: TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island · 2018-02-05 · 8 Addressing the TOMM Indicators At the core of...

Prepared for: TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island

CB Contact: Ben Nitschke, Account Manager

Phone: (08) 8373 3822

Email: [email protected]

Issue Date: 24 August, 2017

Project number: TOMM0003

www.colmarbrunton.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.colmarbrunton.com/

2

Contents.

Addressing the TOMM Indicators ............................................................................... 8

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 14

Background....................................................................................................................................................... 14

Research Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 15

Research Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Weighting .......................................................................................................................................................... 15

Questionnaire Design ....................................................................................................................................... 16

Restructuring & Reanalysis of Previous Wave Data ......................................................................................... 16

Confidence Intervals ......................................................................................................................................... 16

Data cleaning .................................................................................................................................................... 17

Limitations of the Research .............................................................................................................................. 17

Key Findings ............................................................................................................ 18

Economic Indicators ................................................................................................. 19

Annual average number of nights stayed (EC1d) ............................................................................................. 20

Recommendation of Kangaroo Island to others as a holiday destination (EC1e) ............................................. 23

Average expenditure per visit (EC1f) ................................................................................................................ 24

Annual number of visitors (EC1g) ..................................................................................................................... 25

Satisfaction with customer service received (EC2c) ......................................................................................... 26

Satisfaction with professionalism of tourism operators (EC2d) ......................................................................... 27

Compliments and complaints (EC2e) ............................................................................................................... 28

Average spend per night over $200 (EC3c) ...................................................................................................... 29

Summary of sub-group scores for economic indicators .................................................................................... 30

Viewed wildlife in natural environment (EX1b) .................................................................................................. 32

Experienced scenic variety without crowds (EX1c) ........................................................................................... 33

Experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement (EX1d) ....................................................................... 34

Experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes (EX1e)................................................................... 35

Experienced areas of untouched natural beauty (EX1f) ................................................................................... 36

Experienced farming and rural landscapes (EX1g)........................................................................................... 37

Experienced local Kangaroo Island produce (EX1h) ........................................................................................ 38

Kangaroo Island offers one of Australia’s top three nature & wildlife experiences (EX1i) ................................. 39

Kangaroo Island has a friendly local community (EX1j) .................................................................................... 40

Agreement with positioning statement (EX1k) .................................................................................................. 41

Matching expectation set by marketing materials (EX1l) .................................................................................. 42

Satisfaction with overall experience (EX1m) ..................................................................................................... 43

Seeing native wildlife in its natural environment (EX2a) ................................................................................... 44

3

Opportunity to learn more about the Island’s natural environment (EX2b) ....................................................... 45

Opportunity to learn more about the Island’s history (EX2c) ............................................................................. 46

Range, quality and availability of activities (EX2d) ............................................................................................ 47

Quality of accommodation (EX2e) .................................................................................................................... 50

Range, quality and availability of Kangaroo Island produce (EX2f) .................................................................. 51

Quality of public tourism infrastructure (EX2h) ................................................................................................. 54

Recommendation of Kangaroo Island as holiday destination (EX2i) ................................................................ 60

Repeat visitation (EC2j) .................................................................................................................................... 61

Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition ‘Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible

experiences consistent with its positioning’ ...................................................................................................... 62

Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition ‘Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible

experiences consistent with its positioning’ (continued) .................................................................................... 63

Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition ‘The majority of visitors leave the Island highly

satisfied with their experience’ .......................................................................................................................... 64

Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition ‘The majority of visitors leave the Island highly

satisfied with their experience’ (continued) ....................................................................................................... 65

Visits to natural areas occurring on managed sites (EN2b) .............................................................................. 67

Locations visited ............................................................................................................................................... 68

Awareness of quarantine regulations prior to arriving (EN2e) .......................................................................... 69

Visitor Profile ............................................................................................................ 74

Visitor Origin ..................................................................................................................................................... 74

Age profile ........................................................................................................................................................ 77

Incidence of repeat visitation ............................................................................................................................ 79

Travel party ....................................................................................................................................................... 80

Types of Accommodation ................................................................................................................................. 82

Satisfaction with accommodation ...................................................................................................................... 84

Credible vs. Experienced Attributes & Attractions............................................................................................. 86

Reasons for Dissatisfaction .............................................................................................................................. 88

Suggestions for Improvement ........................................................................................................................... 89

Exploration of those dissatisfied overall ............................................................................................................ 90

Seasonal variances .................................................................................................. 93

Proportion of visitors by season ........................................................................................................................ 93

Appendix A: Visitor Expenditure ............................................................................. 104

Incidence of Package Bookings ...................................................................................................................... 104

Expenditure per visitor .................................................................................................................................... 106

Appendix B: VES Questionnaire ............................................................................ 108

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 $200 29

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 2002.

