Value and Equity for Climate Adaptation:

Coastal Caravan and Camping Parks Case Study

OutcomesThis project provides new social and economic information and guidance to support climate adaptation decision making. It includes:

•A substantial contribution to the social and economic evidence base by field research which:

- Estimates for the first time the significant non-market economic values associated with recreation and protection of caravan parks on Victorian coastal Crown land and beaches. This includes a consumer surplus of $90m for five caravan parks with an asset value of $1.25bn;

- Assesses equity preferences for coastal climate adaptation of both campers and residents.

•A Decision Support Framework which:

- Explains the nature and importance of the types of economic value and social equity information relevant to adaptation responses;

- Guides the reader through the generation, interpretation and application of economic value and social equity information to support adaptation decision making through a common coastal adaptation decision making pathway.

Project rationaleThe Social and Economic Importance of Caravan ParksCaravan and camping parks (CCPs) on coastal Crown land occupy an important place in the social, economic and environmental landscape, providing multiple benefits to the public in various forms. They provide affordable holiday destinations and access to the coast’s myriad recreation and tourism opportunities. The physical character of many coastal towns and their foreshores is often heavily influenced by their caravan parks, while the summer influx of friends, family and visitors to enjoy the ambience of a beachside

holiday has a profound effect on coastal communities.

Coastal CCPs also play a crucial role in providing the majority of revenue for the day-to-day management of Crown land reserves along the Victorian coastline, and provide a range of flow-on benefits to local communities and their economies.

Climate risks to coastal Caravan ParksCCPs are typically located close to foreshores, estuaries, bushland or environmentally sensitive areas which make the coast such a great place and often underpin the recreation and lifestyle that attracts people to visit and live by the coast. However, these locations are often exposed to potential changes to coastal climate conditions and their associated hazards such as sea level rise inundation, increased coastal erosion and flood inundation. This exposure potentially threatens the benefits and values they provide.

Adaptation requires social and economic informationDespite widespread recognition of the importance of CCPs, little evidence is available of the social and economic values of CCPs and the foreshore to the wide range of people who use them. Little is also known of community preferences for equitably sharing the burdens of different climate change adaptation options and their implications.

Effective adaptation will require the rigorous application of risk management approaches, and a sound understanding of both the likelihood and consequences of the impacts of climate hazards and responses to them. It is essential that value and equity are properly considered, as these are the primary determinants of consequence.

2

Valu

e an

d Eq

uity

Fra

mew

ork

for C

limat

e Ad

apta

tion:

Coa

stal

Car

avan

and

Cam

ping

Par

ks C

ase

Stud

y Fa

ct S

heet

Better decision makingThe Western Coastal Board, as one of Victoria’s Regional Coastal Boards charged with facilitating implementation of the Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS), has long been interested in promoting full consideration of triple bottom line issues in coastal decision making. The Hierarchy of Principles in the VCS 2008 requires that integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) takes into account the environmental, social and economic implications of decisions, and that seeks to ensure an integrated analysis of economic, social and environmental and cultural heritage implications of decisions. This project assists decision makers meet these requirements.

The CCPs projectIn response to the above issues and the opportunity afforded by the Australian Government’s Coastal Adaptation Decision Pathway program (CADPP), the Western Coastal Board and Deakin University developed the Value and Equity Framework for Climate Adaptation: Coastal Caravan and Camping Parks Case Study project (CCPs project). Contributions were received from a range of regional partner organisations.

The CCPs project aimed to generate new information on economic value and social equity and provide guidance on how that can be used to improve decision making for climate adaptation. The project has been developed in three distinct phases:

•A literature review to assess current knowledge concerning non-market economic value and social equity in caravan parks and adaptation. This informed the development of the methodology for field research and the operation of the Decision Support Framework.

• Targeted field research to estimate market and non-market economic values and generate social equity preferences of campers and residents in adjacent towns.

•A Decision Support Framework to illustrate how to generate, interpret and apply social and economic information in key adaptation decision-making processes.

Key conceptsUnderpinning this project are two key concepts:

• Total economic value, which includes market and non-market economic values (ie those not traded in markets). For example, while there is an entry price for parks, this price does not include a premium for being close to the beach, foreshore or coastal nature reserve, or comparatively undeveloped land, nor the benefit of the holiday.

