ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF KAKADU NATIONAL PARK TO TOURISM … · 2018-10-29 · ECONOMIC...

00000 2007ReportCover_NoText 3/23/07 10:31 AM

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF KAKADU NATIONAL PARK TO TOURISM IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Pascal Tremblay


ii

Technical Reports The technical report series present data and its analysis, meta-studies and conceptual studies, and are considered to be of value to industry, government and researchers. Unlike the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre’s Monograph series, these reports have not been subjected to an external peer review process. As such, the scientific accuracy and merit of the research reported here is the responsibility of the authors, who should be contacted for clarification of any content. Author contact details are at the back of this report. Editors Prof Chris Cooper University of Queensland Editor-in-Chief Prof Terry De Lacy Sustainable Tourism CRC Chief Executive Prof Leo Jago Sustainable Tourism CRC Director of Research National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication Tremblay, Pascal. Economic contribution of Kakadu National Park to tourism in the Northern Territory. Bibliography. ISBN 9781920965198. 1. Tourism – Northern Territory. 2. Tourism – Northern Territory – Kakadu National Park – Economic aspects. I. Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism. II. Title. 338.479194295 Copyright © CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 2007 All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. Any enquiries should be directed to General Manager Communications & Industry Extension [[email protected]] or Publishing Manager [[email protected]].


iii

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT __________________________________________________________________________________ V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ______________________________________________________________________ V

SUMMARY__________________________________________________________________________________ VI

CHAPTER 1 TOURISM AND THE ECONOMIC VALUATION OF PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS __ 1 INTRODUCTION ______________________________________________________________________________ 1 OBJECTIVES OF THIS PROJECT ___________________________________________________________________ 1 METHODOLOGY ______________________________________________________________________________ 1

CHAPTER 2 ISSUES AFFECTING COMPARABILITY IN TOURISM ECONOMIC VALUATIONS ______ 4 INDIRECT AND INDUCED EFFECTS ________________________________________________________________ 4 ATTRIBUTION _______________________________________________________________________________ 5 REGION-SPACE OF REFERENCE __________________________________________________________________ 5

CHAPTER 3 EVALUATING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF TOURISM IN KAKADU NATIONAL PARK _ 7 STEPS FOR CALCULATION ______________________________________________________________________ 8

Calculation of average expenditures____________________________________________________________ 8 Calculation of average length of stay ___________________________________________________________ 9 Attribution factor__________________________________________________________________________ 10 Reasons associated with the natural environment of Kakadu National Park ____________________________ 11 Substitution factor_________________________________________________________________________ 13 Estimating the number of visitors _____________________________________________________________ 16 General calculations _______________________________________________________________________ 16 Application with visitor numbers _____________________________________________________________ 18

CHAPTER 4 THE EVOLUTION OF TOURISM ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH KNP _____________________________________________________________________________________ 21

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION ____________________________________________________________________ 27 ECONOMIC VALUE: PROTECTED AREAS AS PUBLIC SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO TOURISM ___________________ 28

CHAPTER 6 IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ______________________ 30

APPENDIX A: MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF KAKADU NATIONAL PARK USING THE HISTORICAL DATA FROM THE NORTHERN TERRITORY TRAVEL MONITOR (NTTM) ________ 32

APPENDIX B: KAKADU NATIONAL PARK VISITOR ECONOMIC SURVEY________________________ 48

APPENDIX C: DIFFERENCES IN VISITOR NUMBER ESTIMATES ________________________________ 81

APPENDIX D: ROBUSTNESS OF THE KAKADU NATIONAL PARK VISITOR ECONOMIC SURVEY __ 94

REFERENCES _______________________________________________________________________________ 98

AUTHOR___________________________________________________________________________________ 100


iv

List of Figures Figure 1: Month of receipt of survey data ____________________________________________________________ 3 Figure 2: Main reason for visiting Kakadu National Park _______________________________________________ 11 Figure 3: Relative importance of activities___________________________________________________________ 11 Figure 4: Activities undertaken in the Northern Territory _______________________________________________ 12 Figure 5: Activities undertaken in Kakadu National Park _______________________________________________ 12 Figure 6: Importance of Kakadu National Park in decision making________________________________________ 15 Figure 7: Alternative viewpoint ___________________________________________________________________ 16 Figure 8: Method 1 total _________________________________________________________________________ 21 Figure 9: Method 2 international __________________________________________________________________ 22 Figure 10: Method 2 interstate ____________________________________________________________________ 22 Figure 11: Method 2 intra-Territory ________________________________________________________________ 23 Figure 12: Relative contributions of origins segments to total expenditures _________________________________ 23 Figure 13: Relative contributions of origins segments to attributed expenditures _____________________________ 24 Figure 14: Relative contributions of origins segments to Top End final injections ____________________________ 24 Figure 15: Relative contributions of origins segments to Northern Territory final injections ____________________ 25 Figure 16: Comparisons between methods – total and attributed expenditures _______________________________ 25 Figure 17: Comparison between final contributions____________________________________________________ 26

List of Tables Table 1: Month of interview _______________________________________________________________________ 2 Table 2: Expenditures per person per day_____________________________________________________________ 8 Table 3: Expenditures per party per day______________________________________________________________ 9 Table 4: Visitor nights in Kakadu National Park _______________________________________________________ 9 Table 5: Attribution ratio ________________________________________________________________________ 13 Table 6: Attribution ratio – international ____________________________________________________________ 13 Table 7: Attribution ratio – interstate _______________________________________________________________ 13 Table 8: Attribution ratio – intra-Territory ___________________________________________________________ 13 Table 9: Substitution factors______________________________________________________________________ 14 Table 10: Substitution factors – Northern Territory perspective __________________________________________ 14 Table 11: Substitution factors – Top End perspective __________________________________________________ 15 Table 12: Number of visitors _____________________________________________________________________ 16 Table 13: Method 1 – Direct tourist expenditures using overall averages ___________________________________ 17 Table 14: Method 2 – Sub-group specific data________________________________________________________ 17 Table 15: Application of Method 1_________________________________________________________________ 19 Table 16: Application of Method 2 – Disaggregated application __________________________________________ 19 Table 17: Comparisons of results __________________________________________________________________ 20 Table 18: Substitution values _____________________________________________________________________ 28 Table 19: 2004 visitor figures_____________________________________________________________________ 28


v

ABSTRACT

This report undertakes an analysis of the economic contribution of Kakadu National Park derived solely from tourism expenditures in the Northern Territory (NT). The project utilises the methodology of Carlsen and Wood (2004) to estimate the value of Kakadu as a tourism driver to the sub-region, the broader Top End region and for the NT overall. Kakadu sub-region, region and NT visitor estimates for this project were derived using the NT Travel Monitor (NTTM) surveys; however, because the NTTM does not allow reliable estimates of visitor expenditure within a sub-region, a customised survey of visitors to Kakadu National Park was used to elicit this expenditure information. In addition to detailed information regarding expenditure, the survey also collected information regarding the motivation for visiting the destination. This customised survey, conducted over six months in 2004, is referred to throughout the report as the Kakadu National Park Visitor Economic Survey (KNPVES). The information collected from the KNPVES was extensively analysed and compared to the information collected from the NTTM surveys as a means of verifying the robustness of its sample respondents and the accuracy of resulting visitor expenditure estimates and profiles. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, an Australian Government initiative, funded this research. Funding was also provided by the Australian Department of Environment and Heritage, the Northern Territory Tourist Commission (now Tourism NT) and Kakadu National Park. The following persons provided assistance with this project:

• Ann Terry (CDU) Research assistance; in charge of KNPVES (2004); industry liaison and data entry; • Hope Rigby (CDU) Research assistance; • Alicia Boyle (CDU) Research assistance; • Jennifer Haydon and Sara Pitterle (CDU) Report preparation and editorial assistance; • Professor Jack Carlsen and Professor David Wood from Curtin University who provided commentary support

on the survey design, methodology and assistance with industry presentations, as well as preparation of the STCRC technical report; and

• Meryl Triggs from Parks Australia North, DEH, supported the project and provided access to data and previous reports.


vi

SUMMARY

This study evaluates the economic value of Kakadu National Park (KNP) based solely on the park’s worth as a tourism asset. This assessment is based on the park’s ability to motivate a visit and corresponding expenditure from interstate and overseas. In addition, the park’s ability to retain Territorians within the state for their holiday expenditure is also considered. The project makes use of the following sources of data on visitors and expenditure:

• Ten years of time series from the Northern Territory Travel Monitor (NTTM) visitor surveys, including both the Commercial Accommodation Survey (CAS) and Household Survey (HHS) components;

• A dedicated visitor economic survey, The Kakadu National Park Visitor Economic Survey (KNPVES), conducted in the second half of 2004; and

• The Carlsen and Wood (2004) approach to a) measuring direct tourist expenditures in and around protected areas, and b) assessing the attribution of these expenses to the existence of the park.