This document outlines the findings of the 2016/17 Visitor Exit Survey (VES).

Summary of TOMM Indicators

Summary of Economic Indicators

Optimal Conditions Ref Indicators Acceptable Range VES 16/17 Results

Tourism optimises

economic benefits for

Kangaroo Island

EC1d Annual average number of nights stayed 4-7 nights 4.8 nights

EC1e Proportion of visitors that would recommend Kangaroo Island to others as a holiday destination

90% - 100% 95%

EC1f Average annual total expenditure per visit 5% - 10%↑ $779.59

[1.2% increase]

EC1g Annual number of visitors to Kangaroo Island 0-20%*↑ 3.1%

Tourism operators excel in

their business

professionalism

EC2c Proportion of visitors that are very satisfied with the level of customer service they receive

65% - 100% 57%

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


Kangaroo Island delivers

authentic and credible

experiences consistent

with its positioning

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%

EX1c Proportion of visitors that experienced scenic

variety without crowds 90% - 100% 97%

EX1d Proportion of visitors that experienced cultural

heritage and history of settlement 70% - 100% 74%

EX1e Proportion of visitors that experienced

spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes 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


Kangaroo Island delivers

authentic and credible

experiences consistent

with its positioning

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%

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


The majority of visitors

leave the island highly

satisfied with their

experience

EX2a Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment

70% - 100% 63%

EX2b Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island’s natural environment

70% - 100% 49%

EX2c Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island’s history

70% - 100% 41%

Ex2d Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the range, quality and availability of activities available

70% - 100% 43% - 49%

EX2e Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the quality of accommodation

70% - 100% 51%

EX2f Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the range, quality and availability of Kangaroo Island produce

70% - 100% 43% - 52%

EX2g Proportion of visitors that are very satisfied with the level of customer service they receive

80% - 100% 57%

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

60% - 100% 25% - 47%

EX2i Proportion of visitors that would recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination to others as a result of their experience

90% - 100% 95%

EX2j Proportion of repeat visitation 30% - 50% 34%

13

Summary of Environmental Indicators


Visitor activity has minimal

negative impacts on the

natural environment

EN2b Proportion of visitations to natural areas

occurring on managed sites 70% - 100% 75%

EN2e Proportion of visitors aware of quarantine

regulations prior to arriving on Kangaroo Island 70% - 100% 66%

KI TOMM: Visitor Exit Survey Report 2016-2017

14

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.


15

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 2017. 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.


16

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%


17

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 self-

completion surveys than others (e.g. females).

Whilst the data in the research was weighted to account for differentiation of ferry, air, and tour bus

sample sizes from the actual figures, the findings must be considered with regard to the overall

reasonably low response rate.

There were significant differences in the methodology used between 00/01, 01/02 and subsequent

years. Again, trends should be considered indicative only, as many of the questions or code frames

have differed overtime, along with the methodology used to collect data. Unlike the methodology

currently used, surveys in 00/01 and 01/02 were not distributed throughout the financial year meaning

that statistical consistency is lost when trying to compare datasets from current years.

Finally, the reader should also be aware that some tracked results in this report will differ from the

results in previous reports. This is primarily due to the restructuring of the datasets into financial years

and the adaptation of analysis techniques for consistency across years.


18

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 2002/2003.

2015/16 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).


19

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 65-

100%); 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.


20

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

Q6 Did you stay one or more nights or was it a day trip? Base: Visitors responding, N=2,146. Note: Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year.

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%).

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

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↓

↑


21

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

Q6 Did you stay one or more nights or was it a day trip? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,782 Note: Missing cases excluded. Day visitors excluded from calculation.

Note: Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year


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).

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

Average # of nights 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.2 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.7 4.8 4.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

Pre-2008/2009 acceptable range

(3-5 nights)


22

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

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.

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 4.6 4.8 4.2 4.8 4.8 4.5 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.9 4.8 5.2 4.9 5.0

Interstate 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.1 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.5 5.1

International 2.3 2.3 3.2 3.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 3.1 3.4 3.1 2.8 3.4 3.2 2.9 3.4 3.1 3.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

↓

↑


23

23

Recommendation of Kangaroo Island to others as a holiday

destination (EC1e)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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 90-100%.

Figure 4: Willingness to recommend

Q23 Would you recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination to others based on this trip? Base: Visitors responding, N=2,024 Note: Missing cases excluded. Note: Arrows indicate significant change in score from 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%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


24

24

Average expenditure per visit (EC1f)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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 $779.59 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

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: 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



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 ($810.97 vs.

$720.57);

7 Air arrivals spent more than sea arrivals ($1662.86 vs. $712.88);

7 As to be expected, those who stayed one or more nights spent more than day visitors

($813.58 vs. $341.39); and

09/10(n=1450)

10/11(n=1811)

11/12(n=1000)

12/13(n=2179)

13/14(n=2197)

14/15(n=1,414)

15/16(n=1,412)

16/17(n=1,826)

Avg. total expenditureper person per visit

$623.00 $633.65 $684.31 $609.52 $601.92 $726.90 $770.06 $779.59

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000


25

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)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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

Note: Data provided by TOMM Committee.