• Social equity which is derived from a concept of social justice and requires that basic needs be met and that benefits and burdens be spread fairly.

The integration of economic value and social equity considerations in decision making for adaptation to ensure the ‘fairness’ of adaptation for all groups affected is underpinned by the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008.

Literature reviewTo inform the project’s research and decision framework a literature review was undertaken. This review highlighted the following key issues:

Valuation and its legitimacy, triple bottom line assessment and decision makingThere is a non-existence of non-market values for CCPs on Crown land, either in Victoria, across Australia or overseas. This makes the requirement for managers to undertake a triple bottom line and integrated assessment of adaptation options very difficult. In simple terms, having such information would make the task of prioritising responses far easier and more transparent.

CCP management and adaptationThere is a plethora of documents on adapting to climate change but these do not necessarily address the special nature of CCPs, given their closeness to the shore, their management arrangements, and the multifaceted goals of their Committees of Management (CoMs).

Decision pathways and decision support systems• Inclusion of triple bottom line information, including

equity and non-market valuation, would be consistent with other adaptation decision frameworks being developed.

• Existing decision support tools for adaptation are primarily focussed on local government adaptation rather CCPs per se. The experience in the success and failures of these can be used in designing an appropriate tool for this project

Barwon Heads Caravan Park from the air.

3

Valu

e an

d Eq

uity

Fra

mew

ork

for C

limat

e Ad

apta

tion:

Coa

stal

Car

avan

and

Cam

ping

Par

ks C

ase

Stud

y Fa

ct S

heet

Non-market economic and social equity researchThis research has:

• Estimated for the first time the significant non-market economic values associated with recreation and protection of CCPs on Victorian coastal Crown land and beaches. This includes an annual consumer surplus of $90m for five CCPs with an asset value of $1.25bn.

•Demonstrated how non-market valuation techniques can be used to provide more precise information about the preferences and values that different groups in society hold for natural and built coastal assets.

• Taken a leap forward, by assessing the equity preferences of both campers and residents as members of broader society. Together, the explicit balancing of equity and economic efficiency provides an important mechanism to make adaptation decisions.

Research MethodologyThe project sought to establish economic market values and non-market values and social equity preferences associated with five CCPs in Victoria:

• Portarlington Holiday Park;

• Barwon Heads Caravan Park;

•Apollo Bay Recreation Reserve;

• Surfside Holiday Park, Warrnambool;

•Gardens Caravan Park, Port Fairy.

Research was conducted with a total of 770 campers and residents. Campers were surveyed between 13 – 23 January 2012 with a total of n=388 interviews conducted. Residents were interviewed following the main holiday period (to avoid holiday rentals) between 9 -20 February 2012. A total of n=382 interviews were conducted mainly door to door, but some street intercept interviews were also undertaken.

The travel cost method and choice modelling were used to establish the non-market economic values associated with CCPs.

Research Survey Findings

Market values of CCPSNo estimates of land values for the CCPs were available. There are several reasons given for this. Firstly, the land is public and is not anticipated to ever be sold, hence market values do not apply. Secondly, land values were not required for administrative purposes of charging rates or land taxes. Finally, low lying land subject to inundation as part of CCPs could not be administered for other commercial purposes.

Establishing asset values for CCPs using their current returns was problematic since it is not the intention of the land managers to maximise the return on the asset. However, a range of financial values were obtained for the five CCPs, with:

• Revenues ranging from $0.63m to $3.8m;

•Direct operating costs ranging from $0.46m to $2.1m;

•Asset values ranging from $1.7m to $6.9m (obtained for each of the parks except Warrnambool).

Characteristics of CCP campers and Township ResidentsCampers (in this survey) are predominately middle aged, middle income and families. This profile is consistent with previous studies of camping and caravanning where families with school-age children are seen to be the main ‘user’ group (ASR 2011, Ipsos 2005). Residents’ profile varies from that of the camper.

Table A: Summary of Campers and Residents

Demographic CharacteristicsCampers n=388

Residents n=382

Age Average Age 49 yrs 53 yrs

Children Under or over 12

yrs in h’hold59% 30%

Gender Male 43% 42%

Female 57% 58%

Work status Retired 15% 34%

Place of work Outside township

where resident16%

Education Tertiary 27% 26%

Total Gross

Household

income

Average income

‘000s$82.6 $62.1

Utilisation of CCPs• 83% of campers have visited the site where they were

surveyed more than once, with 17% staying for the first time. On average they have visited for 14.7 years.