The study compares and blends these relatively rich information sources and undertakes a lengthy descriptive analysis of the data. It also tests a number of methods to evaluate the final tourism contribution of KNP and comments on the role of the park as an attraction for the Top End region.

Objectives of Study As noted above, while one objective of this project was to apply the Carlsen and Wood approach to estimating the economic value of protected areas to KNP, the project also provided a considerable amount of supplementary information about tourism in and around the park. The main objectives can be summarised as follows:

• Estimate the contribution of KNP to the region through tourism expenditures using the Carlsen and Wood (2004) approach;

• Compare and contrast the profile of visitors to the Kakadu sub-region of the Top End using both the NTTM data and the KNPVES data; and

• Provide a general picture of historical and current tourism markets within the sub-region and the broader Top End region of the NT.

Methodology The research plan was based on a combination of collecting information from visitors to KNP in 2004 specifically for this project (KPNVES) as well as leveraging the historical data available from the NTTM surveys. The methodology of the KPNVES and the NTTM are discussed in the main section of this report as well as in greater detail in Appendices B and C.

Key Findings The study found that reported visitor numbers (in particular those based on the KNP Bowali Visitor Center counter-based method) have been higher than sub-regional estimates originating from the NTTM. When comparing multiple data sources, it was found that all showed a declining trend in visitor numbers, as noted in previous studies. This study however showed:

• The proportions of holiday-pleasure visitors in the Top End that visited KNP has been fairly stable; • The decline has been with the international markets from 1998/9; and • This deterioration in visitor numbers may not be due to anything the park is or is not doing but rather be the

consequence of external factors, including restrictions in air access to the Top End. The NTTM visitor values (average for 1995-2004 and that of 2004) were used to establish the lower boundary of

visitation in KNP. The information derived from the NTTM and the 2004 KNPVES suggests that KNP ought to be considered as a major driver for tourists. This analysis suggests that KNP visitors appreciate the Park’s values and fundamental attributes in terms of a landscape that incorporates culture, nature, wilderness and wildlife as well as other important attributes.

Most visitors are however unlikely to rate KNP as the only protected area in which to undertake desired activities and the data shows that other protected areas in the Top End are considered to be complements to KNP visitation rather than substitutes. Thus, KNP visitors were found to be equally as likely to have visited Litchfield National Park and Nitmiluk National Park as were non-Kakadu visitors.

The application of the Carlsen and Wood (2004) methodology to determine the net contribution added to a region’s tourism because of the existence of KNP revealed that tourism generates significant revenue in both the Top End and NT regions, of a magnitude of around $58.1 million. Obviously, only a fraction of this expenditure can be attributed to the existence of KNP.

Applying the Carlsen and Wood attribution methodology to the survey results, suggests that a tourism contribution of approximately $15 million to the Top End region is due to the existence of KNP. This value, while conservative,


vii

represents a yearly additional financial injection in the region due purely to KNP, and authorities in charge of tourism in the sub-region would be justified to spend up to this amount to maintain the tourism assets within the park, as discussed in the report.

Future Action The value estimates derived in this report must be contrasted with KNP’s budgetary history, in particular by investigating the split between activities supported by past KNP budgets and the extent to which the latter support appropriate and sustainable tourism activity benefiting selected stakeholders. This would likely suggest some redirection of public funds towards the maintenance of tourism assets. Furthermore, the analysis suggests there is a need for enhanced coordination between the NT and the Director of National Parks to maintain tourism activities that contribute to the livelihoods of traditional owners of the park, preserve the heritage at the core of its attractiveness and provide net economic tourism injections on a regional scale.

Improvements in regional coordination are needed because KNP holds the key to the region’s iconic features and yet it is not in a position (in terms of its own aspirations, resources and budgets, leadership and organisational limitations) to do everything for all interested parties. It cannot be expected to preserve its vast natural and cultural assets (themselves incompletely understood and evolving), service highly differentiated tourist segments and lead the strategic development of tourism in the Top End. Coordination with other agencies could take the form of more in-depth regional tourism planning that would allow KNP to clearly identify the types of tourists and experiences it is willing and in a good position to deliver. This identification of target visitor segments would allow the design of facilities appropriate for icons located inside KNP and the development of complementary activities and attractions deemed not desirable within KNP boundaries but supported in its peripheral sub-regions.

This type of coordinated approach to development would need to be supported by greater levels of shared investments in tourism intelligence, including tourism trends monitoring and data infrastructure, but also extending towards building up the capacity to manage flexibly evolving niche market needs which are high-value but also can trigger infrastructure costs escalation. It is as imperative for KNP to find ways of enhancing its ability to deliver the natural and cultural experiences it promises (directly or indirectly) in its presentation and marketing, and to foster the ability to locally experiment with innovative product designs and joint business ventures involving locals while still retaining its ability to deal with the various threats directed at its landscape.

It is often perceived by outside commentators that the approach towards tourism in KNP has been akin to setting limits to acceptable change in the natural and cultural environment of KNP which are disproportionate to the scale of the threats to which it is subjected. While dealing with large-scale irreversible issues such as climate change, saline intrusion in the coastal regions, multiple weed species invasion and control of cane toads and feral species in specific sub-regions of KNP, the willingness to experiment with relatively small-scale business enterprises within KNP appears to have been excessively contested.

Dealing with tourism as a source of positive and negative impacts as much as a means of livelihood requires that it be seen as an imperfect learning process. This includes forms of learning in which protected areas have developed well-established tools (major infrastructure development and planning, natural impact assessment, wildlife-viewing facilities, general landscape interpretation, tourists flow management, etc.). It also involves other areas where knowledge development is more place-specific (cultural product development, participatory wildlife management, seasonal extension methods, tourist behaviour monitoring, etc.).

As knowledge about tourist markets needs to be renewed repeatedly, learning to operate sustainable tourism businesses and destinations involves learning to change and to develop evolving partnerships (Tremblay 2000). This can be in part addressed by coordinated investments in tourism intelligence. The latter is here interpreted broadly to include data acquisition and sharing efforts, as well as improved regional monitoring of tourist movements and expectations, and possibly even product design experimentation involving new forms of culture-sharing and interpretation.

The methodology developed by Carlsen and Wood has gone a fair way to address the question of how KNP-based tourism contributes economically to the broader Top End region and has shown that the protected area is a critical driver of regional tourism, although not necessarily the main beneficiary. In a region such as the Top End where tourism is dominated by natural and cultural assets scattered in an iconic and extensive landscape (symbolised by KNP) and where infrastructure maintenance costs are particularly high, it would make sense to better understand the differentiated roles played by various protected areas and how they contribute as a grouped asset to tourism. It would be beneficial to build a regional typology of protected areas, both for the sake of understanding their differentiated roles and coordinating their tourism competitive advantages.

