure were spring visitors, who made up a significantly larger proportion of the respondent sample this year (37%, up from 21%) and spent significantly more on average in 2015/16 ($801.00) compared to 2014/15 ($661.66). This year also saw a significant (12.7%) increase in expenditure among interstate visitors ($923.88) compared to the previous year ($819.43), as well as a significant (5%) decrease in the proportion of day trippers (who typically spend less on average given their relatively short stay). Although the levels of satisfaction with tourism operators didn t reach the acceptable range, the number of positive comments increased slightly and the number of negative comments decreased slightly during the 2015/16 period. This shift brought the 2015/16 figures in line with the 2013/14 figures which were the most positive since 2007/08. Experiential indicators: The proportion of repeat visitation reached an acceptable level and there were a small number of significant and notable improvements from the previous year 2015/16 marked the first time that the proportion of repeat visitors fell within the acceptable range of 30%-50% since 2010/11. Repeat visitation was 32% in 2015/16; up significantly from 26% in 2014/15. While the majority of experiential indicators in 2015/16 remained consistent with levels from 2014/15, there were several noticeable improvements. First, visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of road signage (39%, up from 32%). Second, visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of campgrounds (44%, up from 34%). Finally, while not a significant increase, the proportion of visitors who experienced farming and rural landscapes reached an acceptable level (90%), after failing to do so the previous year. Positive, albeit not statistically significant, trends were observed for the following experiential indicators: Proportion of visitors who experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement; Proportion of visitors who experienced areas of untouched natural beauty; Proportion of visitors who experienced local Kangaroo Island produce; Proportion of visitors who believe Kangaroo Island has a friendly local community; Proportion of visitors who stated that their experience matched or exceeded the expectation set by marketing materials; Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment; Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island s history; 19

20 Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the range, quality and availability of activities available; Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the quality of accommodation; Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the range, quality and availability of local Kangaroo Island products; Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the quality of picnic and day use areas; Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the quality of interpretive and educational signage; Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the quality of public toilets; and Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the quality of roads. In conclusion The key findings of this year s survey are: 1. Continued increase in visitor expenditure - driven by spring visitors, interstate visitors, and a reduction in the number of day trippers to the Island. 2. A significant increase in the proportion of repeat visitation 2015/16 marked the first time that the proportion of repeat visitors fell within the acceptable range of 30%-50% since 2010/ Some noticeable improvements to perceptions of KI s public tourism infrastructure visitors were significantly more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of road signage and the quality of campgrounds in 2015/16 compared to 2014/15. Satisfaction towards all other components of KI s public tourism infrastructure (e.g., roads, picnic and day use areas) also trended upwards, albeit not significantly. 20

21 Economic Indicators Overview In 2015/16, indicators relating to the first economic condition Tourism optimises economic benefits for Kangaroo Island were generally consistent with the previous year. The average number of nights stayed (4.8), the proportion willing to recommend KI as a holiday destination (93%), and the percentage increase in annual total expenditure (5.9%) were all within the acceptable range. In contrast to the above, the annual number of visitors to KI increased by 4.1% in 2015/16, which while arguably a welcome finding, is beyond the maximum acceptable increase of 3%. A decision was made at the workshop session to increase the acceptable range to 0-20%. In regards to the second economic condition Tourism operators excel in their business professionalism, 2015/16 saw a small and non-significant increase and a small and non-significant decrease in the number of compliments and complaints received from visitors, respectively. This is a departure from last year, where the opposite result was obtained. Due to stringent benchmarking*, satisfaction with the remaining two indicators (level of customer service and the professionalism of tourism operators) remained below the acceptable range of 65%-100% at 56% and 52%, respectively. Finally, the third economic condition Kangaroo Island attracts its high yield target markets also remained consistent with the previous year and below the ideal level of 40%-60% in 2015/16, with 35% of visitors spending more than $200 per night. *It should be noted that whilst the proportion of people who were very satisfied was below the benchmark level, overall satisfaction levels were actually quite strong with well over 80% of visitors being either very satisfied or satisfied with level of customer service and operator professionalism. As such, not meeting the indicator s acceptable level does not necessarily indicate that there is a significant problem with visitor satisfaction with regards to customer service and level of professionalism of tourism operators. In fact, only a small proportion of visitors claimed to be very dissatisfied with these indicators and, as mentioned previously, the likelihood to recommend Kangaroo Island remains strong at 93%. 21

22 Annual average number of nights stayed (EC1d) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Tourism optimises economic benefits for Kangaroo Island The annual average number of nights stayed on Kangaroo Island 4 to 7 nights Incidence of overnight stays As in past years, the majority of visitors to the Island (90%) were overnight visitors (staying at least one night on the island), which is significantly higher than the previous year (85%). As such, there was a significant decrease in the number of day trippers (10%) compared to the previous year (15%). Figure 1: Length of stay over time 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Q6 Base: Note: 0% 00/0 1 01/0 2 02/0 3 03/0 4 04/0 5 05/0 6 06/0 7 Day tip 11% 11% 8% 3% 12% 7% 5% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 22% 15% 10% Did you stay one or more nights or was it a day trip? Visitors responding, N=1,604. Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year. 07/0 8 08/0 9 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 15/1 5 6 Stayed overnight 89% 89% 92% 97% 88% 93% 95% 96% 98% 97% 98% 98% 97% 78% 85% 90% Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Intrastate (95%) and Interstate (92%) visitors were more likely to stay one or more nights than International visitors (79%); 6 Summer visitors were more likely to stay one or more nights (97%) than Autumn (91%), Winter (88%), and Spring (85%) visitors; 6 Those who had previously visited KI were more likely to stay overnight (97%) than new visitors (86%); 6 Those travelling by air were more likely to stay overnight (97%) than those travelling by sea (89%); and 6 Those not on a bus tour were more likely to stay overnight (96%) than those on a bus tour (14%). 22

23 Length of stay The average number of nights stayed on Kangaroo Island in 2015/2016 was 4.8, which is similar to results from previous years and within the acceptable range of 4-7 nights. Please note that day trip visitors are excluded from the calculation of the average number of nights. Figure 2: Average Number of Nights over Time /0 1 01/0 2 02/0 3 03/0 4 04/0 5 05/0 6 06/0 7 Pre-2008/2009 acceptable range (3-5 nights) 07/0 8 08/0 9 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 15/1 5 6 Average # of nights Q6 Base: Note: Note: Did you stay one or more nights or was it a day trip? Visitors responding, N=1,445 Missing cases excluded. Day visitors excluded from calculation. Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with observations from the previous year: 7 International visitors had a shorter stay (avg. 3.1 nights) than intrastate (4.9) and interstate (5.5) visitors; 7 Repeat visitors stayed longer (avg. 5.7 nights) than first time visitors (4.4); 7 Sea arrivals stayed longer (avg. 5.0 nights) than air arrivals (3.3); 7 Visitors who spent up to $200 a night stayed longer (avg. 5.9 nights) than those who spent more than $200 a night (3.2); and 7 Those who visited Kangaroo Island as part of a bus tour had a shorter stay (avg. 2.0 nights) compared to those whose trip was not part of a bus tour (4.9). 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Autumn visitors stayed longer (avg. 5.2 nights) than spring visitors (4.3). 23

24 Average number of nights by visitor origin Length of stay was consistent with most previous years across visitor origin groups, with average nights of stay at 4.9 for intrastate, 5.5 for interstate and 3.1 for international visitors. Figure 3: Average number of nights by visitor origin over time /0 1 01/0 2 02/0 3 03/0 4 04/0 5 05/0 6 06/0 7 Intrastate Interstate International /0 8 08/0 9 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 Q6 Did you stay one or more nights or was it a day trip? Base: Intrastate visitors responding n=331, Interstate visitors responding n=603, International visitors responding n=511 Note: Missing cases excluded. Note: Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year. 24

25 Recommendation of Kangaroo Island to others as a holiday destination (EC1e) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Tourism optimises economic benefits for Kangaroo Island Proportion of visitors that would recommend Kangaroo Island to others as a holiday destination 90% - 100% Willingness to recommend scores in 2015/16 remained consistent with scores from the previous 3 years at 93%. This result is within the acceptable range of %. Figure 4: Willingness to recommend 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 00/0 1 01/0 2 02/0 3 03/0 4 04/0 5 05/0 6 % willing to recommend 98% 97% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 95% 90% 94% 92% 93% 93% 93% 93% 06/0 7 07/0 8 08/0 9 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 Q23 Base: Note: Note: Would you recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination to others based on this trip? Visitors responding, N=1,552 Missing cases excluded. Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Air arrivals were more likely to indicate that they would recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination (97%) compared to Sea arrivals (93%); 7 Those on a bus tour were less likely to indicate that they would recommend KI (81%) compared to those not on a bus tour (94%); and 7 Those staying one or more nights were more likely to indicate that they would recommend KI (94%) compared to day trippers (82%). 25

26 Average expenditure per visit (EC1f) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Tourism optimises economic benefits for Kangaroo Island Average annual total expenditure per visit 5% - 10% increase After increasing by 20.8% in 2014/15 to $726.90, average total expenditure per person per visit increased, albeit not significantly, to $ in 2015/16. This reflects a 5.9% rise in expenditure, which is within the acceptable range of 5%-10%. Figure 5: Increase in average annual total expenditure per person per visit $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 Q6 Q8 Q11 Q13 Q14 Q15 Base: Note: Note: $0 Avg. total expenditure per person per visit 09/10 (n=1450) 10/11 (n=1811) 11/12 (n=1000) 12/13 (n=2179) 13/14 (n=2197) 14/15 (n=1,414) 15/16 (n=1,412) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Did you stay one or more nights or was it a way trip? What was the cost of the total package? What is your best guess of the total Kangaroo Island component of the package? What additional money did you spend on top of the package whilst on the Island? Please indicate how much you spent on your trip to Kangaroo Island? How many people did these costs cover? Visitors responding, N=1,412 Missing cases excluded. Visitors who indicated that their trip was part of a package yet did not specify the KI component of the package have been excluded from all expenditure calculations in this report Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Per person expenditure was higher for interstate visitors ($923.88) compared to both intrastate ($658.2) and international visitors ($617.48); 6 First time visitors to the island spent more on average than repeat visitors ($ vs. $707.19); 6 Air arrivals spent more than sea arrivals ($1, vs. $722.55); 6 As to be expected, those who stayed overnight spent more than day visitors ($ vs. $341.39); and 6 Those on a bus tour ($309.55) spent less than those not on a tour ($805.92). 26

27 Annual number of visitors (EC1g) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Tourism optimises economic benefits for Kangaroo Island Annual number of visitors to Kangaroo Island 0% - 20% increase The annual number of visitors to Kangaroo Island increased from 197,882 in 2014/15 to 205,994 in 2015/16. This 4.1% rise is, was above the maximum acceptable range of 3%, however a decision was made during the workshop meeting to increase the acceptable range to 0-20%. Figure 6: Increase in annual number of visitors 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% % increase in number of visitors 02/0 3 03/0 4 04/0 5 05/0 6 06/0 7 07/0 8 08/ % 2.7% -2.0% -3.6% 26.0% -5.4% 5.6% 1.2% 3.0% 0.6% -0.4% 1.2% 1.7% 4.1% 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 Note: Data provided by TOMM Committee. 27

