Prepared for: TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island CB Contact: Ben Nitschke, Account Manager Phone: (08)

Transcription

1 Prepared for: TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island CB Contact: Ben Nitschke, Account Manager Phone: (08) Issue Date: 24 August, 2017 Project number: TOMM0003

2 Contents. Addressing the TOMM Indicators... 8 Introduction Background Research Objectives Research Methodology Weighting Questionnaire Design Restructuring & Reanalysis of Previous Wave Data Confidence Intervals Data cleaning Limitations of the Research Key Findings 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-group scores for economic 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) 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)... 44

3 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) 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 Seasonal variances Proportion of visitors by season Appendix A: Visitor Expenditure Incidence of Package Bookings Expenditure per visitor Appendix B: VES Questionnaire

4 Index of Tables Table 1: Margin of Error per number of responses 16 Table 2: Locations Visited on Kangaroo Island over time 68 Table 3: Awareness of quarantine regulations by first time and repeat visitors this wave 72 Table 4: Interstate Visitor Origin over time 75 Table 5: International Visitor Origin over Time 76 Table 6: Age profile of visitors (includes entire travel party) 78 Table 7: Repeat Visitation to Kangaroo Island by Visitor Origin over time 79 Table 8: Travel party by visitor origin over time 81 Table 9: Accommodation used over time 82 Table 10: Accommodation Used by Visitor Origin 83 Table 11: Satisfaction with accommodation types across waves 84 Table 12: Satisfaction with accommodation types this wave 85 Table 13: Credible vs. experienced attributes and attractions 86 Table 14: Satisfaction with Attributes 87 Table 15: Reasons for dissatisfaction 88 Table 16: Suggestions for improvement 89 Table 17: Who was dissatisfied? 90 Table 18: What were they dissatisfied with? 91 Table 19: Reasons for dissatisfaction (Q20) 92 Table 20: Booking Type by Visitor Origin 105 Table 21: Average expenditure per visitor 106 Table 22: Average daily expenditure per visitor 107

5 Index of Figures Figure 1: Length of stay over time 20 Figure 2: Average Number of Nights over Time 21 Figure 3: Average number of nights by visitor origin over time 22 Figure 4: Willingness to recommend 23 Figure 5: Increase in average annual total expenditure per person per visit 24 Figure 6: Increase in annual number of visitors 25 Figure 7: Satisfaction with customer service received 26 Figure 8: Satisfaction with professionalism of tourism operators 27 Figure 9: Number of compliments and complaints received 28 Figure 10: Average spend per night over $ Figure 11: Visitors that viewed Australia s wildlife in natural surroundings 32 Figure 12: Visitors that experienced scenic variety without crowds 33 Figure 13: Visitors that experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement 34 Figure 14: Visitors that experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes 35 Figure 15: Visitors that experienced areas of untouched natural beauty 36 Figure 16: Visitors that experienced farming and rural landscapes 37 Figure 17: Visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce 38 Figure 18: Visitors that experienced Kangaroo Island as one of Australia s top three nature & wildlife experiences 39 Figure 19: Visitors that experienced a friendly local community on Kangaroo Island 40 Figure 20: Visitors who agree that Kangaroo Island is a wild and welcoming destination [...] 41 Figure 21: Visitors stating that their experience matched or exceeded the expectation set by marketing materials 42 Figure 22: Visitors who were very satisfied** with their overall experience on Kangaroo Island 43 Figure 23: Visitors who were satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment 44

6 Figure 24: Visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island s natural environment 45 Figure 25: Satisfaction with opportunity to learn more about the Island s history 46 Figure 26: Satisfaction with the range activities 47 Figure 27: Satisfaction with the quality of activities 48 Figure 28: Satisfaction with the availability of activities 49 Figure 29: Satisfaction with quality of accommodation 50 Figure 30: Satisfaction with the range of local Kangaroo Island produce 51 Figure 31: Satisfaction with the quality of local Kangaroo Island produce 52 Figure 32: Satisfaction with the availability of local Kangaroo Island produce 53 Figure 33: Satisfaction with the quality of picnic & day use areas 54 Figure 34: Satisfaction with the quality of interpretive & educational signage 55 Figure 35: Satisfaction with the quality of public toilets 56 Figure 36: Satisfaction with the quality of road signage 57 Figure 37: Satisfaction with the quality of campgrounds 58 Figure 38: Satisfaction with the quality of roads 59 Figure 39: Willingness to recommend 60 Figure 40: Repeat visitation 61 Figure 41: Proportion of visitations to natural areas occurring on managed sites 67 Figure 42: Awareness of quarantine regulations 69 Figure 43: Awareness of any quarantine regulations by repeat and first time visitors 70 Figure 44: Awareness of Prohibited Items 71 Figure 45: Visitor Origin over time 74 Figure 46: Profile of respondents 77 Figure 47: Incidence of repeat visitation to Kangaroo Island over time 79 Figure 48: Travel party over Time 80 Figure 49: Trip to Kangaroo Island part of travel package 104

7 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 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 2015/16 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 2016/17 Visitor Exit Survey (VES).

9 Summary of TOMM Indicators Summary of Economic Indicators Optimal Conditions Ref Indicators Acceptable Range VES 16/17 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% 95% $ [1.2% increase] EC1g Annual number of visitors to Kangaroo Island 0-20%* 3.1% EC2c Proportion of visitors that are very satisfied with the level of customer service they receive 65% - 100% 57% 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% 37%

10 Summary of Experiential Indicators Optimal Conditions Ref Indicators Acceptable Range VES 16/17 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% 97% 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% 74% 90% - 100% 99% EX1f Proportion of visitors that experienced areas of untouched natural beauty 90% - 100% 97% EX1g Proportion of visitors that experienced farming and rural landscapes 90% - 100% 92% * Acceptable range changed from 0-3% to 0-20% in 2016.

11 Optimal Conditions Ref Indicators Acceptable Range VES 16/17 Results EX1h Proportion of visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce 80% - 100% 87% EX1i Proportion of visitors that believe Kangaroo Island offers one of Australia s top three nature & wildlife experiences 70% - 100% 80% EX1j Proportion of visitors that believe Kangaroo Island has a friendly local community 80% - 100% 94% 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% 86% EX1l Proportion of visitors that state that their experience matched or exceeded the expectation set by marketing materials 80% - 100% 95% EX1m Proportion of visitors very satisfied with their overall experience on Kangaroo Island 90% - 100% 86%

12 Optimal Conditions Ref Indicators Acceptable Range VES 16/17 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% 63% 70% - 100% 49% 70% - 100% 41% 70% - 100% 43% - 49% 70% - 100% 51% 70% - 100% 43% - 52% 80% - 100% 57% 60% - 100% 25% - 47% 90% - 100% 95% EX2j Proportion of repeat visitation 30% - 50% 34%

13 Summary of Environmental Indicators Optimal Conditions Ref Indicators Acceptable Range VES 16/17 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% 75% 70% - 100% 66%

14 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 2015/16 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 twelve financial years. The following report details findings from the TOMM Visitor Exit Survey conducted throughout the 2016/17 period. Where possible, tracking has been performed on questions that have been kept comparable across the past fourteen years of the Visitor Exit Survey. 14

15 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 2016 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. 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 departures. 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 or adjustment for both non response and non-coverage. It serves the purpose of providing data that represents the population rather than the sample. 15

16 The 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 2016/17 survey, Q3 Have you ever visited Kangaroo Island before this trip? was changed to include the detail of whether the respondent visited via a cruise ship, a coach day trip or other. In addition to this change, Q17 was changed to include Prospect Hill. Aside from the aforementioned changes, the 2016/17 questionnaire was identical to the 2015/16 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=2,148 can be reported within a +/-2.1% 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 48.9% and 52.1%. 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% 16

17 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, respondent s expenditure data was excluded 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 2016/17 wave, but the prior seven 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. 17

18 Key Findings 2016/17 in a nutshell The results of the 2016/17 Kangaroo Island Visitor Exit Survey show that experiential, satisfaction, and repeat visitation indicators have been maintained at a high level, or have increased slightly on the previous year. However, growth in average annual total expenditure per person per visit has slowed. Overall satisfaction is the only experiential measure that fell short of the acceptable range, yet is at its highest level since 2002/2003. Economic indicators: 2016/17 saw a slowed growth in average annual total expenditure per person per visit, and more visitors are staying longer, rather than just for a daytrip. Average annual total expenditure per person per visit had increased by over 20% in 2014/2015, and then increased by 5.9% in 2015/2016. This year, results showed an increase of only 1.2%, which indicates a slowed growth in the average spend. However, the actual average spend is at its highest level yet ($779.59). The proportion of overnight visitors has continued to increase as it has in the past few years. In 2016/2017 the majority of visitors (94%) were overnight visitors (staying at least one night on the island), which is significantly higher than the previous year (90%). Intrastate and Interstate visitors were more likely to stay one or more nights than International visitors. All of the measures pertaining to Tourism operators excelling in their business professionalism were below the acceptable range, yet were consistent or an increase upon previous years. For example, while the large majority (88%) of visitors were satisfied with the level of customer service that they received, the proportion who reported being very satisfied with customer service remained below the 65% benchmark level, at 57%. Experiential indicators: The proportion of repeat visitation reached was maintained at an acceptable level and almost all indicators pertaining to delivering authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning fell within their acceptable ranges. The only indictor that fell short was the proportion who were satisfied with their overall experience, although overall satisfaction increased significantly from last year and is at the highest level since 2002/ /16 marked the first time that the proportion of repeat visitors (32%) fell within the acceptable range of 30%-50% since 2010/11, and the 2016/2017 results have shown that this remained consistent (34%). Almost all of the Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning indicators fell within their respective acceptable ranges in 2016/17. 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 Kangaroo Island. However, it should be noted that satisfaction with overall experience (86%) increased significantly from last year (82%) and is at the highest level since 2002/03 (87%). The trend over the last five years shows a steady increase in the proportion of visitors who are very satisfied / satisfied. Furthermore, 95% of visitors surveyed indicated that they would recommend KI as a holiday destination to others as a result of their experience (up from 93%, although not a significant increase). 18