This study of KNP constitutes the first step towards examining the role of protected areas in the NT within the tourism system and establishing where the park fits in a tourism and recreation spectrum context. From that viewpoint, the data found in this report has clearly established that KNP is the dominant Top End attraction and landscape. From a protected areas system viewpoint, KNP belongs to the primary strategic tier of iconic protected areas which deserve more tourism-specific attention and ought to attract greater systematic tourism-specific financing to support Kakadu and Top End regions’ livelihoods through appropriate and sustainable tourism.


viii


1

Chapter 1

TOURISM AND THE ECONOMIC VALUATION OF PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS

Introduction This report contains the primary findings of a comprehensive project undertaken in 2004 to determine the value of Kakadu National Park (KNP) exclusively in terms of tourism. A detailed report containing more marketing and visitor profile information was provided to KNP and Tourism NT (Tremblay & Carson 2006). Only relevant components of the visitor profile information are included in this report and its appendices, and the primary focus is on the economic findings with respect to the value of the park in terms of tourism. In addition, the report presents a detailed justification for the Carlsen and Woods model as it is applied to this protected area and used to determine the value of KNP.

Objectives of this Project The objectives of this project as previously noted were varied and included testing the Carlsen and Wood approach in a different context to the one used in their published work on protected areas in WA. In this project, the iconic KNP is believed to constitute a central driver for people choosing to come to not only the specific sub-region but to the Top End more generally. Therefore, the project sought a perspective on the value KNP visitors bring to Northern Territory (NT) overall, the broader region of the Top End and the Kakadu sub-region.

The project also sought to differentiate the economic value to the park of different types of visitors defined by their usual place of residence or other important trip attributes. In compiling these estimates, an attempt was made to integrate a large quantity of historical data from the NT Travel Monitor (NTTM) surveys with the data collected specifically for this project. This integration was done as a means of assessing the reliability and accuracy of the findings. As described in more detail later in this report, the comparison between the project specific data set (referred to as the Kakadu National Park Visitor Economic Survey (KNPVES)) and the historic data from both the NTTM and KNP visitor centre provided some interesting views on visitation to the park.

Another important project objective was to demonstrate the value of KNP not only to its key stakeholders but also to the broader region and the NT overall. A robust estimate of the value of the park was required to demonstrate the necessity of maintaining this asset through appropriate funding to ensure the continued flow of tourism receipts to the broader region. The importance of collating this economic information and making an informed and reliable estimate of the economic value is highlighted by the following quotation contained in Carlsen and Woods paper (2004):

The absence of systematic large-scale gathering of economic data from parks means that key parts of the economy are overlooked. The absence of adequate statistics causes an information blind spot; these natural places are valued, on a financial basis, at a zero price. This leads to excessive destruction of natural areas, implying that present economic performance in many countries will be reduced, and future economic performance will be severely curtailed. (Union 1998)

Methodology The KNPVES was undertaken specifically for this project and conducted for a six-month period between July 2004 and January 2005. The survey was designed for visitors to self-complete and leave at collection points within KNP or return by post to Charles Darwin University. In total nearly 10,000 surveys were distributed and 1,581 were received (response rate of 16%). The surveys design features were borrowed from two main sources:

• The Carlsen and Wood (2004) survey – as the source of the specification of the main components necessary for the economic evaluation of KNP, in particular the question items needed to assess visitor expenditures, attribution and substitution ratios; and

• The NTTM questions structure – as the source of the specification for demographics and relevant trip attributes which allows extensions, comparisons and validity checks as the visitation data (i.e. annual visitor estimates for the sub-region) originates from the NTTM.

Many of the categories found in the survey (activities, transport, party attributes, group membership, transport, motives, etc.) were coded so as to be compatible with the NTTM data and allow some comparisons between the two surveys. Given the constraints imposed by the timing of the survey and the time and cost limitations preventing the undertaking of an extensive all-year data collection, the following sampling methodology was endorsed, which fits with the Carlsen and Wood (2004) approach:

• The survey was undertaken from the late part of the high season through the late shoulder season, with a short extension in the beginning of the low season to capture behaviour from visitors across the different seasonal divisions;


2

• To maximise response rates and timely acquisition of data, a convenience sampling method was used, consisting of a mix of self-complete (either deposited in collection boxes around the park or sent with pre-paid envelope) and person-to-person interviews;

• Collection boxes were located in all main accommodation locations in KNP, including the three main caravan parks (which involve fees and where resident wardens are found) as well as the park gates;

• Personal interviews were undertaken at a mix of locations, including the iconic KNP attractions (Ubirr, Nourlangie, etc.), accommodation venues (some hotels and caravan parks, free campgrounds, etc.) and near park gates;

• Half way through the process, a preliminary examination of data was undertaken to assess the match between the profile of respondents in this survey and the traditional profile of KNP visitors according to NTTM data. This analysis revealed an under-representation of people on tours and a third distribution strategy through a mix of tour operators was added; and

• Objective for the sampling strategy was to mix respondents with respect to: o Geographical distribution within the park. o Proportions of respondents travelling independently and on tour. o Basic demographics: Origins (domestic versus international), accommodation type, travel party

composition. The survey commenced by requesting that the date of survey be inserted, however this field was not filled in all

instances. In the case of surveys that were returned by mail it was not possible to establish the exact date of survey. Some of the data included in Table 1 and Figure 1 below could therefore be categorised by date of receipt rather than date of survey. Technically, the month of September belongs to the high season quarter, but in terms of the attributes of KNP, it holds the characteristics of late high and shoulder seasons and provides a useful distribution of visitor profiles for the purposes of the KNPVES.

Table 1: Month of interview

Month of Interview Quarter Frequency %

July 16 1.0

August 348 22.0

September

3

876

1240

55.4

78.4

October 278 17.6

November 57 3.6

December

4

4

340

0.3

21.5

January 1 1 0.1

Valid Total 1580 99.9

Missing 1 0.1

Total 1581 100.0


3

Figure 1: Month of receipt of survey data

1

22

55.4

17.6

3.60.3 0.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

July August September October November December January

%


4

Chapter 2

ISSUES AFFECTING COMPARABILITY IN TOURISM ECONOMIC VALUATIONS

As suggested in Chapter 1, it is not possible to find a universal theoretical framework or set of principles applying to protected areas evaluation in the strict context of tourism. The brief overview of past studies which follows in this section is organised to be contrasted to the Carlsen and Wood (2004) approach. From a methodological viewpoint, the Carlsen and Wood (2004) approach strikes a good balance in explicitly taking into account the net economic contribution of a protected area through tourism and developing a methodology which recognises that this must be combined with imperfect data sources. This approach is suitable for the sake of evaluating the tourism contribution of KNP to specified regional economies, to compare it with other protected areas and with other tourism resources.

The results emerging from using the methodology do not lend themselves to simple or direct comparisons (of economic contributions) with studies of other parks where different approaches have been used. It is critical to recognise that several past studies in Australia and elsewhere with broadly similar outlooks (but potentially different objectives) can be found. It must also be stated that the economic values which have been calculated and propagated in the literature are deemed excessive in the context of the present methods. A succinct discussion of the major methodological differences found in these various approaches and their implications are provided below.

This review of the alternative economic valuation approaches provides a justification for the use of the Carlsen and Wood (2004) method in the context of economic valuation of protected areas with respect to tourism values from a comparative public finance perspective. In addition, the review provides a basic guide to differences between models, with a cautionary note about illegitimate comparisons with other studies using different methodological precepts. Before going forward, there are three core components that differentiate the reviewed models and these can be summarised as follows:

• Whether a study is focussed on direct expenditures only, or attempts to provide a picture of indirect and induced effects as well;

• How tourists expenditures are attributed – that is whether all expenses in a protected area are assumed to be the direct result of the existence of the park; and

• How the region-space (or jurisdiction) of reference is chosen, for the sake of measuring tourism impacts on a “region”.