28 Satisfaction with customer service received (EC2c) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Tourism operators excel in their business professionalism Proportion of visitors that are very satisfied with the level of customer service they receive 65% - 100% While the large majority of visitors to Kangaroo Island were satisfied with the level of customer service that they received, the proportion of visitors who reported being very satisfied with customer service remained below the 65% benchmark level, at 56%. Figure 7: Satisfaction with customer service received 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Scale** changed from 3-pt to 5-pt scale in 09/10 0% Q19.7 Please indicate how satisfied you were with the level of customer service you received. Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,534 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. ** In 2008/2009 satisfaction was measured with a score out of 3 Note: This measure is also used for indicator EX2g with an acceptable range of 80% - 100%. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 68% 68% 65% 73% 67% 45% 48% 48% 49% 50% 53% 56% % very satisfied/ satisfied 80% 84% 82% 84% 84% 84% 86% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 8% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Visitors arriving via air were more likely to be very satisfied with the customer service that they received compared to those arriving by sea (64% vs. 56%). 28

29 Satisfaction with professionalism of tourism operators (EC2d) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Tourism operators excel in their business professionalism Proportion of customers that are highly satisfied with the professionalism of tourism operators 65% - 100% This year, the proportion of visitors to Kangaroo Island who reported that they were very satisfied with the professionalism of tourism operators was 52%, which is statistically consistent with the previous year (51%) and below the acceptable range of %. It is, however, the highest proportion since the measure commenced in 2009/10. Figure 8: Satisfaction with professionalism of tourism operators 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 41% 40% 43% 41% 48% 51% 52% % very satisfied/ satisfied 77% 77% 79% 78% 82% 82% 83% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 9% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% Q19.12 Please indicate how satisfied you were with the professionalism of tourism businesses. Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,426 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Visitors arriving to the island via air were more likely to be very satisfied with the professionalism of tourism businesses than those arriving by sea (60% vs. 51%). 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Interstate visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the professionalism of tourism businesses (56%) than international visitors (45%). 29

30 Compliments and complaints (EC2e) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Tourism operators excel in their business professionalism The number of compliments and complaints received from visitors in positive comments in negative comments There was a very slight and non-significant increase in the proportion of positive comments in 2015/16 (94%) compared to 2014/15 (93%). In regards to complaints, there was a very slight and non-significant decrease in the proportion of negative comments (46%, down from 47%). Figure 9: Number of compliments and complaints received 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 Positive 89% 91% 91% 91% 91% 90% 94% 93% 94% Negative 42% 46% 49% 52% 47% 51% 46% 47% 46% Q25 Base: Note: Are there any individuals or businesses you would like to draw our attention to for compliments/improvement? Visitors responding, N=1,186. Don t know and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Those staying overnight (48%) were more likely than those visiting on a daytrip (18%) to make negative comments; 7 Bus tourers (14%) were less likely than others to make negative comments (48%); and 7 Sea arrivals (47%) were more likely than air arrivals (34%) to make negative comments. 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Day trippers (100%) were more likely than those staying overnight (94%) to make positive comments; 7 Those spending up to $200 per night were more likely to make positive comments (96%) than those spending more than $200 per night (92%); and 7 Summer visitors were more likely to make negative comments (56%) compared to winter (36%) and spring visitors (43%). 30

31 Average spend per night over $200 (EC3c) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island attracts its high yield target markets Proportion of visitors for whom average spend per night exceeds $200 40% - 60% The proportion of visitors who reported an average spend of over $200 per night was 35%, which is consistent with the result from the previous year and outside the acceptable range of 40-60%. Figure 10: Average spend per night over $ % 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% % spend $200+ per night 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 28% 28% 26% 25% 30% 37% 35% Q6 Q8 Q11 Q13 Q14 Q15 Base: Note: Note: Note: Did you stay one or more nights or was it a day trip? What was the cost of the total package? What is your best guess of the total Kangaroo Island component of the package? What additional money did you spend on top of the package whilst on the Island? Please indicate how much you spent on your trip to Kangaroo Island? How many people did these costs cover? Visitors responding, N=1,290 Day trippers excluded. Missing cases excluded. Visitors who indicated that their trip was part of a package yet did not specify the KI component of the package have been excluded from all expenditure calculations in this report Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Interstate visitors were more likely to spend over $200 per night (38%) than intrastate visitors (26%); 7 International visitors were also more likely to spend over $200 per night (41%) than intrastate visitors (26%). 7 Those arriving by air were more likely to spend over $200 per night (76%) than those arriving by sea (32%); and 7 First time visitors were more likely to spend over $200 per night (39%) than repeat visitors (27%). 31

32 Summary of sub-group scores for economic indicators Indicator EC1d EC1e EC1f EC2c EC2d EC2e EC3c Annual average number of nights stayed Proportion of visitors that would recommend Kangaroo Island to others as a holiday destination Average annual total expenditure per visit Proportion of visitors that are very satisfied with the level of customer service they receive Proportion of customers that are highly satisfied with the professionalism of tourism operators The number of compliments and complaints received from visitors Proportion of visitors who s average spend per night exceeds $200 * Refers to a >10% increase Sub-groups who were within the Acceptable range for the indicator All except those on a tour bus All except day trippers and those on a tour bus Air and sea arrivals Interstate visitors* First time visitors Winter visitors Spring visitors* Those spending up to $200 per night Those spending more than $200 per night Sub-groups who scored more highly for the indicator (compared to their comparative sub-group) Interstate and intrastate visitors Autumn visitors Repeat visitors Sea arrivals Those who spent up to $200 a night Those not on a tour bus Those not on a tour bus Air arrivals Those staying overnight None Air arrivals None Autumn and winter visitors Day trippers Those on a tour bus Air arrivals International visitors Those on a tour bus Interstate visitors Air arrivals First time visitors Those who stayed overnight Non-bus tour visitors Air arrivals Interstate visitors Those staying overnight (complaints) Those not on a bus tour (complaints) Sea arrivals (complaints) Summer visitors (complaints) Day trippers (compliments) Those spending up to $200 per night (compliments) Interstate and international visitors Air arrivals First time visitors 32

33 Experiential Indicators Overview The vast majority of the Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning indicators fell within their respective acceptable ranges in 2015/16 and all were consistent with the previous year. The only indicator that did not fall within its acceptable range was the proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their overall experience on KI. Here, it should be noted that satisfaction with overall experience was nevertheless high at 82%. Consistency with the previous year was also seen for the large majority of indicators informing the optimal condition The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their experience. However, 2015/16 visitors were significantly more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of road signage (39%, up from 32%) and the quality of campgrounds (44%, up from 34%) compared to 2014/15 visitors. Despite these improvements, visitor satisfaction remained below acceptable benchmark levels. This was largely due to a very strict satisfaction threshold* existing for EX2a through EX2i. Although satisfaction levels remained below the acceptable level, 93% of visitors surveyed nevertheless indicated that they would recommend KI as a holiday destination to others as a result of their experience. Furthermore 2015/16 marked the first time that the proportion of repeat visitors fell within the acceptable range of 30%-50% since 2010/11. Therefore, it is incorrect to conclude that there was a problem with visitor satisfaction in 2015/16. *It should be noted that whilst the proportion of people who were very satisfied was below the benchmark level across a range of experiential indicators, overall satisfaction levels were actually quite strong with a strong majority of visitors being either very satisfied or satisfied with their experiences. 33

34 Viewed wildlife in natural environment (EX1b) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Proportion of visitors that viewed wildlife in the natural environment 90% - 100% The vast majority (96%) of visitors in 2015/16 viewed Australia s wildlife in natural surroundings. This result is consistent with last year s measure and is within the acceptable range of %. Figure 11: Visitors that viewed Australia s wildlife in natural surroundings 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 96% of visitors believed that KI provides this* 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of visitors 92% 93% 93% 93% 96% 96% 96% Q18.2 For each of the following please indicate whether experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,445. Note: Missing cases excluded. * Figure reflects response to the question please indicate whether you believe that Kangaroo Island provides you this while on Kangaroo Island. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 International visitors (98%) were more likely to view Australian wildlife in natural surroundings compared to intrastate visitors (93%); and 7 First time visitors were more likely to view Australian wildlife in natural surroundings (98%) than repeat visitors (94%). 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Interstate visitors (98%) were also more likely to view Australian wildlife in natural surroundings compared to intrastate visitors (93%); 7 Air arrivals were more likely to experience this (98%) than sea arrivals (96%); and 7 Those spending up to $200 per night were more likely to experience this (98%) than those spending more than this amount (94%). 34

35 Experienced scenic variety without crowds (EX1c) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Proportion of visitors that experienced scenic variety without crowds 90% - 100% Nearly all visitors (97%) to Kangaroo Island experienced scenic variety without crowds, which is consistent with last year s measure (97%) and well within the acceptable range of 90%-100%. Figure 12: Visitors that experienced scenic variety without crowds 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 96% of visitors believed that KI provides this* 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of visitors 95% 97% 97% 96% 94% 97% 97% Q18.3 For each of the following please indicate whether experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,443 Note: Missing cases excluded. * Figure reflects response to the question please indicate whether you believe that Kangaroo Island provides you this while on Kangaroo Island. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Interstate visitors were more likely to experience scenic variety without crowds of people (98%) than international visitors (94%); 7 Day trippers were less likely to have experienced this (83%) than those who stayed overnight (98%); and 7 Those who did not come on a bus tour (98%) were more likely to have experienced this than those who came as part of a bus tour (83%). 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Winter visitors were more likely to experience this (100%) than spring (96%), summer (96%), and autumn visitors (97%). 35

36 Experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement (EX1d) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Proportion of visitors that experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement 70% - 100% This year, the proportion of visitors who experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement (76%) was consistent with the previous year (74%). This result is within the acceptable range of %. Figure 13: Visitors that experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 80% of visitors believed that KI provides this* 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of visitors 68% 70% 71% 67% 71% 74% 76% Q18.4 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,369 Note: Missing cases excluded. * Figure reflects response to the question please indicate whether you believe that Kangaroo Island provides you this while on Kangaroo Island. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 International visitors were less likely to experience cultural heritage and the history of settlement (63%) compared to both intrastate (78%) and interstate (82%) visitors; and 7 Sea arrivals (77%) were more likely than air arrivals (70%) to experience this. 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Repeat visitors were more likely to experience this (81%) than first time visitors (74%); and 7 Those staying overnight were more likely to experience this (77%) than day trippers (65%). 36

37 Experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes (EX1e) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Proportion of visitors that experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes 90% - 100% Almost all (99%) visitors experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes in 2015/16. This result is comparable to that from 2014/15 (99%) and is well within the acceptable range of 90%-100%. Figure 14: Visitors that experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 99% of visitors believed that KI provides this* 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of visitors 98% 98% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99% Q18.5 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,442 Note: Missing cases excluded. * Figure reflects response to the question please indicate whether you believe that Kangaroo Island provides you this while on Kangaroo Island. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Winter visitors (100%) were more likely than summer visitors (99%) to experience spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes. 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Intrastate visitors were less likely to experience this (97%) than interstate (100%) and international (100%) visitors. 37