• Residents also use the CCP – 69% of residents have used the park over the past 12 months. Town sporting facilities are located within some CCPs, but they also use the CCP for other recreation.

TenureMany campers have been visiting the CCPs included in the study for many years. Some locations attract more first time visitors and others have a seemingly more entrenched patronage. Understanding the nature of campers’ tenure will be important for decision makers as it is highly likely to influence responses to change.

4

Valu

e an

d Eq

uity

Fra

mew

ork

for C

limat

e Ad

apta

tion:

Coa

stal

Car

avan

and

Cam

ping

Par

ks C

ase

Stud

y Fa

ct S

heet

Camper commitment to holiday• It is evident that in taking this holiday campers have

made a substantial commitment of time and money and involved a number of people. The average number of people on the trip was three (3) while the average number of people staying per night was 4.1. It is important for decision makers to understand each camping site provides benefit to more than one person.

• Expenditure was modest. The average spend per day per site was $61.70 with 89% spent locally. A high number of people staying is associated with older, longer term campers with higher investment in equipment.

Important attributes of CCPS•Campers see the amenity of the CCPs from a security and

facility point of view as very important. The opportunity to stay with family or friends is an important social aspect of their park stays. These attitudes were strongly influenced by how long people have been coming to stay and vary between the locations included in the study.

• The CCPs are in themselves a major attraction for campers who first and foremost saw the opportunity to relax in the caravan park itself as very important (73%). The accessibility of the beach is also core (72%). Beyond this, the features of the area were not greatly important to campers.

• Residents see their involvement in protecting the coast as very important (73%). They also think it’s very important that others can come and enjoy the local area by camping and caravanning (71%), which suggests less friction between residents and campers than has been thought. Furthermore, residents understand many aspects of the CCP stay are very important to those staying there.

The value of a CCP stay to campers•Campers hold large and statistically significant non-market

economic values for the recreation arising from their visits to parks. Campers are willing to pay $44-$67 per person per site, which is beyond that currently charged per person for average campers. Campers therefore receive substantial benefits from their CCP recreational stay.

• The consumer surplus across all five sites is calculated as $49 per person per night, which extrapolates to a $90m benefit provided to the community annually from these sites. This value implies an “asset value” for the five CCPs of $1.25bn. This estimate can be considered as the benefit provided to the public and campers specifically. This enables a valuation of the CCPs in terms of their revenue value and their public use value.

• The unresponsiveness of campers’ visits to park entrance fees provides an indication of the extent to which campers will bear the cost of funding responses to climate impacts, regardless of their preferences or general willingness to pay.

Responding to changeGiven the high level of campers returning to the same CCP (83%), it is a testing question to ask what they would do should the CCP not be available to them in the future. Most intend to continue camping and caravanning, 48% would go to another coastal area and 22% to a different park in the same town. (Campers’ have assumed there will be other sites and parks available as implied by the options for responses).

Table B: Camper responses to change

Action Taken when this CCP is Not Available

Total n=388

%

Go to another coastal area and use another caravan park 48

Still come to this town but go to a different caravan park 22

Go on a different type of holiday away from the coast 18

Stay at home - do not come on holiday 5

Still come to this town but use other accommodation 4

Go to another coastal area and use other accommodation 2

Don’t know 1

Few residents say they will move to other areas (5%) if the coastal reserves (including CCPs) in their area are not available. Nonetheless some do, thereby demonstrating the significance of these reserves to their residency. The most common response is to say they would take action to ensure the reserves are available (40%).

Table C: Resident responses to change

Action if Reserves and Foreshore Areas (inc. CCP) were Unavailable

Total n=382

%

Take action to ensure reserves were available 40

Continue living here and not use them 37

Stay here but visit coastal reserves in other areas 11

Consider moving to another coastal area 5

Move away from the coast altogether 2

Coastal adaptation preferences•Understanding people’s likely response and preferences for

action to changes in conditions is central to this project. To that end people were asked about how they would like to see climate change impacts managed in the future.