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

% increase innumber of visitors

2.3% 2.7% -2.0 -3.6 26.0 -5.4 5.6% 1.2% 3.0% 0.6% -0.4 1.2% 1.7% 4.1% 3.9%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%


26

26

Satisfaction with customer service received (EC2c)


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

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%.


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%).

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%

% very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied 8% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Scale** changed from 3-pt to 5-pt scale in 09/10


27

27

Satisfaction with professionalism of tourism operators (EC2d)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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 65-100%. It is, however, the equal highest proportion since the

measure commenced in 2009/10.

Figure 8: Satisfaction with professionalism of tourism operators

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.


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%).

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

% very satisfied 41% 40% 43% 41% 48% 51% 52% 52%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


28

28

Compliments and complaints (EC2e)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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

Q25 Are there any individuals or businesses you would like to draw our attention to for compliments/improvement?

Base: Visitors responding, N=1,481.

Note: Don’t know and missing cases excluded.



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.

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


29

29

Average spend per night over $200 (EC3c)


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 $200




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, N=1,542 Note: Day trippers excluded. 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



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%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17

% spend$200+ per night

28% 28% 26% 25% 30% 37% 35% 37%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


30

30

Summary of sub-group scores for economic indicators

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)

EC1d Annual average number of nights stayed

• 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

• 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

EC1e

Proportion of visitors that would recommend Kangaroo Island to others as a holiday destination

• All subgroups • Intrastate & international visitors • Air arrivals

EC1f Average annual total expenditure per visit

• Summer, winter, and spring visitors

• Interstate visitors • Spring visitors • Air arrivals • First time visitors • Those who stayed overnight • Those not on a bus tour

EC2c

Proportion of visitors that are very satisfied with the level of customer service they receive

• Winter visitors • Those travelling by air

• Winter visitors • Those travelling by air

EC2d

Proportion of customers that are highly satisfied with the professionalism of tourism operators

• None • Air arrivals • Those on a bus tour

EC2e

The number of compliments and complaints received from visitors

• International visitors • First time visitors • Summer visitors • Spring visitors • Those spending up to $200 per

night • Overnight visitors

• Those staying overnight (complaints)

• Those not on a bus tour (complaints)

• Sea arrivals (complaints) • Those spending up to $200 per

night (compliments)

EC3c

Proportion of visitors who’s average spend per night exceeds $200

• Interstate and international visitors • Spring visitors • First time visitors •

• Interstate and international visitors

• Spring visitors • Bus surveys • Air arrivals • First time visitors


31

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%).


32

32

Viewed wildlife in natural environment (EX1b)


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 90-100%.

Figure 11: Visitors that viewed Australia’s wildlife in natural surroundings

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.



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%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

98% of visitors believed that KI provides this*


33

33

Experienced scenic variety without crowds (EX1c)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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

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:


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%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



34

34

Experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement (EX1d)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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 70-100%.

Figure 13: Visitors that experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement

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



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%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



35

35

Experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes

(EX1e)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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




6 New in 2016/17:

7 Day trippers were less likely to experience this (97%) than overnight visitors (99%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



36

36

Experienced areas of untouched natural beauty (EX1f)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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 90-100%.

Figure 15: Visitors that experienced areas of untouched natural beauty





7 Day trippers were less likely to experience areas of untouched natural beauty (92%) than

those who stayed one or more nights (97%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

97% of visitors believed that KI provides this*.


37

37

Experienced farming and rural landscapes (EX1g)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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 90-100% for the second time in as many years.

Figure 16: Visitors that experienced farming and rural landscapes

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.



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%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



38

38

Experienced local Kangaroo Island produce (EX1h)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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 80-

100%.

Figure 17: Visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce

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.



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%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


↑


39

39

Kangaroo Island offers one of Australia’s top three nature &

wildlife experiences (EX1i)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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



6 New in 2016/17:

7 International visitors (87%) were more likely to experience this than both Interstate (80%) and intrastate visitors (78%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


↑


40

40

Kangaroo Island has a friendly local community (EX1j)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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




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%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



41

41

Agreement with positioning statement (EX1k)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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 [...]

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.


6 New in 2016/17:

7 Intrastate visitors (90%) were more likely to agree with the positioning statement than

interstate visitors (83%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


42

42

Matching expectation set by marketing materials (EX1l)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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

Q21 Do you believe that Kangaroo Island’s marketing material matched the experience you had while visiting Kangaroo

Island?

