: TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island · 26/09/2019 · 6 Figure 24: Visitors who were very satisfied...

Prepared for: TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island

CB Contact: Dylan Lee, Consultant

Phone: (08) 8373 3822

Email: [email protected]

Issue Date: 26 September, 2019

Project number: TOMMCC0029

www.colmarbrunton.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.colmarbrunton.com/

2

Contents.

Addressing the TOMM Indicators ......................................................................... 9

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 15

Background .................................................................................................................................................... 15

Research Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Research Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 16

Weighting ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

Questionnaire Design ................................................................................................................................... 17

Restructuring & Reanalysis of Previous Wave Data ............................................................................... 17

Confidence Intervals ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Data cleaning ................................................................................................................................................. 18

Limitations of the Research ......................................................................................................................... 18

Recommendation of Kangaroo Island to others as a holiday destination (EC1e) ............................ 24

Average expenditure per visit (EC1f) ........................................................................................................ 25

Annual number of visitors (EC1g).............................................................................................................. 26

Satisfaction with customer service received (EC2c) .............................................................................. 27

Satisfaction with professionalism of tourism operators (EC2d) ........................................................... 28

Compliments and complaints (EC2e) ........................................................................................................ 29

Average spend per night over $200 (EC3c) ............................................................................................ 30

Viewed wildlife in natural environment (EX1b) ....................................................................................... 33

Experienced scenic variety without crowds (EX1c) ................................................................................ 34

Experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement (EX1d) ......................................................... 35

Experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes (EX1e) ....................................................... 36

Experienced areas of untouched natural beauty (EX1f) ........................................................................ 37

Experienced farming and rural landscapes (EX1g) ................................................................................ 38

Experienced local Kangaroo Island produce (EX1h) .............................................................................. 39

Kangaroo Island offers one of Australia’s top three nature & wildlife experiences (EX1i) ............. 40

Kangaroo Island has a friendly local community (EX1j) ....................................................................... 41

Agreement with positioning statement (EX1k) ....................................................................................... 42

Matching expectation set by marketing materials (EX1l) ..................................................................... 43

Satisfaction with overall experience (EX1m) ........................................................................................... 44

Seeing native wildlife in its natural environment (EX2a) ...................................................................... 45

Opportunity to learn more about the Island’s natural environment (EX2b) ..................................... 46

Opportunity to learn more about the Island’s history (EX2c) .............................................................. 47

Range, quality and availability of activities (EX2d) ................................................................................ 48

3

Quality of accommodation (EX2e) ............................................................................................................. 51

Range, quality and availability of Kangaroo Island produce (EX2f) .................................................... 52

Quality of public tourism infrastructure (EX2h) ...................................................................................... 55

Recommendation of Kangaroo Island as holiday destination (EX2i) .................................................. 61

Repeat visitation (EC2j) ............................................................................................................................... 62

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

and credible experiences consistent with its positioning’...................................................................... 63

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

and credible experiences consistent with its positioning’ (continued) ............................................... 64

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) .................................................................... 66

Visits to natural areas occurring on managed sites (EN2b) ................................................................. 68

Locations visited ............................................................................................................................................ 69

Awareness of quarantine regulations prior to arriving (EN2e) ............................................................ 70

Visitor Profile ......................................................................................................... 75

Visitor Origin .................................................................................................................................................. 75

Age profile ...................................................................................................................................................... 78

Incidence of repeat visitation ..................................................................................................................... 80

Travel party .................................................................................................................................................... 82

Types of Accommodation ............................................................................................................................ 84

Satisfaction with accommodation .............................................................................................................. 86

Credible vs. Experienced Attributes & Attractions .................................................................................. 88

Reasons for Dissatisfaction ......................................................................................................................... 90

Suggestions for Improvement .................................................................................................................... 91

Exploration of those dissatisfied overall ................................................................................................... 92

Seasonal variances ............................................................................................... 95

Proportion of visitors by season ................................................................................................................. 95

Appendix A: Visitor Expenditure ...................................................................... 108

Incidence of Package Bookings ................................................................................................................ 108

Expenditure per visitor ............................................................................................................................... 110

Appendix B: VES Questionnaire ....................................................................... 112

4

Index of Tables

Table 1: Margin of Error per number of responses 17

Table 2: Locations Visited on Kangaroo Island over time 69

Table 3: Awareness of quarantine regulations by first time and repeat visitors this wave 73

Table 4: Interstate Visitor Origin over time 76

Table 5: International Visitor Origin over Time 77

Table 6: Age profile of visitors (includes entire travel party) 79

Table 7: Repeat Visitation to Kangaroo Island by Visitor Origin over time 81

Table 8: Travel party by visitor origin over time 83

Table 9: Accommodation used over time 84

Table 10: Accommodation Used by Visitor Origin 85

Table 11: Satisfaction with accommodation types across waves 86

Table 12: Satisfaction with accommodation types this wave 87

Table 13: Credible vs. experienced attributes and attractions 88

Table 14: Satisfaction with Attributes 89

Table 15: Reasons for dissatisfaction 90

Table 16: Suggestions for improvement 91

Table 17: Who was dissatisfied? 92

Table 18: What were they dissatisfied with? 93

Table 19: Reasons for dissatisfaction (Q20) 94

Table 20: Booking Type by Visitor Origin 109

Table 21: Average expenditure per visitor 110

Table 22: Average daily expenditure per visitor 111

5

Index of Figures

Figure 1: Length of stay over time 21

Figure 2: Average Number of Nights over Time 22

Figure 3: Average number of nights by visitor origin over time 23

Figure 4: Willingness to recommend 24

Figure 5: Increase in average annual total expenditure per person per visit 25

Figure 6: Increase in annual number of visitors 26

Figure 7: Satisfaction with customer service received 27

Figure 8: Satisfaction with professionalism of tourism operators 28

Figure 9: Number of compliments and complaints received 29

Figure 10: Average spend per night over $200 30

Figure 11: Visitors that viewed Australia’s wildlife in natural surroundings 33

Figure 12: Visitors that experienced scenic variety without crowds 34

Figure 13: Visitors that experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement 35

Figure 14: Visitors that experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes 36

Figure 15: Visitors that experienced areas of untouched natural beauty 37

Figure 16: Visitors that experienced farming and rural landscapes 38

Figure 17: Visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce 39

Figure 18: Visitors that experienced Kangaroo Island as one of Australia’s top three nature &

wildlife experiences 40

Figure 19: Visitors that experienced a friendly local community on Kangaroo Island 41

Figure 20: Visitors who agree that Kangaroo Island is a wild and welcoming destination 42

Figure 21: Visitors stating that their experience matched or exceeded the expectation set by

marketing materials 43

Figure 22: Visitors who were very satisfied** with their overall experience on Kangaroo

Island 44

Figure 23: Visitors who were satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment 45

6

Figure 24: Visitors who were very satisfied with their opportunity to learn more about the

Island’s natural environment 46

Figure 25: Satisfaction with opportunity to learn more about the Island’s history 47

Figure 26: Satisfaction with the range activities 48

Figure 27: Satisfaction with the quality of activities 49

Figure 28: Satisfaction with the availability of activities 50

Figure 29: Satisfaction with quality of accommodation 51

Figure 30: Satisfaction with the range of local Kangaroo Island produce 52

Figure 31: Satisfaction with the quality of local Kangaroo Island produce 53

Figure 32: Satisfaction with the availability of local Kangaroo Island produce 54

Figure 33: Satisfaction with the quality of picnic & day use areas 55

Figure 34: Satisfaction with the quality of interpretive & educational signage 56

Figure 35: Satisfaction with the quality of public toilets 57

Figure 36: Satisfaction with the quality of road signage 58

Figure 37: Satisfaction with the quality of campgrounds 59

Figure 38: Satisfaction with the quality of roads 60

Figure 39: Willingness to recommend 61

Figure 40: Repeat visitation 62

Figure 41: Proportion of visitations to natural areas occurring on managed sites 68

Figure 42: Awareness of quarantine regulations 70

Figure 43: Awareness of any quarantine regulations by repeat and first time visitors 71

Figure 44: Awareness of Prohibited Items 72

Figure 45: Visitor Origin over time 75

Figure 46: Profile of respondents 78

Figure 47: Incidence of repeat visitation to Kangaroo Island over time 80

Figure 48: Travel party over Time 82

Figure 49: Proportion of visitors by season 95

Figure 50: Visitors who were very satisfied** with their overall experience on Kangaroo

Island by season 96

7

Figure 51: Average number of nights stayed by season 97

Figure 52: Average total expenditure per person per visit by season 98

Figure 53: Visitors who were very satisfied with customer service received by season 99

Figure 54: Visitors who spent $200+ per night by season 100

Figure 55: Visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce by season 101

Figure 56: Visitors very satisfied with the range of local Kangaroo Island produce by season

102

Figure 57: Visitors very satisfied with the quality of local Kangaroo Island produce by season

103

Figure 58: Visitors very satisfied with the availability of local Kangaroo Island produce by

season 104

Figure 59: Repeat visitors by season 105

Figure 60: Trip to Kangaroo Island part of travel package 108

8

Disclaimer

TOMM does not represent or warrant that this information is correct, complete or suitable for the

purpose for which you wish to use it. By using this information, you acknowledge and agree to

release and indemnify the TOMM for any loss or damage that you may suffer as a result of your

reliance on this information.

9

Addressing the TOMM Indicators

At the core of TOMM is a practical set of indicators that monitor the status of tourism on Kangaroo

Island. A review of indicators was completed in the 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 2018/19 Visitor Exit Survey (VES).

Summary of TOMM Indicators

Summary of Economic Indicators

Optimal Conditions Ref Indicators Acceptable Range VES 18/19 Results

Tourism optimises

economic benefits for

Kangaroo Island

EC1d Annual average number of nights stayed 4-7 nights 4.9 nights

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

90% - 100% 94%

EC1f Average annual total expenditure per visit 5% - 10%↑ $679.29

[6.0% decrease]

EC1g Annual number of visitors to Kangaroo Island 0% - 20%*↑ -1.2%

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% 64%

EC2d Proportion of customers that are highly satisfied with the professionalism of tourism operators

65% - 100% 58%

EC2e The number of compliments and complaints received from visitors

↑ in positive comments

↓ in negative comments


↓ in negative comments Island attracts Kangaroo its

high yield target markets EC3c

Proportion of visitors whose average spend per night exceeds $200

40% - 60% 31%

11

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% 96%

EX1c Proportion of visitors that experienced scenic

variety without crowds 90% - 100% 96%

EX1d Proportion of visitors that experienced cultural

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

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% 95%

EX1g Proportion of visitors that experienced farming

and rural landscapes 90% - 100% 87%

12


Kangaroo Island delivers

authentic and credible

experiences consistent

with its positioning

EX1h Proportion of visitors that experienced local

Kangaroo Island produce 80% - 100% 83%

EX1i

Proportion of visitors that believe Kangaroo

Island offers one of Australia’s top three nature

& wildlife experiences

70% - 100% 81%

EX1j Proportion of visitors that believe Kangaroo

Island has a friendly local community 80% - 100% 93%

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% 89%

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% 85%

13


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% 71%

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

70% - 100% 56%

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

70% - 100% 47%

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

70% - 100% 47% - 53%

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

70% - 100% 54%

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

70% - 100% 45% - 54%

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

80% - 100% 64%

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% 31% - 53%

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

90% - 100% 94%

EX2j Proportion of repeat visitation 30% - 50% 31%

14

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% 68%

KI TOMM: Visitor Exit Survey Report 2016-2017

15

15

Introduction

Background

Tourism is a key contributor to economic growth and development on Kangaroo Island, next to

agriculture, with both boosting productivity and providing a source of stable employment for residents.

TOMM (the Tourism Optimisation Management Model) was developed to monitor the effect of tourism

from a variety of perspectives (including environmental, economic, socio-cultural and visitor

experience) in the interests of both residents and visitors. The model is a community-based initiative

responsible for monitoring and managing the long-term sustainability of tourism on the island. The

initiative is overseen by a Management Committee with support and representatives from the

community, industry and Government agencies.