Indirect and Induced Effects The established tradition in tourism economics studies is to examine the indirect impacts of any type of tourist injections on a geographically bounded regional economy. This accepted standard stems from long-standing attempts by economists to support the following claims:

• The desirability of tourist expenditures depends on their contribution in the broader economy, beyond direct spending into the traditional hospitality and transport sectors; and

• An appropriate assessment of tourism contributions requires a detailed examination of whether significant leakages exist in distinct regions which shrink the economic benefits from tourism.

The rationale for the inclusion of indirect and induced impacts when looking at a broad economy is well documented and arises from the perceived need to understand how various types of expenditures affect the economy, which tourist segments provide the greatest contributions to particular destinations and which destinations would most benefit from attracting particular tourist groups.

The usefulness of inter-sector or inter-industry methods for the purposes mentioned above is not questioned, but it must be made clear that these models were never devised to provide a systematic tool to evaluate alternatives. Cost-benefit analysis and its multiple complementary valuation tools remains the general framework under which public finance choices need to be addressed, and this might or might not incorporate considerations of indirect or inter-industry effects.

Studies that examine tourism economic impacts and provide values of direct, indirect and induced effects have great academic interest but their value is limited. It is clear that they often provide a picture of regional processes but are rarely used to undertake comparisons with the indirect and induced effects of alternative investment choices (Bellerose & Tremblay 1985). Also, given the heterogeneity of methods used to account for indirect and induced impacts, the excessive data requirements and the confounding effect of subtle technical differences on results, approaches involving indirect and induced impacts are costly and imprecise. They can often blur the picture rather than clarify it.

In this context, the Carlsen and Wood (2004) model advances a practical approach focussing strictly on direct visitor expenditures and does not include debatable indirect calculations requiring costly computations. The resulting values that the Carlsen and Wood (2004) model produces can be considered “conservative” in not including indirect and


5

induced impacts. Other approaches, by construction, place the emphasis on supplementary rounds of economic flows (however reliable and up-to-date the model), while they are basically fed by the same (usually rudimentary) type of direct tourists’ expenditures data. For the sake of public finance analysis involving comparisons with alternative investments for a government, the direct expenditures approach is more straightforward and open to scrutiny.

Attribution Another dimension critical in differentiating between approaches and reports on the economic contribution of parks through tourism is the method used to assess and assign tourists’ expenditures to the presence or existence of selected protected areas. A large number of the studies reviewed for this project were satisfied with taking the total expenditures in the park as the direct contribution of that protected area without querying what and where tourists would have spent their money if the parks’ activities and facilities had not been available; in other words, these earlier studies simply assumed that these expenditures constituted net contributions. Some past research produced large and most likely exaggerated estimates because tourists’ presence (and expenditures) in and around a park are not necessarily caused by the existence of the analysed area and might equally well have been spent on alternative local attractions. Not attempting to establish the role of the park in that sense disregards fundamental opportunity cost and benefit principles that need to support such analysis.

It is conceivable that for some tourists the park: • Was incidental to their main itinerary and they would have been equally satisfied with spending on

accommodation, transport, food and incidentals in a nearby facility without the park being there; • Was valuable, but there are a number of local substitutes (public parks or private attractions) which could have

provided the same services and played the same role in the current trip; or • Could have been an important reason justifying a detour (presence in a region), possibly an extended stay in the

region or could even have been the main rationale for being in the broad destination in the first place. If data is available, economic theory suggests that the opportunity contribution of the park is the value-surplus

created in contrast to the best alternative scenario associated with a situation where the park does not exist. The comments above suggest that, ideally, the attribution process ought to query visitors’ motives to be in a location and assess the fit of the park in the travellers’ overall plan and possibly the importance of the protected area in the decision to visit the region.

The methodology supported by Carlsen and Wood (2004) tries to ensure this is done. It is conservative and safe in trying to attribute to the protected area a justifiable but reasonable proportion of the total expenditures associated with the park. To do so, Carlsen and Wood (2004) developed two criteria to address that specific issue, referred to as attribution factor and substitution factor. In comparative terms to other studies where the issue is altogether avoided, this constitutes a relatively sophisticated assessment of the genuine role of the protected area to tourists’ spending in a selected region by evaluating:

• The match between the visitors’ interests and the activities offered by the protected area; and • A self-assessment by the respondents as to the importance of that area in the decision to visit the region.

Region-Space of Reference Another issue which can create distortions and misinterpretations is the reference domain, space or jurisdiction for which economic calculations are made. This problem occurs universally when cost-benefit evaluations are undertaken and in the present case is intertwined with the discussion about attribution factors. The difficulty originates from the vagueness associated with the interpretation of the “region” being analysed and occurs for two inter-related reasons.

The fact that the substitution factor assesses the relative importance of the protected area to the presence in the “region” creates some complications. As the relative size, diversity and prominence of the region in the travel itinerary impacts on the substitution factor, its delimitation is significant. It is clear for instance that the relative importance of KNP (for identified KNP visitors) in choosing to visit Australia, the NT, the Top End of the NT region, or the Kakadu region itself increases relatively as the region of reference narrows. Furthermore it is unclear whether all survey respondents had sufficient ability and knowledge to clearly differentiate these regions and had a clear role in choosing their final itinerary.

Given the public finance nature of the economic assessment, the reference audience also matters on political grounds. Public finance decisions reflect the perspective of an authority in charge of supplying mixed public and merit goods. Assuming that the funding agency in charge of a protected area is also responsible for economic welfare and employment in the relevant region (as in Carlsen & Wood 2004), the viewpoint of interest is likely to be in general the jurisdiction of that agency. Yet, for comparative and analytical purposes, the contribution of a protected area to a sub-regional economy might equally be of interest and the interpretation and implications between two similar exercises – but for differing geographical spaces – could vary considerably.

These considerations are important and can explain seemingly dissimilar results found across studies. They suggest that one must be careful while comparing protected areas located centrally or remotely, and of varying size (and


6

featuring differing degrees of landscape diversity) as these could produce different degrees and types of economic benefits which need to be interpreted in the appropriate context.

Another consideration is the difference between evaluating a single protected area rather than a parks system. It is worth considering the possibility that, from the respondents’ viewpoint, it might be difficult to isolate the attraction power of individual parks against that of a region encompassing many, possibly similar protected areas. The presence of substitutes significantly affects the interpretation (and comparability) of the results directed at various protected areas. A relatively lonely park (in the sense of being without close and immediate substitutes geographically or in terms of landscape equivalent) is likely to produce much larger “attributable benefits” in a given region than a hypothetical similar protected area surrounded by equally attractive parks (in an otherwise comparable region). From a tourism economic contribution viewpoint, a simple interpretation would be to suggest that the former park deserves more support but in reality a park agency would need to consider the spatial, economic and cognitive (for the tourists) connections between the various parks.


7

Chapter 3

EVALUATING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF TOURISM IN KAKADU NATIONAL PARK

For a number of philosophical and practical reasons discussed above, the general method used to estimate the economic value of tourism in KNP emulates that applied by Carlsen and Wood (2004) to protected areas in Western Australia (2004). The methodology they used is described in detail in their report and it integrates principles of justifiable attribution with data reliability pragmatism. They essentially use visitor expenditures data to estimate the average expenditure per visitor per day for the regions of interest. This is combined with secondary data on annual visitation and average length of stay by visitors to a region to produce annual expenditure of all tourists in a region.