• There is a strong preference amongst both residents and campers to allow nature to take its course. Many campers also prefer the option of building a sea wall, and residents preferred this most often. The most strongly preferred options are graphed below. The strong ‘do nothing’ response is partly explained from comments within the choice modelling such as:

“Nature is going to happen, no money can stop it.” Portarlington camper

5

Valu

e an

d Eq

uity

Fra

mew

ork

for C

limat

e Ad

apta

tion:

Coa

stal

Car

avan

and

Cam

ping

Par

ks C

ase

Stud

y Fa

ct S

heet

Non market value of beach and caravan sites• To preserve the assets of the beach and caravan sites, the

average camper would pay an additional $1.03 per night to avoid each 1% loss in CCP sites, and $0.36 per night to avoid each 1% loss in beach width, indicating they valued protection of the CCP sites more than the beach. They spend an average 26.1 nights in the CCP every year.

• Residents are prepared to pay $4.08 and $5.83 per annum per person for each 1% improvement in the protection of parks and beaches respectively, indicating they value protection of the beach more than the CCP sites. Overall these assets have greater value to them than campers.

49% 55%33%

7%30% 26% 19% 19%

13% 10%

23%

16%

35%30%

24% 25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Campers Residents Campers Residents Campers Residents Campers Residents

Public Caravan parkusers should

contribute more viasite fees to caravanparks for the future

Inc. no. of campinggrounds at the beachby using other coastalreserves to increase

revenue available

Ensure low costcrown land camping

continues to beavailable along the

coast

Make all sitespowered to increase

revenue

1st Preference 2nd Preference

Equity preferences for CCP adaptationThe research survey investigated three areas of equity: access, changes to accommodation mix and sharing the financial burden of adaptation. There is considerable support for the continuation of camping in coastal reserves from both campers and residents. Campers would like to see it expanded. Both groups most often preferred a user pays model with campers contributing significantly to coastal management which is in accord with the current funding model. However, this does not mean everyone feels able to pay more.

“I think they charge enough at this caravan park as it is. It is more expensive that other caravan parks in other parts of Australia.” Warrnambool camper

Figure A: Adaptation Actions Preferred - Campers & Residents1

Campers Survey Question Q20, Residents Survey, Q14

Figure B: Equity Preferences - Campers & Residents

Campers Survey Question Q23, Residents Survey, Q17 (NB: 1st & 2nd Preferences may not exactly add to the Total Mentions figure due to rounding)

1Respondents were asked their first preference from a list of 8 possible responses, and then their second preference.

Move away from the coast altogether 2

Coastal adaptation preferences Understanding people’s likely response and preferences for action to changes in conditions is central to this project. To that end people were asked about how they would like to see climate change impacts managed in the future. There is a strong preference amongst both residents and campers to allow nature to take its course. Many campers also prefer the option of building a sea wall, and residents preferred this most often. The most strongly preferred options are graphed below. The strong ‘do nothing’ response is partly explained from comments within the choice modelling such as:

“Nature is going to happen, no money can stop it.” Portarlington camper

Adaptation Actions Preferred – Campers & Residents1

Campers Survey Question Q20, Residents Survey, Q14

Non market value of beach and caravan sites To preserve the assets of the beach and caravan sites, the average camper would pay an additional $1.03 per night to avoid each 1% loss in CCP sites, and $0.36 per night to avoid each 1% loss in beach width, indicating they valued protection of the CCP sites more than the beach. They spend an average 26.1 nights in the CCP every year. Residents are prepared to pay $4.08 and $5.83 per annum per person for each 1% improvement in the protection of parks and beaches respectively, indicating they value protection of the beach more than the CCP sites. Overall these assets have greater value to them than campers.

Equity preferences for CCP adaptation There is considerable support for the continuation of camping in coastal reserves from both campers and residents. Campers would like to see it expanded. Both groups most often preferred a user pays model with campers contributing significantly to coastal management which is in accord with the current funding model. However, this does not mean everyone feels able to pay more.

“I think they charge enough at this caravan park as it is. It is more expensive that other caravan parks in other parts of Australia.” Warrnambool camper

Equity Preferences – Campers & Residents

1 Respondents were asked their first preference from a list of 8 possible responses, and then their second preference. 

6

Valu

e an

d Eq

uity

Fra

mew

ork

for C

limat

e Ad

apta

tion:

Coa

stal

Car

avan

and

Cam

ping

Par

ks C

ase

Stud

y Fa

ct S

heet

Key issues for decision makers

Campers and residents•Differences in demographics are likely to impact responses

to proposed adaptation responses and warrant dedicated consideration by decision makers. These demographic differences will impact people’s ability to adapt to changing conditions.