At the core of TOMM is a practical set of indicators that monitor tourism on Kangaroo Island. These

indicators measure changes in the economic, environmental, socio cultural and experiential

environments. A review of indicators was completed in the 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 fourteen financial

years. The following report details findings from the TOMM Visitor Exit Survey conducted throughout

the 2018/19 period. Where possible, tracking has been performed on questions that have been kept

comparable across the past fourteen years of the Visitor Exit Survey.


16

16

Research Objectives

Research Aim

The main aim of this research project is to monitor the effects of tourism on Kangaroo Island.

Specific Research Objectives

The specific objectives of the Visitor Exit Survey are to assess the following:

6 Profiles of origin and seasonality of visitors to the island;

6 Travel behaviour and experiences on the island;

6 Reasons for visiting Kangaroo Island;

6 Expectations and important factors influencing the decision to visit Kangaroo Island;

6 Valued aspects and visitor satisfaction with those aspects;

6 Overall satisfaction with Kangaroo Island experience;

6 Transportation;

6 Expenditure on Kangaroo Island;

6 Awareness of Kangaroo Island’s quarantine regulations; and

6 Demographic profile of visitors.

Research Methodology

The methodology for this project consisted of a self-completion survey, which visitors were able to

pick up at entry and exit points to the Island (airport and ferry departure points) across a full year

period from July 2018 to June 2018. In addition to the self-complete surveys available at entry and

exit points, the survey is available to complete online and is offered in five languages other than

English. This online version of the survey is also available on iPad’s at the entry and exit points to the

island.

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


17

17

or adjustment for both non-response and non-coverage. It serves the purpose of providing data that

represents the population rather than the sample.

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

The 2018/19 questionnaire was identical to the 2017/18 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=2,042 can be reported within a +/-2.2% 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 48.8% and

52.2%. 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%


18

18

Data cleaning

In some cases, the data has been cleaned to improve the overall quality of the data. In case of

incomplete filled in questions by a respondent, the results for the incomplete question for that

respondent has been removed from the data. This is particularly evident for the expenses data where

calculations of total expenses are based on all the questions on the financial subject. Respondents

that have left out information might influence the overall result resulting in less accurate overall

analysis. For example, 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 2018/19 wave, but the prior 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.


19

19

Key Findings

2018/19 in a nutshell

The results of the 2018/19 Kangaroo Island Visitor Exit Survey show that key experiential indicators,

satisfaction and annual visitation numbers have been maintained at a high level or have increased

slightly on the previous year. However, average total expenditure per person per visit has declined in

2018/19 for the second year in a row despite an increase in overnight visitation from 80% in 2017/18,

to 90% in 2018/19. Overall satisfaction has remained high at 85%, however has fallen short of the

acceptable range of between 90%-100%.

Economic indicators: 2018/19 saw decline in average annual total expenditure per person per

visit, despite an increase in overnight visitation and a slight increase in average number of

nights stayed.

Average annual total expenditure per person per visit slowed for a second year in 2018/19,

decreasing by 6% to $679.29 which nears spending in 2014/15 ($726.90). The number of annual

visitors decreased by 0.4% after a well performing 2017/18.

The proportion of overnight visitors has increased since last financial year. In 2018/19, 90% of visitors

stayed overnight which is significantly more than the 2017/18 measure (80%). This increase has been

largely increased by international visitors who have averaged 3.6 nights in 2018/19, compared to 3.1

nights in 2017/18

None of the measures pertaining to ‘Tourism operators excelling in their business professionalism’ fell

within the acceptable range. However, the results were an improvement upon last year for most of the

indicators. Notably, the proportion of those who were very satisfied with the customer service they

received was 64%, falling just 1% short of the acceptable range (65%-100%). This is the highest

result since the measure commenced in 2009/10. Similarly, 58% of visitors were very satisfied with

the professionalism of tourism operators, falling 7% short of the acceptable range.

Experiential indicators: Repeat visitation has returned to the acceptable range while overall

satisfaction remains below the benchmark. Almost all indicators pertaining to ‘delivering

authentic and credible experiences consistent with its positioning’ fell within their acceptable

ranges.

With respect to the condition ‘The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their

experience’, three out of nine indicators fell within the acceptable range. This included the proportion of

visitors who were satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment (71%) which reached its

highest recorded level and is the first time it’s reached the acceptable range. Also in the acceptable

range were: willingness to recommend (94%) and the proportion of repeat visitation (31%). Importantly,

the proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their overall experience on Kangaroo Island (85%)

is high in comparison to previous measures and nearing the highest recorded level (86%).

Almost all of the ‘Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences consistent with its

positioning’ indicators fell within their respective acceptable ranges in 2018/19. The only indicator which

did not fall within the acceptable range was the proportion of visitors who experienced farming and rural

landscapes (87%).


20

20

Economic Indicators Overview

In 2018/19, indicators relating to the first economic condition ‘Tourism optimises economic benefits

for Kangaroo Island’ were generally consistent with the previous year. Overnight visitation increased

significantly to 90% and the average number of nights stayed is within the acceptable range at 4.9

nights, the highest level recorded. The proportion to recommend Kangaroo island as a holiday

destination was also within the acceptable range. However, there has been a decrease in average

annual spend per visit and the annual number of visitors decreased, albeit very slightly (.04%)

In the second condition, ‘Tourism operators excel in their business professionalism’, none of the

indicators fell within the acceptable range. However, the results were an improvement upon last

year’s results for most of the indicators. Notably, the proportion of those who were very satisfied with

the customer service they received was 64%, falling just 1% short of the acceptable range (65%-

100%). This is the highest result since the measure commenced in 2009/10. Similarly, 58% of visitors

were very satisfied with the professionalism of tourism operators, falling 7% short of the acceptable

range.

Finally, the third economic condition ‘Kangaroo Island attracts its high yield target markets’ also

remained consistent with the previous year and remains below the ideal level of 40%-60%, with 31%

of visitors spending more than $200 per night.


21

21

Annual average number of nights stayed (EC1d)

Optimal Conditions Indicator Acceptable

Range

VES 18/19

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 KI (90%) were overnight visitors (staying at least one night

on the island), which is a significant increase from 80% in 2017/18. As such, a corresponding

decrease in day trippers was noted (from 20% to 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=1,830. Note: Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year.

Significant and notable differences between subgroups:

6 Consistent with observations from the previous year:

7 Intrastate (95%) and Interstate (92%) visitors were more likely to stay one or more nights

than International visitors (79%); and

7 Repeat visitors (93%) were more likely to stay one or more nights than first time visitors

(88%).

7 Air arrivals (96%) were more likely than sea arrivals (89%) to stay one or more nights.

6 New in 2018/19:

7 Winter (93%) and Autumn visitors were more likely to stay one or more nights than Spring

or Summer visitors (81% and 84%)

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

17/18

18/19

Stayed overnight 89% 89% 92% 97% 88% 93% 95% 96% 98% 97% 98% 98% 97% 78% 85% 90% 94% 80% 90%

Day trip 11% 11% 8% 3% 12% 7% 5% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 22% 15% 10% 6% 20% 10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑


22

22

Length of stay

The average number of nights stayed on Kangaroo Island in 2018/19 was 4.9, which is an increase

from the previous year (4.6) 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=1,682 Note: Missing cases excluded. Day visitors excluded from calculation.

Note: Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year



7 International visitors had a shorter stay (avg. 4.0 nights) than intrastate (5.0) and

interstate (5.4) visitors.

7 Visitors who spent up to $200 a night stayed longer (avg. 5.9 nights) than those who

spent more than $200 a night (3.1).

6 New in 2018/19:

7 Summer visitors had a longer (avg. 7.1) than Winter (3.9), Spring (4.5) and Autumn

visitors (4.5).

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

17/18

18/19

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 4.6 4.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

Pre-2008/2009acceptable range

(3-5 nights)


23

23

Average number of nights by visitor origin

Length of stay was consistent over time for visitor origin, with modest increases amongst intrastate

(5.0) and interstate (5.1) visitors. The average number of nights stayed by international visitors

increased most from 3.1 to 3.6 nights.

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=505, Interstate visitors responding n=980, International visitors responding n=434

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

17/18

18/19

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 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 4.9 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 3.1 3.6

0

2

4

6

8

10


24

24

Recommendation of Kangaroo Island to others as a holiday

destination (EC1e)


Range

VES 18/19

Result


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

90% - 100%

Willingness to recommend scores in 2018/19 remains consistent with previous years, decreasing 1%

to 94% and maintaining scores within the 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=1,814 Note: Missing cases excluded. Note: Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year.


6 New in 2018/19:

7 Those travelling by bus were less likely to indicate that they would recommend Kangaroo Island as a holiday destination (88%), compared to those not on a bus tour (95%).

7 Those who stayed one or more nights (95%) were more likely to indicate that they would recommend Kangaroo Island to others than those that came for a day trip (89%).

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

17/18

18/19

% willing to recommend 98% 97% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 95% 90% 94% 92% 93% 93% 93% 93% 95% 95% 94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


25

25

Average expenditure per visit (EC1f)


Range

VES 18/19

Result


Average annual total expenditure per visit

5% - 10% increase

Following a decrease in average spend of 7.3% in 2017/18, average spend in 2018/19 continued to

decrease by 6%. As such, in 2018/19 it did not reach the desirable goal of a 5-10% increase.

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, 1,742


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 ($834.00) compared to both

intrastate ($606.25) and international visitors ($495.76).

7 Air arrivals spent more than sea arrivals ($1089.13 vs. $642.22).

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

($721.39 vs. $278.46).

7 Those on a bus tour ($294.24) spent less than those not on a tour ($698.00).

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)

17/18(n=1,634)

18/19(n=1742)

Avg. total expenditureper person per visit

$623.00 $633.65 $684.31 $609.52 $601.92 $726.90 $770.06 $779.59 $722.70 $679.29

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000


26

26

Annual number of visitors (EC1g)


Range

VES 18/19

Result


Annual number of visitors to Kangaroo Island

0% - 20% increase

Following an increase of 5.7% in 2017/18, the number of visitors decreased 0.4% in 2018/19, missing

the acceptable range of a 0-20% increase.

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

17/18

18/19

% increase innumber of visitors

2.3% 2.7% -2.0 -3.6 26.0 -5.4 5.6% 1.2% 3.0% 0.0% -0.4 -2.0 0.8% 4.3% 2.7% 5.8% -0.4

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%


27

27

Satisfaction with customer service received (EC2c)


Range

VES 18/19

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 majority of visitors to KI (88%) were satisfied/very satisfied with the level of customer

service that they received, the proportion of visitors who reported being very satisfied with customer

service increased from 60% to 64%. However, this remains just below the 65% benchmark – outside

the acceptable range of 65-100%.

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=1,789

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 New in 2018/19:

7 Those who visited in winter were more likely to be very satisfied with the customer service that they received (72%) compared to those travelling in spring (64%), summer (59%) and autumn (64%).

7 Repeat visitors were more likely to be very satisfied with the customer service they received (68%) compared with first time visitors (62%).

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

17/18

18/19

% very satisfied 68% 68% 65% 73% 67% 45% 48% 48% 49% 50% 53% 56% 57% 60% 64%

% very satisfied/ satisfied 80% 84% 82% 84% 84% 84% 86% 88% 87% 88%

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

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

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


28

28

Satisfaction with professionalism of tourism operators (EC2d)


Range

VES 18/19

Result


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

65% - 100%

In 2018/19, the proportion of visitors to Kangaroo Island who reported that they were very satisfied

with the professionalism of tourism operators increased from 55% to 58% 2017/18. Despite being

below the goal range of 65-100%, it is the 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=1,596 Note: Don’t know, didn’t experience and missing cases excluded.


6 New in 2018/19:

7 More winter visitors (93%) were satisfied/very satisfied with the professionalism of tourism

operators than Autumn (86%) visitors.