As discussed, the focus of that approach is on the spending contributions of tourists which can be directly attributed with the existence of the “park asset”. It deliberately puts aside considerations of economic linkages associated with inter-industry connections (or other more sophisticated equilibrium models) which would differentiate between types of expenditures according to their pervasiveness in the system. The latter in general assumes vast amounts of prior knowledge about flow-on effects of tourists’ expenditure and requires thorough supply-side investigation of regional economic flows. It is deemed more useful to direct the spotlight towards the role a tourism asset such as a park plays in attracting tourists in a region and the opportunity costs and opportunity benefits it provides to the tourists – as measured by their spending. While no prominence is given to whether (how, when, why and how much) the monetary contributions are retained in the region, there is a genuine emphasis on ascribing appropriate degrees of connection between the resource (a “park”), its use (“tourism”) and the role it plays as a driver in the visitor experience. For that reason, the methodology places the stress on substitution and attribution factors which provide a quantitative assessment of the centrality and potential substitutability of that resource which is hypothesised to have played a role in attracting the tourists and making them spend money in its surroundings.

In a way, these factors constitute proxies in the process of establishing the share of consumer surplus the region has been able to extract from tourist spending due directly and exclusively to the presence of the park as an economic asset (in the context of tourism only – it is clear that other uses and values exist). These figures are by necessity imperfect and involve subjective and negotiated estimations, which were admittedly designed to be conservative in the Carlsen and Wood report. A tourism asset might play a greater role than that associated with direct expenditures, have values other than recreational (including educational, social, cultural and other) and could play an indirect role in branding the region altogether, aspects which will be discussed below because they are relevant to KNP. In all cases, the estimate provided by the present method is closer to a lower boundary of potential contribution through tourism rather than an upper boundary.

Although the general approach is endorsed and replicated (and the substitution and attribution factors deemed central to the exercise), a number of differences in the context of KNP create further opportunities for refinement of the method and distinct applications. In particular, the role played by this specific park for tourism in the Top End as different from its contribution to the NT tourism economies can be examined. Also, contextual disparities with respect to the prior data available about the park and about tourists in the region call for extensions and development of a distinct set of tools to assess the economic contribution of KNP.

The following general differences are worth noting (and will be discussed in more detail throughout the analysis): • The survey itself was more detailed because:

o including further questions competed as potential indicators of attribution and substitution; o sample size was relatively large, allowing for adjustments in estimates (for instance adjusting seasonal

mixes between international and domestic visitors); o many questions, value labels and measurements were replicated from the NTTM so as to maintain

comparability of the KNP survey with the broader NTTM and assess the representativeness of its sample. This allowed for further adjustments away from working with overall averages, with calculations becoming possible for distinct and significant visitor groupings.

• While the concept of “regions” might have had a clearer meaning in the WA case studies, the role of KNP as an icon in the NT creates further difficulties:

o it becomes imperative to distinguish the economic contribution of tourism in KNP to the Kakadu region, the Top End and the Northern Territory, as these have different implications and are hypothesised to both differ and matter from a political viewpoint.

o there are good reasons to believe that the term “Kakadu” holds value for the tourism industry that goes far beyond the direct contribution of KNP measured through their expenditures to the region. This has been the subject of much speculation and it is probably reasonable to argue that KNP as a brand affects


8

different tourist types quite differently. The latent and intangible value associated with this brand name cannot be measured or assessed within the present methodology, but its implications need consideration.

• The availability of the NTTM historical collection provides an opportunity to integrate valuable (and otherwise difficult to obtain) information about past visitation patterns around KNP throughout seasons, and by origins and modes of travel. It also provides partially comparable data about expenditures. The evaluation of substitution between attractions (particularly parks) within regions and sub-regions is also particularly valuable as it allows establishing the centrality of KNP by distinct visitor groups.

The approach described below therefore follows the broad steps depicted in the WA study, while highlighting the differences between methods which arose from the different context. Adjustments with respect to assessing seasonal variations in expenditures, length of stay and type of tourists will be featured.

Steps for Calculation

Calculation of average expenditures The following basic data was extracted from the response file of the KNPVES. It reflects the total expenditure per person per day as per responses in the KNPVES. It must be reiterated that the following adjustments were made to the data to keep it within reasonable limits:

• Cases were examined for outliers in each separate expenditure category. All suspicious responses led to the elimination of the case;

• Cases were examined for outliers for the total expenditures and for length of stay in the park and treated the same way as above;

• Whenever a respondent provided an answer in terms of both expenditures for the last 24 hours and expenditures for the whole trip, the average (adjusted on a “per day” basis) was used in the calculation. Otherwise, the 24 hours or the total trip/days in KNP adj. were used;

• Expenditures considered (and referred to in the survey) were “within KNP, as well as on the way there between Darwin and/or Katherine and the park” which are directly associated with the trip there. Ideally, one would want to capture transport and food and beverage expenditures on the way to the park, but not necessarily attractions visited along the way. For day-trippers (in and back to a major centre), this implies including all expenditures associated with the whole one-day trip from Darwin (or Katherine), which is reasonable as there is little time left for supplementary activities on the way to the park. For all other travellers, the expenditures incurred on the day before the first night and the day after the last night were included, on top of all days spent entirely within KNP; and

• Response rates for questions related to expenditures are always lower than for other questions and the strategy of having two ways of asking for expenditure information (for the last 24 hours and for the whole trip within KNP) aimed at making it easier for respondents who would prefer to frame and consider it differently. For instance, self-drive travellers might have a more accurate idea of the last 24 hours. Some visitors just entering the park for the first time would be tempted to forecast their expenditures for the next few days and might under- or over-estimate their spending opportunities. Other visitors on self-contained tours might find it easier to report the total cost to them over a few days (see Table 2).

Table 2: Expenditures per person per day

Total (across categories) Total expenditures by person

Mean 134.45

N 530 Interstate

Std. Dev. 167.3

Mean 116.93

N 429 Overseas

Std. Dev. 123.77

Mean 115.56

N 52 Intra-Territory

Std. Dev. 150.07

Mean 126.04

N 1011 Total

Std. Dev. 149.56


9

The following table represents expenditures per day for the whole party. It should be noted that the original question asks directly for expenditures for the whole travel party (which most respondents find easier to relate to). The figure per person was calculated and shown for exposition purposes and adjusted with data about the actual party size. These steps are not controversial.

Table 3: Expenditures per party per day

Total (across categories)

Total expenditures by party

Mean 309.45

N 530 Interstate

Std. Dev. 342.07

Mean 260.66

N 429 Overseas

Std. Dev. 282.03

Mean 282.03

N 52 Intra-Territory

Std. Dev. 276.34

Mean 287.34

N 1011 Total

Std. Dev. 313.79

Calculation of average length of stay The estimated length of stay in the park plays a critical role in the estimation of expenditures by various types of visitors. The data varies in reliability depending on the timing of survey, as the correct time spent in the park is known only by those on tours or nearing the completion of their stay. Table 4 shows plausible values reflecting the shorter stay of overseas travellers and the longer visits of interstate tourists often sojourning in caravan parks and adjusting their stay according to circumstances. The short stay of Territorians in the park itself reflects in part week-enders as well as the behaviour of transit travellers visiting Oenpelli and other parts of Arnhem Land (particularly in August as discussed earlier).

Table 4: Visitor nights in Kakadu National Park

Mean N Std. Dev.

Interstate 3.16 780 3.93

Overseas 2.45 660 1.67

Intra-Territory 1.77 78 1.24

Total 2.78 1518 3.07


10

Attribution factor Carlsen and Wood (2004) use a range of motivational, behavioural and importance variables from the surveys to estimate the attribution factor. They argue that, by identifying the proportion of visitors that select relevant attributes of the park (for instance ‘natural environments’ – national parks, natural environments, natural attractions, are some of the items used for the Southern Forest region of WA) as their main purpose, it is possible to undertake a first cataloguing of those tourists who had a close affinity to that asset. They acknowledge that this method is somewhat rudimentary in approach, but argue that, in the absence of accurate and reliable data on the attribution of individual tourist expenditure to specific protected areas, it provides a useful estimate which has been tested in other studies including those in the national parks of Canada by Eagles, MacLean and Stabler (2000) and in the public estate of northern New South Wales (Australia) by Carlsen (1997).