38 Experienced areas of untouched natural beauty (EX1f) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Proportion of visitors that experienced areas of untouched natural beauty 90% - 100% The proportion of visitors that reported experiencing areas of untouched natural beauty in 2015/16 (96%) was consistent with previous years. This result is within the acceptable range of %. Figure 15: Visitors that experienced areas of untouched natural beauty 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 97% of visitors believed that KI provides this*. 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of visitors 95% 95% 95% 95% 96% 95% 96% Q18.6 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,430 Note: Missing cases excluded. * Figure reflects response to the question please indicate whether you believe that Kangaroo Island provides you this while on Kangaroo Island. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Day trippers were less likely to experience areas of untouched natural beauty (86%) than those who stayed one or more nights (97%). 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Interstate visitors were more likely to experience this (98%) than international visitors (93%); 7 Autumn visitors were more likely to experience this (99%) than spring visitors (93%); and 7 Those on a bus tour were less likely to experience this (86%) than other visitors (97%). 38

39 Experienced farming and rural landscapes (EX1g) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Proportion of visitors that experienced farming and rural landscapes 90% - 100% The proportion of visitors who experienced farming and rural landscapes in 2015/16 was 90%. This result falls within the recently-revised acceptable range of % after remaining just shy of this threshold in previous waves. Figure 16: Visitors that experienced farming and rural landscapes 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 94% of visitors believed that KI provides this* 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of visitors 88% 89% 89% 89% 88% 88% 90% Q18.7 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,411. Note: Missing cases excluded. * Figure reflects response to the question please indicate whether you believe that Kangaroo Island provides you this while on Kangaroo Island. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Day trippers were less likely to have experienced farming and rural landscapes (71%) than those staying one or more nights (92%); and 7 Bus tour visitors (70%) were less likely than others (92%) to experience this. 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Interstate visitors were more likely to experience this (95%) than intrastate (88%) and international (83%) visitors; and 7 Autumn visitors were more likely to experience this (95%) than spring (89%) and summer (87%) visitors. 39

40 Experienced local Kangaroo Island produce (EX1h) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Proportion of visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce 80% - 100% The proportion of visitors who experienced local Kangaroo Island produce in 2015/16 was 83%, which is consistent with last year s measure and within the acceptable range of %. Figure 17: Visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 91% of visitors believed that KI provides this* 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of visitors 79% 82% 82% 81% 75% 80% 83% Q18.8 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,413. Note: Missing cases excluded. * Figure reflects response to the question please indicate whether you believe that Kangaroo Island provides you this while on Kangaroo Island. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 International visitors were less likely to experience local Kangaroo Island produce (66%) than intrastate (89%) and interstate (88%) visitors; 7 Day trippers (53%) were less likely to experience this than those staying overnight (86%); 7 Repeat visitors to KI (92%) were more likely to experience this than first time visitors (79%); 7 Air arrivals (89%) were more likely to experience this than sea arrivals (83%); and 7 Those on a bus tour (45%) were less likely to experience this than those not on a bus tour (86%). 40

41 Kangaroo Island offers one of Australia s top three nature & wildlife experiences (EX1i) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Proportion of visitors that believe Kangaroo Island offers one of Australia s top three nature & wildlife experiences 70% - 100% This year, the proportion of visitors who experienced KI as one of Australia s top three nature and wildlife experiences remained stable at 75%. This result is within the acceptable range of 70%-100%. Figure 18: Visitors that experienced Kangaroo Island as one of Australia s top three nature & wildlife experiences 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 64% of visitors believed that KI provides this* 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of visitors 69% 73% 71% 71% 79% 76% 75% Q18.9 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,290 Note: Missing cases excluded. * Figure reflects response to the question please indicate whether you believe that Kangaroo Island provides you this while on Kangaroo Island. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Air arrivals were more likely to experience KI as one of Australia s top three nature and wildlife experiences (87%) than sea arrivals (75%). 41

42 Kangaroo Island has a friendly local community (EX1j) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Proportion of visitors that believe Kangaroo Island has a friendly local community 80% - 100% The proportion of visitors who experienced a friendly local community on KI was 92% in 2015/16. This result is consistent with last year s result (91%) and remains within the acceptable range of 80%- 100%. Figure 19: Visitors that experienced a friendly local community on Kangaroo Island 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 90% of visitors believed that KI provides this* 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of visitors 90% 92% 93% 93% 91% 91% 92% Q18.10 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,404 Note: Missing cases excluded. * Figure reflects response to the question please indicate whether you believe that Kangaroo Island provides you this while on Kangaroo Island. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Intrastate (95%) and interstate (94%) visitors were more likely to experience a friendly local community than international visitors (85%); 7 Overnight visitors (94%) were more likely than day trippers (77%) to experience this; and 7 Non-bus tour visitors (93%) were more likely than those on a bus tour (77%) to experience this. 6 New in 2014/15: 7 Repeat visitors were more likely to experience this (96%) than first time visitors (91%). 42

43 Agreement with positioning statement (EX1k) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Proportion of visitors who agree** that Kangaroo Island is a wild and welcoming destination, that will surprise and amaze you, relax your mind, refresh your spirit and make you feel totally alive. It provides an opportunity to view and to discover all the scenic variety of mainland Australia 70% - 100% The proportion of visitors who agreed with the positioning statement in 2015/16 (84%) was consistent with agreement levels from the previous year (85%). This result remains within the acceptable range of 70%-100%. Figure 20: Visitors who agree that Kangaroo Island is a wild and welcoming destination [...] 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of visitors 77% 81% 80% 82% 85% 85% 84% Q24 To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,545 Note: Missing cases excluded. ** Rated 7-10 on an eleven point scale, where 0 means strongly disagree and 10 means strongly agree. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Air arrivals were more likely to agree with the positioning statement (91%) than sea arrivals (84%). 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Those on a bus tour were less likely to agree with the positioning statement (75%) than other visitors (85%); and 7 Day trippers were less likely to agree with the positioning statement (77%) than those staying one or more nights on KI (85%). 43

44 Matching expectation set by marketing materials (EX1l) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Proportion of visitors that state that their experience matched or exceeded expectation set by marketing materials 80% - 100% The proportion of visitors to Kangaroo Island who stated that their experience matched or exceeded expectations set by marketing materials (93%) was comparable to last year (91%). This result remains within the acceptable range of 80%-100%. Figure 21: Visitors stating that their experience matched or exceeded the expectation set by marketing materials 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of visitors 75% 74% 75% 82% 91% 91% 91% 92% 93% 91% 93% Q21 Island? Base: Note: Do you believe that Kangaroo Island s marketing material matched the experience you had while visiting Kangaroo Visitors responding, N=1,526 Missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Repeat visitors (95%) were more likely than first time visitors (91%) to believe that their KI experience matched or exceeded the expectation set by marketing materials; and 7 Air arrivals (95%) were more likely to believe this than sea arrivals (92%). 44

45 Satisfaction with overall experience (EX1m) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Proportion of visitors very satisfied** with their overall experience on Kangaroo Island 90% - 100% The proportion of visitors who stated that they were very satisfied with their overall experience on the island (82%) was consistent with last year s measure (84%). Overall satisfaction remains below the ideal minimum level of 90%. Figure 22: Visitors who were very satisfied** with their overall experience on Kangaroo Island 100% 80% 60% 40% Scale changed from 3-pt to 5-pt scale in 09/10 20% 0% 02/0 3 03/0 4 04/0 5 05/0 6 06/0 7 % very satisfied** 87% 83% 80% 84% 83% 82% 79% 77% 82% 80% 81% 83% 84% 82% % very satisfied/ satisfied 92% 96% 94% 95% 96% 96% 96% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 8% 4% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 07/0 8 08/0 9 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 Q22 Taking into account all aspects of your visit to Kangaroo Island, how would you rate your overall satisfaction? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,547 Note: Missing cases excluded. ** Rated 8-10 on an eleven point scale, where 0 means extremely dissatisfied and 10 means extremely satisfied. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Overall satisfaction was higher among air arrivals (89%) compared to sea arrivals (82%); and 7 Repeat visitors had higher overall satisfaction (86%) than first time visitors (81%). 45

46 Seeing native wildlife in its natural environment (EX2a) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their experience Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment 70% - 100% The proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment was 61% in 2015/16, which is consistent with last year s measure and below the acceptable range of 70%-100%. Figure 23: Visitors who were satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Scale** changed from 3-pt to 5-pt scale in 09/10 0% 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 82% 80% 79% 81% 77% 49% 54% 58% 57% 59% 57% 61% % very satisfied/ satisfied 77% 81% 84% 82% 84% 84% 87% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 8% 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 4% Q19.1 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,535. Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. ** In 2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008/09 satisfaction was measured with a score out of 3. Note: In 2005/06 statement read To see native wildlife, nature and the natural environment, measured with a score out of 3. Note: In 2004/05 statement read General interest in native wildlife, nature and the natural environment, measured with a score out of 3. Note: In 2003/04 measured with attributes (general interest in native wildlife, nature and the natural environment), with a score out of 3. Note: In 2002/03 satisfaction was measured with a score out of 10. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Air arrivals were more likely to be very satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment (75%) compared to sea arrivals (60%). 6 New in 2014/15: 7 Repeat visitors were more likely to be very satisfied (66%) than first time visitors (58%). 46

47 Opportunity to learn more about the Island s natural environment (EX2b) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their experience Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island s natural environment 70% - 100% The proportion of visitors reporting that they were very satisfied with the opportunity to learn more about the Island s natural environment this year (48%) was consistent with last year (47%). This result remains below the acceptable range of 70%-100%. Figure 24: Visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island s natural environment 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 39% 39% 43% 40% 45% 47% 48% % very satisfied/ satisfied 75% 76% 77% 78% 80% 80% 80% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% Q19.2 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,481. Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Interstate visitors (53%) were more likely to be very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about KI s natural environment than intrastate (44%) and international visitors (43%); and 7 Air arrivals were more likely to be satisfied with this (58%) than sea arrivals (47%). 47

48 Opportunity to learn more about the Island s history (EX2c) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their experience Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island s history* 70% - 100% The proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island s history was 40% in 2015/16, which is consistent with last year s measure (36%). This result remains outside the acceptable range of 70%-100%. Figure 25: Satisfaction with opportunity to learn more about the Island s history 100% 80% 60% Question revised in 15/16* 40% 20% Scale** changed from 3-pt to 5-pt scale in 09/10 0% 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 53% 51% 51% 59% 52% 32% 31% 36% 31% 35% 36% 40% % very satisfied/ satisfied 66% 67% 68% 66% 70% 68% 73% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% Q19.8 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,415 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. * Prior to 2015/16 this was asked as satisfaction To learn more about the Island s cultural history ** Prior to 2009/2010 this was asked as satisfaction To learn more about Kangaroo Island s culture and history, which was measured with a score out of 3. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: The results were consistent across subgroups. 48

49 Range, quality and availability of activities (EX2d) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their experience Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the range, quality and availability of activities available 70% - 100% The proportions of visitors who were very satisfied with the range (47%), quality (46%) and availability (42%) of activities were consistent with the previous year. The results for each measure remain below the acceptable range of 70% - 100%. Figure 26: Satisfaction with the range activities 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Question revised In 09/10** 0% 04/ 05 05/ 06 06/ 07 07/ 08 % very satisfied 51% 50% 50% 59% 50% 38% 38% 40% 40% 41% 43% 47% % very satisfied/ satisfied 75% 78% 76% 78% 79% 80% 81% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 7% 5% 8% 5% 6% 5% 5% 08/ 09 09/ 10 10/ 11 11/ 12 12/ 13 13/ 14 14/ 15 15/ 16 Q19.9 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,416 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. ** Prior to 2009/2010 the satisfaction with range was asked as The range of activities on the island that were available. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Repeat visitors (54%) were more likely than day trippers (44%) to be very satisfied with the range of activities. 49