19 Economic Indicators Overview In 2016/17, indicators relating to the first economic condition Tourism optimises economic benefits for Kangaroo Island were generally consistent with the previous year, although the growth in average annual total expenditure per person has slowed. The average number of nights stayed (4.8), the proportion willing to recommend KI as a holiday destination (95%), and the increase in the annual number of visitors to KI (3.1%) were all within the acceptable range. Average annual total expenditure per person per visit was at the highest level yet ($779.59), although this is only a 1.2% percentage point increase on the previous year, which is outside of the acceptable range of 5-10%. In the second condition, Tourism operators excel in their business professionalism, none of the indicators fell within the acceptable range. However, the results were positive and were either consistent or an increase upon the previous year. For example, while the large majority (88%) of visitors were satisfied with the level of customer service that they received, the proportion who reported being very satisfied with customer service remained below the 65% benchmark level, at 57%. There was a very slight and non-significant increase in the proportion of complaints in 2016/17 (48%) compared to 2015/16 (46%). The proportion of positive comments remained consistent with the 2015/16 figure (94% for both). The proportion of those who were very satisfied with the professionalism of tourism operators remained consistent at 52% (below the acceptable range of %); however, this is the highest result since the measure commenced in 2009/10. Finally, the third economic condition Kangaroo Island attracts its high yield target markets also remained consistent with the previous year and just below the ideal level of 40%-60%, with 37% of visitors spending more than $200 per night. 19

20 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 (94%) were overnight visitors (staying at least one night on the island), which is significantly higher than the previous year (90%). Consequently, there was a significant decrease in the number of day trippers (6%) from the previous year (10%). 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 07/0 8 Stayed overnight 89% 89% 92% 97% 88% 93% 95% 96% 98% 97% 98% 98% 97% 78% 85% 90% 94% Day tip 11% 11% 8% 3% 12% 7% 5% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 22% 15% 10% 6% Did you stay one or more nights or was it a day trip? Visitors responding, N=2,146. Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year. 08/0 9 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 16/1 7 Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Intrastate (96%) and Interstate (97%) visitors were more likely to stay one or more nights than International visitors (84%); 6 Autumn visitors were more likely to stay one or more nights (96%) than summer visitors (92%). 6 Those not on a bus tour were more likely to stay overnight (97%) than those on a bus tour (17%). 20

21 Length of stay The average number of nights stayed on Kangaroo Island in 2016/2017 was 4.8, which is consistent with the previous year (4.8) 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) Average # of nights /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 16/1 7 Q6 Base: Note: Note: Did you stay one or more nights or was it a day trip? Visitors responding, N=1,782 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. 3.4 nights) than intrastate (5.1) and interstate (5.0) visitors; 7 Repeat visitors stayed longer (avg. 5.6 nights) than first time visitors (4.4); 7 Sea arrivals stayed longer (avg. 4.9 nights) than air arrivals (3.6); 7 Visitors who spent up to $200 a night stayed longer (avg. 5.7 nights) than those who spent more than $200 a night (3.1); 7 Those who visited Kangaroo Island as part of a bus tour had a shorter stay (avg.1.8 nights) compared to those whose trip was not part of a bus tour (4.8); and 7 Winter visitors stayed shorter (avg. 3.9 nights) than spring (5.2), summer (5.1) and autumn visitors (4.7). 21

22 Average number of nights by visitor origin Length of stay was consisted amongst intrastate visitors with an average of 5.0 nights while decreasing significantly for interstate visitors from an average of 5.5 nights in 2015/16 to 5.1 nights in 2016/17. However, the length of stay increased amongst international visitors from an average of 3.1 nights in 2015/16 to 3.4 in 2016/17. 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 07/0 8 Intrastate Interstate International /0 9 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 16/1 7 Q6 Did you stay one or more nights or was it a day trip? Base: Intrastate visitors responding n=427, Interstate visitors responding n=856, International visitors responding n=499 Note: Missing cases excluded. Note: Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year. 22

23 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 2016/17 remained consistent with scores from the previous 4 years at 95%. 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 06/0 7 % willing to recommend 98% 97% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 95% 90% 94% 92% 93% 93% 93% 93% 95% 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 16/1 7 Q23 Base: Note: Note: Would you recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination to others based on this trip? Visitors responding, N=2,024 Missing cases excluded. Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with observations from the previous year: 7 Air arrivals were more likely to indicate that they would recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination (97%) compared to Sea arrivals (95%). 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Interstate visitors were less likely to indicate that they would recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination (93%) compared to both Intrastate visitors (97%) and International visitors (97%). 23

24 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 5.9% in 2015/16 to $770.06, average total expenditure per person per visit increased, albeit not significantly, to $ in 2016/17. This reflects a 1.2% rise in expenditure, which is outside of the acceptable range of 5%-10%. Figure 5: Increase in average annual total expenditure per person per visit $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 Avg. total expenditure per person per visit 09/10 (n=1450) 10/11 (n=1811) 11/12 (n=1000) 12/13 (n=2179) Q6 Did you stay one or more nights or was it a way trip? Q8 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, 1,826 Note: Missing cases excluded. Note: 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: 13/14 (n=2197) 14/15 (n=1,414) 15/16 (n=1,412) 6 Consistent with observations from the previous year: 7 Per person expenditure was higher for interstate visitors ($894.75) compared to both intrastate ($643.23) and international visitors ($687.29); 7 First time visitors to the island spent more on average than repeat visitors ($ vs. $720.57); 7 Air arrivals spent more than sea arrivals ($ vs. $712.88); 7 As to be expected, those who stayed one or more nights spent more than day visitors ($ vs. $341.39); and 16/17 (n=1,826) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

25 7 Those on a bus tour ($317.48) spent less than those not on a tour ($793.00). 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Spring visitors spent more on average ($854.77) when compared to Autumn visitors ($712.63). 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 205,994 in 2015/16 to 213,933 in 2016/17. This represents a 3.9% rise which is within the acceptable range of 0-20%. Figure 6: Increase in annual number of visitors 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% 02/0 3 03/0 4 04/0 5 05/0 6 06/0 7 07/0 8 % increase in 2.3% 2.7% % 1.2% 3.0% 0.6% % 1.7% 4.1% 3.9% number of visitors 08/0 9 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 16/1 7 Note: Data provided by TOMM Committee. 25

26 Satisfaction with customer service received (EC2c) Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable Range VES 16/17 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 (88%) 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 57%. Figure 7: Satisfaction with customer service received 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Scale** changed from 3-pt to 5-pt scale in 09/10 % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 8% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% Q19.7 Please indicate how satisfied you were with the level of customer service you received. Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,985 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: 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 16/17 % very satisfied 68% 68% 65% 73% 67% 45% 48% 48% 49% 50% 53% 56% 57% % very satisfied/ satisfied 80% 84% 82% 84% 84% 84% 86% 88% 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 (66% vs. 56%). 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Winter visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the customer service that they received (66%) compared to summer visitors (53%). 26

27 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 consistent with the previous year (52%) and below the acceptable range of %. It is, however, the equal highest proportion since the measure commenced in 2009/10. Figure 8: Satisfaction with professionalism of tourism operators 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 % very satisfied 41% 40% 43% 41% 48% 51% 52% 52% % very satisfied/ satisfied 77% 77% 79% 78% 82% 82% 83% 86% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 9% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 16/1 7 Q19.12 Please indicate how satisfied you were with the professionalism of tourism businesses. Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,882 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2016/17 7 Those on a bus tour were more likely to be very satisfied with the professionalism of tourism businesses (61%) compared to those not on a tour (52%). 27

28 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 complaints in 2016/17 (48%) compared to 2015/16 (46%). The proportion of positive comments remained consistent with the 2015/16 figure (94% for both). 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 16/17 Positive 89% 91% 91% 91% 91% 90% 94% 93% 94% 94% Negative 42% 46% 49% 52% 47% 51% 46% 47% 46% 48% Q25 Base: Note: Are there any individuals or businesses you would like to draw our attention to for compliments/improvement? Visitors responding, N=1,481. Don t know and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 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 Bus tourers (30%) were less likely than others to make negative comments (48%); and 7 Sea arrivals (48%) were more likely than air arrivals (37%) to make negative comments; and 7 Those staying overnight (49%) were more likely than those visiting on a daytrip (28%) to make negative comments. 28

29 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 37%, which is consistent with the result from the previous year and below 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 16/17 28% 28% 26% 25% 30% 37% 35% 37% 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=1,542 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 International visitors were more likely to spend over $200 per night (52%) than both Interstate visitors (42%) and Intrastate visitors (23%); 7 Interstate visitors were more likely to spend over $200 per night (42%) compared to Intrastate visitors (23%); 7 Spring visitors were more likely to spend over $200 per night (45%) than autumn visitors (31%); 7 Those arriving by air were more likely to spend over $200 per night (75%) than those arriving by sea (34%); and 7 First time visitors were more likely to spend over $200 per night (43%) than repeat visitors (27%). 29