One of the difficulties in examining visitor profiles and trying to establish and measure the compatibility between visitor interests and what an asset such as a park has to offer lies in the unavoidable limitations imposed by supply-side limitations on consumer choices. Typically, observations about activities undertaken by tourists in an area reflect availability rather than abstract preferences. This is why Carlsen and Wood (2004) decided to design a question which focuses on “reasons” that have an immediate impact on visitors’ decisions to include the studied region in their itinerary:

Please indicate the reasons why you originally decided to come to this region on your holiday. Tick one or more reasons and prioritise them in order of importance to you with ‘1’ being most important

It is acknowledged that the approach above is preferred to one that would only examine the activities undertaken by tourists while in the park; but problems remain:

• Even with the above phrasing, respondents remain influenced by the constraints and might identify activities which they believe are connected with the place. If their motives have little to do with activities or environmental features, this is unlikely to be captured and most valid answers will match by default the expected set of activities linked with a given location.

• While this was not a major problem with the WA study, it remains important that a significant proportion of visitors in a specific region can be on tours and that they themselves take a minimal active role in the choice of activities and/or have had little prior knowledge of why a place could be of interest. This is more important for KNP visitors and it might well be the case that many tourists just wanted to be there for its own sake, possibly due to the existence of the brand name – that is to say they “have been” to Kakadu. In a way, it could be argued that in such cases the park should hypothetically attract full attribution and that activities are not necessarily an important aspect of the reason to be there. This is an interesting consideration but not something that can be easily verified.

• There is also an issue of regional embeddedness. Many tourists visiting a sub-region see it as an indiscernible component of a broader region and would not be in a position to identify the potential activities associated with the former and the latter. This is in part addressed by the “substitution factor” question (discussed below), but the latter still assumes that visitors can discern between regions in terms of their portfolio of activities. From a theoretical viewpoint, the question of whether visitors choose a place on the basis of its activities or pick the place and get involved in what they consider appropriate activities remains convoluted for tourist motivation theorising. Tourists might well visit KNP because they envision themselves camping near tropical waterfalls and doing very little – a common image used broadly in the marketing of the Top End. It seems reasonable to argue that many tourists relate to such images and that some visitors experience it and some don’t. Whether the activities they connect with the place are adequate does not really affect the importance the park played in bringing them to the Top End and the role KNP played in attracting them. But their answers to the questions found in this type of survey – and the resulting attribution rate – might be arbitrary to a certain extent.

The KNP survey included a question (Q18) very similar to that of Carlsen and Wood (2004), referring directly to the decision to visit KNP and mentioning activities which are available within the park (as well as an “other” category). Given KNP’s status as an iconic drawcard to the region, it is useful to contrast the values elicited through the main attribution factor question with the detailed activities profile obtained both during the NT holiday in general and within the park. These were queried through:

• A broad question (Q20) referring to the importance (measured on a Likert scale) of a broader number of activities for their holiday in the NT (so not specifically to KNP); and

• Another question (Q21) verifying which activities respondents have effectively undertaken in KNP and in the NT or that they were intending to undertake during this trip.

Together, these indicators provide a broader set of possibilities to determine the true attribution factor – but at the cost of greater complexity and probably an element of subjectivity. Their main role is to establish whether respondents are consistent in their assessments. The Carlsen and Wood (2004) approach places the focus on the natural environments found in the park. In the case of KNP, the cultural dimensions of the people inhabiting or associated with the park are also critical to many visitors. The breadth of activities included in the relevant list includes cultural visits as they can hardly be disassociated from the environment that is meaningful to many tourists.


11

Reasons associated with the natural environment of Kakadu National Park Figure 2 reproduces the overall scores obtained for the question probing for the main reason to be in KNP.

Figure 2: Main reason for visiting Kakadu National Park

It is clear that four main factors that would naturally be associated with the “natural environment” of KNP are those which attracted the highest scoring:

• Seeing wildlife; • Scenery; • Aboriginal art/culture; and • Natural environment.

When aggregating results, it appears that the marginal differences between domestic and overseas visitors do not affect the overall importance of these four. Not surprisingly, overseas visitors are more inclined to mention wildlife while domestic travellers rate the scenery higher on average than foreigners. The intra-Territory market contrasts more but is less important quantitatively as well as for the purposes of this exercise. Territorians are more likely than interstate visitors to travel to KNP for specific purposes such as bushwalking, fishing, camping and swimming. This being noted, they nevertheless rate the four environmental factors highly overall (with the exception of bushwalking being relatively more important for them). It is possible to assess the soundness of these elements by examining the other indicators available in the survey. Figure 3 reproduces the scores for the importance of activities in the NT trip overall.

Figure 3: Relative importance of activities

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

aboriginal art/culture

bushwalking fishing swimming camping scenery seeing wildlife naturalenvironment

InterState Overseas IntraTerritory Total

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Other w

ildlife

view

ing

Crocod

ile w

atchin

g

Aborig

inal A

rt/Cult

ure

Boat c

ruise

s

Other a

rt/culu

tre/hi

storic

sites

Bush w

alking

Bird

watchin

g

Guided

tour

with A

borig

inal g

uides

Campin

g

Swimming

Bush/s

afari t

ours

4WDing

Bush f

ood t

astin

g

Scenic

fligh

ts

Fishing

InterstateOverseasIntra-TerritoryTotal


12

It stems from these results that wildlife and Indigenous culture related activities were considered among the most important by all travellers included in the sample, irrespective of whether these were going to be experienced within the boundaries of KNP. This supports the validity of those four elements as coinciding with the KNP environment and being prominently and distinctively associated with the region. In terms of the activities actually undertaken in the NT by visitors from different origins, the pattern is somewhat different (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Activities undertaken in the Northern Territory

While wildlife viewing and Indigenous culture factors retain their importance, other activities such as swimming, bushwalking (interpreted vaguely), boat cruises and camping feature extensively in the list of what respondents have actually done because of supply-side considerations – opportunities to undertake these, limited number of alternatives in some locations or simple complementariness between them (for instance “boat cruises” can be a means to exercise “wildlife viewing” or enjoying the landscape rather than an activity sought after on its own).

Activities undertaken while in KNP (as opposed to “in the NT”) do not differ excessively from the list above – except perhaps in terms of the relative increased importance of “bushwalking” among the overall choice (which foreigners and some domestic travellers are likely to interpret as any walk in the bush – however short). The main categories remain distinctly stronger than other activities which seem more incidental (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Activities undertaken in Kakadu National Park

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Bush w

alking

Aborig

inal a

rt/cult

ure

Swimming

Other w

idlife

view

ing

Birdwatc

hing

Crocod

ile w

atchin

g

other

art/cu

lture/

histor

ic sit

es

Campin

g

Boat c

ruise

s

4WDing

Bush/s

afari t

ours

Guided

tour

with A

borig

inal g

uides

Fishin

g

Bush f

ood t

astin

g

Scenic

fligh

ts

%

Interstate

Overseas

Intra-Territory

Total

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Aborig

inal a

rt/cult

ure

Other w

idlife

view

ing

Bush w

alking

Crocod

ile w

atchin

g

Birdwatc

hing

Boat c

ruise

s

Campin

g

Swimming

other

art/cu

lture/

histor

ic sit

es

4WDing

Bush/s

afari t

ours

Guided

tour

with A

borig

inal g

uides

Bush f

ood t

astin

g

Scenic

fligh

ts

Fishing

%

Interstate

Overseas

Intra-Territory

Total


13

The above analysis suggests there are no significant inconsistencies between the declared motivations of respondents, the general array of activities that interest them in the NT and what they have done in KNP. It is therefore possible to proceed with the results of Question 18 to calculate an attribution rate. For the sake of choosing the attribution ratio, the following rules were used:

• Out of those respondents who properly ranked their three main reasons, examine the proportion that choose any of the four as their number one choice;

• Out of those respondents who picked three reasons but did not rank them, examine the proportion that choose two out of three reasons belonging to that main group of four; and

• Combine results to establish attribution.