50 Figure 27: Satisfaction with the quality of activities 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 37% 38% 41% 40% 43% 44% 46% % very satisfied/ satisfied 77% 78% 78% 79% 80% 80% 82% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 7% 5% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% Q19.10 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,388. Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Repeat visitors (52%) were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of activities than first time visitors (44%). 50

51 Figure 28: Satisfaction with the availability of activities 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/1 0 10/1 1 % very satisfied 35% 33% 37% 37% 40% 41% 42% % very satisfied/ satisfied 71% 71% 73% 74% 75% 76% 75% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 9% 7% 8% 7% 7% 5% 6% 11/1 2 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 Q19.11 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,373 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Repeat visitors (47%) were more likely to be very satisfied with the availability of activities than first time visitors (39%). 51

52 Quality of accommodation (EX2e) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their experience Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the quality of accommodation 70% - 100% The level of satisfaction towards the quality of accommodation this year (50%) was consistent with satisfaction levels from the previous year. This result is below the acceptable range of %. Figure 29: Satisfaction with quality of accommodation 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Scale** changed from 3-pt to 5-pt scale in 09/10 0% 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 60% 59% 61% 69% 67% 46% 46% 46% 45% 46% 48% 50% % very satisfied/ satisfied 75% 77% 78% 76% 76% 76% 80% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 10% 6% 7% 8% 7% 7% 5% Q19.3 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,420 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. ** In 2006/2007, 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 satisfaction was measured with a score out of 3 Note: In 2005/2006 statement read To see native wildlife, nature and the natural environment. Satisfaction was measured with a score out of 3. Note: In 2004/2005 statement used was General interest in native wildlife, nature and the natural environment. Satisfaction was measured with a score out of 3. Significant and notable differences between subgroups 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Repeat visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of their accommodation (57%) than first time visitors (47%); and 7 Air arrivals were more likely to be very satisfied (57%) than sea arrivals (50%). 6 New in 2015/16: 7 International visitors were less likely to be very satisfied (41%) than intrastate (55%) and interstate visitors (51%). 52

53 Range, quality and availability of Kangaroo Island produce (EX2f) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their experience Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the range, quality and availability of local Kangaroo Island products 70% - 100% The proportions of visitors very satisfied with the range (46%), quality (52%) and availability (44%) of local Kangaroo Island produce were consistent with the previous year. These results remain below the acceptable range of %. Figure 30: Satisfaction with the range of local Kangaroo Island produce 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 38% 38% 37% 39% 40% 43% 46% % very satisfied/ satisfied 71% 74% 71% 72% 72% 74% 78% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 9% 6% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% Q19.4 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,359 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Intrastate visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the range of local produce (52%) compared to international visitors (35%). 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Interstate visitors were also more likely to be very satisfied (47%) compared to international visitors (35%); and 7 Repeat visitors were more likely to be very satisfied (54%) than first time visitors (42%). 53

54 Figure 31: Satisfaction with the quality of local Kangaroo Island produce 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 44% 45% 43% 44% 47% 50% 52% % very satisfied/ satisfied 77% 81% 78% 78% 80% 82% 84% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 7% 5% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% Q19.5 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,358. Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Visitors who stayed one or more nights were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of KI produce (53%) than day trippers (37%); 7 Intrastate visitors were more likely to be very satisfied (56%) than international visitors (41%); and 7 Repeat visitors were more likely to be very satisfied (60%) than first time visitors (48%). 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Interstate visitors were also more likely to be very satisfied (53%) than international visitors (41%); and 7 Those on a bus tour were less likely to be very satisfied (33%) than those not on a bus tour (53%). 54

55 Figure 32: Satisfaction with the availability of local Kangaroo Island produce 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 35% 35% 34% 36% 38% 39% 44% % very satisfied/ satisfied 64% 71% 67% 69% 69% 72% 74% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 11% 9% 11% 10% 11% 10% 10% Q19.6 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,364. Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Intrastate (49%) and interstate (45%) visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the availability of local produce than international visitors (35%); and 7 Repeat visitors (51%) were more likely to be very satisfied than first time visitors (40%). 55

56 Quality of public tourism infrastructure (EX2h) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their experience Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the quality of public tourism infrastructure (toilets, roads, campgrounds, public parks, picnic and signage) provided on Kangaroo Island 60%-100% The proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with various elements of Kangaroo Island s public tourism infrastructure generally remained unchanged in 2015/16 relative to 2014/15. However, this year saw a significant increase in the proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the quality of road signage (39%, up from 32%) and the quality of campgrounds (44%, up from 34%). Nevertheless, results for each element of public tourism infrastructure (e.g. toilets, roads, campgrounds) remain below the acceptable range of %. Figure 33: Satisfaction with the quality of picnic & day use areas 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 30% 35% 46% 43% 44% 46% 48% % very satisfied/ satisfied 73% 78% 80% 83% 82% 82% 83% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 9% 5% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% Q19.18 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=928 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Interstate visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of picnic and day areas (53%) than international visitors (45%). 56

57 Figure 34: Satisfaction with the quality of interpretive & educational signage 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 29% 28% 35% 31% 35% 35% 40% % very satisfied/ satisfied 67% 71% 75% 72% 75% 75% 79% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 9% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 6% Q19.17 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,215. Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Interstate visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of interpretive and educational signage (44%) than intrastate visitors (32%). 57

58 Figure 35: Satisfaction with the quality of public toilets 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 25% 31% 38% 34% 36% 41% 43% % very satisfied/ satisfied 64% 69% 75% 74% 74% 79% 80% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 13% 9% 7% 7% 7% 8% 5% Q19.13 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,445 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Interstate visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of public toilets (47%) than intrastate (39%) and international visitors (38%); and 7 Visitors staying overnight were more likely to be very satisfied (44%) than day trippers (32%). 58

59 Figure 36: Satisfaction with the quality of road signage 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 24% 27% 35% 32% 34% 32% 39% % very satisfied/ satisfied 59% 67% 70% 69% 73% 71% 75% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 19% 14% 11% 12% 11% 10% 10% Q19.16 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,400 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Those on a bus tour (61%) were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of road signage than other visitors (37%). 59

60 Figure 37: Satisfaction with the quality of campgrounds 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 21% 26% 41% 33% 37% 34% 44% % very satisfied/ satisfied 58% 65% 72% 66% 69% 70% 73% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 17% 11% 7% 13% 9% 9% 8% Q19.15 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=398 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: The results were consistent across subgroups. 60

61 Figure 38: Satisfaction with the quality of roads 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % very satisfied 15% 16% 25% 20% 26% 26% 28% % very satisfied/ satisfied 44% 47% 63% 56% 62% 61% 66% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 27% 22% 13% 16% 12% 11% 11% Q19.14 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,532 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Those on a bus tour (42%) were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of roads than those not on a bus tour (27%). 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Interstate visitors (33%) were more likely to be very satisfied than intrastate visitors (23%); 7 Winter (33%) and spring (32%) visitors were more likely to be very satisfied than summer visitors (21%); and 7 Day trippers were more likely to be very satisfied (76%) than those staying one or more nights (65%). 61

62 Recommendation of Kangaroo Island as holiday destination (EX2i) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their experience Proportion of visitors that would recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination to others as a result of their experience 90% - 100% The proportion of visitors who would recommend Kangaroo Island as a destination to others was 93% in 2015/16. This result is consistent with that from the previous year (93%) and falls within the acceptable range of 90%-100%. Figure 39: Willingness to recommend 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % willing to recommend 98% 97% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 95% 90% 94% 92% 93% 93% 93% 93% Q23 Base: Note: Would you recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination to others based on this trip? Visitors responding, N=1,552 Missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Those staying one or more nights were more likely recommend KI to others (94%) than day trippers (82%). 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Those on a bus tour were less likely to recommend KI to others (81%) than other visitors (94%); and 7 Air arrivals were more likely to recommend KI to others (97%) than sea arrivals (93%). 62

63 Repeat visitation (EC2j) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their experience Proportion of repeat visitation 30% - 50% The proportion of repeat visitors to KI increased significantly to 32% in 2015/16 from 26% in 2014/15. This is the first time that the incidence of repeat visitation has fallen within the acceptable range of 30%-50% since the 2010/11 financial year. Figure 40: Repeat visitation 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 00/0 1 01/0 2 02/0 3 03/0 4 04/0 5 05/0 6 06/0 7 % repeat visitors 33% 35% 34% 37% 29% 28% 30% 32% 27% 27% 30% 29% 28% 23% 26% 32% 07/0 8 08/0 9 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 Q3 Base: Note: Have you ever visited Kangaroo Island before this trip? Visitors responding, N=1,602 Don t know and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Intrastate visitors (71%) were much more likely to be repeat visitors compared to interstate (16%) and international (8%) visitors; 7 Those staying overnight were more likely to be repeat visitors (34%) than day trippers (8%); 7 Sea arrivals were more likely to be repeat visitors (33%) compared to air arrivals (17%); 7 Bus tourers (4%) were less likely to be repeat visitors than other visitors (34%); and 7 Visitors who spent over $200 per night were less likely to be repeat visitors (27%) than those who spent less than this amount per night (39%). 6 New in 2015/16: 7 Summer visitors (39%) were more likely than autumn visitors (27%) to have visited the Island before. 63

64 Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning Indicator EX1b Proportion of visitors that viewed wildlife in the natural environment Sub-groups who were within the Acceptable range for the indicator All Sub-groups who scored more highly for the indicator (compared to their comparative sub-group) International and interstate visitors First time visitors Air arrivals Those spending up to $200 per night EX1c Proportion of visitors that experienced scenic variety without crowds All except those on a tour bus and day trippers Interstate visitors Those staying one or more nights Winter visitors Those not on a tour bus EX1d Proportion of visitors that experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement All except international visitors and day trippers Interstate and intrastate visitors Sea arrivals Repeat visitors Those staying one or more nights EX1e Proportion of visitors that experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes All Winter visitors Interstate and international EX1f Proportion of visitors that experienced areas of untouched natural beauty All except those on a tour bus and day trippers Interstate visitors Autumn visitors Those not on a bus tour Those staying one or more nights EX1g Proportion of visitors that experienced farming and rural landscapes Interstate visitors Autumn and winter visitors Those not on a tour bus Repeat visitors Air and sea arrivals Those spending up to $200 per night Those spending more than $200 per night Those staying one or more nights Interstate visitors Autumn visitors Those who stayed overnight Those not on a bus tour 64

65 Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning (continued) Indicator Sub-groups who were within the Acceptable range for the indicator Sub-groups who scored more highly for the indicator (compared to their comparative sub-group) EX1h Proportion of visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce All except international visitors, those on a tour bus, day trippers and first time visitors Interstate and intrastate visitors Repeat visitors Those who stayed overnight Those arriving by air Those not on a bus tour EX1i Proportion of visitors that believe Kangaroo Island offers one of Australia s top three nature & wildlife experiences All except day trippers Air arrivals EX1j Proportion of visitors that believe Kangaroo Island has a friendly local community All except day trippers and those on a bus tour Those staying overnight Those not on a bus tour Intrastate and Interstate visitors Repeat visitors EX1k Proportion of visitors who agree that Kangaroo Island is a wild and welcoming destination, that will surprise and amaze you, relax your mind, refresh your spirit and make you feel totally alive. It provides an opportunity to view and to discover all the scenic variety of mainland Australia All Air arrivals Those not on a tour bus Those staying overnight EX1l Proportion of visitors that state that their experience matched or exceeded expectation set by marketing materials All Repeat visitors Air arrivals EX1m Proportion of visitors very satisfied with their overall experience on Kangaroo Island None Air arrivals Repeat visitors 65