• Engaging campers and residents in consultation ahead of any changes will be important. Campers will not be present at all times, and establishing a way to communicate with campers when not at the CCP may be warranted.

• Residents and campers share beliefs about the attractions of a CCP stay, and have similar preferences for the management of CCPs. This common ground provides a good starting point for the discussion of equitable adaptation options.

Non-market economic value•Campers and residents directly attribute high importance

to aspects of the CCPs and are prepared to pay to protect the CCP and beach.

•Camper surpluses are useful in helping to estimate the economic value of coastal reserves in the form of CCPs to the broader community.

• The recreational value of assets being managed are significant, and the potential impact to the public and community benefit considerable.

Adaptation Preferences•Despite the high preparedness to pay there was a

considerable proportion of campers and residents who believe in ‘doing nothing’ in response to climate change impacts. Comments indicate this view is held because ‘resisting nature is futile’. A similar portion wanted a seawall/barrier built as the adaptation approach.

•What campers and residents believe they will do in the face of unavailability of the CCP or coastal foreshore is very telling. Campers see the experience as transferrable and will move to avoid climate impacts, while residents are less able to.

Equity • Both campers and residents prefer to see the continuation

of access to low-cost coastal camping. Campers would prefer more access, yet there is not a strong demand to increase facilities as a way to retain revenue. This suggests minimal investment/service CCPs may appeal and allow continued use of vulnerable land as CCPs.

• Both campers and residents believe campers should pay more to fund coastal adaptation and few residents prefer funding to come from the local area.

Revenue• Repeat campers contribute a known annual revenue stream

which greatly assists managers in forecasting and planning. Disruption of repeat behaviour has the potential to reduce the number of nights stayed which may have implications for revenue. The potential movement of revenue maybe profound, and has implications for the development of adaptation options and the funding of coastal adaptation.

• If the conditions of the CCP change considerably, the base of repeat campers and current unmet demand may also change and this has revenue implications.

•While there is considerable scope to increase revenue from CCP fees, it is not the purpose of Crown land to provide the highest return on investment. Crown land provides a benefit to the community. The non-economic values obtained in this study have quantified that benefit.

Application of information to adaptation decision making Through this research, decision makers are provided with new and useful information which will assist them in factoring in the human implications of coastal adaptation responses and assist in meeting obligations under the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008. These human impacts are summarised via:

• non-market economic values which enumerate the benefit to the public of using coastal Crown land as CCPs;

• social equity preferences which reveal what people think is most fair and how the benefits and burden of risk or change could be shared across different groups or communities; and

• attributes of importance which highlight what social

7

Valu

e an

d Eq

uity

Fra

mew

ork

for C

limat

e Ad

apta

tion:

Coa

stal

Car

avan

and

Cam

ping

Par

ks C

ase

Stud

y Fa

ct S

heet

attributes people think are most important within a CCP.

These values can be transferred to other CCPs on Crown-land or for the entire estate of coastal CCPs. Hence decision makers are able to establish ‘what is at stake’ in a more comprehensive fashion than previously.

This research provides information that could allow for the inclusion of impacts on recreation users in a tangible way in social cost-benefit analysis or other analyses frameworks that are concerned with choosing the best (both efficient and equitable) course of action in adapting to climate change. The non-market values provided will help decision makers balance the objectives of ensuring profitability, a return to society and funding of other coastal management activities.

Together, the market and non-market values make a significant contribution to estimating the economic value of CCPs to society. In addition, the balance between market and non-market values for a given site can be explicitly compared for the first time. Obtaining economic values held by the broader for CCP and beach conservation also allows the broader community benefit of land management to be considered in a more holistic, yet measured, fashion.

Equity and Economic Value Decision Support FrameworkThe Decision Support Framework assists decision makers to:

•Develop an understanding of CCP exposure to climate change impacts and potential effects;

•Appreciate types of economic value and social equity information relevant to adaptation responses;

•Understand the importance of social and economic information to effective adaptation decision-making;

•Generate, interpret and apply economic value and social equity information to support adaptation decision-making through a generic coastal adaptation decision-making pathway.