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

17/18

18/19

% very satisfied 41% 40% 43% 41% 48% 51% 52% 52% 55% 58%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


29

29

Compliments and complaints (EC2e)


Range

VES 18/19

Result


The number of compliments and complaints received from visitors


↓ in negative comments

There was a slight, statistically significant decrease in the proportion of compliments in 2018/19 (from

95% to 93%). The proportion of negative comments increased from 38% in 2017/18 to 41% in

2018/19, but this was not statistically significant.

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=1,474

Note: Don’t know and missing cases excluded.


6 New in 2018/19:

7 Spring (43%) and autumn (46%) visitors expressed more negative comments than winter

visitors (30%).

07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Positive 89% 91% 91% 91% 91% 90% 94% 93% 94% 94% 95% 93%

Negative 42% 46% 49% 52% 47% 51% 46% 47% 46% 48% 38% 41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


30

30

Average spend per night over $200 (EC3c)


Range

VES 18/19

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 31%, which is

down slightly from 2017/18 measures (34%). As with previous measures, the proportion of visitors

whose average spend per night was more than $200 did not meet the 40-60% goal.

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=1,608 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


6 Consistent with the previous year:

7 International visitors (36%) and Interstate visitors (34%) were more likely to spend over

$200 per night than Intrastate visitors (22%).

7 Those arriving by air were more likely to spend over $200 per night (57%) than those

arriving by sea (28%).

7 First time visitors were more likely to spend over $200 per night (35%) than repeat visitors

(22%).

6 New in 2018/19:

7 Those visiting in Winter were more likely to spend over $200 per night (39%) than those

visiting in Summer (27%) and Autumn (28%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% spend$200+ per night

28% 28% 26% 25% 30% 37% 35% 37% 34% 31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


31

31

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 • Sea and air arrivals • First time visitors & repeat visitors • Those who spent up to $200 a

night

• Interstate and intrastate visitors • Repeat visitors • Air arrivals • Winter and Autumn visitors

EC1e

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

• All subgroups aside from those who visited on a bus tour

• Those not on a bus tour • Overnight visitors

EC1f Average annual total expenditure per visit

• None

• Interstate visitors • Air arrivals • Those staying one or more

nights • Those not on a bus tour • Those spending $200 or more

per night

EC2c

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

• Intrastate visitors • Winter visitors • Those not on a bus tour • Return visitors • Air arrivals • Both spending groups • Stayed one or more nights

• Winter visitors • Repeat visitors

EC2d

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

• Those on a bus tour • Winter visitors

EC2e

The number of compliments and complaints received from visitors

• Summer visitors (compliments) • Spring and autumn visitors

(complaints)

EC3c

Proportion of visitors whose average spend per night exceeds $200

• International visitors • Air arrivals

• Interstate and international visitors

• Air arrivals • First time visitors • Winter visitors


32

32

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 2018/19. The only indicator

which did not fall within the acceptable range was the proportion of visitors who experienced farming

and rural landscapes (87%).

With respect to the condition ‘The majority of visitors leave the island highly satisfied with their

experience’, three out of nine indicators fell within the acceptable range. This included the proportion

of visitors who were satisfied with seeing native wildlife in its natural environment (71%) which

reached its highest recorded level and is the first time it’s reached the acceptable range. Also in the

acceptable range were: willingness to recommend (94%) and the proportion of repeat visitation

(31%). Importantly, the proportion of visitors who were very satisfied with their overall experience on

Kangaroo Island (85%) is high in comparison to previous measures and nearing the highest recorded

level (86%).

Notably, there was a significant increase in the proportion of visitors who agreed with the positioning

statement which has reached its highest level (89%). There was also an increase in the proportion to

be very satisfied with the range and quality of activities (52% and 53% respectively). Lastly, there has

been an increase in the proportion who are very satisfied with the quality of road signage (from 38%

in 2017/18, to 45% in 2018/19).


33

33

Viewed wildlife in natural environment (EX1b)


Range

VES 18/19

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 majority (96%) of the visitors surveyed in 2018/19 viewed Australia’s wildlife in natural

surroundings during their visit to Kangaroo Island. 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=1,737 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.


6 New in 2018/19:

7 First time visitors were more likely to see wildlife in natural surroundings (97%) than

repeat visitors (94%).

7 Those who stayed one or more nights were more likely to see wildlife in natural

surroundings (97%) than those who visited on a day trip (89%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% of visitors 92% 93% 93% 93% 96% 96% 96% 97% 97% 96%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

96% of visitors believedthat KI provides this*


34

34

Experienced scenic variety without crowds (EX1c)


Range

VES 18/19

Result


Proportion of visitors that experienced scenic variety without crowds

90% - 100%

Almost all surveyed visitors (96%) 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=1,741 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 Day trippers were less likely to have experienced this (87%) than those who stayed

overnight (97%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% of visitors 95% 97% 97% 96% 94% 97% 97% 97% 97% 96%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

96% of visitors believed that KI provides this*


35

35

Experienced cultural heritage and history of settlement (EX1d)


Range

VES 18/19

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 (70%)

was consistent with 2018/19 (72%). 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=1,710 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 (53%) compared to both intrastate (74%) and interstate (76%) visitors.

6 New in 2018/19

7 Those travelling in Summer were less likely to experience cultural heritage and the history

of settlement (59%), compared to those travelling in Winter (72%), Spring (77%) or

Autumn (71%).

7 Repeat visitors were more likely to experience cultural heritage (74%), compared to first

time visitors (68%).

7 Those who stayed overnight were more likely to experience cultural heritage (72%),

compared to those who visited on a day trip (53%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% of visitors 68% 70% 71% 67% 71% 74% 76% 74% 72% 70%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



36

36

Experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes

(EX1e)


Range

VES 18/19

Result


Proportion of visitors that experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes

90% - 100%

Almost all (99%) visitors experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes in 2018/19. This

result matches the last five results (99%) and is within the acceptable range of 90%-100%.

Figure 14: Visitors that experienced spectacular scenery and coastal landscapes




6 New in 2018/19

7 Those staying for one or more nights were more likely to experience spectacular scenery

and coastal beauty (99%), compared to those visiting on a day trip (97%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% of visitors 98% 98% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



37

37

Experienced areas of untouched natural beauty (EX1f)


Range

VES 18/19

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 (95%) 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




6 New in 2018/19

7 Those staying overnight were more likely to experience areas of untouched natural

beauty (96%), compared to day trippers (88%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% of visitors 95% 95% 95% 95% 96% 95% 96% 97% 97% 95%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

95% of visitors believed that KI provides this*.


38

38

Experienced farming and rural landscapes (EX1g)


Range

VES 18/19

Result


Proportion of visitors that experienced farming and rural landscapes

90% - 100%

The proportion of visitors who experienced farming and rural landscapes in 2018/19 (87%) remains

relatively consistent with 2017/18 (88%). However, this result is now outside of the acceptable range

of 90-100% after being within the acceptable range in 2015/16 and 2016/17.

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=1,724 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 these landscapes (68%) than those

staying one or more nights (89%); and

7 Bus tour visitors (67%) were less likely than others (88%) to experience this.

7 International visitors (79%) were less likely to experience this than both Interstate (90%)

and intrastate visitors (88%).

6 New in 2018/19:

7 Winter (92%) and Spring visitors (92%) were more likely to have experienced farming and

rural landscapes than summer (81%), and autumn (85%) visitors

7 Those travelling by air (92%) were more likely to experience this when compared to those

travelling by sea (86%)

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% of visitors 88% 89% 89% 89% 88% 88% 90% 92% 88% 87%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



39

39

Experienced local Kangaroo Island produce (EX1h)


Range

VES 18/19

Result


Proportion of visitors that experienced local Kangaroo Island produce

80% - 100%

The proportion of visitors who experienced local Kangaroo Island produce in 2018/19 was 83%, which

is consistent with measures from 2017/19 (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=1,723. 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 (67%) were less likely to experience local Kangaroo Island produce

than intrastate (90%) and interstate (87%) visitors;

7 Day trippers (54%) were less likely to experience this than those staying overnight (86%);

7 Repeat visitors to KI (90%) were more likely to experience this than first time visitors

(79%); and

7 Those on a bus tour (54%) were less likely to experience this than those not on a bus tour

(84%).

6 New in 2018/19:

7 Winter visitors (87%) were more likely to experience this than Summer (78%) visitors

(89%).

7 Air arrivals were more likely to experience local Kangaroo Island produce (82%) than sea

arrivals (82%);

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% of visitors 79% 82% 82% 81% 75% 80% 83% 87% 83% 83%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



40

40

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

wildlife experiences (EX1i)


Range

VES 18/19

Result


Proportion of visitors that believe Kangaroo Island offers one of Australia’s top three nature & wildlife experiences

70% - 100%

The proportion of visitors who experienced KI as one of Australia’s top three nature and wildlife

experiences in 2018/19 (81%) remained consistent with 2017/18 (81%). 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 2018/19:

7 Overnight visitors (82%) were more likely to experience this than those on a day trip (70%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% of visitors 69% 73% 71% 71% 79% 76% 75% 80% 81% 81%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



41

41

Kangaroo Island has a friendly local community (EX1j)


Range

VES 18/19

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 93% in 2018/19,

consistent with last year’s result (93%) and is within the acceptable range of 80%-100%.

Figure 19: Visitors that experienced a friendly local community on Kangaroo Island




7 Intrastate (97%) and interstate (94%) visitors were more likely to experience a friendly

local community than international visitors (85%);

7 Overnight visitors (94%) were more likely than day trippers (78%) to experience this; and

7 Those on a bus tour (78%) were less likely to experience this than other visitors (93%).

7 Repeat visitors (97%) were more likely to experience a friendly local community than first

time visitors (91%)

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% of visitors 90% 92% 93% 93% 91% 91% 92% 94% 93% 93%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



42

42

Agreement with positioning statement (EX1k)


Range

VES 18/19

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 2018/19 (89%) has

significantly increased since 2017/18 (85%), maintaining 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=1,816 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 2018/19:

7 Visitors that stayed one or more nights (90%) agreed with the positioning statement more

than those that stayed only for a day trip (82%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% of visitors 77% 81% 80% 82% 85% 85% 84% 86% 85% 89%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑


43

43

Matching expectation set by marketing materials (EX1l)


Range

VES 18/19

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 (94%). 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?




The results were consistent across subgroups.

05/06

06/07

07/08

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

17/18

18/19

% of visitors 75% 74% 75% 82% 91% 91% 91% 92% 93% 91% 93% 95% 94% 95%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


44

44

Satisfaction with overall experience (EX1m)


Range

VES 18/19

Result


Proportion of visitors very satisfied** with their overall experience on Kangaroo Island

90% - 100%

The proportion of visitors who stated they were very satisfied with their overall experience on the

island remained consistent (85%) with last year’s measure (85%). Ratings of ‘very satisfied’ remain

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?

Base: Visitors responding, N=1815


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


The results were consistent across subgroups

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

17/18

18/19

% very satisfied** 87% 83%80%84%83%82%79% 77%82%80%81%83%84% 82%86%85%85%

% very satisfied/ satisfied 92%96%94%95%96%96% 96%97%97%96%


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Scale changed from3-pt to 10-pt scale in 09/10


45

45

Seeing native wildlife in its natural environment (EX2a)


Range

VES 18/19

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

has increased slightly from 69% to 71% in 2018/19, and within 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=1770 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.