30 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 Sub-groups who were within the Acceptable range for the indicator Intrastate & interstate visitors Spring, summer & autumn visitors Those not on a bus tour Those travelling by sea First time visitors & repeat visitors Those who spent up to $200 a night All subgroups Summer, winter, and spring visitors Winter visitors Those travelling by air None International visitors First time visitors Summer visitors Spring visitors Those spending up to $200 per night Overnight visitors Interstate and international visitors Spring visitors First time visitors Sub-groups who scored more highly for the indicator (compared to their comparative sub-group) Interstate and intrastate visitors Spring, summer & autumn visitors Repeat visitors Sea arrivals Those who spent up to $200 a night Those not on a tour bus Intrastate & international visitors Air arrivals Interstate visitors Spring visitors Air arrivals First time visitors Those who stayed overnight Those not on a bus tour Winter visitors Those travelling by air Air arrivals Those on a bus tour Those staying overnight (complaints) Those not on a bus tour (complaints) Sea arrivals (complaints) Those spending up to $200 per night (compliments) Interstate and international visitors Spring visitors Bus surveys Air arrivals First time visitors 30

31 Experiential Indicators Overview Almost all of the Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning indicators fell within their respective acceptable ranges in 2016/17. 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 Kangaroo Island. However, it should be noted that satisfaction with overall experience (86%) increased significantly from last year (82%) and is at the highest level since 2002/03 (87%). The trend over the last five years shows a steady increase in the proportion of visitors who are very satisfied / satisfied, and a decrease in the proportion of those who are very dissatisfied / dissatisfied. Furthermore, 95% of visitors surveyed indicated that they would recommend KI as a holiday destination to others as a result of their experience (up from 93%, although not a significant increase). Other notable results include an increase in the proportion of visitors who experienced local Kangaroo Island produce (87% up from 83%) and experience Kangaroo Island as one of Australia s top three nature and wildlife experiences (80% up from 75%). 31

32 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 (97%) of visitors in 2016/17 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% 98% of visitors believed that KI provides this* 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 % of visitors 92% 93% 93% 93% 96% 96% 96% 97% Q18.2 For each of the following please indicate whether experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,898 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 First time visitors were more likely to view Australian wildlife in natural surroundings (98%) than repeat visitors (95%). 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Those on a bus tour (100%) were more likely to see view Australian wildlife in natural surroundings than those not on a bus tour (96%). 32

33 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% Almost all visitors (97%) to Kangaroo Island experienced scenic variety without crowds, which is consistent with last year s measure (97%) and 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 16/17 % of visitors 95% 97% 97% 96% 94% 97% 97% 97% Q18.3 For each of the following please indicate whether experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,888 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 (94%) were less likely to experience scenic variety without crowds of people than intrastate visitors (98%) and interstate visitors (97%); 7 Summer visitors (94%) were less likely to experience scenic variety without crowds of people than winter (99%), spring (98%), & autumn visitors (98%); 7 Day trippers were less likely to have experienced this (87%) than those who stayed overnight (98%); and 7 Those who did not come on a bus tour (97%) were more likely to have experienced this than those who came as part of a bus tour (88%). 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Repeat visitors were more likely to have experience this (98%) than first time visitors (96%). 33

34 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 2015/16 (74%). This 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 16/17 % of visitors 68% 70% 71% 67% 71% 74% 76% 74% Q18.4 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,821 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 (54%) compared to both intrastate (76%) and interstate (80%) visitors; 7 Sea arrivals (75%) were more likely than air arrivals (69%) to experience this; and 7 Those staying overnight were more likely to experience this (75%) than day trippers (65%). 34

35 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 2016/17. This result is comparable to that of 2015/16 (99%) and is 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 16/17 % of visitors 98% 98% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% Q18.5 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,891 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 New in 2016/17: 7 Day trippers were less likely to experience this (97%) than overnight visitors (99%). 35

36 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 (97%) is 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 16/17 % of visitors 95% 95% 95% 95% 96% 95% 96% 97% Q18.6 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,876 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 (92%) than those who stayed one or more nights (97%). 36

37 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 2016/17 was 92%. This result falls within the acceptable range of % for the second time in as many years. 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 16/17 % of visitors 88% 89% 89% 89% 88% 88% 90% 92% Q18.7 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,860 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 (83%) than those staying one or more nights (92%); and 7 Bus tour visitors (79%) were less likely than others (92%) to experience this. 6 New in 2016/17: 7 International visitors (84%) were less likely to experience this than both Interstate (94%) and intrastate visitors (93%). 37

38 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 2016/17 was 87%, which is a significant increase upon the 2015/16 measure (83%) and within the acceptable range of %. Figure 17: Visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce 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 16/17 % of visitors 79% 82% 82% 81% 75% 80% 83% 87% Q18.8 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,852. 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 (73%) than intrastate (91%) and interstate (89%) visitors; 7 Day trippers (59%) were less likely to experience this than those staying overnight (89%); 7 Repeat visitors to KI (90%) were more likely to experience this than first time visitors (86%); and 7 Those on a bus tour (48%) were less likely to experience this than those not on a bus tour (88%). 38

39 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 increased significantly to 80% from 2015/16 (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% 66% of visitors believed that KI provides this* 0% 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 % of visitors 69% 73% 71% 71% 79% 76% 75% 80% Q18.9 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,655 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 New in 2016/17: 7 International visitors (87%) were more likely to experience this than both Interstate (80%) and intrastate visitors (78%). 39

40 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 94% in 2016/16. This result is consistent with last year s result (92%) and is within the acceptable range of 80%-100%. Figure 19: Visitors that experienced a friendly local community on Kangaroo Island 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 16/17 % of visitors 90% 92% 93% 93% 91% 91% 92% 94% Q18.10 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,839 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 (95%) visitors were more likely to experience a friendly local community than international visitors (87%); 7 Overnight visitors (95%) were more likely than day trippers (78%) to experience this; and 7 Those on a bus tour (77%) were less likely to experience this than other visitors (95%). 6 New in 2014/15: 7 Winter visitors (98%) were more likely to experience this than spring (94%), summer (92%) and autumn visitors (94%); and 7 Sea arrivals (94%) were more likely to experience this than air arrivals (90%). 40

41 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 2016/17 (86%) was consistent with agreement levels from the previous year (84%). 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 16/17 % of visitors 77% 81% 80% 82% 85% 85% 84% 86% Q24 To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Base: Visitors responding, N=2,021 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 New in 2016/17: 7 Intrastate visitors (90%) were more likely to agree with the positioning statement than interstate visitors (83%). 41

42 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 vast majority of visitors to Kangaroo Island who stated that their experience matched or exceeded expectations set by marketing materials (95%) was comparable to last year (93%). 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 16/17 % of visitors 75% 74% 75% 82% 91% 91% 91% 92% 93% 91% 93% 95% Q21 Island? Base: Note: Do you believe that Kangaroo Island s marketing material matched the experience you had while visiting Kangaroo Visitors responding, N=1,987 Missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Air arrivals (97%) were more likely to believe this than sea arrivals (94%). 42

43 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 (86%) increased significantly upon last year s measure (82%) and is at the highest level since 2002/3. Despite this, overall satisfaction remains below the acceptable range of 90%-100%. Figure 22: Visitors who were very satisfied** with their overall experience on Kangaroo Island 100% 80% 60% 40% Scale changed from 3-pt to 10-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% 86% % very satisfied/ satisfied 92% 96% 94% 95% 96% 96% 96% 97% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 8% 4% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 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 16/1 7 Q22 Taking into account all aspects of your visit to Kangaroo Island, how would you rate your overall satisfaction? Base: Visitors responding, N=2,017 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 New in 2016/17: 7 Those on a bus tour were less likely to be very satisfied (80%) than non-bus visitors (86%). 43

44 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 63% in 2016/17, 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 16/17 % very satisfied 82% 80% 79% 81% 77% 49% 54% 58% 57% 59% 57% 61% 63% % very satisfied/ satisfied 77% 81% 84% 82% 84% 84% 87% 88% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 8% 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 4% 4% Q19.1 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=2,000 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 (70%) compared to sea arrivals (62%); and 7 Repeat visitors were more likely to be very satisfied (67%) than first time visitors (61%). 6 New in 2014/15: 7 Visitors spending up to $200 per night were more likely to be very satisfied (66%) than those spending $201 or more (57%). 44

45 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 (49%) was consistent with last year (48%). 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 16/17 % very satisfied 39% 39% 43% 40% 45% 47% 48% 49% % very satisfied/ satisfied 75% 76% 77% 78% 80% 80% 80% 82% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% Q19.2 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,933 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Those visiting in winter were more likely to be very satisfied with this (60%) than spring (47%), summer (48%) and autumn visitors (46%). 45

46 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 41% in 2016/17, which is consistent with last year s measure (40%). 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 16/17 % very satisfied 53% 51% 51% 59% 52% 32% 31% 36% 31% 35% 36% 40% 41% % very satisfied/ satisfied 66% 67% 68% 66% 70% 68% 73% 75% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% Q19.8 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,825 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: 6 New in 2016/17: 7 International visitors were less likely to be very satisfied with their opportunity to learn about the island s history (32%) than both intrastate (42%) and interstate visitors (43%). 7 Those on a bus tour were more likely to be very satisfied with this (48%) than non-bus visitors (41%). 46

47 7 Visitors who spent up to $200 per night were more likely to be satisfied with this (44%) than those who spent $201 or more per night (33%). 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 (49%) and availability (43%) of activities were consistent with the previous year. The results for each measure remain well 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 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 % very satisfied 51% 50% 50% 59% 50% 38% 38% 40% 40% 41% 43% 47% 47% % very satisfied/ satisfied 75% 78% 76% 78% 79% 80% 81% 83% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 7% 5% 8% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5% Q19.9 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,828 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: The results were consistent across subgroups. 47