A Decision Support Framework The Decision Support Framework aims to support the organisations responsible for the planning and management of CCPs make effective adaptation decisions.

This Framework does not promote or generate new policy or tools. Instead it encourages the application of a “social and economic lens” to existing decision making and complements existing legislative and policy requirements, business processes and climate change adaptation planning. It details relevant social and economic concepts, outlines methodologies for generating information, and highlights where and how to apply information to obtain outcomes

based on value and equity.

The Framework recognises that CCPs operate as a business by necessity, and that climate change adaptation requires an understanding of business performance as an important attribute of business planning. The more awareness of the total economic value of the CCP, the more complete the understanding of the performance of the CCP as a business. It is therefore important that CCP managers position themselves to understand their holistic baseline performance before commencing adaptation.

Components of the FrameworkA generic adaptation pathway provides the core of the Framework and is presented as a two stage process comprising:

•Adaptations Options Assessment; and

•Adaptation Decision Making.

Each stage includes three steps that capture the suite of activities required for effective adaptation planning as shown in Figure A.

The Framework recognises that a number of documents and approaches drive the bulk of adaptation decisions. It outlines the relevant legislation, policy and tools that apply to each step which require the consideration of social and economic information. Several of these can be used at different points in the pathway. The Framework illustrates the points along the pathway where the information is required and guides the reader through the process of generating, interpreting and applying the relevant information to the pathway.

Figure C: The decision-making pathway within the Decision Support Framework

Decision-Making Pathway

Step 1: Climate change implications for CCPs

Step 2: CCP Business Planning

Step 6: Planning Permit

Step 5: Coastal Management Act 1995 Consent

Step 4: CCP Business Planning

Step 3: Adaptation Options Assessment

Stage 1 – Adaptation Options Assessment

Stage 2 – Adaptation Decision-Making

This project was developed through the collaboration of: Christine Walker, Alliance Strategic ResearchDr Boyd Blackwell, AquaEquis Consulting Dr John Rolf, R and Z ConsultingCarolyn Tsioulos, Elements Strategic and Risk Management

This project was developed through contributions from the following organisations and others:

The Steps and ToolsThe Steps within the Framework and the tools used are targeted to adaptation, but also have broader application to other decision making processes and jurisdictions and include:

Step1: Climate change implications for CCPs: promotes a comprehensive understanding of the social and economic implications of climate change for both the coast and CCPs.

Step 2: CCP Business Planning: recognises the need to build climate implications into CCP business planning and address the need to invest in developing knowledge and adaptation options.

Step 3: Adaptation options assessment: guides the user through the options assessment process and the use of detailed risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.

Step 4: CCP Business Planning: revisits the business performance of the CCP with the benefit of new information generated through the options assessment process, and focuses on the needs of CCP managers to plan and generate a business case to obtain funding for approval and implementation of adaptation responses.

Step 5: Coastal Management Act 1995 consent: details the process and requirements for gaining consent for adaptation works or development as required by the Act.

Step 6: Planning Permit: outlines the process for planning approval for adaptation works or development where a permit is required through the local planning scheme

OpportunitiesThis project demonstrates a number of important opportunities for managing coastal climate adaptation in caravan parks and more broadly.

• The economic value of coastal Crown land caravan parks is substantial and significant. This underscores the need for appropriate investment to ensure the retention of the range of benefits and values provided by CCPs and their adjacent coastal environs. It also hints at the economic value of the coast more broadly and indicates a need for further research in this area to inform adaptation.

• The importance of including social and economic information in decision making is clearly illustrated, and the paucity of knowledge for effective adaptation revealed. Improving the evidence base presents an important opportunity for managing CCPs and developing effective and equitable adaptation responses.

• The consideration of value and equity in risk assessment presents a critical opportunity to ensure the highest value assets are protected and the distribution of burdens is fair.

• The information and decision support provided by this project has clear transferability. As the decision-making pathway within the Framework is generic, it is likely to prove useful to other organisations managing coastal CCPs on Crown land and other decision-making, land jurisdictions, change management and adaptation challenges.

Accessing the full documentsTo access the documents developed through this project please visit www.wcb.vic.gov.au.