6 New in 2018/19:

7 More winter visitors (77%) were very satisfied than summer visitors (67%).

7 More of those staying one or more nights were very satisfied (72%) than those staying for

a day trip (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

17/18

18/19

% very satisfied 82% 80% 79% 81% 77% 49% 54% 58% 57% 59% 57% 61% 63% 69% 71%

% very satisfied/ satisfied

77% 81% 84% 82% 84% 84% 87% 88% 88% 90%

% very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied

8% 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 4% 4% 5% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



46

46

Opportunity to learn more about the Island’s natural

environment (EX2b)


Range

VES 18/19

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 they were very satisfied with the opportunity to learn more about

the Island’s natural environment this year had increased from 51% to 56%. While this is the largest

proportion to be very satisfied since 2009/10, it 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=1,711 Note: Don’t know, didn’t experience and missing cases excluded. Significant and notable differences between subgroups:

6 New in 2018/19:

7 More winter visitors (63%) were very satisfied with their opportunities to learn about the

Island’s natural environment compared with autumn visitors (53%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% very satisfied 39% 39% 43% 40% 45% 47% 48% 49% 51% 56%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


47

47

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


Range

VES 18/19

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 increased from 42% to 47% in 2018/19. Despite this, this result remains outside the


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=1,621 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 2018/19:

7 More winter (52%) and spring (52%) visitors were very satisfied with their opportunities to

learn about the Island’s history compared with summer 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

17/18

18/19

% very satisfied 53% 51% 51% 59% 52% 32% 31% 36% 31% 35% 36% 40% 41% 42% 47%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Question revised in 15/16*


48

48

Range, quality and availability of activities (EX2d)


Range

VES 18/19

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 (52%), quality (53%) and availability

(47%) of activities increased since 2017/18. However, the results for each measure remain 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=1,1679 Note: Don’t know, didn’t experience and missing cases excluded. ** Prior to 2009/2010 the satisfaction with range was asked as “The range of activities on the island that were available”. Significant and notable differences between subgroups:

6 New in 2018/19:

7 More intrastate visitors were very satisfied (59%) compared with interstate (50%) and

international visitors (46%).

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

17/18

18/19

% very satisfied 51% 50% 50% 59% 50% 38% 38% 40% 40% 41% 43% 47% 47% 45% 52%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Question revised In 09/10**

↑

↓


49

49

Figure 27: Satisfaction with the quality of activities



6 New in 2018/19:

7 More intrastate visitors (59%) were very satisfied with the quality of available activities

compared with interstate (51%) or international visitors (50%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% very satisfied 37% 38% 41% 40% 43% 44% 46% 49% 45% 53%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑


50

50

Figure 28: Satisfaction with the availability of activities



The results were consistent across subgroups

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

17/18

18/19

% very satisfied 35% 33% 37% 37% 40% 41% 42% 43% 41% 47%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑


51

51

Quality of accommodation (EX2e)


Range

VES 18/19

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 (54%) was up from 2017/18

(50%). This result remains 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=1,639 Note: Don’t know, didn’t experience and missing cases excluded. ** In 2006/2007, 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 satisfaction was measured with a score out of 3 Note: In 2005/2006 statement read ‘To see native wildlife, nature and the natural environment.’ Satisfaction was measured with a score out

of 3. Note: In 2004/2005 statement used was ‘General interest in native wildlife, nature and the natural environment’. Satisfaction was measured

with a score out of 3.

Significant and notable differences between subgroups

6 New in 2018/19:

7 More intrastate visitors (61%) were very satisfied compared with interstate (54%) or

international (47%) visitors.

7 More return visitors (61%) were very satisfied than first-time 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

17/18

18/19

% very satisfied 60% 59% 61% 69% 67% 46% 46% 46% 45% 46% 48% 50% 51% 50% 54%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

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

09/10


52

52

Range, quality and availability of Kangaroo Island produce

(EX2f)


Range

VES 18/19

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 (54%) and availability (45%) of

local Kangaroo Island produce were relatively 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 (38%) were less likely to be very satisfied with the range of KI

produce than both Interstate (45%) and intrastate visitors (58%).

6 New in 2018/19:

7 More winter (54%) and spring (54%) visitors were very satisfied than autumn visitors

(43%).

7 More return visitors (56%) were very satisfied than first-time visitors (43%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% very satisfied 38% 38% 37% 39% 40% 43% 46% 48% 51% 48%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


53

53

Figure 31: Satisfaction with the quality of local Kangaroo Island produce




7 More interstate visitors (52%) were very satisfied with the quality of Island produce than international visitors (43%) – more intrastate visitors (63%) were very satisfied compared with the other two groups.

6 New in 2018/19:

7 More winter visitors (61%) were very satisfied than summer visitors (51%). Similarly, more winter and spring (59%) visitors were very satisfied than autumn visitors (50%).

7 More return visitors (60%) were very satisfied than first time visitors (51%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% very satisfied 44% 45% 43% 44% 47% 50% 52% 52% 54% 54%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


54

54

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

Q19.6 Please indicate how satisfied you were with.... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=1600 Note: Don’t know, didn’t experience and missing cases excluded.


6 New in 2018/19:

7 More intrastate visitors were very satisfied (54%) compared with interstate (42%) or international (38%) visitors.

7 More return visitors to KI (52%) were very satisfied, compared with first-time visitors (42%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% very satisfied 35% 35% 34% 36% 38% 39% 44% 43% 47% 45%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


55

55

Quality of public tourism infrastructure (EX2h)


Range

VES 18/19

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 increased for all aspects, except the quality of roads which decreased slightly

from 32% in 2017/18 to 31% in 2018/19. 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




09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% very satisfied 30% 35% 46% 43% 44% 46% 48% 47% 48% 53%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


56

56

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




09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% very satisfied 29% 28% 35% 31% 35% 35% 40% 40% 40% 44%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


57

57

Figure 35: Satisfaction with the quality of public toilets



6 New in 2018/19:

7 More winter visitors (58%) were very satisfied than spring (46%), summer (44%) or autumn (44%) visitors.

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% very satisfied 25% 31% 38% 34% 36% 41% 43% 43% 42% 47%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


58

58

Figure 36: Satisfaction with the quality of road signage



6 New in 2018/19:

7 More international visitors (52%) were very satisfied compared with intrastate (44%) or interstate (42%) visitors.

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% very satisfied 24% 27% 35% 32% 34% 32% 39% 35% 38% 45%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑

↑

↓


59

59

Figure 37: Satisfaction with the quality of campgrounds

Q19.15 Please indicate how satisfied you were with.... Base: Visitors who experienced it, N=559 Note: Don’t know, didn’t experience and missing cases excluded.


6 Consistent with the previous year

7 More air arrivals (60%) were very satisfied with the quality of campgrounds than sea arrivals (46%).

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% very satisfied 21% 26% 41% 33% 37% 34% 44% 43% 40% 46%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


60

60

Figure 38: Satisfaction with the quality of roads



6 New in 2018/19:

7 More winter visitors were very satisfied (41%) than summer (29%) or autumn (26%)

visitors.

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% very satisfied 15% 16% 25% 20% 26% 26% 28% 25% 32% 31%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


61

61

Recommendation of Kangaroo Island as holiday destination

(EX2i)


Range

VES 18/19

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 94%

in 2018/19. This result is consistent with that from the previous year (95%) 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?




6 New in 2018/19:

7 Visitors that stayed one or more nights were more likely to recommend KI (95%) than those that stayed for a day trip (87%).

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

17/18

18/19

% willing to recommend 98% 97% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 95% 90% 94% 92% 93% 93% 93% 93% 95% 95% 94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


62

62

Repeat visitation (EC2j)


Range

VES 18/19

Result


Proportion of repeat visitation 30% - 50%

The proportion of repeat visitors to KI in 2018/19 increased from 28% to 31%, bringing the proportion

of repeat visitors into the acceptable range of 30%-50%.

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 were much more likely (70%) to have visited KI before than interstate

visitors (18%), while international visitors were less likely to have visited KI before (10%)

than both intrastate (70%) and interstate (18%) visitors.

7 Bus tourers (9%) were less likely to be repeat visitors than other visitors (33%).

7 Visitors who spent over $200 per night were less likely to be repeat visitors (24%) than those who spent less than this amount per night (37%).

6 New in 2018/19

7 Visitors that stayed one or more nights in KI were more likely to be return visitors (32%) compared with day trippers (22%).

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

17/18

18/19

% repeat visitors 33% 35% 34% 37% 29% 28% 30% 32% 27% 27% 30% 29% 28% 23% 26% 32% 34% 28% 31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


63

63

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, except day

trippers

• Those staying one or more nights

• First time visitors

EX1c


that experienced scenic

variety without crowds

• All sub-groups, except day

trippers • Those staying one or more nights

EX1d


that experienced cultural

heritage and history of

settlement

• Intrastate & Interstate

visitors

• Winter, spring, autumn

visitors

• Those not on a bus tour

• Repeat visitors

• Air arrivals

• All spending types

• Those who stayed one or

more nights

• Winter, Spring, Autumn


• Repeat visitors

• Those who stayed one or more nights

EX1e


that experienced

spectacular scenery and

coastal landscapes

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

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 visitors

• Winter and spring visitors

• Air arrivals

• Those spending $200 or

less

• Day trippers

• Non bus tour visitors

• Interstate and intrastate visitors

• Winter and spring visitors

• Air arrivals


64

64

Summary of sub-groups scores for experiential condition

‘Kangaroo Island delivers authentic and credible experiences

consistent with its positioning’ (continued)



EX1h

Proportion of visitors that

experienced local

Kangaroo Island produce

• Intra and interstate visitors

• Winter, spring, autumn

• Those not on bus tours

• Repeat visitors

• Air & sea arrivals

• Both spend groups

• Stayed one or more nights


• Those staying over night

• Repeat visitors

• Those not on bus tours

• Winter visitors

• Air arrivals

EX1i


believe Kangaroo Island

offers one of Australia’s

top three nature & wildlife

experiences

• All sub-groups • Overnight visitors

EX1j


believe Kangaroo Island

has a friendly local

community

• All sub-groups except those

on bus tours or day trips


• Overnight visitors

• Non-bus tour visitors

• Repeat visitors

EX1k

Proportion of visitors who

agree that Kangaroo Island

is a wild and welcoming

destination, that will surprise

and amaze you, relax your

mind, refresh your spirit and

make you feel totally alive. It

provides an opportunity to

view and to discover all the

scenic variety of mainland

Australia

• All sub-groups • Overnight visitors

EX1l


state that their experience

matched or exceeded

expectation set by

marketing materials

• All sub-groups • Results were consistent across

sub-groups

EX1m

Proportion of visitors very

satisfied with their overall

experience on Kangaroo

Island

• None • Results were consistent across

sub-groups


65

65

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

• Intrastate & International visitors • Winter, Spring & Summer

visitors • Those not on a bus tour • Repeat visitors • Air arrivals • Those who spent more than

$200 per night • Those staying overnight

• Winter visitors • Overnight visitors

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 • Winter, spring visitors

Ex2d

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

• None • Intrastate visitors (range and

quality)

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

• None • Intrastate visitors • Return visitors

EX2f

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

• None

• Intrastate visitors (range, quality, availability)

• Spring (range) • Return visitors (range,

quality, availability) • Winter (range, quality)

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

• None • Winter visitors • Repeat 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

• Winter visitors (picnic) • Air arrivals (campgrounds)

• Winter visitors (public toilets) • International visitors (road

signage) • Air arrivals (campgrounds) • Winter visitors (roads)

EX2i

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

• All sub-groups except bus tour visitors and day trippers

• Overnight visitors


66

66

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, autumn visitors

• Non bus tour visitors • Sea arrivals • Spent up to $200 per night • Overnight visitors

• Intrastate • Non bus tour visitors • Spend up to $200 per night • Overnight visitors


67

67

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 location was again Admirals Arch with visitation at 80% of the sample, followed by

Flinders Chase National Park (76%) and Remarkable Rocks (76%).

Awareness of quarantine regulations prior to visitor arrival increased from 63% to 68%, but remained

below the acceptable range of 70%-100%.

Finally, awareness levels for specific prohibited items had increased for all items.