Base: Visitors responding, N=1,987




7 Air arrivals (97%) were more likely to believe this than sea arrivals (94%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


43

43

Satisfaction with overall experience (EX1m)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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

Q22 Taking into account all aspects of your visit to Kangaroo Island, how would you rate your overall satisfaction?



** Rated 8-10 on an eleven point scale, where 0 means extremely dissatisfied and 10 means extremely satisfied.


6 New in 2016/17:

7 Those on a bus tour were less likely to be very satisfied (80%) than non-bus visitors (86%).

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

% very satisfied** 87% 83% 80% 84% 83% 82% 79% 77% 82% 80% 81% 83% 84% 82% 86%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Scale changed from 3-pt to 10-pt scale in 09/10

↑


44

44

Seeing native wildlife in its natural environment (EX2a)


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

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.



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%).

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%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



45

45

Opportunity to learn more about the Island’s natural

environment (EX2b)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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

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%).

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%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


46

46

Opportunity to learn more about the Island’s history (EX2c)


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

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.


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%).

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%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Question revised in 15/16*


47

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)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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

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.

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%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Question revised In 09/10**


48

48

Figure 27: Satisfaction with the quality of activities

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.


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%).

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

% very satisfied 37% 38% 41% 40% 43% 44% 46% 49%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


49

49

Figure 28: Satisfaction with the availability of activities




09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

% very satisfied 35% 33% 37% 37% 40% 41% 42% 43%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


50

50

Quality of accommodation (EX2e)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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 70-100%.

Figure 29: Satisfaction with quality of accommodation

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


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%).

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%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Scale** changed from 3-pt to 5-pt scale in

09/10


51

51

Range, quality and availability of Kangaroo Island produce

(EX2f)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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 70-100%.

Figure 30: Satisfaction with the range of local Kangaroo Island produce




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%);

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%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


52

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




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%).

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

% very satisfied 44% 45% 43% 44% 47% 50% 52% 52%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


53

53

Figure 32: Satisfaction with the availability of local Kangaroo Island produce




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%).

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

% very satisfied 35% 35% 34% 36% 38% 39% 44% 43%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


54

54

Quality of public tourism infrastructure (EX2h)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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 60-100%.

Figure 33: Satisfaction with the quality of picnic & day use areas



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%).

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%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑


55

55

Figure 34: Satisfaction with the quality of interpretive & educational signage



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%).

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%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


56

56

Figure 35: Satisfaction with the quality of public toilets



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%).

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%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


57

57

Figure 36: Satisfaction with the quality of road signage



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%);

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%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


58

58

Figure 37: Satisfaction with the quality of campgrounds

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.



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%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


59

59

Figure 38: Satisfaction with the quality of roads




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%).

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%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


60

60

Recommendation of Kangaroo Island as holiday destination

(EX2i)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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


Figure 39: Willingness to recommend

Q23 Would you recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination to others based on this trip?





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%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


61

61

Repeat visitation (EC2j)


Range

VES 15/16

Result


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

Q3 Have you ever visited Kangaroo Island before this trip?


Note: Don’t know and missing cases excluded.



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%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


62

62

Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition

‘Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences

consistent with its positioning’



EX1b

Proportion of visitors

that viewed wildlife in

the natural environment

• All sub-groups • Those on a bus tour

• First time visitors

EX1c


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


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


EX1e


that experienced

spectacular scenery and

coastal landscapes

• All sub-groups • Those staying one or more night

EX1f


that experienced areas

of untouched natural

beauty

• All sub-groups • Those staying one or more nights

EX1g


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



63

63


‘Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences

consistent with its positioning’ (continued)



EX1h


that experienced local

Kangaroo Island

produce

• All except international

visitors, those on a tour bus

and day trippers


• Repeat visitors

• Those who stayed overnight


EX1i


that believe Kangaroo

Island offers one of

Australia’s top three

nature & wildlife

experiences

• All sub-groups • International visitors

EX1j


that believe Kangaroo

Island has a friendly

local community

• All except day trippers and

those on a bus tour

• Those staying overnight


• 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


that state that their

experience matched or

exceeded expectation

set by marketing

materials

• All sub-groups • Air arrivals

EX1m


very satisfied with their

overall experience on

Kangaroo Island

• None • Those not on a bus tour


64

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


EX2a Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment

• Air arrivals

• Air arrivals • Repeat visitors • Those spending up to $200 per night

EX2b

Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island’s natural environment

• None • Winter visitors

EX2c

Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the Island’s cultural history

• None

• Intrastate and interstate visitors • Those on a bus tour • Those spending up to $200 per night

Ex2d

Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the range, quality and availability of activities available

• None • Those spending up to $200 per night (quality)

EX2e Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the quality of accommodation

• None

• Air arrivals • Intrastate visitors • Those not on a bus tour

EX2f

Proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with the range, quality and availability of Kangaroo Island produce

• None

• 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


65

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


EX2j Proportion of repeat visitation

• Winter, spring, summer and autumn


• 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


66

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.