48 Figure 27: Satisfaction with the quality of activities 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 % very satisfied 37% 38% 41% 40% 43% 44% 46% 49% % very satisfied/ satisfied 77% 78% 78% 79% 80% 80% 82% 85% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 7% 5% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 16/1 7 Q19.10 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,773. Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Visitors spending up to $200 per night (52%) were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of activities than those spending $201 or more per night (42%). 48

49 Figure 28: Satisfaction with the availability of activities 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 % very satisfied 35% 33% 37% 37% 40% 41% 42% 43% % very satisfied/ satisfied 71% 71% 73% 74% 75% 76% 75% 79% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 9% 7% 8% 7% 7% 5% 6% 6% 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 16/1 7 Q19.11 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,760 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: The results were consistent across subgroups. 49

50 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 (51%) 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 16/17 % very satisfied 60% 59% 61% 69% 67% 46% 46% 46% 45% 46% 48% 50% 51% % very satisfied/ satisfied 75% 77% 78% 76% 76% 76% 80% 80% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 10% 6% 7% 8% 7% 7% 5% 6% Q19.3 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,742 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 Air arrivals were more likely to be very satisfied (59%) than sea arrivals (50%). 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Intrastate visitors were more likely to be very satisfied (55%) than international visitors (43%). 7 Those on a bus tour were less likely to be very satisfied (32%) than non-bus visitors (51%). 50

51 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 (48%), quality (52%) and availability (43%) 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 16/17 % very satisfied 38% 38% 37% 39% 40% 43% 46% 48% % very satisfied/ satisfied 71% 74% 71% 72% 72% 74% 78% 79% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 9% 6% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% Q19.4 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,679 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 International visitors were less likely to be very satisfied with the range of KI produce (35%) than both Interstate (48%) and intrastate visitors (56%). 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Intrastate visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with this (56%) than Interstate visitors (48%); 7 Those on a bus tour were less likely to be very satisfied with this (36%) than those not on a bus tour (49%); 51

52 7 Repeat visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with this (55%) than first time visitors (45%); and 7 Air arrivals were more likely to be very satisfied with this (55%) than those arriving by sea (48%). 7 Figure 31: Satisfaction with the quality of local Kangaroo Island produce 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 % very satisfied 44% 45% 43% 44% 47% 50% 52% 52% % very satisfied/ satisfied 77% 81% 78% 78% 80% 82% 84% 84% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 7% 5% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 16/1 7 Q19.5 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,679 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 International visitors were less likely to be very satisfied with this (35%) than both intrastate (58%) and interstate visitors (53%); 7 Repeat visitors were more likely to be very satisfied (58%) than first time visitors (49%). 7 Those on a bus tour were less likely to be very satisfied (42%) than those not on a bus tour (52%). 52

53 Figure 32: Satisfaction with the availability of local Kangaroo Island produce 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 09/1 0 10/1 1 11/1 2 % very satisfied 35% 35% 34% 36% 38% 39% 44% 43% % very satisfied/ satisfied 64% 71% 67% 69% 69% 72% 74% 74% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 11% 9% 11% 10% 11% 10% 10% 8% 12/1 3 13/1 4 14/1 5 15/1 6 16/1 7 Q19.6 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,673 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 International visitors were less likely to be very satisfied with the availability of KI produce (30%) than both intrastate (48%) and interstate visitors (44%). 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Air arrivals were more likely to be very satisfied with this (49%) than those arriving by sea (43%). 53

54 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 remained unchanged in 2016/17 compared to 2015/16. Therefore, 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 16/17 % very satisfied 30% 35% 46% 43% 44% 46% 48% 47% % very satisfied/ satisfied 73% 78% 80% 83% 82% 82% 83% 85% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 9% 5% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 4% Q19.18 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,089 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Air arrivals were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of picnic and day use areas (55%) than those arriving by sea (46%). 54

55 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 16/17 % very satisfied 29% 28% 35% 31% 35% 35% 40% 40% % very satisfied/ satisfied 67% 71% 75% 72% 75% 75% 79% 79% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 9% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 6% 7% Q19.17 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,505 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Winter visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of interpretive and educational signage (51%) than both summer (36%) and autumn visitors (36%). 55

56 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 16/17 % very satisfied 25% 31% 38% 34% 36% 41% 43% 43% % very satisfied/ satisfied 64% 69% 75% 74% 74% 79% 80% 80% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 13% 9% 7% 7% 7% 8% 5% 6% Q19.13 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,847 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Winter visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of public toilets (56%) than spring (42%), summer (38%) and autumn visitors (43%); 7 Those on a bus tour were less likely to be very satisfied with this (35%) than non-bus tour visitors (44%); and 7 Visitors spending up to $200 per night were more likely to be very satisfied with this (47%) than those spending $201 or more per night (38%). 56

57 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 16/17 % very satisfied 24% 27% 35% 32% 34% 32% 39% 35% % very satisfied/ satisfied 59% 67% 70% 69% 73% 71% 75% 74% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 19% 14% 11% 12% 11% 10% 10% 9% Q19.16 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,750 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Winter visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of road signs (45%) than spring (32%), and autumn visitors (32%); 57

58 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 16/17 % very satisfied 21% 26% 41% 33% 37% 34% 44% 43% % very satisfied/ satisfied 58% 65% 72% 66% 69% 70% 73% 75% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 17% 11% 7% 13% 9% 9% 8% 7% Q19.15 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=504 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: The results were consistent across subgroups. 58

59 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 16/17 % very satisfied 15% 16% 25% 20% 26% 26% 28% 25% % very satisfied/ satisfied 44% 47% 63% 56% 62% 61% 66% 63% % very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 27% 22% 13% 16% 12% 11% 11% 11% Q19.14 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,997 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 (32%) were more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of roads than those not on a bus tour (25%). 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Air visitors (30%) were more likely to be very satisfied than sea visitors (25%); and 7 Winter visitors were more likely to be very satisfied (35%) than summer (23%) and autumn visitors (21%). 59

60 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 95% in 2016/17. 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 16/17 % willing to recommend 98% 97% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 95% 90% 94% 92% 93% 93% 93% 93% 95% Q23 Base: Note: Would you recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination to others based on this trip? Visitors responding, N=2,024 Missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Air arrivals were more likely to recommend KI to others (97%) than sea arrivals (95%). 6 New in 2016/17: 7 Interstate visitors (93%) were less likely to recommend KI to others (93%) than both intrastate (97%) and international visitors (97%). 60

61 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 in 2016/17 (34%) remained consistent with the 2015/16 measure (32%). This remains within the acceptable range of 30%-50% for the second year in a row. Figure 40: Repeat visitation 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 16/17 % repeat visitors 33% 35% 34% 37% 29% 28% 30% 32% 27% 27% 30% 29% 28% 23% 26% 32% 34% Q3 Base: Note: Have you ever visited Kangaroo Island before this trip? Visitors responding, N=2,148 Don t know and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 6 Consistent with the previous year: 7 Intrastate visitors (74%) were much more likely to be repeat visitors compared to interstate (16%) and international (9%) visitors; 7 Sea arrivals were more likely to be repeat visitors (35%) compared to air arrivals (25%); 7 Bus tourers (9%) were less likely to be repeat visitors than other visitors (35%); and 7 Visitors who spent over $200 per night were less likely to be repeat visitors (25%) than those who spent less than this amount per night (41%). 61

62 Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning 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) EX1b Proportion of visitors that viewed wildlife in the natural environment All sub-groups Those on a bus tour First time visitors EX1c Proportion of visitors that experienced scenic variety without crowds All except those on a tour bus and day trippers Interstate and intrastate visitors Winter, spring and autumn visitors Those not on a bus tour Repeat visitors Those staying one or more nights EX1d Proportion of visitors that experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement All except international visitors, bus tourers, those arriving by air and day trippers Intrastate and interstate visitors Those arriving by sea Those staying one or more nights EX1e EX1f Proportion of visitors that experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes Proportion of visitors that experienced areas of untouched natural beauty All sub-groups Those staying one or more night All sub-groups Those staying one or more nights EX1g Proportion of visitors that experienced farming and rural landscapes Interstate & intrastate visitors Autumn and winter and spring visitors Those not on a tour bus Repeat and first time visitors Sea arrivals Those spending up to $200 per night Those spending more than $200 per night Those staying one or more nights Intrastate and Interstate visitors Those who stayed overnight Those not on a bus tour 62

63 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 and day trippers Interstate and intrastate visitors Repeat visitors Those who stayed overnight 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 sub-groups International visitors 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 Winter visitors Sea arrivals 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 sub-groups Intrastate visitors EX1l EX1m Proportion of visitors that state that their experience matched or exceeded expectation set by marketing materials Proportion of visitors very satisfied with their overall experience on Kangaroo Island All sub-groups Air arrivals None Those not on a bus tour 63

64 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 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 Air arrivals None Winter visitors None Air arrivals Repeat visitors Those spending up to $200 per night Intrastate and interstate visitors Those on a bus tour Those spending up to $200 per night None Those spending up to $200 per night (quality) None None Air arrivals Intrastate visitors Those not on a bus tour Intrastate & interstate visitors (range quality & availability) Repeat visitors (range & quality) Air arrivals (range & availability) Those not on a tour bus (range & quality) EX2g Proportion of visitors that are very satisfied with the level of customer service they receive None Air arrivals Winter visitors EX2h 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 None Air arrivals (picnic areas, roads) Winter visitors (educational signage, public toilets, road signage, roads) Those not on a bus tour (public toilets, roads) Those spending up to $200 per night (public toilets) EX2i Proportion of visitors that would recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination to others as a result of their experience All sub-groups Intrastate and international visitors Air arrivals 64