66 Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition The majority of visitors leave the Island highly satisfied with their experience Indicator Sub-groups who were within the Acceptable range for the indicator Sub-groups who scored more highly for the indicator (compared to their comparative sub-group) EX2a EX2b EX2c Ex2d EX2e EX2f EX2g EX2h EX2i Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island s natural environment Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island s cultural history Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the range, quality and availability of activities available Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the quality of accommodation Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the range, quality and availability of Kangaroo Island produce Proportion of visitors that are very satisfied with the level of customer service they receive Proportion of visitors that are very satisfied with the quality of public tourism infrastructure (toilets, roads, campgrounds, picnic areas and signage) provided on Kangaroo Island Proportion of visitors that would recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination to others as a result of their experience Air arrivals None None None Air arrivals Repeat visitors Air arrivals visitors Interstate visitors None Repeat visitors None None None Air arrivals Those on a tour bus (road signage) All except day trippers and those on a tour bus Repeat visitors Air arrivals Intrastate and interstate visitors Intrastate visitors Repeat visitors Interstate (range, quality) Those staying one or more nights (quality) Those not on a tour bus (quality) Interstate (picnic areas, interpretive & educational signage, public toilets, roads) Those staying overnight (public toilets) Those on a tour bus (road signage, roads) Winter and spring visitors (roads) Day trippers (roads) Air arrivals Those staying one or more nights Those not on a tour bus 66

67 Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition The majority of visitors leave the Island highly satisfied with their experience (continued) Indicator Sub-groups who were within the Acceptable range for the indicator Sub-groups who scored more highly for the indicator (compared to their comparative sub-group) EX2j Proportion of repeat visitation Spring & summer visitors Those not on a tour bus Sea arrivals Those spending up to $200 per night Those staying one or more nights Intrastate visitors Summer visitors Sea arrivals Those spending less than $200 per night Those not on a bus tour Those staying overnight 67

68 Environmental Indicators Overview This year, the proportion of visitations to natural areas occurring on managed sites remained consistent with the previous year and fell within the acceptable range of between 70%-100%. Awareness of quarantine regulations prior to visitor arrival also remained stable at 68%, yet did not reach the minimum acceptable level of 70%. Finally, awareness levels for specific prohibited items were also consistent with levels from the previous year. 68

69 Visits to natural areas occurring on managed sites (EN2b) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Visitor activity has minimal negative impacts on the natural environment Proportion of visitations to natural areas occurring on managed sites 70% - 100% The proportion of visits to managed sites (76%) has remained consistent over the past five years, and continues to fall within the acceptable range of 70%-100%. Figure 41: Proportion of visitations to natural areas occurring on managed sites 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% % of visits to managed sites 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 75% 76% 75% 76% 75% 76% Q17 Base: Which of these locations did you visit while on Kangaroo Island this time? Total visitors, N=1,604 Significant and notable differences between subgroups: The results were consistent across subgroups. 69

70 00/01 (n=1647) 01/02 (n=745) 02/03 (n=1854) 03/04 (n=299) 04/05 (n=1474) 05/06 (n=1841) 06/07 (n=1888) 07/08 (n=1609) 08/09 (n=1635) 09/10 (n=1653) 10/11 (n=2034) 11/12 (n=1108) 12/13 (n=2452) 13/14 (n=2547) 14/15 (n=1607) 15/16 (n=1,604) Locations visited Flinders Chase National Park, Admirals Arch, Remarkable Rocks, Kingscote Township, Penneshaw Township, and Seal Bay continue to be the most popular destinations on the Island, with between 70% and 82% of respondents visiting these locations during their stay. American River Township, Emu Bay, and Brown s beach all saw increases in visitation in 2015/16. Conversely, Vivonne Bay saw a decrease compared to last year. The table below shows visitation figures for each location. Table 2: Locations Visited on Kangaroo Island over time Kingscote Township 78% 78% 83% 78% 78% 82% 84% 85% 88% 85% 88% 84% 85% 65% 74% 78% Flinders Chase National Park 80% 76% 79% 75% 82% 84% 83% 76% 81% 80% 80% 79% 80% 82% 80% 82% Penneshaw Township 78% 75% 83% 76% 82% 80% 78% 78% 85% 79% 81% 78% 79% 68% 74% 77% Admirals Arch NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 80% 77% 79% 83% 82% 80% Remarkable Rocks NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 79% 77% 78% 82% 80% 78% Seal Bay 83% 80% 80% 67% 78% 78% 76% 73% 76% 69% 71% 68% 67% 77% 69% 70% Vivonne Bay 52% 51% 56% 54% 60% 58% 59% 62% 66% 69% 66% 65% 67% 62% 63% 59% American River Township 52% 48% 60% 51% 55% 54% 50% 49% 58% 55% 58% 57% 58% 44% 53% 58% Emu Bay 44% 41% 48% 36% 41% 41% 46% 48% 48% 52% 52% 51% 57% 42% 44% 51% Parndana Township 49% 47% 56% 51% 58% 53% 50% 47% 52% 51% 52% 53% 50% 39% 45% 49% Stokes Bay 38% 44% 42% 36% 38% 38% 39% 43% 41% 47% 45% 44% 51% 39% 43% 46% Kelly Hill Caves 31% 29% 38% 35% 36% 36% NA NA NA 32% 30% 30% 22% 22% 21% 24% Cape Willoughby Light Station 28% 28% 32% 18% 29% 28% 30% 31% 33% 31% 33% 33% 32% 25% 34% 37% Little Sahara NA NA NA NA NA NA 23% 22% 25% 28% 24% 22% 22% 18% 18% 16% Hanson Bay 22% 23% 25% 25% 24% 25% 26% 28% 32% 27% 27% 25% 30% 39% 35% 34% Pennington Bay NA NA NA NA NA NA 23% 23% 27% 27% 29% 29% 28% 21% 24% 26% Cape Borda Light Station 19% 20% 27% 22% 22% 21% 23% 20% 23% 25% 29% 26% 23% 24% 24% 26% Snelling Beach 17% 16% 17% 12% 14% 14% 17% 19% 17% 20% 19% 16% 19% 13% 14% 17% Antechamber Bay 20% 21% 22% 18% 18% 15% 16% 19% 22% 18% 23% 22% 20% 16% 18% 20% Brown s Beach 11% 10% 18% 16% 15% 17% NA NA NA 18% 20% 21% 21% 13% 17% 23% Hanson Bay Sanctuary NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17% 17% 18% 19% 1% NA NA Island Beach NA NA NA NA NA NA 13% 18% 18% 14% 18% 20% 18% 13% 14% 16% Western River Cove 16% 15% 17% 17% 13% 11% 12% 14% 10% 14% 12% 11% 13% 10% 13% 12% Baudin Conservation Park NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12% 17% 16% 17% 12% 16% 19% Murray Lagoon NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12% 13% 12% 13% 4% 11% 11% Lathami Conservation Park NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% Raptor Domain** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3% 3% Q17 Which of these locations did you visit while on Kangaroo Island this time? Base: Total visitors, N=1,604 **: New in 2014/15 70

71 Awareness of quarantine regulations prior to arriving (EN2e) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 15/16 Result Visitor activity has minimal negative impacts on the natural environment Proportion of visitors aware of quarantine regulations prior to arriving on Kangaroo Island 70% - 100% The proportion of visitors aware of quarantine regulations prior to arrival was 68% in 2015/16, which is consistent with last year s measure and below the acceptable range of 70%-100%. Figure 42: Awareness of quarantine regulations 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Measurement** revised in 09/10 0% 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of visitors 58% 69% 70% 72% 71% 61% 66% 68% Q16a Q16b Base: Were you aware of Kangaroo Island s quarantine regulations, prohibiting the import of... If yes, when did you find out this information Visitors responding, N=1,604 ** The measurement method was different in 2007/2008 and 2008/2009, so these figures were slightly changed to enable tracking of this indicator. The current awareness measurement used is the percentage of all respondents that were aware of the quarantine regulations. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 7 Intrastate (73%) and interstate visitors (72%) were more likely than international visitors (57%) to be aware of quarantine regulations before their visit to the Island; 7 Summer (74%) and autumn (73%) visitors were more likely to be aware than spring visitors (62%); 7 Not surprisingly, repeat visitors (74%) were more likely to be aware than first time visitors (66%); 7 Overnight visitors (72%) were more likely to be aware than day trippers (37%); 7 Those who spent less than $200 per night (77%) were more likely to be aware than those who spent more than this amount (66%); 7 Sea arrivals (70%) were more likely to be aware than air arrivals (51%); and 7 Those not on a bus tour (72%) were more likely to be aware than those on a bus tour (26%). 71

72 Figure 43: Awareness of any quarantine regulations by repeat and first time visitors 100% 80% Repeat visitors First time visitors 60% 40% 20% Measurement** revised in 09/10 0% 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 % of first time visitors 84% 86% 84% 86% 78% 86% 84% % of repeat visitors 88% 91% 94% 91% 91% 95% 91% Q16a Were you aware of Kangaroo Island s quarantine regulations, prohibiting the import of... ** The measurement method was different in 2007/2008 and 2008/2009, so these figures have been slightly changed enable tracking of this indicator. The current awareness measurement used is the percentage of all respondents that were aware of any of the quarantine regulations. 72

73 Awareness of specific prohibited items This year, awareness of the prohibition on importing specific products remained stable compared to the previous year. Figure 44: Awareness of Prohibited Items 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 Honey/bee products 80% 84% 83% 83% 77% 82% 82% Rabbits 80% 81% 79% 79% 74% 77% 78% Foxes 78% 80% 78% 79% 73% 77% 77% Declared weeds 72% 75% 73% 73% 68% 73% 72% Potatoes 66% 68% 68% 68% 62% 66% 69% Q16a Were you aware of Kangaroo Island s quarantine regulations, prohibiting the import of... Base: Visitors responding to each, Min N=1,019 Note: Missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 7 Those not on a bus tour were more likely than those on a bus tour to be aware of all the specific prohibited items; 7 Intrastate and interstate were more likely than international visitors to be aware of regulations concerning honey/bee products and foxes; 7 Intrastate visitors were more likely than international visitors to be aware of the regulation concerning rabbits; 7 Repeat visitors were more likely than first time visitors to be aware of all regulations aside from potatoes; 7 Those staying overnight were more likely than day trippers to be aware of all regulations; 7 Sea arrivals were more likely to be aware of all quarantine regulations (other than potatoes) than air arrivals; 7 Those who spent up to $200 per night were more likely to be aware of all regulations compared to those who spent more than this amount; 7 Summer visitors were more likely to be aware of regulations concerning honey/bee products and potatoes compared to spring visitors; and 7 Autumn visitors were more likely to be aware of regulations concerning foxes and potatoes than spring visitors. 73