68

68

Visits to natural areas occurring on managed sites (EN2b)


Range

VES 18/19

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 sit 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=1,832


10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% of visits tomanaged sites

75% 76% 75% 76% 75% 76% 75% 74% 75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


69

69

Locations visited In 2018/19 Admirals Arch (80%) was the most popular most popular destination on the Island,

followed by Remarkable Rocks (76%) and Flinders Chase Visitor Centre (76%). This year there was a

decrease in visitation to Kingscote Township, American River Township, Cape Willoughby Light

Station, and Little Sahara. 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=1,832 **New in 2016/17

00/0

1

(n=

1647

)

01/0

2

(n=

745)

02/0

3 (n

=18

54)

03/0

4

(n=

299)

04/0

5

(n=

1474

)

05/0

6

(n=

1841

)

06/0

7

(n=

1888

)

07/0

8 (n

=16

09)

08/0

9

(n=

1635

)

09/1

0

(n=

1653

)

10/1

1 (n

=20

34)

11/1

2

(n=

1108

)

12/1

3

(n=

2452

)

13/1

4

(n=

2547

)

14/1

5

(n=

1607

)

15/1

6

(n=

1604

)

16/1

7

(n=

2148

)

17/1

8

(n=

2042

)

18/1

9

(n=

1832

)

Kingscote Township 78% 78% 83% 78% 78% 82% 84% 85% 88% 85% 88% 84% 85% 65%↓ 74%↑ 78% 78% 70%↓ 73%

Flinders Chase National Park

80% 76% 79% 75% 82% 84% 83% 76% 81% 80% 80% 79% 80% 82% 80% 82% 76% 81% 76%↑

Penneshaw Township

78% 75% 83% 76% 82% 80% 78% 78% 85% 79% 81% 78% 79% 68%↓ 74%↑ 77% 77% 74% 73%

Admirals Arch NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 80% 77% 79% 83% 82% 80% 78% 82% 80%

Remarkable Rocks NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 79% 77% 78% 82%↑ 80% 78% 77% 80% 76%

Seal Bay 83% 80% 80% 67% 78% 78% 76% 73% 76% 69% 71% 68% 67% 77%↑ 69%↓ 70% 68% 71% 68%

Vivonne Bay 52% 51% 56% 54% 60% 58% 59% 62% 66% 69% 66% 65% 67% 62%↓ 63% 59%↓ 57% 63%↑ 58%↓

American River Township

52% 48% 60% 51% 55% 54% 50% 49% 58% 55% 58% 57% 58% 44%↓ 53%↑ 58%↑ 58% 50%↓ 53%

Emu Bay 44% 41% 48% 36% 41% 41% 46% 48% 48% 52% 52% 51% 57% 42%↓ 44% 51%↑ 47% 47% 51%

Parndana Township 49% 47% 56% 51% 58% 53% 50% 47% 52% 51% 52% 53% 50% 39%↓ 45%↑ 49% 45% 42% 38%

Stokes Bay 38% 44% 42% 36% 38% 38% 39% 43% 41% 47% 45% 44% 51% 39%↓ 43% 46% 45% 43% 45%

Kelly Hill Caves 31% 29% 38% 35% 36% 36% NA NA NA 32% 30% 30% 22% 22% 21% 24% 26% 23% 27%

Cape Willoughby Light Station

28% 28% 32% 18% 29% 28% 30% 31% 33% 31% 33% 33% 32% 25%↓ 34%↑ 37% 37% 28%↓ 30%

Little Sahara NA NA NA NA NA NA 23% 22% 25% 28% 24% 22% 22% 18%↓ 18% 16% 17% 13%↓ 19%↑

Hanson Bay 22% 23% 25% 25% 24% 25% 26% 28% 32% 27% 27% 25% 30% 39%↑ 35% 34% 33% 42%↑ 37%↓

Pennington Bay NA NA NA NA NA NA 23% 23% 27% 27% 29% 29% 28% 21%↓ 24% 26% 26% 24% 27%

Cape Borda Light Station

19% 20% 27% 22% 22% 21% 23% 20% 23% 25% 29% 26% 23% 24% 24% 26% 23% 26% 23%

Snelling Beach 17% 16% 17% 12% 14% 14% 17% 19% 17% 20% 19% 16% 19% 13%↓ 14% 17% 18% 18% 16%

Antechamber Bay 20% 21% 22% 18% 18% 15% 16% 19% 22% 18% 23% 22% 20% 16%↓ 18% 20% 16%↓ 13% 13%

Brown’s Beach 11% 10% 18% 16% 15% 17% NA NA NA 18% 20% 21% 21% 13%↓ 17% 23%↑ 17%↓ 17% 18%

Hanson Bay Sanctuary

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17% 17% 18% 19% 1% NA NA NA NA NA

Island Beach NA NA NA NA NA NA 13% 18% 18% 14% 18% 20% 18% 13%↓ 14% 16% 14% 15% 16%

Western River Cove 16% 15% 17% 17% 13% 11% 12% 14% 10% 14% 12% 11% 13% 10%↓ 13%↑ 12% 12% 10% 10%

Baudin Conservation Park

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12% 17% 16% 17% 12%↓ 16%↑ 19% 18% 16% 16%

Murray Lagoon NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12% 13% 12% 13% 4%↓ 11%↑ 11% 9% 10% 9%

Lathami Conservation Park

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 8% 7%

Prospect Hill** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7% 7% 5%


70

70

Awareness of quarantine regulations prior to arriving (EN2e)


Range

VES 18/19

Result

Visitor activity has minimal negative impacts on the natural environment

Proportion of visitors aware of quarantine regulations prior to arriving on Kangaroo Island

70% - 100%

The proportion of visitors aware of quarantine regulations prior to arrival was 68% in 2018/19,

increasing from 2017/18 measures. However, despite the increase, visitor awareness is below the

acceptable range of 70% to 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=1,832 ** 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 (77%) were more likely than both interstate (66%) and international visitors (58%) to be aware of quarantine regulations before their visit to the Island;

7 Repeat visitors (75%) were more likely to be aware than first time visitors (64%);

7 Overnight visitors (70%) were more likely to be aware than day trippers (49%);

7 Those who spent less than $200 per night (73%) were more likely to be aware than those who spent more than this amount (64%);

7 Sea arrivals (69%) were more likely to be aware than air arrivals (55%); and

7 Those not on a bus tour (69%) 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 17/18 18/19

% of visitors 58% 69% 70% 72% 71% 61% 66% 68% 66% 63% 68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Measurement** revised in 09/10


71

71

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 current awareness measurement used is the percentage of all respondents that were aware of any of the quarantine

regulations.

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

% of first time visitors 84% 86% 84% 86% 78% 86% 84% 81% 81% 86%

% of repeat visitors 88% 91% 94% 91% 91% 95% 91% 86% 92% 92%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑


72

72

Awareness of specific prohibited items

This year, awareness of the prohibition on importing declared weeds increased (68%) from 2017/18

(63%), nearing levels at 2016/17 (70%). Awareness of the prohibition of other products also increased

slightly from 2017/18 measures.

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=1,617




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. Unlike last year, they were also more aware of quarantine regulation regarding honey and potatoes;

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; and

7 Those staying overnight were more likely than day trippers to be aware of all regulations except potatoes and honey.

6 New in 2018/19:

7 More intrastate visitors were aware of the quarantine regulations of honey/bee products than interstate visitors. Both intrastate and interstate visitors were more aware of quarantine regulations of all prohibited items than international visitors, except for potatoes and honey/bee products.

7 More autumn visitors were aware of quarantine regulations regarding declared weeds compared with spring or summer visitors.

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Honey/bee products 80% 84% 83% 83% 77% 82% 82% 82% 80% 84%

Rabbits 80% 81% 79% 79% 74% 77% 78% 77% 72% 76%

Foxes 78% 80% 78% 79% 73% 77% 77% 77% 72% 74%

Declared weeds 72% 75% 73% 73% 68% 73% 72% 70% 63% 68%

Potatoes 66% 68% 68% 68% 62% 66% 69% 70% 69% 71%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


73

73

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 under one in ten (8%) 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 (3% of all

visitors).

Aware of regulations prohibiting the import of…

(a) First time

visitors

n=1251

(b) Repeat

visitors

n=579

Potatoes 70% 74%

Honey / bee products 82% 88%↑

Foxes 72% 81%↑

Rabbits 73% 81%↑

Declared weeds 66% 73%↑


74

74

Summary of sub-groups scores for environmental condition

‘Visitor activity has minimal negative impacts on the natural

environment’



EN2b

Proportion of visitations

to natural areas

occurring on managed

sites

• None • None

EN2e


aware of quarantine

regulations prior to

arriving on Kangaroo

Island

• Intrastate visitors

• Autumn visitors

• Repeat visitors

• Those spending up to $200

per night

• Those staying one or more

nights

• Intrastate visitors


• Those arriving by Sea

• Those spending up to $200 per night

• Repeat visitors

• Those staying one or more nights


75

75

Visitor Profile

Visitor Origin

The visitor origin has changed slightly, with half 44% of respondents originating from interstate (a

decrease from 2017/18), while international visitors have increased from 21% to 26%.

Figure 45: Visitor Origin over time

Q4 Where do you live?


*It is important to note that the survey was made available in multiple languages in 2018/19 and may have played a role in the

increased proportion of international visitors in the sample.

00/0101/02 02/03 03/04 04/0505/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Intrastate 40% 40% 43% 42% 35% 34% 34% 38% 32% 35% 32% 33% 29% 24% 28% 31% 33% 29% 30%

Interstate 27% 27% 31% 25% 30% 27% 31% 33% 42% 40% 43% 42% 46% 46% 47% 45% 51% 50% 44%

International 33% 34% 26% 33% 35% 39% 35% 29% 27% 25% 24% 26% 25% 30% 25% 24% 17% 21% 26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f vis

itors

↓

↑

↓


76

76

Interstate visitor origin

Interstate visitation continued to be driven by those coming from Victoria (33%) and New South Wales

(38%) in 2017/18. The proportion of interstate visitors has remained largely stable with the only

increase coming from Western Australia (11%)

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=

108

8)

13/1

4

(n=

111

9)

14/1

5

(n=

696

)

15/1

6

(n=

654

)

16/1

7

(n=

957

)

17/1

8

(n=

1,0

30)

18/1

9

(n=

832

)

VIC 39% 27% 36% 45% 36% 42% 43% 34% 39% 36% 41% 34% 34% 31% 37% 33% 36%

NSW 43% 52% 40% 36% 38% 35% 29% 36% 35% 35% 32% 39% 33% 34% 35% 38% 36%

QLD 11% 8% 13% 7% 10% 11% 15% 14% 12% 13% 13% 13% 17% 20% 14% 12% 15%

WA 3% 3% 6% 7% 7% 5% 8% 9% 8% 8% 9% 9% 10% 10% 7% 11% 8%

ACT 1% 4% 1% 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3%

TAS 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2%

NT 1% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3% <1% 1% 1% 1% 3%↑ 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Q4 Where do you live? Base: Interstate visitors responding. Note: Missing cases excluded.


77

77

International visitor origin

Table 5: International Visitor Origin over Time

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

)

17/1

8

(n=

478

)

18/1

9

(n=

475

)

USA / Canada 29% 24% 24% 23% 19% 25% 23% 24% 22% 20%

Other European countries

13% 14% 16% 15% 22% 16% 15% 22% 8% 19%

United Kingdom 22% 22% 19% 18% 12% 21% 20% 16% 22% 12%

Germany 12% 10% 10% 12% 15% 12% 14% 9% 15% 10%

Other asia 5% 3% 6% 3% 8% 3% 4% 3% 2% 7%↑

New Zealand 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 13% 2%↓

Other countries 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1%

France 8% 10% 8% 9% 5% 7% 6% 5% 5% 8%

Italy 9% 11% 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 14% 4% 12%↑

India 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 4% 0%↓

China / Hong Kong

1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 3% 2% 8%↑

Japan 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%

Q4 Where do you live? Base: International visitors responding. Note: Missing cases excluded.