Table 5: Attribution ratio

Group – all respondents

Weight = number of cases Rate

Proper ranking 966 93.5%

No ranking 528 80.1%

Weighed value 1494 88.8%

This result is within the expected range (see Carlsen & Wood 2004) and it is conservative to the extent that those respondents who did not fit the two categories above (ticked only one or two reasons) chose one or two of the four selected reasons in even greater proportion. It is possible to establish separate attribution rates for the origins-based sub-groups by applying the same procedure to each. It is easy to observe the greater attribution for international and interstate visitors relative to that of Territorians. This implies a greater match between the former’s intended activities and what KNP has to offer.

Table 6: Attribution ratio – international

Group – International





Table 7: Attribution ratio – interstate

Group – Interstate





Table 8: Attribution ratio – intra-Territory

Group – Intra-Territory



No ranking 15 53.6%


Substitution factor In the Carlsen and Wood (2004) approach, the substitution value occurs when Western Australian residents would have substituted an interstate or international trip for their intrastate holiday. It also occurs when interstate and international visitors choose to holiday in Western Australia in preference to another state or country. The latter can be ascribed to the opportunity of visiting Western Australian national parks, marine parks and forest areas. The substitution value is estimated by apportioning the value of direct tourism expenditure that would otherwise have not occurred if the park


14

examined did not exist. Accordingly, to identify the substitution factor, Carlsen and Wood (2004) devised a scenario question investigating the likely holiday destination choice of respondents if the park did not exist.

From the above description, it is clear that Carlsen and Wood (2004) took the perspective of WA in assessing the contribution of specific protected areas to tourism expenditures – and this fits the viewpoint of the WA Treasury, which participated in the process. The choice of the jurisdiction relevant for the evaluation depends on the issues of interest justifying the study. In the case of KNP, it is useful to consider both the contribution of the park to tourism expenditures in the NT and to the Top End region, which is particularly closely associated with this iconic attraction. The design from Carlsen and Wood (2004) has therefore been slightly extended in the KNPVES survey to allow consideration for both levels of analysis (Table 9).

Table 9: Substitution factors

If the activities or natural environments found in Kakadu National Park did NOT exist… Interstate Overseas Intra-

Territory Total

Travel to the Kakadu region anyway 247 145 26 418

% 31.7 22.6 37.7 28.0

Travel to the Top End but not in Kakadu region 358 226 29 613

% 45.9 35.2 42.0 41.1

Travel elsewhere in the NT but not in Top End 82 134 3 219

% 10.5 20.9 4.3 14.7

Travel to another Australian state 77 117 6 200

% 9.9 18.2 8.7 13.4

Travel to another country 12 18 1 31

% 1.5 2.8 1.4 2.1

Stay at home, not travel 4 2 4 10

% 0.5 0.3 5.8 0.7

From this data, it emerges that the substitution factor for KNP from a whole-of-NT point of view is:

Table 10: Substitution factors – Northern Territory perspective

Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

Travel to another Australian state 9.9 18.2 8.7 13.4

Travel to another country 1.5 2.8 1.4 2.1

Stay at home, not travel 0.5 0.3 5.8 0.7

FACTOR = 11.9 21.3 15.9 16.2%

The average figure of 16.2% is plausible. It compares well with the figures of 9.2% for the south-west forest of WA

and 18.5% for the Gascoyne Coast region in the Carlsen and Wood (2004) report. The factor is expected to reflect the relative importance of the park to the whole of tourism in the region and the scarcity of substitutes.

With respect to the importance for the Top End, the substitution factor is higher by construction as it includes the proportion of visitors who would not have come to the Top End but travelled elsewhere in the NT. Given the importance of Uluru in explaining overall visitation to the NT, the values in Table 11 are also plausible.


15

Table 11: Substitution factors – Top End perspective


Travel elsewhere in the NT but not in Top End 10.5 20.9 4.3 14.7

Travel to another Australian state 9.9 18.2 8.7 13.4

Travel to another country 1.5 2.8 1.4 2.1

Stay at home, not travel 0.5 0.3 5.8 0.7

FACTOR = 22.4 42.2 20.3 30.9% Differences between interstate and overseas visitors are also worth noting. Interstate visitors feature lower

substitution rates in general because: • A larger proportion is visiting the NT or Top End for reasons other than holidays; • They are more likely to be aware of regional substitutes and therefore less likely to associate their presence in

the Top End or NT directly and uniquely to the visit of KNP; and • They are more likely to have visited the region in the past (or intend to revisit in the future) than overseas

visitors (shown empirically with Question 24) and might therefore deliberately intend to broaden the set of landscapes and natural environments they want to experience beyond that of the icons. In other words, some of them might be re-visiting KNP, but it does not feature as critically in their decision to be in the Top End or NT as it would for once-in-a-lifetime travellers.

Given the possibility of significant differences between visitor groups with respect to expenditures, these differences in substitution rates need to be considered. Because of the assumed critical role of KNP in attracting tourists and the large amount of controversy in tourism circles about this question, a number of supplementary indicators discussed were used in an attempt to validate the reliability of this measurement. Respondents were asked to evaluate the importance of KNP in their own decisions to visit certain regions with a five-point Likert importance scale. The results are reproduced in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Importance of Kakadu National Park in decision making

This data supports in absolute terms the general results obtained from the question analysed previously, in that respondents attach a very high score to KNP in terms of its importance in explaining their presence in the region, and the differences between scores for the decision to visit the Top End and to visit the NT varied in the right direction.

But slight differences emerge with respect to the qualitative differences between groups. The only surprise is that overseas visitors rated the importance of KNP in their visits (both to the Top End and to the NT) lower than interstate travellers. A possible explanation is the higher propensity of overseas visitors to travel with tour groups. Some might

InterstateOverseas

Total

This visit to the NT

This visit to the Top End region

This visit to the Jabiru/Kakadu region

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

Scor

e (o

ut o

f 5)


16

have felt that they were not really deciding where in the Top End or the NT they would end up going and chose not to respond that KNP was necessarily the most important factor on its own – yet argued that they would not have been there in the first place if the park did not exist. Another possibility is that those interstate respondents from KNP (as opposed to those interstate travellers who ignore or possibly avoid it) are aware of some of the negative attitudes found among some NT tourists and react by expressing their own favourable views towards KNP quite strongly.

A last question was designed to provide an alternative viewpoint on the same issue. It asked respondents how they believed KNP would score in attracting visitors to the region, from their impressions or personal knowledge. The results are featured in Figure 7. Interestingly in this case, visitors from within the NT gave the highest score on average indicating they believe it is important for tourists in general. In all cases, the score is quite high and the differences are exaggerated in the graphical representations.

4.20 4.25 4.30 4.35 4.40 4.45 4.50 4.55 4.60

Interstate

Overseas

Intra-Territory

Total

Figure 7: Alternative viewpoint

Estimating the number of visitors While visitor numbers play a critical role in the study, the model used in this report can easily be applied to any visitor figures set for the sake of testing various scenarios. The calculations use the average KNP visitor figures over the period 1995-2004 (as provided by the NTTM) for the sake of establishing its mean estimate of the yearly contribution of KNP through tourism in that decade. Extracting that data is not controversial but a number of checks and balances were applied to test the robustness of these estimates. These are discussed in detail in Appendices C and D of this report.