67

67

Visits to natural areas occurring on managed sites (EN2b)


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

Q17 Which of these locations did you visit while on Kangaroo Island this time? Base: Total visitors, N=1,604

There are no significant or notable differences between subgroups.

10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17

% of visits tomanaged sites

75% 76% 75% 76% 75% 76% 75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


68

68

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

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

00/0

1

(n=

1647

)

01/0

2

(n=

745)

02/0

3 (n

=18

54)

03/0

4 (

n=29

9)

04/0

5 (n

=14

74)

05/0

6

(n=

1841

)

06/0

7

(n=

1888

)

07/0

8

(n=

1609

)

08/0

9

(n=

1635

)

09/1

0

(n=

1653

)

10/1

1 (n

=20

34)

11/1

2 (n

=11

08)

12/1

3 (n

=24

52)

13/1

4

(n=

2547

)

14/1

5 (n

=16

07)

15/1

6 (n

=16

04)

16/1

7

(n=

2148

)

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%


69

69

Awareness of quarantine regulations prior to arriving (EN2e)


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

Q16a Were you aware of Kangaroo Island’s quarantine regulations, prohibiting the import of.... Q16b If yes, when did you find out this information Base: 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.


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%).

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Measurement** revised in 09/10


70

70

Figure 43: Awareness of any quarantine regulations by repeat and first time visitors

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.

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Repeat visitors

First time visitors

Measurement** revised in 09/10


71

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

Q16a Were you aware of Kangaroo Island’s quarantine regulations, prohibiting the import of ...

Base: Visitors responding to each, Min n=1,658



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;

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


72

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.

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

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).

Aware of regulations prohibiting the import of…

(a) First time

visitors

n=1,174

(b) Repeat

visitors

n=391

Potatoes 71% 70%

Honey / bee products 79% 89%↑

Foxes 75% 82%↑

Rabbits 75% 82%↑

Declared weeds 67% 75%↑


73

73


‘Visitor activity has minimal negative impacts on the natural

environment’



EN2b

Proportion of visitations

to natural areas

occurring on managed

sites

• All sub-groups • none

EN2e


aware of quarantine

regulations prior to

arriving on Kangaroo

Island

• Intrastate visitors

• Repeat visitors

• Those spending up to $200

per night



• Those arriving by Sea

• Those spending up to $200 per night

• Repeat visitors



74

74

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

Q4 Where do you live?


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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f vis

itors

↓

↑

↓


75

75

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

02/0

3

(n=

447)

03/0

4

(n=

66)

04/0

5

(n=

362)

05/0

6

(n=

463)

06/0

7

(n=

543)

07/0

8

(n=

538)

08/0

9

(n=

682)

09/1

0

(n=

597)

10/1

1

(n=

819)

11/1

2

(n=

465)

12/1

3

(n=

1088)

13/1

4

(n=

1119)

14/1

5

(n=

696)

15/1

6

(n=

654)

16/1

7

(n=

957)

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 Where do you live? Base: Interstate visitors responding. Note: Missing cases excluded.


76

76

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

02/0

3

(n=

492)

03/0

4

(n=

150)

04/0

5

(n=

742)

05/0

6

(n=

936)

06/0

7

(n=

856)

07/0

8

(n=

462)

08/0

9

(n=

434)

09/1

0

(n=

674)

10/1

1

(n=

729)

11/1

2

(n=

363)

12/1

3

(n=

830)

13/1

4

(n=

947)

14/1

5

(n=

583)

15/1

6

(n=

597)

16/1

7

(n=

711)

USA/ Canada

35% 29% 45% 28% 36% 29% 31% 29% 24% 24% 22% 24% 25% 23% 24%

Other Europe

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 Where do you live? Base: International visitors responding. Note: Missing cases excluded. Note: Country Coded according to TRA, IVS.


77

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 25-44 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)

15 – 24 years 6% 4% 6% 6% 6% 4% 5% 4%

25 – 44 years 31% 29% 27% 31% 31% 25% 25% 21%↓

45 – 64 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)

15 – 24 years 6% 4% 5% 7% 4% 3% 5% 5%

25 – 44 years 31% 31% 32% 32% 30% 27% 30% 19%↓

45 – 64 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)

15 – 24 years 4% 3% 3% 4% 5% 2% 3% 2%

25 – 44 years 25% 21% 15% 23% 26% 18% 15% 17%

45 – 64 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)

15 – 24 years 10% 7% 13% 8% 9% 9% 8% 6%

25 – 44 years 42% 43% 39% 43% 38% 34% 37% 35%

45 – 64 years 34% 35% 33% 34% 37% 33% 35% 40%

65+ years 14% 15% 16% 16% 15% 23% 19% 19%

Q27 Please record the number of people you are travelling with in each of the following categories. Base: Visitors responding. Note: Missing cases excluded.