78

78

Age profile

Profile of respondents taking the survey

The age profile of visitors in 2018/19 has changed slightly, with a greater attendance of those aged 25

– 44 (28%) or aged 65+ (25%). International visitors aged 25 – 44 saw a large increase (from 22% to

42%) while international visitors aged 45 – 64 have decreased from 44% to 31%.

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) 17/18

(n=1976) 18/19

(n=1784)

15 – 24 years 6% 4% 6% 6% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 6%

25 – 44 years 31% 29% 27% 31% 31% 25% 25% 21% 23% 28%↑

45 – 64 years 47% 47% 44% 44% 42% 44% 45% 45% 43% 40%

65+ years 16% 19% 23% 19% 21% 27% 26% 31% 29% 25%↓

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)

17/18 (n=526)

18/19 (n=503)

15 – 24 years 6% 4% 5% 7% 4% 3% 5% 5% 6% 7%

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

45 – 64 years 52% 49% 40% 43% 47% 50% 41% 47% 43% 40%

65+ years 12% 16% 22% 18% 18% 19% 24% 29% 26% 21%

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)

17/18

(n=989)

18/19 (n=816)

15 – 24 years 4% 3% 3% 4% 5% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3%

25 – 44 years 25% 21% 15% 23% 26% 18% 15% 17% 22% 18%

45 – 64 years 51% 51% 55% 51% 42% 46% 52% 45% 43% 46%

65+ years 20% 25% 27% 22% 27% 34% 30% 36% 33% 32%

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)

17/18

(n=461)

18/19 (n=459)

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

25 – 44 years 42% 43% 39% 43% 38% 34% 37% 35% 22% 42%↑

45 – 64 years 34% 35% 33% 34% 37% 33% 35% 40% 44% 31%↓

65+ years 14% 15% 16% 16% 15% 23% 19% 19% 24% 18%

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


79

79

Profile of visitors (includes entire travel party)

Table 6: Age profile of visitors (includes entire travel party)

12/13

(n=2452)

13/14

(n=2252)

14/15

(n=1584)

15/16

(n=1,554)

16/17

(n=2,148)

17/18

(n=1,872)

18/19

(n=1,832)

Total Female 55% 55% 53% 55% 52% 54% 51%

Under 15 years 5% 9% 7% 7% 7% 7% 10%

15 - 24 years 4% 6% 4% 2%↓ 4% 3% 4%

25 - 44 years 14% 12% 9% 10% 8% 8% 11%

45 - 64 years 22% 17% 18% 15%↓ 17% 17% 14%↓

65 plus years 11% 11% 15% 20%↑ 16% 17% 12%↓

Total Male 45% 45% 47% 45% 48% 46% 49%

Under 15 years 4% 8% 7% 5%↓ 7% 5% 8%↑

8%15 - 24 years 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 2% 4%↑

25 - 44 years 11% 10% 9% 9% 8% 7% 11%↑

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

65 plus years 10% 10% 13% 14% 16% 15% 11%↓

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.


80

80

Incidence of repeat visitation

This year, the proportion of repeat visitors was within the acceptable level of between 30% and 50%

(31%), which is a minor increase from the previous year (28%).

Figure 47: Incidence of repeat visitation to Kangaroo Island over time

33%

35%

34%

37%

29%

28%

30%

32%

27%

27%

30%

29%

28%

23%

26%

32%

34%

28%

31%

67%

65%

66%

63%

71%

72%

70%

68%

73%

73%

70%

71%

72%

77%

74%

68%

66%

72%

69%

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)

16/17 (n=2,148)

17/18 (n=2,039)

18/19 (n=1,830)

Repeat visitor First time visitor


81

81

Incidence of repeat visitation by visitor origin

Incidence of repeat visitation among intrastate, and international visitors was consistent with the

previous year. However, repeat visitation among interstate visitors increased significantly (18%), as

did international visitors (10%).

Table 7: Repeat Visitation to Kangaroo Island by Visitor Origin over time

Intrastate Interstate International

00/01 68% 17% 5%

01/02 70% 18% 8%

02/03 67% 14% 6%

03/04 79% 19% 4%

04/05 68% 14% 4%

05/06 63% 16% 5%

06/07 68% 16% 5%

07/08 68% 14% 5%

08/09 60% 15% 6%

09/10 61% 11% 4%

10/11 67% 16% 4%

11/12 66% 14% 8%

12/13 65% 17% 6%

13/14 69% 12% 4%

14/15 67% 12% 3%

15/16 71% 16% 8%

16/17 74% 16% 9%

17/18 73% 11% 5%

18/19 70% 18%↑ 10%↑

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


82

82

Travel party

Travelling with a partner or family and friends continued to be the two most common types of travel

party in 2018/19, with minor decreases to the proportion that travelled for special interest/tour groups

or those travelling alone.

Figure 48: Travel party over Time

Q2 On this trip, who did you travel with? Base: Visitors responding, N=1,832

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

17/18

18/19

Partner 37% 46% 44% 42% 46% 43% 46% 47% 47% 44% 46% 47% 43% 40% 43%

Family & friends 45% 42% 45% 49% 46% 47% 46% 45% 46% 44% 45% 42% 47% 48% 49%

Special interest/tour group

10% 7% 6% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% 5% 4%

Alone 8% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 7% 6% 6% 4% 6% 4%

Businessassociate**

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

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


83

83

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

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)

17/18 (n=534)

18/19 (n=516)

With family and friends

54% 56% 58% 65% 58% 61% 60% 55% 54% 63%↑ 60%

With a partner 40% 36% 36% 30% 36% 30% 35% 38% 34% 27%↓ 31%

With a special interest group

1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% 5% 3% 3%

Alone 4% 5% 3% 2% 3% 5% 3% 4% 5% 6% 4%

With business associate (with or without spouse)

<1% <1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% <1% 2% 1% 1%

Interstate Visitors

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)

17/18 (n=1030)

18/19 (n=832)


43% 46% 42% 35% 44% 40% 39% 37% 44% 42% 42%

With a partner 51% 48% 51% 57% 49% 49% 54% 51% 47% 45% 50%


3% 3% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2% 4%↑ 5% 6% 4%

Alone 3% 3% 2% 6% 4% 6% 5% 7% 4% 7% 3%


<1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 1% <1% <1% <1%

International Visitors

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)

17/18 (n=478)

18/19 (n=475)


42% 38% 38% 37% 36% 38% 38% 34% 43% 42% 45%

With a partner 46% 45% 51% 51% 54% 48% 43% 52% 49% 48% 44%


6% 12% 4% 7% 4% 5% 6% 5% 4% 3% 4%

Alone 7% 5% 5% 5% 5% 9% 13% 7%↓ 4% 6% 6%


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


84

84

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=

184

8)

03/0

4

(n=

290

)

04/0

5

(n=

147

4)

05/0

6

(n=

169

0)

06/0

7

(n=

172

9)

07/0

8

(n=

153

6)

08/0

9

(n=

163

5)

09/1

0

(n=

159

2)

10/1

1

(n=

193

1)

11/1

2

(n=

107

2)

12/1

3

(n=

237

2)

13/1

4

(n=

209

2)

14/1

5

(n=

1,3

92)

15/1

5

(n=

1,3

80)

16/1

7

(n=

160

7)

17/1

8

(n=

1,9

33)

18/1

9

(n=

1,6

99)

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

Holiday home / apartment / unit*

28% 13% 19% 26% 27% 21% 21% 22% 21% 26% 23% 22% 22% 27% 25% 25% 24%

Camping, caravan or motor-home*

16% 21% 11% 16% 10% 13% 14% 17% 18% 14% 18% 17% 17% 16% 15% 17% 18%

Cabin / Cottage*

18% 18% 17% 11% 12% 11% 10% 15% 11% 13% 13% 12% 12% 10% 12% 11% 11%

Luxury lodge / retreat^

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 10% 7% 9% 8% 5%

Bed and Breakfast/ Farm Stay*+

8% 12% 10% 14% 14% 10% 10% 7% 11% 10% 10% 8% 7% 7% 8% 10% 9%

Backpacker hostel

3% 5% 7% 4% 4% 3% 2% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% 3% 1% 1%

Friends / relatives

7% 16% 8% 5% 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4%


85

85

Types of accommodation by visitor origin

Holiday homes remain the most common form of accommodation among intrastate visitor. For

interstate visitors, holiday homes were most common this year with hotels/motels also featuring a

strong attendance. International visitors most commonly opt for a hotel/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

14/1

5

(n=

303)

15/1

6

(n=

304)

16/1

7

(n=

356)

17/1

8

(n=

501)

18/1

9

(n=

356)

14/1

5

(n=

640)

15/1

6

(n=

564)

16/1

7

(n=

772)

17/1

8

(n=

990)

18/1

9

(n=

722)

14/1

5

(n=

484)

15/1

6

(n=

512)

16/1

7

(n=

749)

17/1

8

(n=

442)

18/1

9

(n=

417)

Holiday home 35% 37% 37% 34% 36% 22% 25% 23% 23% 24% 6% 13% 9% 11% 13%

Hotel / motel 13% 17% 20% 16% 15% 29% 24% 28% 27% 21% 37% 39% 32% 35% 39%

Cabin 13% 11% 13% 10% 11% 14% 11% 12% 12% 12% 6% 7% 9% 11% 10%

Camping, caravan or motorhome

10% 10% 10% 13% 11% 24% 24% 19% 22% 24% 13% 10% 8% 10% 14%

Rented apartment or flat or unit

13% 10% 11% 16% 12% 8% 7% 10% 11% 13% 7% 4% 6% 11% 12%

Self-contained bed & breakfast or farm stay

6% 6% 5% 7% 6% 3% 3% 5% 6% 7% 5% 4% 1% 5% 5%

Luxury lodge/Retreat

6% 4% 5% 5% 3% 10% 7% 9% 9% 5% 14% 12% 18% 9% 8%

Friends / relatives

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

Backpacker hostel

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

Hosted bed & breakfast or farm stay

3% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 6% 6% 13% 9% 7%

Own property 2% <1%

1% 2% 1% <1% <1% <1% 1% <1% 0% 0% <1% 0% 0%


86

86

Satisfaction with accommodation

Overall satisfaction with accommodation in 2018/19 remained consistent with the previous year,

decreasing slightly from 79% to 78%. Satisfaction per accommodation type has changed, with holiday

homes and luxury lodges/retreats sharing the same high levels of satisfaction (88%). These two forms

of accommodation supersede ‘staying with friends / relatives’ as having the most satisfaction, with

satisfaction with friends / relatives decreasing from 95% to 86%. Backpacker hostels have the lowest

satisfaction – despite this more than half are still satisfied (56%).

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)

17/18

(n=1855)

18/19

(n=1,642)

Total Satisfaction 78% 76% 77% 80% 80% 80% 79% 78%

Hosted bed & breakfast or farm stay

87% 89% 93% 92% 82% 84% 73% 80%

Holiday home 84% 91% 87% 87% 93%↑ 85%↓ 88% 88%

Luxury lodge/Retreat 80% 80% 87% 86% 84% 86% 87% 88%

Rented apartment or flat or unit

82% 84% 81% 78% 93%↑ 84% 86% 84%

Friends / relatives 78% 87% 94% 91% 89% 93% 95% 86%

Self-contained bed & breakfast or farm stay

77% 93% 82% 96% 79%↓ 95%↑ 88% 82%

Hotel / motel 79% 66% 75% 71% 71% 73% 71% 76%

Cabin 68% 67% 72% 63% 85%↑ 77% 75% 80%

Camping, caravan or motor home

67% 60% 59% 64% 70% 72% 66% 61%

Backpacker hostel 63% 72% 56% 69% 52% 69% 80% 56%


87

87

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) Holiday home 88% (↑H, ↑I, ↑K)

B) Luxury Lodge / Retreat 88% (↑I, ↑K)

C) Friends / relatives 86% (↑I, ↑K)

D) Rented apartment or flat or unit 84% (↑I, ↑K)

E) Self-contained bed & breakfast or farm stay 82% (↑I, ↑K)

F) Cabin 80% (↑I, ↑K)

G) Hosted bed & breakfast or farm stay 80% (↑I)

H) Hotel / motel 76% (↑I)

I) Camping, caravan or motorhome 61%

J) Own property 59%

K) Backpacker hostel 56%


88

88

Credible vs. Experienced Attributes & Attractions

Overall, the proportion of visitors who experienced the Island’s numerous attributes and attractions

and found them to be credible has remained mostly consistent, with minor decreases for some

attractions.