74 Table 3: Awareness of quarantine regulations by first time and repeat visitors this wave Aside from potatoes, repeat visitors to the Island were significantly more likely than first time visitors to be aware of all quarantine items. Aware of regulations prohibiting the import of (a) First time visitors n=1,174 Q16a Were you aware of Kangaroo Island s quarantine regulations, prohibiting the import of... Note: Missing cases excluded. Note: Significant differences between visitor type indicated by arrows (b) Repeat visitors n=391 Potatoes 69% 70% Honey / bee products 80% 87% Foxes 74% 85% Rabbits 74% 86% Declared weeds 70% 77% Sources of information about quarantine regulations Just over one in ten (12%) visitors provided further comment about where they had sourced information about quarantine regulations for Kangaroo Island. As in previous years, the ferry/ferry terminal was the most commonly mentioned source of quarantine regulation information (4% of all visitors). 74

75 % of visitors Visitor Profile Visitor Origin There was no significant change in the proportion of intrastate, interstate, or international visitors in 2015/16 compared to 2014/15. Figure 45: Visitor Origin over time 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 Intrastate 40% 40% 43% 42% 35% 34% 34% 38% 32% 35% 32% 33% 29% 24% 28% 31% Interstate 27% 27% 31% 25% 30% 27% 31% 33% 42% 40% 43% 42% 46% 46% 47% 45% International 33% 34% 26% 33% 35% 39% 35% 29% 27% 25% 24% 26% 25% 30% 25% 24% Q4 Base: Where do you live? Visitors responding, N=1,603 75

76 02/03 (n=447) 03/04 (n=66) 04/05 (n=362) 05/06 (n=463) 06/07 (n=543) 07/08 (n=538) 08/09 (n=682) 09/10 (n=597) 10/11 (n=819) 11/12 (n=465) 12/13 (n=1088) 13/14 (n=1119) 14/15 (n=696) 15/16 (n=654) Interstate visitor origin Interstate visitation continued to be driven by those coming from Victoria (31%) and New South Wales (34%) in 2015/16; with the distribution of results remaining consistent with 2014/15. Table 4: Interstate Visitor Origin over time VIC 39% 27% 36% 45% 36% 42% 43% 34% 39% 36% 41% 34% 34% 31% NSW 43% 52% 40% 36% 38% 35% 29% 36% 35% 35% 32% 39% 33% 34% QLD 11% 8% 13% 7% 10% 11% 15% 14% 12% 13% 13% 13% 17% 20% WA 3% 3% 6% 7% 7% 5% 8% 9% 8% 8% 9% 9% 10% 10% ACT 1% 4% 1% 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% TAS 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% NT 1% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3% <1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% Q4 Base: Note: Where do you live? Interstate visitors responding. Missing cases excluded. 76

77 02/03 (n=492) 03/04 (n=150) 04/05 (n=742) 05/06 (n=936) 06/07 (n=856) 07/08 (n=462) 08/09 (n=434) 09/10 (n=674) 10/11 (n=729) 11/12 (n=363) 12/13 (n=830) 13/14 (n=947) 14/15 (n=583) 15/16 (n=597) International visitor origin Overall, the country of origin of international visitors has remained relatively unchanged since 2010/11. International visitation continues to be dominated by those from Europe, the United Kingdom, and North America. Table 5: International Visitor Origin over Time USA/ Canada Other Europe 35% 29% 45% 28% 36% 29% 31% 29% 24% 24% 22% 24% 25% 23% 24% 34% 20% 31% 28% 25% 33% 29% 36% 36% 39% 32% 29% 30% UK 25% 15% 18% 21% 19% 24% 19% 22% 22% 19% 18% 15% 21% 20% Germany 8% 15% 7% 12% 9% 13% 12% 12% 10% 10% 12% 10% 12% 14% Asia 3% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2% 3% 6% 4% 7% 5% 11% 8% 9% NZ 3% 1% 6% 2% 3% 5% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 3% Other Country 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3% 1% 1% Japan 3% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% Q4 Base: Note: Note: Where do you live? International visitors responding. Missing cases excluded. Country Coded according to TRA, IVS. 77

78 Age profile Profile of respondents taking the survey The age profile of visitors in 2015/16 was generally consistent with that from the previous year. The one exception to this concerned the intrastate visitors, with the proportion of year olds in this group decreasing significantly (41%, down from 50%). Figure 46: Profile of respondents Total visitors 09/10 (n=1611) 10/11 (n=1976) 11/12 (n=1069) 12/13 (n=2366) 13/14 (n=2408) 14/15 (n=1528) 15/16 (n=1528) years 6% 4% 6% 6% 6% 4% 5% years 31% 29% 27% 31% 31% 25% 25% years 47% 47% 44% 44% 42% 44% 45% 65+ years 16% 19% 23% 19% 21% 27% 26% Intrastate visitors 09/10 (n=378) 10/11 (n=477) 11/12 (n=276) 12/13 (n=515) 13/14 (n=456) 14/15 (n=309) 15/16 (n=343) years 6% 4% 5% 7% 4% 3% 5% years 31% 31% 32% 32% 30% 27% 30% years 52% 49% 40% 43% 47% 50% 41% 65+ years 12% 16% 22% 18% 18% 19% 24% Interstate visitors 09/10 (n=588) 10/11 (n=796) 11/12 (n=450) 12/13 (n=1059) 13/14 (n=1056) 14/15 (n=659) 15/16 (n=636) years 4% 3% 3% 4% 5% 2% 3% years 25% 21% 15% 23% 26% 18% 15% years 51% 51% 55% 51% 42% 46% 52% 65+ years 20% 25% 27% 22% 27% 34% 30% International visitors 09/10 (n=643) 10/11 (n=703) 11/12 (n=343) 12/13 (n=791) 13/14 (n=894) 14/15 (n=553) 15/16 (n=549) years 10% 7% 13% 8% 9% 9% 8% years 42% 43% 39% 43% 38% 34% 37% years 34% 35% 33% 34% 37% 33% 35% 65+ years 14% 15% 16% 16% 15% 23% 19% Q27 Base: Note: Please record the number of people you are travelling with in each of the following categories. Visitors responding. Missing cases excluded. 78

79 Profile of visitors (includes entire travel party) Table 6: Age profile of visitors (includes entire travel party) 12/13 (n=2452) 13/14 (n=2252) 14/15 (n=1584) 15/16 (n=1,554) Total Female 55% 55% 53% 55% Under 15 years 5% 9% 7% 7% years 4% 6% 4% 2% years 14% 12% 9% 10% years 22% 17% 18% 15% 65 plus years 11% 11% 15% 20% Total Male 45% 45% 47% 45% Under 15 years 4% 8% 7% 5% years 3% 3% 2% 3% years 11% 10% 9% 9% years 17% 14% 16% 15% 65 plus years 10% 10% 13% 14% Q27 Base: Note: Note: Please record the number of people you are travelling with in each of the following categories. All responses entire travel party accounted for Missing cases excluded. Question revised in 2010/11 to ask age and gender of entire travel party. 79

80 Incidence of repeat visitation This year, the proportion of repeat visitors was 32%, which is significantly greater than the previous year and within the acceptable level of between 30% and 50%. Figure 47: Incidence of repeat visitation to Kangaroo Island over time Repeat visitor First time visitor 15/16 (n=1,602) 14/15 (n=1,602) 13/14 (n=2544) 12/13 (n=2446) 11/12 (n=1108) 10/11 (n=2028) 09/10 (n=1659) 08/09 (n=1628) 07/08 (n=1597) 06/07 (n=1815) 05/06 (n=1811) 04/05 (n=1405) 03/04 (n=289) 02/03 (n=1841) 01/02 (n=742) 00/01 (n=1647) 32% 26% 23% 28% 29% 30% 27% 27% 32% 30% 28% 29% 37% 34% 35% 33% 68% 74% 77% 72% 71% 70% 73% 73% 68% 70% 72% 71% 63% 66% 65% 67% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Incidence of repeat visitation by visitor origin Incidence of repeat visitation among intrastate and interstate visitors was consistent with the previous year, with the former group continuing to make up the vast majority (71%) of repeat visitors to the Island. This year saw a significantly increase in the proportion of repeat visitors from overseas (8%, up from 3% in 2014/15). Table 7: Repeat Visitation to Kangaroo Island by Visitor Origin over time 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 Intrastate 68% 70% 67% 79% 68% 63% 68% 68% 60% 61% 67% 66% 65% 69% 67% 71% Interstate 17% 18% 14% 19% 14% 16% 16% 14% 15% 11% 16% 14% 17% 12% 12% 16% International 5% 8% 6% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 4% 4% 8% 6% 4% 3% 8% Q3 Base: Note: Have you ever visited Kangaroo Island before this trip? Visitors responding. Don t know and missing cases excluded. 80

81 Travel party Travelling with a partner or family and friends continued to be the two most common types of travel party in 2015/16. Travel party distribution was consistent with the previous year. Figure 48: Travel party over Time 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 Partner 37% 46% 44% 42% 46% 43% 46% 47% 47% 44% 46% 47% Family & friends 45% 42% 45% 49% 46% 47% 46% 45% 46% 44% 45% 42% Special interest/ tour group 10% 7% 6% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 3% 5% 3% 4% Alone 8% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 7% 6% 6% Business associate** 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% Q2 On this trip, who did you travel with? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,602 Note: Missing cases excluded. ** Added category in 05/06. 81

82 Travel party by visitor origin Table 8: Travel party by visitor origin over time Intrastate Visitors 07/08 (n=607) 08/09 (n=516) 09/10 (n=384) 10/11 (n=483) 11/12 (n=280) 12/13 (n=527) 13/14 (n=476) 14/15 (n=326) 15/16 (n=353) With family and friends 58% 54% 56% 58% 65% 58% 61% 60% 55% With a partner 34% 40% 36% 36% 30% 36% 30% 35% 38% With a special interest group 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% Alone 4% 4% 5% 3% 2% 3% 5% 3% 4% With business associate (with or without spouse) 2% <1% <1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% <1% Interstate Visitors 07/08 (n=538) 08/09 (n=682) 09/10 (n=598) 10/11 (n=819) 11/12 (n=465) 12/13 (n=1088) 13/14 (n=1123) 14/15 (n=696) 15/16 (n=653) With family and friends 47% 43% 46% 42% 35% 44% 40% 39% 37% With a partner 47% 51% 48% 51% 57% 49% 49% 54% 51% With a special interest group 2% 3% 3% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2% 4% Alone 5% 3% 3% 2% 6% 4% 6% 5% 7% With business associate (with or without spouse) 0% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 1% International Visitors 07/08 (n=460) 08/09 (n=434) 09/10 (n=672) 10/11 (n=728) 11/12 (n=361) 12/13 (n=829) 13/14 (n=942) 14/15 (n=584) 15/16 (n=596) With family and friends 40% 42% 38% 38% 37% 36% 38% 38% 34% With a partner 48% 46% 45% 51% 51% 54% 48% 43% 52% With a special interest group 6% 6% 12% 4% 7% 4% 5% 6% 5% Alone 6% 7% 5% 5% 5% 5% 9% 13% 7% With business associate (with or without spouse) 0% <1% <1% <1% 1% <1% <1% <1% 2% Q2 Base: Note: On this trip, who did you travel with? Visitors responding. Missing cases excluded. 82