78

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%

15 - 24 years 4% 6% 4% 2%↓ 4%

25 - 44 years 14% 12% 9% 10% 8%

45 - 64 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%

15 - 24 years 3% 3% 2% 3% 4%

25 - 44 years 11% 10% 9% 9% 8%

45 - 64 years 17% 14% 16% 15% 17%

65 plus years 10% 10% 13% 14% 16%

Q27 Please record the number of people you are travelling with in each of the following categories. Base: All responses – entire travel party accounted for Note: Missing cases excluded. Note: Question revised in 2010/11 to ask age and gender of entire travel party.


79

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

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 Have you ever visited Kangaroo Island before this trip? Base: Visitors responding. Note: Don’t know and missing cases excluded.

33%

35%

34%

37%

29%

28%

30%

32%

27%

27%

30%

29%

28%

23%

26%

32%

34%

67%

65%

66%

63%

71%

72%

70%

68%

73%

73%

70%

71%

72%

77%

74%

68%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

00/01 (n=1647)

01/02 (n=742)

02/03 (n=1841)

03/04 (n=289)

04/05 (n=1405)

05/06 (n=1811)

06/07 (n=1815)

07/08 (n=1597)

08/09 (n=1628)

09/10 (n=1659)

10/11 (n=2028)

11/12 (n=1108)

12/13 (n=2446)

13/14 (n=2544)

14/15 (n=1,602)

15/16 (n=1,602)

15/16 (n=2,148)

Repeat visitor First time visitor


80

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

Q2 On this trip, who did you travel with? Base: Visitors responding, N=2,146

Note: Missing cases excluded. ** Added category in 05/06.

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%

Businessassociate**

1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑


81

81

Travel party by visitor origin

Table 8: Travel party by visitor origin over time

Q2 On this trip, who did you travel with? Base: Visitors responding. Note: Missing cases excluded.

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%


2% 3% 3% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2% 4%↑ 5%

Alone 5% 3% 3% 2% 6% 4% 6% 5% 7% 4%↓


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%


6% 6% 12% 4% 7% 4% 5% 6% 5% 4%

Alone 6% 7% 5% 5% 5% 5% 9% 13% 7%↓ 4%


0% <1% <1% <1% 1% <1% <1% <1% 2%↑ <1%↓


82

82

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

Q7 What type of accommodation did you stay in while on Kangaroo Island? Base: Visitors responding. Note: 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.

02/0

3

(n=

1848)

03/0

4

(n=

290)

04/0

5

(n=

1474)

05/0

6

(n=

1690)

06/0

7

(n=

1729)

07/0

8

(n=

1536)

08/0

9

(n=

1635)

09/1

0

(n=

1592)

10/1

1

(n=

1931)

11/1

2

(n=

1072)

12/1

3

(n=

2372)

13/1

4

(n=

2092)

14/1

5

(n=

1,3

92)

15/1

5

(n=

1,3

80)

16/1

7

(n=

1607)

Hotel / motel 28% 29% 26% 32% 30% 25% 25% 23% 25% 22% 24% 25% 25% 25% 26%

Holiday home / apartment / unit*

28% 13% 19% 26% 27% 21% 21% 22% 21% 26% 23% 22% 22% 27%↑ 25%

Camping, caravan or motor-home*

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^

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 10% 7%↓ 9%

Bed and Breakfast/ Farm Stay*+

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%


83

83

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

Q7 What type of accommodation did you stay in while on Kangaroo Island? Note: Don’t know and missing cases excluded.

Intrastate Interstate International

12/1

3

(n=

514)

13/1

4

(n=

437)

14/1

5

(n=

303)

15/1

6

(n=

304)

16/1

7

(n=

356)

12/1

3

(n=

1064)

13/1

4

(n=

904)

14/1

5

(n=

640)

15/1

6

(n=

564)

16/1

7

(n=

772)

12/1

3

(n=

793)

13/1

4

(n=

749)

14/1

5

(n=

484)

15/1

6

(n=

512)

16/1

7

(n=

749)

Holiday home 34% 34% 35% 37% 37% 23% 20% 22% 25% 23% 11% 8% 6% 13%

↑ 9%

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

12% 9% 10% 10% 10% 24% 23% 24% 24% 19% 16% 11% 13% 10% 8%

Rented apartment or flat or unit

12% 15% 13% 10% 11% 8% 11% 8% 7% 10% 7% 8% 7% 4% 6%

Self-contained bed & breakfast or farm stay

10% 3% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% 3% 3% 5% 3% 5% 5% 4% 1%

Luxury lodge/Retreat

4% 5% 6% 4% 5% 7% 10% 10% 7% 9% 13% 12% 14% 12% 18%

Friends / relatives

8% 11% 12% 10% 9% 3% 5% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4%

Backpacker hostel

2% 2% 2% 1% <1% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 7% 12% 8% 11% 10%

Hosted bed & breakfast or farm stay

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%


84

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

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

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

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%


85

85

Table 12: Satisfaction with accommodation types this wave

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.