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

13/14 (min

n=2401)

14/15 (min

n=1534)

15/16 (min

n=1532)

16/17 (min

n=1327)

17/18 (min

n=1364)

18/19 (min

n=1295)

13/14 (min

n=1980)

14/15 (min

n=1252)

15/16 (min

n=1290)

16/17 (min

n=1303)

17/18 (min

n=1299)

18/19 (min

n=1196)

Spectacular scenery and coastal beauty

99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

Areas of untouched natural beauty

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

Viewing Australia’s wildlife in natural surroundings

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

Scenic variety without crowds of people

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

Farming and rural landscapes

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

Island produce (food & wine)

85% 89% 91% 94%↑ 91% 93% 75% 80% 83% 87% 83% 83%

A friendly local community

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

The cultural heritage and history of settlement

77% 79% 80% 80% 80% 78% 71% 74% 76% 74% 72% 70%

One of Australia's top three nature and wildlife experiences

64% 63% 64% 66% 67% 72% 79% 76% 75% 80% 81% 81%


89

89

Satisfaction with attributes

Satisfaction with road signage increased notably from 73% to 80% - other attributes remain relatively

consistent (i.e. no statistically significant differences).

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 17/18 18/19

The level customer service you received

82% 84% 84% 84% 86% 88% 87% 88%

Seeing wildlife in the natural environment

84% 82% 84% 84% 87% 88% 88% 90%

The quality of Island produce (food & wine)

78% 78% 80% 82% 84% 84% 85% 84%

The quality of activities available 78% 79% 80% 80% 82% 85% 84% 85%

The professionalism of tourism businesses

79% 78% 82% 82% 83% 86% 85% 88%

The range of activities available 76% 78% 79% 80% 81% 83% 81% 84%

The quality of accommodation 78% 76% 76% 76% 80% 80% 78% 81%

Your opportunity to learn more about the Island's natural environment

77% 78% 80% 80% 80% 82% 86% 84%

The quality of picnic/day use areas

80% 83% 82% 82% 83% 85% 83% 84%

The range of island produce (food & wine)

71% 72% 72% 74% 78% 79% 81% 78%

The availability of activities 73% 74% 75% 76% 75% 79% 78% 80%

The quality of interpretive/educational signage

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

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

68% 66% 70% 68% 73% 75% 75% 78%

The availability of island produce (food & wine)

67% 69% 69% 72% 74% 74% 76% 76%

The quality of public toilets 75% 74% 74% 79% 80% 80% 76% 79%

The quality of road signage 70% 69% 73% 70% 75% 74% 73% 80%↑

The quality of campgrounds 72% 66% 69% 70% 73% 75% 73% 75%

The quality of roads 63% 56% 62% 61% 66% 63% 68%↑ 68%


90

90

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. A total of 22% 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. There was also a

significant increase in the proportion who were dissatisfied with the quality of accommodation or felt it

was lacking (2% in 2017/18, compared to 4% in 2018/19).

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)

17/18

(n=2042)

18/19

(n=1832)

Road Infrastructure 13% 10% 6% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6%

Better road signage

(attractions/ airport/

ferry)^

— 7% 5% 9% 7% 6% 8% 4%

Quality of

Accommodation / or

lack of

5% 5% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4%↑

Bad quality / availability

public toilets / bins /

picnic areas

3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3%

Customer service and

friendless/ or lack of 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1%

Limited Trading Hours 3% 4% 3% 4% 5% 3% 4% 1%

Expenses at KI 5% 3% 2% 4% 4% 3% 2% 1%

A lack of restaurants,

cafes and other eating

places

1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1%

More / better tourist

information 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 2%

Habitat / Wildlife 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Too much road kill 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0%

Availability of local

produce 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1%

Quality/ availability of

activities/ tour guides 3% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3%

Bad/ lack of food

options in restaurants 2% 2% 1% 3% 1%↓ 2% 1% 1%

Mobile phone coverage <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 1% 0% 0%

Other 2% 3% 8% 4% 6% 2% 0% 1%

Everything fine / not

dissatisfied 2% 2% 1% 2% 4%↑ 3% 7% 1%

Did not comment 60% 56% 67% 60% 59% 63% 70% 78%


91

91

Suggestions for Improvement

Visitors were asked to make any suggestions to improve their travel experience on Kangaroo Island.

A total of 38% of respondents contributed a suggestion for improvement

Visitors were most likely to suggest that KI’s road infrastructure be improved and that the accuracy

and amount of tourist information be improved. Another likely suggestion was to lower the cost of

travelling (4%)

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)

17/18

(n=2042)

18/19

(n=1832)

Improve road infrastructure 10% 9% 6% 10% 8% 5% 7% 7%

Improve road signage/ attraction signage/ improve map/ provide map^

— 6% 3% 6% 5% 3% 5% 4%

Improve quality/ number of stores, restaurants, takeaway shops

4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 5% 3%

Lower the cost of travel 9% 8% 5% 7% 7% 3% 6% 4%

More/ accurate tourist information 8% 8% 5% 9% 9% 5% 6% 6%

Reduce expenses on the Island (activities, food, petrol etc.)

5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1%

Extend length of stay 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 1% 2%

Improve public transport, bus/ taxi / infrastructure

2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%

Extend trading hours (shops/ restaurants/ tours/ petrol stations)

2% 3% 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3%

Improve quality/ availability of accommodation

1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 1% 2% 1%

More activities / wildlife viewing opportunities

1% 2% 3% 4% 1% 2% 3% 3%

Improve mobile phone/ Internet coverage

1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2%

Improve public infrastructure (public toilets, rubbish bins, picnic areas etc.)

1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 5%↑ 4%

Reduce road kill/ speed limits 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%

More/ better local produce 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1%

Improve customer service/ friendliness of locals

1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%

Keep KI untouched/ limit development

3% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Car rental - reduce costs/ availability/ provide more information

1% 1% 1% <1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Other suggestions 5% 6% 10% 8% 10% 5% 0% 2%↑

No Comment / no suggestion 49% 47% 55% 41% 46% 60% 56% 62%


92

92

Exploration of those dissatisfied overall

A small proportion (3%, n=51) of the total sample were dissatisfied overall, scoring a 5 or below out of

10 for Q22: Overall Satisfaction. Compared to the total sample, these visitors tended to be travelling

with their partner in summer, had not visited KI previously, came as part of a package, and stayed

only for a day trip.

Table 17: Who was dissatisfied?

Those that were

dissatisfied n=51

Total 18/19 respondents

n=1,832

Travel party

Travelling with family or friends 35% 49%

Travelling with partner 60% 43%

Travelling with special interest/tour group 2% 4%

Travelling alone 1% 4%

Travelling with business associates (with or without spouse) 2% 1%

Season visited

Winter 14% 16%

Spring 23% 21%

Summer 31% 23%

Autumn 33% 40%

Previous visitation

Yes 26% 31%

No 74% 69%

Visitor Origin

Intrastate 28% 30%

Interstate 41% 44%

International 31% 26%

Arrival transportation

Air 7% 8%

Sea 93% 92%

Type of stay

Day trip 28% 10%

Overnight 72% 90%


93

93

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 (63% difference), the availability of activities (59%

difference), the quality of campgrounds (59% difference), and the quality of picnic / day use areas

(57% difference).

Table 18: What were they dissatisfied with?

Those that were

dissatisfied n=51


n=1,832

Trip as part of package

Yes 34% 20%

No 66% 80%

Spend

Up to $200 per night 65% 69%

More than $200 per night 35% 31%

Those that were

dissatisfied n=51


n=1,832

% Very satisfied/

Satisfied (Top 2 box out of 5)

% Very satisfied/ Satisfied

(Top 2 box out of 5)

The level of customer service you received 49% 88%

Seeing wildlife in the natural environment 38% 90%

The quality of Island produce (food & wine) 31% 84%

The quality of activities available 22% 85%

The professionalism of tourism businesses 55% 88%

The range of activities available 28% 84%

The quality of accommodation 38% 81%

Your opportunity to learn more about the Island’s natural environment 51% 84%

The quality of picnic/ day use areas 27% 84%

The range of Island produce (food & wine) 26% 78%

The availability of activities 21% 80%

The quality of interpretive/ educational signage 54% 79%

Your opportunity to learn more about the Island’s history 48% 78%

The availability of Island produce (food & wine) 21% 76%

The quality of public toilets 32% 79%

The quality of road signage 53% 80%

The quality of campgrounds 16% 75%

The quality of roads 38% 68%


94

94

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=1,832

Road Infrastructure 6% 6%

Better road signage (attractions/ airport/ ferry) 3% 4%

Quality of Accommodation / or lack of 9% 4%

Bad quality / availability public toilets / bins / picnic areas 0% 3%

Customer service and friendless/ or lack of 2% 1%

Limited Trading Hours 2% 1%

Expenses at KI 3% 1%

A lack of restaurants, cafes and other eating places 7% 1%

More / better tourist information 6% 2%

Habitat / Wildlife 8% 1%

Too much roadkill 0% 0%

More local produce 0% 1%

Quality/ availability of activities/ tour guides 12% 3%

Bad/ lack of food options in restaurants 4% 1%

Mobile phone coverage 0% 0%

Other 2% 1%

Everything fine / not dissatisfied 0% 1%

No Comments / NA / Blank Cells 3% 1%


95

95

Seasonal variances

Proportion of visitors by season

Summer continues to be the most popular season to visit Kangaroo Island, accounting for 34% of

2018/19 visitors. All season’s visitation proportions have remained consistent with last year.

Figure 49: Proportion of visitors by season

Note: Data provided by TOMM Committee.

13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 17/19

Winter 14% 15% 15% 15% 15% 14%

Spring 25% 25% 25% 24% 25% 26%

Summer 34% 34% 34% 35% 35% 34%

Autumn 26% 25% 26% 27% 26% 25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%


96

96

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 2017/18. Minor changes were noted, with

more satisfied winter visitors (from 86% to 89%) and fewer satisfied autumn visitors (from 87% to

84%).

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 17/18 18/19

Winter 82% 86% 87% 89% 86% 89%

Spring 83% 84% 81% 84% 85% 85%

Summer 85% 84% 81% 86% 84% 85%

Autumn 81% 84% 84% 87% 87% 84%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


97

97

Average number of nights stayed by season

In 2018/19, summer visitors stayed (on average) 7.1 nights – a marked increased from 2017/18 (4.7

nights). Winter visitors also saw a decrease down to 3.9 nights, from 4.7. Spring and autumn stay

lengths were relatively consistent the previous year.

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=1,680 Note: Arrows indicate significant change in score from previous year.

13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Winter 3.3 4.3 5.1 3.9 4.7 3.9

Spring 4.3 4.8 4.3 5.2 4.7 4.5

Summer 4.8 5.3 5.1 5.1 4.7 7.1

Autumn 4.2 4.3 5.2 4.7 4.6 4.5

0

2

4

6

8

10


98

98

Average expenditure per visit by season

Average expenditure increased most notably amongst winter visitors (up to $757.21). Spring visitors

also spent much less than the previous year (down to $656.36 from $976.65), as did autumn visitors

to a lesser extent.

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, 1,740


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 17/18 18/19

Winter $424.94 $661.47 $708.00 $753.08 $609.22 $757.21

Spring $700.35 $661.62 $801.79 $854.77 $976.65 $656.36

Summer $762.74 $735.21 $723.90 $783.89 $762.16 $753.58

Autumn $467.11 $789.98 $811.79 $712.63 $713.11 $619.23

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000


99

99

Satisfaction with customer service received by season

Minor changes to satisfaction with customer service have been noted since 2017/18 (changes of 3-

5%). However, winter visitors became the most satisfied in 2018/19, increasing from 57% to 72%.