65 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 Winter, spring, summer and autumn Those not on a bus tour Sea arrivals Those spending up to $200 per night Those who stayed one or more nights Intrastate visitors and interstate visitors Sea arrivals Those spending up to $200 per night Those not on a bus tour 65

66 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%. The most popular locations were Kingscote Township and Admirals Arch with visitation at 78% of the sample. Awareness of quarantine regulations prior to visitor arrival also remained stable at 66%, yet remains below the acceptable range of 70%-100%. Finally, awareness levels for specific prohibited items were also consistent with levels from the previous year. 66

67 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 (75%) 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 16/17 75% 76% 75% 76% 75% 76% 75% Q17 Base: Which of these locations did you visit while on Kangaroo Island this time? Total visitors, N=1,604 There are no significant or notable differences between subgroups. 67

68 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=1604) 16/17 (n=2148) Locations visited Admirals Arch and Kingscote Township were the most popular destinations on the Island, with 78% of respondents visiting both of these locations during their stay. Antechamber bay and Brown s Beach saw a decrease in visitor proportions 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% 78% Flinders Chase National Park 80% 76% 79% 75% 82% 84% 83% 76% 81% 80% 80% 79% 80% 82% 80% 82% 76% Penneshaw Township 78% 75% 83% 76% 82% 80% 78% 78% 85% 79% 81% 78% 79% 68% 74% 77% 77% Admirals Arch NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 80% 77% 79% 83% 82% 80% 78% Remarkable Rocks NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 79% 77% 78% 82% 80% 78% 77% Seal Bay 83% 80% 80% 67% 78% 78% 76% 73% 76% 69% 71% 68% 67% 77% 69% 70% 68% Vivonne Bay 52% 51% 56% 54% 60% 58% 59% 62% 66% 69% 66% 65% 67% 62% 63% 59% 57% American River Township 52% 48% 60% 51% 55% 54% 50% 49% 58% 55% 58% 57% 58% 44% 53% 58% 58% Emu Bay 44% 41% 48% 36% 41% 41% 46% 48% 48% 52% 52% 51% 57% 42% 44% 51% 47% Parndana Township 49% 47% 56% 51% 58% 53% 50% 47% 52% 51% 52% 53% 50% 39% 45% 49% 45% Stokes Bay 38% 44% 42% 36% 38% 38% 39% 43% 41% 47% 45% 44% 51% 39% 43% 46% 45% Kelly Hill Caves 31% 29% 38% 35% 36% 36% NA NA NA 32% 30% 30% 22% 22% 21% 24% 26% Cape Willoughby Light Station 28% 28% 32% 18% 29% 28% 30% 31% 33% 31% 33% 33% 32% 25% 34% 37% 37% Little Sahara NA NA NA NA NA NA 23% 22% 25% 28% 24% 22% 22% 18% 18% 16% 17% Hanson Bay 22% 23% 25% 25% 24% 25% 26% 28% 32% 27% 27% 25% 30% 39% 35% 34% 33% Pennington Bay NA NA NA NA NA NA 23% 23% 27% 27% 29% 29% 28% 21% 24% 26% 26% Cape Borda Light Station 19% 20% 27% 22% 22% 21% 23% 20% 23% 25% 29% 26% 23% 24% 24% 26% 23% Snelling Beach 17% 16% 17% 12% 14% 14% 17% 19% 17% 20% 19% 16% 19% 13% 14% 17% 18% Antechamber Bay 20% 21% 22% 18% 18% 15% 16% 19% 22% 18% 23% 22% 20% 16% 18% 20% 16% Brown s Beach 11% 10% 18% 16% 15% 17% NA NA NA 18% 20% 21% 21% 13% 17% 23% 17% Hanson Bay Sanctuary NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17% 17% 18% 19% 1% NA NA NA Island Beach NA NA NA NA NA NA 13% 18% 18% 14% 18% 20% 18% 13% 14% 16% 14% Western River Cove 16% 15% 17% 17% 13% 11% 12% 14% 10% 14% 12% 11% 13% 10% 13% 12% 12% Baudin Conservation Park NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12% 17% 16% 17% 12% 16% 19% 18% Murray Lagoon NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12% 13% 12% 13% 4% 11% 11% 9% Lathami Conservation Park NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% Raptor Domain** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3% 3% 2% Prospect Hill*** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7% Q17 Which of these locations did you visit while on Kangaroo Island this time? Base: Total visitors, N=2,148 **: New in 2014/15, ***New in 2016/17 68

69 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 66% in 2016/17, 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 16/17 % of visitors 58% 69% 70% 72% 71% 61% 66% 68% 66% 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=2,148 ** 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%) were more likely than both interstate (67%) and international visitors (51%) to be aware of quarantine regulations before their visit to the Island; 7 Interstate visitors (67%) were more likely to be aware than international visitors (51%); 7 Repeat visitors (73%) were more likely to be aware than first time visitors (62%); 7 Overnight visitors (67%) were more likely to be aware than day trippers (51%); 7 Those who spent less than $200 per night (75%) were more likely to be aware than those who spent more than this amount (63%); 7 Sea arrivals (68%) were more likely to be aware than air arrivals (48%); and 7 Those not on a bus tour (67%) were more likely to be aware than those on a bus tour (39%). 69

70 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 16/17 % of first time visitors 84% 86% 84% 86% 78% 86% 84% 81% % of repeat visitors 88% 91% 94% 91% 91% 95% 91% 86% 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. 70

71 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 16/17 Honey/bee products 80% 84% 83% 83% 77% 82% 82% 82% Rabbits 80% 81% 79% 79% 74% 77% 78% 77% Foxes 78% 80% 78% 79% 73% 77% 77% 77% Declared weeds 72% 75% 73% 73% 68% 73% 72% 70% Potatoes 66% 68% 68% 68% 62% 66% 69% 70% Q16a Were you aware of Kangaroo Island s quarantine regulations, prohibiting the import of... Base: Visitors responding to each, Min n=1,658 Note: Missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups: 7 International visitors were less likely than both intrastate and interstate visitors to be aware of all regulations, except those surrounding potatoes; 7 Intrastate visitors were more likely than interstate visitors to be aware of regulations surrounding honey; 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 Repeat visitors were more likely than first time visitors to be aware of all regulations aside from potatoes; 7 Sea arrivals were more likely to be aware of all quarantine regulations 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 $201 or more per night; 7 Those staying overnight were more likely than day trippers to be aware of all regulations except potatoes; 71

72 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 71% 70% Honey / bee products 79% 89% Foxes 75% 82% Rabbits 75% 82% Declared weeds 67% 75% Sources of information about quarantine regulations Just over one in ten (11%) 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 (5% of all visitors). 72

73 Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition Visitor activity has minimal negative impacts on the natural environment 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) EN2b Proportion of visitations to natural areas occurring on managed sites All sub-groups none EN2e Proportion of visitors aware of quarantine regulations prior to arriving on Kangaroo Island Intrastate visitors Repeat visitors Those spending up to $200 per night Interstate and intrastate visitors Those not on a bus tour Those arriving by Sea Those spending up to $200 per night Repeat visitors Those staying one or more nights 73

74 % of visitors Visitor Profile Visitor Origin The proportion of interstate visitors (51%) has increased significantly from last year (45%) while the proportion of international visitors (17%) has decreased significantly from 2015/16 (24%). 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 16/17 Intrastate 40% 40% 43% 42% 35% 34% 34% 38% 32% 35% 32% 33% 29% 24% 28% 31% 33% Interstate 27% 27% 31% 25% 30% 27% 31% 33% 42% 40% 43% 42% 46% 46% 47% 45% 51% International 33% 34% 26% 33% 35% 39% 35% 29% 27% 25% 24% 26% 25% 30% 25% 24% 17% Q4 Base: Where do you live? Visitors responding, N=2,148 74

75 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) 16/17 (n=957) Interstate visitor origin Interstate visitation continued to be driven by those coming from Victoria (37%) and New South Wales (35%) in 2016/17. The proportion of Victorians visiting Kangaroo Island (37%) has increased significantly from 2015/16 (31%) while decreasing for Queensland (20% in 2015/16 to 14% in 2016/17) and WA (10% in 2015/16 to 7% in 2016/17). Table 4: Interstate Visitor Origin over time VIC 39% 27% 36% 45% 36% 42% 43% 34% 39% 36% 41% 34% 34% 31% 37% NSW 43% 52% 40% 36% 38% 35% 29% 36% 35% 35% 32% 39% 33% 34% 35% QLD 11% 8% 13% 7% 10% 11% 15% 14% 12% 13% 13% 13% 17% 20% 14% WA 3% 3% 6% 7% 7% 5% 8% 9% 8% 8% 9% 9% 10% 10% 7% ACT 1% 4% 1% 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% TAS 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% NT 1% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3% <1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% Q4 Base: Note: Where do you live? Interstate visitors responding. Missing cases excluded. 75

76 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) 16/17 (n=711) International visitor origin Overall, the country of origin of international visitors has remained relatively unchanged, however the proportion of other European visitors (40%) has increased significantly from 2015/16 (30%). 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% 24% 34% 20% 31% 28% 25% 33% 29% 36% 36% 39% 32% 29% 30% 40% UK 25% 15% 18% 21% 19% 24% 19% 22% 22% 19% 18% 15% 21% 20% 16% Germany 8% 15% 7% 12% 9% 13% 12% 12% 10% 10% 12% 10% 12% 14% 9% Asia 3% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2% 3% 6% 4% 7% 5% 11% 8% 9% 6% NZ 3% 1% 6% 2% 3% 5% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 3% 3% Other Country 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% Japan 3% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% Q4 Base: Note: Note: Where do you live? International visitors responding. Missing cases excluded. Country Coded according to TRA, IVS. 76