Significant differences between accommodation types indicated by letter (A-K)

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%


86

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

Q18a For each of the following, please indicate whether you believe that Kangaroo Island provides this. Q18b For each of the following, please indicate whether you experienced this while on Kangaroo Island. Base: Visitors responding to each attribute. Note: Missing cases excluded.


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

99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 99% 99% 99%

Areas of untouched natural beauty

96% 97% 95% 96% 97% 95% 96% 95% 96% 97%

Viewing Australia’s wildlife in natural surroundings

96% 98% 98% 97% 98% 93% 96% 96% 96% 97%

Scenic variety without crowds of people

96% 95% 97% 96% 96% 96% 94% 97% 97% 97%

Farming and rural landscapes

94% 92% 93% 94% 94% 89% 88% 88% 90% 92%

Island produce (food & wine)

90% 85% 89% 91% 94%↑ 81% 75% 80% 83% 87%↑

A friendly local community

90% 87% 88% 90% 91% 93% 91% 91% 92% 94%

The cultural heritage and history of settlement

75% 77% 79% 80% 80% 67% 71% 74% 76% 74%

One of Australia's top three nature and wildlife experiences

56% 64% 63% 64% 66% 71% 79% 76% 75% 80%↑


87

87

Satisfaction with attributes

Satisfaction with various attributes received levels of satisfaction consistent with last year.

Table 14: Satisfaction with Attributes

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.


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

75% 72% 75% 76% 79% 79%

Your opportunity to learn more about the Island's history**

68% 66% 70% 68% 73% 75%

The availability of island produce (food & wine)

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%


88

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

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.

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)^ — 7% 5% 9% 7% 6%

Quality of Accommodation / or

lack of 5% 5% 2% 3% 3% 4%

Bad quality / availability public

toilets / bins / picnic areas 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4%

Customer service and friendless/

or lack of 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 3% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3%

Bad/ lack of food options in

restaurants 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%


89

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

Q26 What suggestions do you have for improving your Kangaroo Island travel experience? Base: Total visitors. ^ Code added in 2012/13.

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^

— 6% 3% 6% 5% 3%

Improve quality/ number of stores, restaurants, takeaway shops

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%


90

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?

Those that were

dissatisfied n=49

Total 16/17 respondents

N=2,146

Travel party

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%


91

91

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


N=2,146

Trip as part of package

Yes 28% 20%

No 72% 80%

Spend

Up to $200 per night 67% 63%

More than $200 per night 33% 37%

Those that were

dissatisfied n=49


N=2,146

% Very satisfied

(Top 2 box out of 5) % 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%


92

92

Table 19: Reasons for dissatisfaction (Q20)

Q20 For any item in question 19 above that you have expressed dissatisfaction with, please provide further comment. Base: Total visitors.

Those that were

dissatisfied n=51


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%


93

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

Note: Data provided by TOMM Committee.

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%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%


94

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

Q22 Taking into account all aspects of your visit to Kangaroo Island, how would you rate your overall satisfaction?



** Rated 8-10 on an eleven point scale, where 0 means extremely dissatisfied and 10 means extremely satisfied.

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


95

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

Q6 Did you stay one or more nights or was it a day trip? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,772 Note: Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year.

13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17

Winter 3.3 4.3 5.1 3.9

Spring 4.3 4.8 4.3 5.2

Summer 4.8 5.3 5.1 5.1

Autumn 4.2 4.3 5.2 4.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

↑


96

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

Q6 Did you stay one or more nights or was it a way trip?



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: 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

13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17

Winter $424.94 $661.47 $708.00 $753.08

Spring $700.35 $661.62 $801.79 $854.77

Summer $762.74 $735.21 $723.90 $783.89

Autumn $467.11 $789.98 $811.79 $712.63

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

↓


97

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


Figure 53: Visitors who were very satisfied with customer service received by season

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.

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


98

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




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, N=1,533 Note: Day trippers excluded. 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


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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


99

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

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.

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑


100

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


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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


101

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


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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


102

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


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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


103

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

Q3 Have you ever visited Kangaroo Island before this trip? Base: Visitors responding n=2,133 Note: Don’t know and missing cases excluded.

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑

↓


104

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

Q8 Was your trip to Kangaroo Island paid for as part of a travel package? Base: Visitors responding.


20%

21%

23%

23%

28%↑

25%

25%

20%↓

80%

79%

77%

77%

72%

75%

75%

80%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

09/10 (n=1485)

10/11 (n=2001)

11/12 (n=1102)

12/13 (n=2422)

13/14 (n=2516)

14/15 (n=1588)

15/16 (n=1595)

16/17 (n=2120)

Part of a package Not part of a package


105

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

Q8 Was your trip to Kangaroo Island paid for as part of a travel package? Base: Visitors responding. Note: Missing cases excluded.