83 02/03 (n=1848) 03/04 (n=290) 04/05 (n=1474) 05/06 (n=1690) 06/07 (n=1729) 07/08 (n=1536) 08/09 (n=1635) 09/10 (n=1592) 10/11 (n=1931) 11/12 (n=1072) 12/13 (n=2372) 13/14 (n=2092) 14/15 (n=1,392) 15/15 (n=1,380) Types of Accommodation Holiday homes and hotels/motels continued to be the two most popular forms of accommodation among visitors, with use the former increasing significantly since the previous year (27%, up from 22%). The use of luxury lodge/retreat accommodation decreased significantly against the previous year (7%, down from 10%). Table 9: Accommodation used over time Hotel / motel 28% 29% 26% 32% 30% 25% 25% 23% 25% 22% 24% 25% 25% 25% Holiday home / apartment / unit* Camping, caravan or motor-home* Cabin / Cottage* Luxury lodge / retreat^ Bed and Breakfast/ Farm Stay*+ Backpacker hostel Friends / relatives 28% 13% 19% 26% 27% 21% 21% 22% 21% 26% 23% 22% 22% 27% 16% 21% 11% 16% 10% 13% 14% 17% 18% 14% 18% 17% 17% 16% 18% 18% 17% 11% 12% 11% 10% 15% 11% 13% 13% 12% 12% 10% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 10% 7% 8% 12% 10% 14% 14% 10% 10% 7% 11% 10% 10% 8% 7% 7% 3% 5% 7% 4% 4% 3% 2% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% 7% 16% 8% 5% 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 6% 6% 6% Q7 Base: Note: What type of accommodation did you stay in while on Kangaroo Island? Visitors responding. Don t know and missing cases excluded. ^ Category was added in 2009/2010. * Categories were changed in 05/06, with some being merged to allow indicative comparison with previous years. + Bed and Breakfast / Farm Stay include both hosted and self-contained bed and breakfast / farm stay responses. 83

84 11/12 (n=265) 12/13 (n=514) 13/14 (n=437) 14/15 (n=303) 15/16 (n=304) 11/12 (n=458) 12/13 (n=1064) 13/14 (n=904) 14/15 (n=640) 15/16 (n=564) 11/12 (n=349) 12/13 (n=793) 13/14 (n=749) 14/15 (n=484) 15/16 (n=512) Types of accommodation by visitor origin Holiday homes were the most popular form of accommodation among both intrastate and interstate visitors this year, whereas international visitors were most likely to opt for a hotel or motel as their means of accommodation. Interstate visitors also favoured staying on the island via camping, caravan or motorhome. Table 10: Accommodation Used by Visitor Origin Intrastate Interstate International Holiday home 41% 34% 34% 35% 37% 26% 23% 20% 22% 25% 7% 11% 8% 6% 13% Hotel / motel 15% 13% 16% 13% 17% 21% 25% 25% 29% 24% 32% 35% 36% 37% 39% Cabin 14% 13% 11% 13% 11% 17% 15% 11% 14% 11% 6% 8% 9% 6% 7% Camping, caravan or motorhome Rented apartment or flat or unit Self-contained bed & breakfast or farm stay Luxury lodge/retreat Friends / relatives Backpacker hostel Hosted bed & breakfast or farm stay 8% 12% 9% 10% 10% 18% 24% 23% 24% 24% 16% 16% 11% 13% 10% 13% 12% 15% 13% 10% 9% 8% 11% 8% 7% 8% 7% 8% 7% 4% 7% 10% 3% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 3% 3% 5% 3% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 6% 4% 8% 7% 10% 10% 7% 15% 13% 12% 14% 12% 7% 8% 11% 12% 10% 6% 3% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 11% 7% 12% 8% 11% 1% 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% 9% 6% 8% 6% 6% Own property 1% 3% 2% 2% <1% 0% <1% <1% <1% <1% 0% <1% <1% 0% 0% Other <1% <1% 3% 2% 7% <1% <1% 4% 4% 4% 0% <1% 1% 3% 5% Q7 Note: What type of accommodation did you stay in while on Kangaroo Island? Don t know and missing cases excluded. 84

85 Satisfaction with accommodation Satisfaction with accommodation in 2015/16 saw several changes relative to 2014/15. Satisfaction with the quality of holiday homes, rented apartments or flats or units, self-contained bed and breakfasts or farm stays, and cabins all increased significantly. Table 11: Satisfaction with accommodation types across waves 11/12 (n=1072) 12/13 (n=2372) 13/14 (n=1965) 14/15 (n=1318) 15/16 (n=1314) Total Satisfaction 78% 76% 77% 80% 80% Hosted bed & breakfast or farm stay 87% 89% 93% 92% 82% Holiday home 84% 91% 87% 87% 93% Luxury lodge/retreat 80% 80% 87% 86% 84% Rented apartment or flat or unit 82% 84% 81% 78% 93% Friends / relatives 78% 87% 94% 91% 89% Self-contained bed & breakfast or farm stay 77% 93% 82% 96% 79% Hotel / motel 79% 66% 75% 71% 71% Cabin 68% 67% 72% 63% 85% Camping, caravan or motor home 67% 60% 59% 64% 70% Backpacker hostel 63% 72% 56% 69% 52% Q7 What type of accommodation did you stay in while on Kangaroo Island? Q19.3 Please indicate how satisfied you were with the quality of accommodation. Base: Visitors who stayed in each accommodation type and responded. Note: Don t know and missing cases excluded. Note: Top 2 box reported 85

86 Table 12: Satisfaction with accommodation types this wave A) Own property 100% B) Self-contained bed & breakfast or farm stay 79% C) Hosted bed & breakfast or farm stay 82% D) Friends / relatives 89% ( I) E) Holiday home 93% ( B, H, I, J) F) Luxury Lodge / Retreat 84% ( H, I) G) Rented apartment or flat or unit 93% ( H, I, J) H) Hotel / motel 71% I) Backpacker hostel 52% J) Camping, caravan or motorhome 70% K) Cabin 85% Q7 What type of accommodation did you stay in while on Kangaroo Island? Q19.3 Please indicate how satisfied you were with the quality of accommodation. Base: Visitors who stayed in each accommodation type and responded. Note: Don t know and missing cases excluded. Note: Top 2 box reported Significant differences between accommodation types indicated by letter (A-K) 86

87 Credible vs. Experienced Attributes & Attractions Overall, the proportion of visitors who experienced the Island s numerous attributes and attractions has remained unchanged since 2011/12. Table 13: Credible vs. experienced attributes and attractions Credible Experienced Spectacular scenery and coastal beauty Areas of untouched natural beauty Viewing Australia s wildlife in natural surroundings Scenic variety without crowds of people Farming and rural landscapes Island produce (food & wine) A friendly local community The cultural heritage and history of settlement One of Australia's top three nature and wildlife experiences 11/12 (min n=1041) 12/13 (min n=2341) 13/14 (min n=2401) 14/15 (min n=1534) 15/16 (min n=1532) 11/12 (min n=833) 12/13 (min n=1881) 13/14 (min n=1980) 14/15 (min n=1252) 15/16 (min n=1290) 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99% 94% 96% 97% 95% 96% 95% 95% 96% 95% 96% 95% 96% 98% 98% 97% 93% 93% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 95% 97% 96% 97% 96% 94% 97% 97% 92% 94% 92% 93% 94% 89% 89% 88% 88% 90% 89% 90% 85% 89% 91% 82% 81% 75% 80% 83% 89% 90% 87% 88% 90% 93% 93% 91% 91% 92% 76% 75% 77% 79% 80% 71% 67% 71% 74% 76% 56% 56% 64% 63% 64% 71% 71% 79% 76% 75% Q18a Q18b Base: Note: Note: For each of the following, please indicate whether you believe that Kangaroo Island provides this. For each of the following, please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island. Visitors responding to each attribute. Missing cases excluded. Top 2 box reported 87

88 Satisfaction with attributes This year saw increases in the proportion of visitors satisfied or very satisfied with the following Island attributes: quality of accommodation (80%, up from 76%); range of island produce (78%, up from 74%); opportunity to learn more about KI s history (73%, up from 68%); quality of road signage (75%, up from 70%); and quality of roads (66%, up from 61%). All remaining attributes (see Table 15) received similar levels of satisfaction compared to the previous year. Table 14: Satisfaction with Attributes 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 The level customer service you received 82% 84% 84% 84% 86% Seeing wildlife in the natural environment 84% 82% 84% 84% 87% The quality of Island produce (food & wine) 78% 78% 80% 82% 84% The quality of activities available 78% 79% 80% 80% 82% The professionalism of tourism businesses 79% 78% 82% 82% 83% The range of activities available 76% 78% 79% 80% 81% The quality of accommodation 78% 76% 76% 76% 80% Your opportunity to learn more about the Island's natural environment 77% 78% 80% 80% 80% The quality of picnic/day use areas 80% 83% 82% 82% 83% The range of island produce (food & wine) 71% 72% 72% 74% 78% The availability of activities 73% 74% 75% 76% 75% The quality of interpretive/educational signage 75% 72% 75% 76% 79% Your opportunity to learn more about the Island's history** 68% 66% 70% 68% 73% The availability of island produce (food & wine) 67% 69% 69% 72% 74% The quality of public toilets 75% 74% 74% 79% 80% The quality of road signage 70% 69% 73% 70% 75% The quality of campgrounds 72% 66% 69% 70% 73% The quality of roads 63% 56% 62% 61% 66% Q19 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors responding to each attribute. Note: **Changed in 2015/16 from Your opportunity to learn more about the Island s cultural history in previous waves (emphasis added) Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Note: Top 2 box reported 88

89 Reasons for Dissatisfaction Visitors who reported dissatisfaction with a particular aspect of their Kangaroo Island experience were asked to provide further detail about their reasons for dissatisfaction. Three fifths of visitors provided comments on their reasons for dissatisfaction. As was the case last year, visitors were most likely to express dissatisfaction towards KI s road infrastructure and road signage. In regards to changes compared to the previous year, a significantly smaller proportion of visitors commented that they were dissatisfied with the quality and/or quantify of food options in restaurants, whereas a significantly greater proportion commented that they were not dissatisfied with anything. Table 15: Reasons for dissatisfaction 11/12 (n=1108) 12/13 (n=2452) 13/14 (n=2547) 14/15 (n=1607) 15/16 (n=1604) Road Infrastructure 13% 10% 6% 9% 9% Better road signage (attractions/ airport/ ferry)^ 7% 5% 9% 7% Quality of Accommodation / or lack of 5% 5% 2% 3% 3% Bad quality / availability public toilets / bins / picnic areas Customer service and friendless/ or lack of 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% Limited Trading Hours 3% 4% 3% 4% 5% Expenses at KI 5% 3% 2% 4% 4% A lack of restaurants, cafes and other eating places 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% More / better tourist information 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% Habitat / Wildlife 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% Too much road kill 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% Availability of local produce 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% Quality/ availability of activities/ tour guides 3% 3% 1% 3% 2% Bad/ lack of food options in restaurants 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% Mobile phone coverage <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% Other 2% 3% 8% 4% 6% Everything fine / not dissatisfied 2% 2% 1% 2% 4% Did not comment 60% 56% 67% 60% 59% Q20 For any item in question 19 above that you have expressed dissatisfaction with, please provide further comment. Base: Total visitors. ^ Code added in 2012/13. 89