77 Age profile Profile of respondents taking the survey The age profile of visitors in 2016/17 was generally consistent with that from the previous year. At an overall level the proportion of year olds (21%) has decreased from last year (25%) while those 65 and over (31%) has increased from last year (26%). 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) 16/17 (n=1907) years 6% 4% 6% 6% 6% 4% 5% 4% years 31% 29% 27% 31% 31% 25% 25% 21% years 47% 47% 44% 44% 42% 44% 45% 45% 65+ years 16% 19% 23% 19% 21% 27% 26% 31% 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) 16/17 (n=418) years 6% 4% 5% 7% 4% 3% 5% 5% years 31% 31% 32% 32% 30% 27% 30% 19% years 52% 49% 40% 43% 47% 50% 41% 47% 65+ years 12% 16% 22% 18% 18% 19% 24% 29% 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) 16/17 (n=858) years 4% 3% 3% 4% 5% 2% 3% 2% years 25% 21% 15% 23% 26% 18% 15% 17% years 51% 51% 55% 51% 42% 46% 52% 45% 65+ years 20% 25% 27% 22% 27% 34% 30% 36% 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) 16/17 (n=631) years 10% 7% 13% 8% 9% 9% 8% 6% years 42% 43% 39% 43% 38% 34% 37% 35% years 34% 35% 33% 34% 37% 33% 35% 40% 65+ years 14% 15% 16% 16% 15% 23% 19% 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. 77

78 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) 16/17 (n=2,148) Total Female 55% 55% 53% 55% 52% Under 15 years 5% 9% 7% 7% 7% years 4% 6% 4% 2% 4% years 14% 12% 9% 10% 8% years 22% 17% 18% 15% 17% 65 plus years 11% 11% 15% 20% 16% Total Male 45% 45% 47% 45% 48% Under 15 years 4% 8% 7% 5% 7% years 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% years 11% 10% 9% 9% 8% years 17% 14% 16% 15% 17% 65 plus years 10% 10% 13% 14% 16% 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. 78

79 Incidence of repeat visitation This year, the proportion of repeat visitors was 34%, which is consistent with the previous year (32%) 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=2,148) 34% 66% 15/16 (n=1,602) 32% 68% 14/15 (n=1,602) 26% 74% 13/14 (n=2544) 23% 77% 12/13 (n=2446) 28% 72% 11/12 (n=1108) 29% 71% 10/11 (n=2028) 30% 70% 09/10 (n=1659) 27% 73% 08/09 (n=1628) 27% 73% 07/08 (n=1597) 32% 68% 06/07 (n=1815) 30% 70% 05/06 (n=1811) 28% 72% 04/05 (n=1405) 29% 71% 03/04 (n=289) 37% 63% 02/03 (n=1841) 34% 66% 01/02 (n=742) 35% 65% 00/01 (n=1647) 33% 67% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Incidence of repeat visitation by visitor origin Incidence of repeat visitation among intrastate, interstate and international visitors was consistent with the previous year. 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 16/17 Intrastate 68% 70% 67% 79% 68% 63% 68% 68% 60% 61% 67% 66% 65% 69% 67% 71% 74% Interstate 17% 18% 14% 19% 14% 16% 16% 14% 15% 11% 16% 14% 17% 12% 12% 16% 16% International 5% 8% 6% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 4% 4% 8% 6% 4% 3% 8% 9% Q3 Base: Note: Have you ever visited Kangaroo Island before this trip? Visitors responding. Don t know and missing cases excluded. 79

80 Travel party Travelling with a partner or family and friends continued to be the two most common types of travel party in 2016/17. Travel parties involving family and friends (47%) have increased significantly from last year (42%) 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 16/17 Partner 37% 46% 44% 42% 46% 43% 46% 47% 47% 44% 46% 47% 43% Family & friends 45% 42% 45% 49% 46% 47% 46% 45% 46% 44% 45% 42% 47% Special interest/ tour group 10% 7% 6% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% Alone 8% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 7% 6% 6% 4% Business associate** 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% Q2 On this trip, who did you travel with? Base: Visitors responding, N=2,146 Note: Missing cases excluded. ** Added category in 05/06. 80

81 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) 16/17 (n=476) With family and friends 58% 54% 56% 58% 65% 58% 61% 60% 55% 54% With a partner 34% 40% 36% 36% 30% 36% 30% 35% 38% 34% With a special interest group 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% 5% Alone 4% 4% 5% 3% 2% 3% 5% 3% 4% 5% With business associate (with or without spouse) 2% <1% <1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% <1% 2% 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) 16/17 (n=956) With family and friends 47% 43% 46% 42% 35% 44% 40% 39% 37% 44% With a partner 47% 51% 48% 51% 57% 49% 49% 54% 51% 47% With a special interest group 2% 3% 3% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2% 4% 5% Alone 5% 3% 3% 2% 6% 4% 6% 5% 7% 4% With business associate (with or without spouse) 0% <1% <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) 16/17 (n=714) With family and friends 40% 42% 38% 38% 37% 36% 38% 38% 34% 43% With a partner 48% 46% 45% 51% 51% 54% 48% 43% 52% 49% With a special interest group 6% 6% 12% 4% 7% 4% 5% 6% 5% 4% Alone 6% 7% 5% 5% 5% 5% 9% 13% 7% 4% With business associate (with or without spouse) 0% <1% <1% <1% 1% <1% <1% <1% 2% <1% Q2 Base: Note: On this trip, who did you travel with? Visitors responding. Missing cases excluded. 81

82 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) 16/17 (n=1607) Types of Accommodation Hotels/motels and holiday homes continued to be the two most popular forms of accommodation among visitors. The use of various types of accommodation has remained consistent with last year. Table 9: Accommodation used over time Hotel / motel 28% 29% 26% 32% 30% 25% 25% 23% 25% 22% 24% 25% 25% 25% 26% Holiday home / apartment / unit* Camping, caravan or motor-home* 28% 13% 19% 26% 27% 21% 21% 22% 21% 26% 23% 22% 22% 27% 25% 16% 21% 11% 16% 10% 13% 14% 17% 18% 14% 18% 17% 17% 16% 15% Cabin / Cottage* 18% 18% 17% 11% 12% 11% 10% 15% 11% 13% 13% 12% 12% 10% 12% Luxury lodge / retreat^ Bed and Breakfast/ Farm Stay*+ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 10% 7% 9% 8% 12% 10% 14% 14% 10% 10% 7% 11% 10% 10% 8% 7% 7% 8% Backpacker hostel 3% 5% 7% 4% 4% 3% 2% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% 3% Friends / relatives 7% 16% 8% 5% 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 6% 6% 6% 5% 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. 82

83 12/13 (n=514) 13/14 (n=437) 14/15 (n=303) 15/16 (n=304) 16/17 (n=356) 12/13 (n=1064) 13/14 (n=904) 14/15 (n=640) 15/16 (n=564) 16/17 (n=772) 12/13 (n=793) 13/14 (n=749) 14/15 (n=484) 15/16 (n=512) 16/17 (n=749) Types of accommodation by visitor origin Holiday homes were the most popular form of accommodation among both intrastate visitors this year, whereas interstate and international visitors were most likely to opt for a hotel or motel as their means of accommodation. Table 10: Accommodation Used by Visitor Origin Intrastate Interstate International Holiday home 34% 34% 35% 37% 37% 23% 20% 22% 25% 23% 11% 8% 6% Hotel / motel 13% 16% 13% 17% 20% 25% 25% 29% 24% 28% 35% 36% 37% 39% 32% Cabin 13% 11% 13% 11% 13% 15% 11% 14% 11% 12% 8% 9% 6% 7% 9% 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 12% 9% 10% 10% 10% 24% 23% 24% 24% 19% 16% 11% 13% 10% 8% 12% 15% 13% 10% 11% 8% 11% 8% 7% 10% 7% 8% 7% 4% 6% 10% 3% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% 3% 3% 5% 3% 5% 5% 4% 1% 4% 5% 6% 4% 5% 7% 10% 10% 7% 9% 13% 12% 14% 12% 18% 8% 11% 12% 10% 9% 3% 5% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% <1% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 7% 12% 8% 11% 10% 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 6% 8% 6% 6% 13% Own property 3% 2% 2% <1% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 0% 0% <1% Other <1% 3% 2% 7% 4% <1% 4% 4% 4% 5% <1% 1% 3% 5% 3% 13% 9% Q7 Note: What type of accommodation did you stay in while on Kangaroo Island? Don t know and missing cases excluded. 83

84 Satisfaction with accommodation Satisfaction with accommodation in 2016/17 saw a decrease in satisfaction with the quality of holiday homes and an increase in satisfaction with self-contained bed & breakfast or farm stays which is now has the highest level of satisfaction (95%). 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) 16/17 (n=1254) Total Satisfaction 78% 76% 77% 80% 80% 80% Hosted bed & breakfast or farm stay 87% 89% 93% 92% 82% 84% Holiday home 84% 91% 87% 87% 93% 85% Luxury lodge/retreat 80% 80% 87% 86% 84% 86% Rented apartment or flat or unit 82% 84% 81% 78% 93% 84% Friends / relatives 78% 87% 94% 91% 89% 93% Self-contained bed & breakfast or farm stay 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 77% 93% 82% 96% 79% 95% Hotel / motel 79% 66% 75% 71% 71% 73% Cabin 68% 67% 72% 63% 85% 77% Camping, caravan or motor home 67% 60% 59% 64% 70% 72% Backpacker hostel 63% 72% 56% 69% 52% 69% 84