(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%


(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%



(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%



106

106

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

Total Visitors 12/13

(n=2179) 13/14

(n=2197) 14/15

(n=1414) 15/16

(n=1,412) 16/17

(n=1,826)

Average $609.52 $601.92 $726.90 $770.06 $779.59

Standard Deviation* $651.28 $1,509.09 $841.00 $856.32 $747.31

Median^ $487.50 $400.00 $500.00 $550.00 $600.00

Mode≠ $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00

Min. $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $10.00 $0.00

Max $24,000.00 $49,999.50 $16,400.00 $42,500.00 $18,000.00


(n=491) 13/14

(n=443) 14/15

(n=310) 15/16

(n=338) 16/17

(n=434)

Average $478.95 $493.64 $642.38 $658.82 $643.23

Standard Deviation* $398.06 $395.30 $521.39 $563.21 $433.69

Median^ $400.00 $400.00 $500.00 $550.00 $550.00

Mode≠ $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00

Min. $15.00 $3.50 $15.00 $33.33 $10.00

Max $4,00.00 $5,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,250.00 $9,000


(n=1015) 13/14

(n=1014) 14/15

(n=642) 15/16

(n=606) 16/17

(n=857)

Average $691.97 $665.17 $819.43 $923.88↑ $894.75


Median^ $500.00 $500.00 $650.00 $650.00 $712.00

Mode≠ $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00

Min. $0.00 $2.00 $10.00 $12.50 $0.00

Max $6,00.00 $12,500.00 $10,500.00 $12,500.00 $18,000.00


(n=673) 13/14

(n=738) 14/15

(n=462) 15/16

(n=468) 16/17

(n=535)

Average $603.88 $593.37 $642.51 $617.48 $687.29

Standard Deviation* $890.51 2,599.39 $1,180.87 $1,128.53 $843.74

Median^ $400.00 $328.00 $350.00 $450.00 $490.00

Mode≠ $500.00 $250.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00

Min. $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $10.00 $0.00

Max $24,000.00 $49,999.50 $16,400.00 $42,500.00 $10,150.00

* 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: 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



107

107

The reported average cost per person per day on the Island remained consistent with the previous year at $170.80.

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 $126.22 $276.81 $157.58 $178.14↑ $170.80


Median^ $100.00 $175.00 $125.00 $131.70 $133.30

Mode≠ $125.00 $250.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00

Min. $0.00 $1.25 $0.00 $7.14 $0.00

Max $4,800.00 $45,000.00 $5,216.67 $9500.00 $3,500.00


(n=470) 13/14

(n=408) 14/15

(n=280) 15/16

(n=331)

16/17

(n=434)

Average $93.28 $189.39 $124.02 $132.52 $136.25


Median^ $74.80 $125.00 $100.00 $111.10 $114.70

Mode≠ 125.00 $100.00 $166.67 $125.00 $125.00

Min. $4.17 $6.32 $15.00 $7.14 $2.00

Max 916.67 $2,500.00 $1,000.00 $916.67 $3,000.00


(n=983) 13/14

(n=818) 14/15

(n=588) 15/16

(n=600)

16/17

(n=857)

Average $129.55 $263.73 $159.49 $199.86↑ $178.43


Median^ $100.00 $178.60 $133.30 $140.00 $150.00

Mode≠ $125.00 $250.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00

Min. $0.00 $1.25 $10.00 $12.50 $0.00

Max $1,333.33 $3,750.00 $2,500.00 $5,125.00 $3,500.00


(n=631) 13/14

(n=574) 14/15

(n=381) 15/16

(n=462)

16/17

(n=535)

Average $160.54 $415.89 $210.13 $202.36 222.09

Standard Deviation* $226.81 $1,213.54 $422.75 $315.63 271.33

Median^ $123.50 $270.00 $125.00 $150.00 150.00

Mode≠ $150.00 $250.00 $125.00 $150.00 125.00

Min. $0.83 $3.33 $0.00 $8.33 0.00

Max $4,800.00 $45,000.00 $5,216.67 $9,500.00 $3,383.33

* 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: 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



108

108

Appendix B: VES Questionnaire


109

109


110

110


111

111


112

112

Colmar Brunton Social Research LEVEL 2, 199A RUNDLE STREET

ADELAIDE SA 5000

PH. (08) 8373 3822

ABN NO: 96 080 437 225

This document takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our Client. It is not

intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to

any third party.

: TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island · 2018-02-05 · 8 Addressing the TOMM Indicators At the core of...

Documents

Transcript of : TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island · 2018-02-05 · 8 Addressing the TOMM Indicators At the core of...