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=1,967

Note: Don’t know, didn’t experience and missing cases excluded.

13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Winter 60% 57% 57% 66% 57% 72%

Spring 48% 52% 55% 56% 61% 64%

Summer 46% 51% 53% 53% 64% 59%

Autumn 52% 52% 61% 57% 59% 64%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


100

100

Average spend per night over $200 by season

The proportion of visitors who reported an average spend of over $200 per night increased for winter

visitors (39%) and decreased most for summer visitors (28%).

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=1,621 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 17/18 18/19

Winter 30% 40% 30% 36% 36% 39%

Spring 34% 33% 37% 45% 35% 34%

Summer 27% 34% 33% 36% 33% 28%

Autumn 30% 41% 35% 31% 31% 29%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


101

101

Experienced local Kangaroo Island produce by season

The proportion of winter visitors who experienced local Kangaroo Island produce in 2018/19 (87%)

increased significantly to levels similar to 2016/17. The proportion of summer visitors experiencing

local KI produce also saw a notable change, decreasing from 89% to 78%.

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=1,720 Note: Missing cases excluded.

13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Winter 70% 70% 80% 90% 62% 87%

Spring 84% 83% 83% 87% 87% 83%

Summer 81% 84% 84% 86% 89% 78%

Autumn 66% 79% 84% 86% 89% 84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑


102

102

Range, quality and availability of Kangaroo Island produce by

season

The proportions of visitors very satisfied with the range of local Kangaroo Island produce increased

amongst winter (54%) and spring (54%) visitors, decreasing slightly for summer (from 53% to 47%)

and decreasing more markedly for autumn visitors (51% to 43%).

Figure 56: Visitors very satisfied with the range of local Kangaroo Island produce by season


13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Winter 45% 45% 51% 53% 43% 54%

Spring 40% 38% 45% 46% 52% 54%

Summer 40% 47% 40% 48% 53% 47%

Autumn 38% 40% 53% 50% 51% 43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


103

103

The proportion of winter visitors very satisfied with the quality of local Kangaroo Island produce

increased markedly from 2017/18 (39%) to 61% in 2018/19, returning to similar measures found in

2016/17 (60%). Fewer summer visitors were very satisfied (from 60% to 51%).

Figure 57: Visitors very satisfied with the quality of local Kangaroo Island produce by season


13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Winter 54% 52% 56% 60% 39% 61%

Spring 46% 42% 51% 50% 56% 59%

Summer 48% 53% 47% 50% 60% 51%

Autumn 44% 50% 58% 51% 54% 50%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑


104

104

Lastly, the proportions of visitors ‘very satisfied’ with the availability of local Kangaroo Island produce

is highest for winter (50%) and spring (50%) visiting periods. Both summer and autumn have

decreased slightly to 43% from 2017/18 measures.

Figure 58: Visitors very satisfied with the availability of local Kangaroo Island produce by season


13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Winter 42% 36% 51% 50% 44% 50%

Spring 37% 34% 44% 42% 48% 50%

Summer 36% 44% 37% 41% 49% 43%

Autumn 38% 38% 48% 44% 45% 43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


105

105

Incidence of repeat visitation by season

This year, the proportion of repeat visitors increased in winter (from 16% to 31%), with repeat

visitation in the other seasons remaining relatively consistent.

Figure 59: Repeat visitors by season

Q3 Have you ever visited Kangaroo Island before this trip? Base: Visitors responding n=1,827 Note: Don’t know and missing cases excluded.

13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Winter 18% 21% 29% 38% 16% 31%

Spring 27% 26% 30% 30% 26% 30%

Summer 32% 31% 39% 30% 36% 34%

Autumn 16% 22% 27% 38% 34% 31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

↑


106

106

Visitor origin by season

Figure 60: Intrastate visitors by season

Q4 Where do you live? Note: Missing cases excluded.

Figure 61: Interstate visitors by season


13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Winter 21% 24% 39% 37% 17% 30%

Spring 29% 30% 29% 29% 26% 31%

Summer 29% 33% 38% 28% 38% 25%

Autumn 17% 23% 24% 38% 35% 32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Winter 41% 38% 40% 44% 50% 45%

Spring 45% 51% 47% 52% 55% 46%

Summer 40% 44% 37% 52% 40% 41%

Autumn 53% 52% 54% 51% 52% 45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


107

107

Figure 62: International visitors by season


13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Winter 38% 38% 21% 19% 33% 25%

Spring 26% 19% 24% 19% 19% 24%

Summer 30% 23% 25% 20% 22% 33%

Autumn 30% 25% 22% 12% 12% 24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


108

108

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

decreased from 24% to 20%.

Figure 63: 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%↓

24%

20%

80%

79%

77%

77%

72%

75%

75%

80%

76%

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)

17/18 (n=2036)

18/19 (n=1819)

Part of a package Not part of a package


109

109

Type of booking by visitor origin

The proportion of visitors booking their trip as part of a package has remained consistent by visitor

origin, with international visitors remaining the most likely group to visit as part of a package (33%),

despite a decrease from 40%.

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.

Intrastate Visitors 11/12

(n=278) 12/13

(n=526) 13/14

(n=471)

14/15

(n=324)

15/16

(n=351)

16/17

(n=470)

17/18

(n=533)

18/19

(n=516)

Trip part of a package 19% 22% 19% 20% 24% 15% 15% 11%

Not part of a package 81% 78% 81% 80% 76% 85% 85% 89%

Interstate Visitors 11/12

(n=464) 12/13

(n=1077) 13/14

(n=1109)

14/15

(n=690)

15/16

(n=651)

16/17

(n=943)

17/18

(n=1027)

18/19

(n=825)



International Visitors 11/12

(n=360) 12/13

(n=818) 13/14

(n=933)

14/15

(n=574)

15/16

(n=593)

16/17

(n=707)

17/18

(n=476)

18/19

(n=469)




110

110

Expenditure per visitor

At the overall (total visitor) level, the reported average cost that was spent per person on the Island in

2018/19 ($679.29). While it is a decrease, statistically it not significant.

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) 17/18

(n=1,633) 18/19

(n=1,742)

Average $609.52 $601.92 $726.90 $770.06 $779.59 $722.70 $ 679.29

Standard Deviation*

$651.28 $1,509.09 $841.00 $856.32 $747.31 $618.87 $1,003.54

Median^ $487.50 $400.00 $500.00 $550.00 $600.00 $575.00 $500.00

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

Min. $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $10.00 $0.00 $2.50 $0.50

Max $24,000.00 $49,999.50 $16,400.00 $42,500.00 $18,000.00 $7,000 $25,000.00


(n=491)

13/14 (n=443)

14/15 (n=310)

15/16 (n=338)

16/17 (n=434)

17/18

(n=445)

18/19

(n=504)

Average $478.95 $493.64 $642.38 $658.82 $643.23 $650.79 $606.25

Standard Deviation*

$398.06 $395.30 $521.39 $563.21 $433.69 $537.12 $969.87

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

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

Min. $15.00 $3.50 $15.00 $33.33 $10.00 $11.00 $0.85

Max $4,00.00 $5,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,250.00 $9,000.00 $5,666.67 $20,000.00


(n=1015)

13/14 (n=1014)

14/15 (n=642)

15/16 (n=606)

16/17 (n=857)

17/18

(n=873)

18/19

(n=793)

Average $691.97 $665.17 $819.43 $923.88↑ $894.75 $813.58 $834.00

Standard Deviation*

$622.53 $866.26 $795.47 $861.79 $853.15 $630.35 $1,166.78

Median^ $500.00 $500.00 $650.00 $650.00 $712.00 $685.00 $600.00

Mode≠ $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00

Min. $0.00 $2.00 $10.00 $12.50 $0.00 $2.50 $0.50

Max $6,00.00 $12,500.00 $10,500.00 $12,500.00 $18,000.00 7,500 $25,000.00

International Visitors

12/13 (n=673)

13/14 (n=738)

14/15 (n=462)

15/16 (n=468)

16/17 (n=535)

17/18

(n=315)

18/19

(n=437)

Average $603.88 $593.37 $642.51 $617.48 $687.29 $585.65 $495.76

Standard Deviation*

$890.51 2,599.39 $1,180.87 $1,128.53 $843.74 $685.15 $627.55

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

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

Min. $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $10.00 $0.00 $7.50 $0.50

Max $24,000.00 $49,999.50 $16,400.00 $42,500.00 $10,150.00 $6250.00 $9,120.00

* 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



111

111

The reported average cost per person per day on the Island remained consistent with the previous year at $166.81.

Table 22: Average daily expenditure per visitor

Total Visitors 12/13

(n=2179) 13/14

(n=2197) 14/15

(n=1249) 15/16

(n=1393)

16/17

(n=1826)

17/18

(n=1,626)

18/19

(n=1742)

Average $126.22 $276.81 $157.58 $178.14↑ $170.80 $175.03 $166.81

Standard Deviation* $142.18 $650.05 $209.36 $266.72 $168.60 $154.44 $250.24

Median^ $100.00 $175.00 $125.00 $131.70 $133.30 $130.00 $125.00

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

Min. $0.00 $1.25 $0.00 $7.14 $0.00 $0.36 $0.02

Max $4,800.00 $45,000.00 $5,216.67 $9500.00 $3,500.00 $2000.00 $6,000.00


(n=470) 13/14

(n=408) 14/15

(n=280) 15/16

(n=331)

16/17

(n=434)

17/18

(n=441)

18/19

(n=504)

Average $93.28 $189.39 $124.02 $132.52 $136.25 $130.92 $126.57


Median^ $74.80 $125.00 $100.00 $111.10 $114.70 $107.10 $104.20

Mode≠ 125.00 $100.00 $166.67 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00

Min. $4.17 $6.32 $15.00 $7.14 $2.00 $4.35 $0.08

Max 916.67 $2,500.00 $1,000.00 $916.67 $3,000.00 $1,200 $3,500.00


(n=983) 13/14

(n=818) 14/15

(n=588) 15/16

(n=600)

16/17

(n=857)

17/18

(n=871)

18/19

(n=793)

Average $129.55 $263.73 $159.49 $199.86↑ $178.43 $191.83 $187.92


Median^ $100.00 $178.60 $133.30 $140.00 $150.00 $150.00 $125.00

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

Min. $0.00 $1.25 $10.00 $12.50 $0.00 $0.36 $0.02

Max $1,333.33 $3,750.00 $2,500.00 $5,125.00 $3,500.00 $1875.00 $6000.00

International Visitors 12/13

(n=631) 13/14

(n=574) 14/15

(n=381) 15/16

(n=462)

16/17

(n=535)

17/18

(n=313)

18/19

(n=

Average $160.54 $415.89 $210.13 $202.36 $222.09 $210.27 $179.24

Standard Deviation* $226.81 $1,213.54 $422.75 $315.63 $271.33 $196.01 $220.23

Median^ $123.50 $270.00 $125.00 $150.00 $150.00 $166.70 $133.30

Mode≠ $150.00 $250.00 $125.00 $150.00 $125.00 $125.00 $100.00

Min. $0.83 $3.33 $0.00 $8.33 $0.00 $6.67 $0.17

Max $4,800.00 $45,000.00 $5,216.67 $9,500.00 $3,383.33 $2,000.00 $3040.00

* 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



112

112

Appendix B: VES Questionnaire


113

113


114

114


115

115


116

116

Colmar Brunton Social Research LEVEL 2, 199A RUNDLE STREET

ADELAIDE SA 5000

PH. (08) 8373 3822

ABN NO: 22 003 748 981

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 · 26/09/2019 · 6 Figure 24: Visitors who were very satisfied...

Documents

Transcript of : TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island · 26/09/2019 · 6 Figure 24: Visitors who were very satisfied...