85 Table 12: Satisfaction with accommodation types this wave A) Own property 98%( G, H, I, J, K) B) Self-contained bed & breakfast or farm stay 95% ( H, I, J) C) Hosted bed & breakfast or farm stay 84% D) Friends / relatives 93% ( H, I, J) E) Holiday home 85% ( H, J) F) Luxury Lodge / Retreat 86% ( H, J) G) Rented apartment or flat or unit 84% ( H) H) Hotel / motel 73% I) Backpacker hostel 69% J) Camping, caravan or motorhome 72% K) Cabin 77% 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) 85

86 Credible vs. Experienced Attributes & Attractions Overall, the proportion of visitors who experienced the Island s numerous attributes and attractions has remained largely unchanged with the exception of island produce which has increased in both credibility and experience. Table 13: Credible vs. experienced attributes and attractions Credible Experienced 12/13 (min n=2341) 13/14 (min n=2401) 14/15 (min n=1534) 15/16 (min n=1532) 16/17 (min n=1327) 12/13 (min n=1881) 13/14 (min n=1980) 14/15 (min n=1252) 15/16 (min n=1290) 16/17 (min n=1303) 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 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% 96% 97% 95% 96% 97% 95% 96% 95% 96% 97% 96% 98% 98% 97% 98% 93% 96% 96% 96% 97% 96% 95% 97% 96% 96% 96% 94% 97% 97% 97% 94% 92% 93% 94% 94% 89% 88% 88% 90% 92% 90% 85% 89% 91% 94% 81% 75% 80% 83% 87% 90% 87% 88% 90% 91% 93% 91% 91% 92% 94% 75% 77% 79% 80% 80% 67% 71% 74% 76% 74% 56% 64% 63% 64% 66% 71% 79% 76% 75% 80% 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 86

87 Satisfaction with attributes Satisfaction with various attributes received levels of satisfaction consistent with last year. Table 14: Satisfaction with Attributes 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 The level customer service you received 82% 84% 84% 84% 86% 88% Seeing wildlife in the natural environment 84% 82% 84% 84% 87% 88% The quality of Island produce (food & wine) 78% 78% 80% 82% 84% 84% The quality of activities available 78% 79% 80% 80% 82% 85% The professionalism of tourism businesses 79% 78% 82% 82% 83% 86% The range of activities available 76% 78% 79% 80% 81% 83% The quality of accommodation 78% 76% 76% 76% 80% 80% Your opportunity to learn more about the Island's natural environment 77% 78% 80% 80% 80% 82% The quality of picnic/day use areas 80% 83% 82% 82% 83% 85% The range of island produce (food & wine) 71% 72% 72% 74% 78% 79% The availability of activities 73% 74% 75% 76% 75% 79% The quality of interpretive/educational signage Your opportunity to learn more about the Island's history** The availability of island produce (food & wine) 75% 72% 75% 76% 79% 79% 68% 66% 70% 68% 73% 75% 67% 69% 69% 72% 74% 74% The quality of public toilets 75% 74% 74% 79% 80% 80% The quality of road signage 70% 69% 73% 70% 75% 74% The quality of campgrounds 72% 66% 69% 70% 73% 75% The quality of roads 63% 56% 62% 61% 66% 63% 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 87

88 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. Close to one third 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. All findings were consistent with 2015/16. 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) 16/17 (n=2148) Road Infrastructure 13% 10% 6% 9% 9% 8% Better road signage (attractions/ airport/ ferry)^ Quality of Accommodation / or lack of Bad quality / availability public toilets / bins / picnic areas Customer service and friendless/ or lack of 7% 5% 9% 7% 6% 5% 5% 2% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Limited Trading Hours 3% 4% 3% 4% 5% 3% Expenses at KI 5% 3% 2% 4% 4% 3% A lack of restaurants, cafes and other eating places 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% More / better tourist information 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% Habitat / Wildlife 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% Too much road kill 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% Availability of local produce 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% Quality/ availability of activities/ tour guides Bad/ lack of food options in restaurants 3% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 2% Mobile phone coverage <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 1% Other 2% 3% 8% 4% 6% 2% Everything fine / not dissatisfied 2% 2% 1% 2% 4% 3% Did not comment 60% 56% 67% 60% 59% 63% 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. 88

89 Suggestions for Improvement Visitors were asked to make any suggestions to improve their travel experience on Kangaroo Island. A total of 40% of survey completers contributed a suggestion for improvement, which was lower than in the previous year (54%). 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. Findings were consistent with 2015/16. 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) 16/17 (n=2148) Improve road infrastructure 10% 9% 6% 10% 8% 5% Improve road signage/ attraction signage/ improve map/ provide map^ Improve quality/ number of stores, restaurants, takeaway shops 6% 3% 6% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% Lower the cost of travel 9% 8% 5% 7% 7% 3% More/ accurate tourist information 8% 8% 5% 9% 9% 5% Reduce expenses on the Island (activities, food, petrol etc.) 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% Extend length of stay 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% Improve public transport, bus/ taxi / infrastructure 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Extend trading hours (shops/ restaurants/ tours/ petrol stations) 2% 3% 3% 2% 4% 3% Improve quality/ availability of accommodation 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 1% More activities / wildlife viewing opportunities 1% 2% 3% 4% 1% 2% Improve mobile phone/ Internet coverage 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% Improve public infrastructure (public toilets, rubbish bins, picnic areas etc.) 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% Reduce road kill/ speed limits 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% More/ better local produce 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% Improve customer service/ friendliness of locals 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% Keep KI untouched/ limit development 3% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% Car rental - reduce costs/ availability/ provide more information 1% 1% 1% <1% 1% 1% Other suggestions 5% 6% 10% 8% 10% 5% No Comment / no suggestion 49% 47% 55% 41% 46% 60% Q26 What suggestions do you have for improving your Kangaroo Island travel experience? Base: Total visitors. ^ Code added in 2012/13. 89

90 Exploration of those dissatisfied overall A small proportion (3%, n=49) 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 be visiting in Autumn, be a repeat visitor or be travelling from interstate. Table 17: Who was dissatisfied? Travel party Those that were dissatisfied n=49 Total 16/17 respondents N=2,146 Travelling with family or friends 42% 43% Travelling with partner 52% 47% Travelling with special interest/tour group 1% 4% Travelling alone 5% 4% Travelling with business associates (with or without spouse) 0% 1% Season visited Winter 5% 14% Spring 24% 26% Summer 24% 26% Autumn 47% 34% Previous visitation Yes 79% 66% No 21% 34% Visitor Origin Intrastate 24% 33% Interstate 67% 51% International 9% 17% Arrival transportation Air 6% 8% Sea 94% 92% Type of stay Day trip 3% 6% Overnight 97% 94% 90

91 Trip as part of package Those that were dissatisfied n=49 Total 16/17 respondents N=2,146 Yes 28% 20% No 72% 80% Spend Up to $200 per night 67% 63% More than $200 per night 33% 37% 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 quality of activities available (77% difference), the range of activities available (76% difference), and the availability of activities (71% difference). Table 18: What were they dissatisfied with? Those that were dissatisfied n=49 % Very satisfied (Top 2 box out of 5) Total 16/17 respondents N=2,146 % Very satisfied (Top 2 box out of 5) The level of customer service you received 42% 88% Seeing wildlife in the natural environment 48% 88% The quality of Island produce (food & wine) 26% 84% The quality of activities available 8% 85% The professionalism of tourism businesses 37% 86% The range of activities available 7% 83% The quality of accommodation 33% 80% Your opportunity to learn more about the Island s natural environment 42% 82% The quality of picnic/ day use areas 39% 85% The range of Island produce (food & wine) 33% 79% The availability of activities 8% 79% The quality of interpretive/ educational signage 36% 79% Your opportunity to learn more about the Island s history 19% 75% The availability of Island produce (food & wine) 17% 74% The quality of public toilets 60% 80% The quality of road signage 48% 74% The quality of campgrounds 30% 75% The quality of roads 32% 63% 91

92 Table 19: Reasons for dissatisfaction (Q20) Those that were dissatisfied n=51 Total 15/16 respondents N=1604 Road Infrastructure 20% 8% Better road signage (attractions/ airport/ ferry) 12% 6% Quality of Accommodation / or lack of 8% 4% Bad quality / availability public toilets / bins / picnic areas 4% 4% Customer service and friendless/ or lack of 11% 3% Limited Trading Hours 8% 3% Expenses at KI 4% 3% A lack of restaurants, cafes and other eating places 11% 3% More / better tourist information 7% 3% Habitat / Wildlife 4% 1% Too much roadkill 0% 1% More local produce 0% 2% Quality/ availability of activities/ tour guides 7% 3% Bad/ lack of food options in restaurants 0% 2% Mobile phone coverage 0% 1% Other 0% 2% Everything fine / not dissatisfied 7% 3% No Comments / NA / Blank Cells 37% 63% Q20 Base: For any item in question 19 above that you have expressed dissatisfaction with, please provide further comment. Total visitors. 92

93 Seasonal variances Proportion of visitors by season Summer continues to be the most popular season to visit Kangaroo Island, accounting for 35% of 2016/17 visitors. All season s visitation proportions have remained consistent with each season in 2015/16. Figure 49: Proportion of visitors by season 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 Winter 14% 15% 15% 15% Spring 25% 25% 25% 24% Summer 34% 34% 34% 35% Autumn 26% 25% 26% 27% Note: Data provided by TOMM Committee. 93