90 Suggestions for Improvement Visitors were asked to make any suggestions to improve their travel experience on Kangaroo Island. Here, 54% of survey completers contributed a suggestion for improvement, which was lower than in the previous year (59%). Visitors were most likely to suggest that the accuracy and amount of tourist information be improved, that KI s road infrastructure be improved, and that the cost of travelling to the Island be lowered. In regards to changes compared to last year, a significantly greater proportion of visitors commented that trading hours on the Island should be extended, and a significantly smaller proportion suggested more activities / wildlife viewing opportunities. Table 16: Suggestions for improvement 11/12 (n=1108) 12/13 (n=2452) 13/14 (n=2547) 14/15 (n=1607) 15/16 (n=1604) Improve road infrastructure 10% 9% 6% 10% 8% Improve road signage/ attraction signage/ improve map/ provide map^ Improve quality/ number of stores, restaurants, takeaway shops 6% 3% 6% 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% Lower the cost of travel 9% 8% 5% 7% 7% More/ accurate tourist information 8% 8% 5% 9% 9% Reduce expenses on the Island (activities, food, petrol etc.) 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% Extend length of stay 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% Improve public transport, bus/ taxi / infrastructure 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% Extend trading hours (shops/ restaurants/ tours/ petrol stations) 2% 3% 3% 2% 4% Improve quality/ availability of accommodation 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% More activities / wildlife viewing opportunities 1% 2% 3% 4% 1% Improve mobile phone/ Internet coverage 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% Improve public infrastructure (public toilets, rubbish bins, picnic areas etc.) 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% Reduce road kill/ speed limits 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% More/ better local produce 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% Improve customer service/ friendliness of locals 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% Keep KI untouched/ limit development 3% 3% 1% 1% 2% Car rental - reduce costs/ availability/ provide more information 1% 1% 1% <1% 1% Other suggestions 5% 6% 10% 8% 10% No Comment 49% 47% 55% 41% 46% Q26 What suggestions do you have for improving your Kangaroo Island travel experience? Base: Total visitors. ^ Code added in 2012/13. 90

91 Exploration of those dissatisfied overall A small proportion (4%, n=51) of the total sample were dissatisfied overall, scoring Q22: Overall Satisfaction, as a 5 or below out of 10. Compared to the total sample, these individuals were relatively likely to have booked their trip as part of a package, spend more than $200 per night, visit in the summer, and not stay overnight. Other subgroup measures, such as method of arrival to KI, visitor origin, and previous visitation status, were relatively consistent with the total sample and, as such, did not inform the aforementioned profile. Table 17: Who was dissatisfied? Travel party Those that were dissatisfied n=51 Total 15/16 respondents N=1604 Travelling with family or friends 34% 42% Travelling with partner 55% 47% Travelling with special interest/tour group 7% 4% Travelling alone 4% 6% Travelling with business associates (with or without spouse) 0% 1% Season visited Winter 6% 14% Spring 33% 37% Summer 34% 27% Autumn 27% 23% Previous visitation Yes 32% 32% No 68% 68% Visitor Origin Intrastate 35% 31% Interstate 40% 45% International 25% 24% Arrival transportation Air 6% 7% Sea 94% 93% Type of stay Day trip 17% 10% Overnight 83% 90% 91

92 Trip as part of package Those that were dissatisfied n=51 Total 15/16 respondents N=1604 Yes 31% 25% No 69% 75% Spend Up to $200 per night 56% 65% More than $200 per night 44% 35% Respondents who were dissatisfied overall (scoring Q22: Overall Satisfaction, as 5 or below out of 10) tended to show much lower satisfaction towards all elements of their trip compared to the total sample. The largest differences between the dissatisfied sub-group and the total sample were in relation to the opportunity to learn more about the Island s natural environment (47% difference), the quality of interpretive / educational signage (46% difference), the quality of picnic / day use areas (46% difference), and seeing wildlife in the natural environment (45% difference). Table 18: What were they dissatisfied with? Those that were dissatisfied n=51 % Very satisfied (Top 2 box out of 5) Total 15/16 respondents N=1604 % Very satisfied (Top 2 box out of 5) The level of customer service you received 42% 86% Seeing wildlife in the natural environment 42% 87% The quality of Island produce (food & wine) 53% 84% The quality of activities available 44% 82% The professionalism of tourism businesses 40% 83% The range of activities available 38% 81% The quality of accommodation 40% 80% Your opportunity to learn more about the Island s natural environment 33% 80% The quality of picnic/ day use areas 37% 83% The range of Island produce (food & wine) 46% 78% The availability of activities 37% 75% The quality of interpretive/ educational signage 33% 79% Your opportunity to learn more about the Island s history 32% 73% The availability of Island produce (food & wine) 44% 74% The quality of public toilets 56% 80% The quality of road signage 44% 75% The quality of campgrounds 37% 73% The quality of roads 37% 66% 92

93 Table 19: Reasons for dissatisfaction (Q20) Those that were dissatisfied n=51 Total 15/16 respondents N=1604 Road Infrastructure 13% 9% Better road signage (attractions/ airport/ ferry)^ 7% 7% Quality of Accommodation / or lack of 4% 3% Bad quality / availability public toilets / bins / picnic areas 0% 3% Customer service and friendless/ or lack of 13% 3% Limited Trading Hours 14% 5% Expenses at KI 13% 4% A lack of restaurants, cafes and other eating places 13% 2% More / better tourist information 9% 4% Habitat / Wildlife 7% 1% Too much roadkill 0% 1% More local produce 6% 3% Quality/ availability of activities/ tour guides 3% 2% Bad/ lack of food options in restaurants 6% 1% Mobile phone coverage 0% <1% Other 13% 6% Everything fine / not dissatisfied 0% 4% No Comments / NA / Blank Cells 33% 59% Q20 For any item in question 19 above that you have expressed dissatisfaction with, please provide further comment. Base: Total visitors. ^ Code added in 2012/13. 93

94 Appendix A: Visitor Expenditure One key limitation of data about visitor expenditure is the dependence of the figures on the perceptions and opinions of visitors. In some cases reporting may be inaccurate due to lack of information about expenditure (i.e. when purchasing a package) or the impact of recall on data quality. All data in this Appendix must be considered with caution. Incidence of Package Bookings This year, the proportion of visitors whose trip to Kangaroo Island formed part of a travel package (25%) was consistent with the previous year (25%). Figure 49: Trip to Kangaroo Island part of travel package 15/16 (n=1595) 14/15 (n=1588) 13/14 (n=2516) 12/13 (n=2422) 11/12 (n=1102) 10/11 (n=2001) 09/10 (n=1485) 25% 25% 28% 23% 23% 21% 20% 75% 75% 72% 77% 77% 79% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Part of a package Not part of a package Q8 Base: Note: Was your trip to Kangaroo Island paid for as part of a travel package? Visitors responding. Missing cases excluded. 94

95 Type of booking by visitor origin Remaining relatively unchanged over the past four years, intrastate and interstate visitors were less likely to book their trip as part of a travel package compared to international visitors. Table 20: Booking Type by Visitor Origin Intrastate Visitors 11/12 (n=278) 12/13 (n=526) 13/14 (n=471) 14/15 (n=324) 15/16 (n=351) Trip part of a package 19% 22% 19% 20% 24% Not part of a package 81% 78% 81% 80% 76% Interstate Visitors 11/12 (n=464) 12/13 (n=1077) 13/14 (n=1109) 14/15 (n=690) 15/16 (n=651) Trip part of a package 20% 19% 27% 19% 20% Not part of a package 80% 81% 73% 81% 80% International Visitors 11/12 (n=360) 12/13 (n=818) 13/14 (n=933) 14/15 (n=574) 15/16 (n=593) Trip part of a package 33% 31% 36% 40% 34% Not part of a package 67% 69% 64% 60% 66% Q8 Base: Note: Was your trip to Kangaroo Island paid for as part of a travel package? Visitors responding. Missing cases excluded. 95

96 Expenditure per visitor At the overall (total visitor) level, the reported average cost that was spent per person on the Island in 2015/16 ($770.06) was statistically consistent with the previous year s reported average ($726.90). Interstate visitors, however, reported a significantly greater average cost per person ($923.88) in 2015/16 compared to the previous year ($819.43). Table 21: Average expenditure per visitor Total Visitors 12/13 (n=2179) 13/14 (n=2197) 14/15 (n=1414) 15/16 (n=1,412) Average $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ $1, $ $ Median^ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ Min. $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $10.00 Max $24, $49, $16, $42, Intrastate Visitors 12/13 (n=491) 13/14 (n=443) 14/15 (n=310) 15/16 (n=338) Average $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ $ $ $ Median^ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ Min. $15.00 $3.50 $15.00 $33.33 Max $4,00.00 $5, $4, $6, Interstate Visitors 12/13 (n=1015) 13/14 (n=1014) 14/15 (n=642) 15/16 (n=606) Average $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ $ $ $ Median^ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ Min. $0.00 $2.00 $10.00 $12.50 Max $6,00.00 $12, $10, $12, International Visitors 12/13 (n=673) 13/14 (n=738) 14/15 (n=462) 15/16 (n=468) Average $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ , $1, $1, Median^ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ Min. $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $10.00 Max $24, $49, $16, $42, * Standard Deviation provides an indication of the accuracy of the average. ^ Median is the point at which half the respondents spent more, and half spent less. Mode is the value that occurs the most frequently in a data set. Q6 Did you stay one or more nights or was it a way trip? Q9 What was the cost of the total package? Q11 What is your best guess of the total Kangaroo Island component of the package? Q13 What additional money did you spend on top of the package whilst on the Island? Q14 Please indicate how much you spent on your trip to Kangaroo Island? Q15 How many people did these costs cover? Base: Visitors responding. Note: Note: Missing cases excluded. Visitors who indicated that their trip was part of a package yet did not specify the KI component of the package have been excluded from all expenditure calculations in this report 96

97 The reported average cost per person per day on the Island increased significantly from $ in 2014/15 to $ in 2015/16 a 13% rise. Interstate visitors contributed to this increase in daily expenditure by spending 25.3% more than the previous year. Table 22: Average daily expenditure per visitor Total Visitors 12/13 (n=) 13/14 (n=) 14/15 (n=1249) 15/16 (n=1393) Average $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ $ $ $ Median^ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ Min. $0.00 $1.25 $0.00 $7.14 Max $4, $45, $5, $ Intrastate Visitors 12/13 (n=470) 13/14 (n=408) 14/15 (n=280) 15/16 (n=331) Average $93.28 $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $75.30 $ $87.87 $ Median^ $74.80 $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ Min. $4.17 $6.32 $15.00 $7.14 Max $2, $1, $ Interstate Visitors 12/13 (n=983) 13/14 (n=818) 14/15 (n=588) 15/16 (n=600) Average $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ $ $ $ Median^ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ Min. $0.00 $1.25 $10.00 $12.50 Max $1, $3, $2, $5, International Visitors 12/13 (n=631) 13/14 (n=574) 14/15 (n=381) 15/16 (n=462) Average $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ $1, $ $ Median^ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ Min. $0.83 $3.33 $0.00 $8.33 Max $4, $45, $5, $9, * Standard Deviation provides an indication of the accuracy of the average. ^ Median is the point at which half the respondents spent more, and half spent less. Mode is the value that occurs the most frequently in a data set. Q6 Did you stay one or more nights or was it a way trip? Q9 What was the cost of the total package? Q11 What is your best guess of the total Kangaroo Island component of the package? Q13 What additional money did you spend on top of the package whilst on the Island? Q14 Please indicate how much you spent on your trip to Kangaroo Island? Q15 How many people did these costs cover? Base: Visitors responding. Note: Note: Missing cases excluded. Visitors who indicated that their trip was part of a package yet did not specify the KI component of the package have been excluded from all expenditure calculations in this report 97

98 Appendix B: VES Questionnaire

99

100

101