94 Satisfaction with overall experience by season The proportion of visitors who stated that they were very satisfied with their overall experience on the island remains consistent for each season compared to 2015/16. The proportion continues to be highest for those visiting in winter (89%). Figure 50: Visitors who were very satisfied** with their overall experience on Kangaroo Island by season 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 Winter 82% 86% 87% 89% Spring 83% 84% 81% 84% Summer 85% 84% 81% 86% Autumn 81% 84% 84% 87% Q22 Taking into account all aspects of your visit to Kangaroo Island, how would you rate your overall satisfaction? Base: Visitors responding, N=2,006 Note: Missing cases excluded. ** Rated 8-10 on an eleven point scale, where 0 means extremely dissatisfied and 10 means extremely satisfied. 94

95 Average number of nights stayed by season The average number of nights stayed is highest among spring visitors (5.2 nights), which has increased significantly from the 2015/16 spring average (4.3 nights). Other seasons have remained consistent with the 2015/16 findings. Figure 51: Average number of nights stayed by season /14 14/15 15/16 16/17 Winter Spring Summer Autumn Q6 Base: Note: Did you stay one or more nights or was it a day trip? Visitors responding, N=1,772 Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year. 95

96 Average expenditure per visit by season Average expenditure increased from 2015/16, albeit not significantly for winter (6.4%), Spring (6.6%) and summer visitors (8.3%). Autumn visitors spent significantly less in 2016/17 compared to 2015/16 with a 12.2% decrease. Figure 52: Average total expenditure per person per visit by season $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 Winter $ $ $ $ Spring $ $ $ $ Summer $ $ $ $ Autumn $ $ $ $ Q6 Did you stay one or more nights or was it a way trip? Q8 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, 1,816 Note: Missing cases excluded. Note: 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 Satisfaction with customer service received by season While satisfaction with customer service has remained consistent with 2015/16 for each season, the proportion of winter visitors who are very satisfied with customer service (66%) has reached the acceptable range of 65%-100%. Figure 53: Visitors who were very satisfied with customer service received by season 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 Winter 60% 57% 57% 66% Spring 48% 52% 55% 56% Summer 46% 51% 53% 53% Autumn 52% 52% 61% 57% Q19.7 Please indicate how satisfied you were with the level of customer service you received. Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,975 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. 97

98 Average spend per night over $200 by season The proportion of visitors who reported an average spend of over $200 per night was highest amongst spring visitors (45%) and is now within the acceptable range of 40%-60%. Visitors for all seasons have remained consistent with last year s results. Figure 54: Visitors who spent $200+ per night by season 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 Winter 30% 40% 30% 36% Spring 34% 33% 37% 45% Summer 27% 34% 33% 36% Autumn 30% 41% 35% 31% 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=1,533 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 98

99 Experienced local Kangaroo Island produce by season The proportion of visitors who experienced local Kangaroo Island produce in 2016/17 was highest for those visiting in winter (90%) which has increased significantly from 2015/16 (80%). Other seasons have remained consistent with 2016/17. Figure 55: Visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce by season 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 Winter 70% 70% 80% 90% Spring 84% 83% 83% 87% Summer 81% 84% 84% 86% Autumn 66% 79% 84% 86% Q18.8 For each of the following please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,844. Note: Missing cases excluded. 99

100 Range, quality and availability of Kangaroo Island produce by season The proportions of visitors very satisfied with the range of local Kangaroo Island produce is highest for winter visitors (53%) and has remained consistent with 2016/17 findings for all seasons. Figure 56: Visitors very satisfied with the range of local Kangaroo Island produce by season 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 Winter 45% 45% 51% 53% Spring 40% 38% 45% 46% Summer 40% 47% 40% 48% Autumn 38% 40% 53% 50% Q19.4 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,663 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. 100

101 The proportions of visitors very satisfied with the quality of local Kangaroo Island produce is again highest for winter visitors (60%) and has remained consistent with 2016/17 findings for all seasons. Figure 57: Visitors very satisfied with the quality of local Kangaroo Island produce by season 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 Winter 54% 52% 56% 60% Spring 46% 42% 51% 50% Summer 48% 53% 47% 50% Autumn 44% 50% 58% 51% Q19.5 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,663 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. 101

102 Lastly, The proportions of visitors very satisfied with the availability of local Kangaroo Island produce highest for winter visitors (50%) and has remained consistent with 2016/17 findings for all seasons. Figure 58: Visitors very satisfied with the availability of local Kangaroo Island produce by season 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 Winter 42% 36% 51% 50% Spring 37% 34% 44% 42% Summer 36% 44% 37% 41% Autumn 38% 38% 48% 44% Q19.6 Please indicate how satisfied you were with... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1,663 Note: Don t know, didn t experience and missing cases excluded. 102

103 Incidence of repeat visitation by season This year, the proportion of repeat visitors increased significantly for autumn (from 27% in 2015/16 to 38% in 2016/17) while decreasing significantly for summer (from 39% in 2015/16 to 30% in 2016/17). Figure 59: Repeat visitors by season 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 Winter 18% 21% 29% 38% Spring 27% 26% 30% 30% Summer 32% 31% 39% 30% Autumn 16% 22% 27% 38% Q3 Base: Note: Have you ever visited Kangaroo Island before this trip? Visitors responding n=2,133 Don t know and missing cases excluded. 103

104 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 (20%) was significantly smaller than last year (25%) and is the equal lowest proportion since 2009/10 (20%). Figure 60: Trip to Kangaroo Island part of travel package 16/17 (n=2120) 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) 20% 25% 25% 28% 23% 23% 21% 20% 80% 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. 104

105 Type of booking by visitor origin The proportion of intrastate visitors (15%) booking their trip as part of a package has decreased significantly from 2015/16 (24%). International visitors (35%) continue to be the most likely group to travel to Kangaroo Island as part of a package. 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) 16/17 (n=470) Trip part of a package 19% 22% 19% 20% 24% 15% Not part of a package 81% 78% 81% 80% 76% 85% Interstate Visitors 11/12 (n=464) 12/13 (n=1077) 13/14 (n=1109) 14/15 (n=690) 15/16 (n=651) 16/17 (n=943) Trip part of a package 20% 19% 27% 19% 20% 18% Not part of a package 80% 81% 73% 81% 80% 82% International Visitors 11/12 (n=360) 12/13 (n=818) 13/14 (n=933) 14/15 (n=574) 15/16 (n=593) 16/17 (n=707) Trip part of a package 33% 31% 36% 40% 34% 35% Not part of a package 67% 69% 64% 60% 66% 65% Q8 Base: Note: Was your trip to Kangaroo Island paid for as part of a travel package? Visitors responding. Missing cases excluded. 105

106 Total Visitors Expenditure per visitor At the overall (total visitor) level, the reported average cost that was spent per person on the Island in 2016/17 ($779.59) was statistically consistent with the previous year s reported average ($770.06). Table 21: Average expenditure per visitor 12/13 (n=2179) 13/14 (n=2197) 14/15 (n=1414) 15/16 (n=1,412) 16/17 (n=1,826) Average $ $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ $1, $ $ $ Median^ $ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ $ Min. $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $10.00 $0.00 Max $24, $49, $16, $42, $18, Intrastate Visitors 12/13 (n=491) 13/14 (n=443) 14/15 (n=310) 15/16 (n=338) 16/17 (n=434) Average $ $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ $ $ $ $ Median^ $ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ $ Min. $15.00 $3.50 $15.00 $33.33 $10.00 Max $4,00.00 $5, $4, $6, $9,000 Interstate Visitors 12/13 (n=1015) 13/14 (n=1014) 14/15 (n=642) 15/16 (n=606) 16/17 (n=857) Average $ $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ $ $ $ $ Median^ $ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ $ Min. $0.00 $2.00 $10.00 $12.50 $0.00 Max $6,00.00 $12, $10, $12, $18, International Visitors 12/13 (n=673) 13/14 (n=738) 14/15 (n=462) 15/16 (n=468) 16/17 (n=535) Average $ $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ , $1, $1, $ Median^ $ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ $ Min. $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $10.00 $0.00 Max $24, $49, $16, $42, $10, * 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 106

107 The reported average cost per person per day on the Island remained consistent with the previous year at $ Table 22: Average daily expenditure per visitor Total Visitors 12/13 (n=) 13/14 (n=) 14/15 (n=1249) 15/16 (n=1393) 16/17 (n=1826) Average $ $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ $ $ $ $ Median^ $ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ $ Min. $0.00 $1.25 $0.00 $7.14 $0.00 Max $4, $45, $5, $ $3, Intrastate Visitors 12/13 (n=470) 13/14 (n=408) 14/15 (n=280) 15/16 (n=331) 16/17 (n=434) Average $93.28 $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $75.30 $ $87.87 $ $ Median^ $74.80 $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ Min. $4.17 $6.32 $15.00 $7.14 $2.00 Max $2, $1, $ $3, Interstate Visitors 12/13 (n=983) 13/14 (n=818) 14/15 (n=588) 15/16 (n=600) 16/17 (n=857) Average $ $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ $ $ $ $ Median^ $ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ $ Min. $0.00 $1.25 $10.00 $12.50 $0.00 Max $1, $3, $2, $5, $3, International Visitors 12/13 (n=631) 13/14 (n=574) 14/15 (n=381) 15/16 (n=462) 16/17 (n=535) Average $ $ $ $ Standard Deviation* $ $1, $ $ Median^ $ $ $ $ Mode $ $ $ $ Min. $0.83 $3.33 $0.00 $ Max $4, $45, $5, $9, $3, * 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 107

108 108 Appendix B: VES Questionnaire

109 109

110 110