Table 12: Number of visitors

Origin Number

Intra-Territory 42713

Interstate 68013

International 54950

Total 165676

General calculations The visitor data is merged with the economic value information obtained from the KNPVES and used to calculate the tourism value of KNP to the Top End and to the Northern Territory using the Carlsen and Wood (2004) approach. Two basic calculation procedures are undertaken:

• One using overall averages applying to all visitors (as in Carlsen & Wood 2004); and • One using distinct averages for the three main groups of visitors (Intra-Territory, interstate and international)

followed by aggregation. Also the approach is first described as a function of the number of visitors so as to provide a view of the impacts of

attributions and substitution, irrespective of the relative size of the total number of visitors (or of the relative size of


17

each group in the second procedure). The same calculation will be applied to a specific set of visitor numbers originating from the NTTM. The first, general method is straightforward (Table 13).

Table 13: Method 1 – Direct tourist expenditures using overall averages

Kakadu National Park

Average expenditure per day per person $126.04

Overnight visitors (Χ) Χ visitors

Average length of stay 2.78 days

Total direct expenditure ($million) $(350.39)*Χ

Attribution factor (%) 88%

Attribution of visitor expenditure ($million) $(308.34)*Χ

For Northern Territory For Top End

Substitution factor (%) 16.2% 30.9%

$(49.95)*Χ $(95.28)*Χ

Table 13 describes the Carlsen and Wood (2004) approach. It provides a clear and simple statement of the rationale

of the procedure, and can easily be applied to any “X” number of visitors. The roles of attribution and substitution ratios appear clearly. The second approach entails combining distinct information for each of the three main contributing origin groups. All the values needed have been provided in this chapter for each of the three groups. Sample size and reliability tests indicate sufficient consistency (within group) to make the exercise worthwhile; the only group slightly less dependable was the intra-Territory travellers due to smaller sample size and distinct attributes. The procedure is applied in Table 14 international visitors, interstate visitors and intra-Territory visitors in turn. The same method is used in each instance, with values (for all critical variables and visitor numbers) specific to each category.

Table 14: Method 2 – Sub-group specific data

International visitors only – group 1


Overnight visitors (Χ1) Χ1 visitors


Total direct expenditure ($million) $(286.48)*Χ1

Attribution factor (%) 91.6%

Attribution of visitor expenditure ($million) $(262.41)*Χ1



$(55.89)*Χ1 $(110.74)*Χ1


18

Interstate visitors only – group 2









$(55.96)*Χ2 $(105.34)*Χ2

Intra-Territory visitors only – group 3









$(22.80)*Χ3 $(29.11)*Χ3

The method shows how the different groups contribute differently to the Top End and NT economies. While interstate visitors display greater expenditures per person and longer average stay in/around KNP, international visitors exhibit considerably larger substitution factors and slightly larger attribution factors. Interestingly, after adjustments, their contributions per person to the NT economy are of similar magnitude.

With respect to the Top End, international visitors contribute significantly more per person than interstate travellers, because of their relatively greater substitution factors on that scale. This can be related back to the greater propensity of international respondents to state that they would not have visited the Top End (if KNP did not exist) than other groups. This confirms that a greater proportion of their expenditures are directly ascribable to KNP, rather than potential substitutes.

Application with visitor numbers The two methods are now applied to a specific data set to establish plausible estimates for the value of KNP tourism. The chosen dataset for this exercise is the average yearly visitation for 1995-2004, the period documented by the NTTM. It is clear that it could be applied easily to any alternative data set, for a specific year or even for the sake of speculating about the economic impact of changes in total visitor numbers or changes in the origin mix.

The application of Method 1 (Table 15) is again straight forward, using the mean of yearly total number of visitors, mean length of stay and expenditures as well as average attribution and substitution factors.


19

Table 15: Application of Method 1

Kakadu National Park


Overnight visitors (average 1995-2004) 165,676 visitors


Total direct expenditure ($million) $58.1m


Attribution of visitor expenditure ($million) $51.1m



$8.28m $15.79m

The values appearing above are comparable in magnitude to those obtained by Carlsen and Wood (2004) in their WA examples. The application of Method 2 is similar (Table 16), and involves first performing the three sets of calculations to different group sizes, originating from the NTTM.

Table 16: Application of Method 2 – Disaggregated application

International visitors only


Overnight visitors (international) 54950


Total direct expenditure ($million) $15.74


Attribution of visitor expenditure ($million) $14.42



Final contributions for international visitors ($million) $3.07m $6.09m

Interstate visitors only


Overnight visitors (interstate) 68013






20



Final contributions for interstate visitors ($million) $3.81m $7.16m

Intra-Territory visitors only


Overnight visitors (Intra-Territory) 42713







Final contributions for intra-Territory visitors ($million) $0.97m $1.24m

Further information is gathered in this process. When visitation data is integrated, the relative importance of each

group is affected. Using the 1995-2004 average visitation data, the tables above provide a plausible and conservative estimate of the economic contribution of tourism during an average year in that period. As the patterns of KNP visitations in terms of market mix, length of stay, and expenditures change, results will vary on a yearly basis.

The application above shows again how the different groups contribute differently to the Top End and NT economies, this time taking into account their relative importance through varying market sizes. While the interstate market was slightly less significant “per person” (in the previous section), its importance is now re-established by its greater relative contribution through tourists numbers.

While small, the contribution of Territorians remains significant, especially in terms of their contributions to the Top End, with many of the respondents signalling they would have gone elsewhere (than the Top End) if KNP had not been part of their potential destinations set.

Once specific visitor numbers are included in the calculations, it also becomes possible to compare the two methods directly. Table 17 examines the differences between the results from the table with the overall averages (as in Carlsen & Wood 2004) and the second one in which sub-group results can be added.

Table 17: Comparisons of results

Comparisons ($m) International Interstate Intra-Territory Merged – Method 2 Method 1

Total expenditure 15.74 35.94 8.74 60.42 58.10

Attributed expenditure 14.42 31.98 6.12 52.53 51.10 Retained for Northern Territory 3.07 3.81 0.97 7.85 8.28

Retained for Top End 6.09 7.16 1.24 14.49 15.79 The results show that the more detailed (and arguably more accurate) Method 2 provides smaller overall

contributions, suggesting that in the case of KNP, simple averages provide an overestimate of around 9.0% for the Top End and 5.5% for the NT. The extent of the difference between methods depends upon the patterns of differences between substitution ratios attribution ratios, and the other critical variables, in particular the group visitor numbers. In the present case, following the approach argued by Carlsen and Wood (2004), the disaggregated results (the merged column) should a priori be preferred as they provide the most conservative estimate of the direct-marginal contribution of tourism in KNP to the NT and the Top End.


21

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$ Total expenditures

Attributed expenditures

Contribution to NT

Contribution to Top End

Chapter 4

THE EVOLUTION OF TOURISM ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH KNP

The previous chapter applied the Carlsen and Wood (2004) model to average visitation values for the years 1995-2004, which provides a sense of the average contribution of KNP to the Top End and NT economies through tourism. This chapter uses year-by-year calculations using the same model but with distinct yearly visitation statistics. This is valuable to the extent that it allows one to:

• Compare the evolution of total, attributed and final-adjusted contributions through time; • Compare the same time series for each origin sub-market; • Examine the relative contributions of these sub-markets to each type of time series; and • Compare the two methods over the years with respect to the total, attributed and final adjusted contributions.

It must be noted that while the visitation statistics from the NTTM vary (including changes in the mix of each origin sub-market), the available core economic variables that make up the model (length of stay in KNP, expenditures, party size the attribution and substitution factors) remain the same throughout the period and are based on the data from the KNPVES 2004 study. This might or might not have a significant impact on the reliability of the exercise. All that can be asserted from the existing data is that the match with the 2004 data is probably the most accurate and accuracy may deteriorate as one moves backward in time towards 1995. The first set of data displayed in Figure 8 features the changing total expenditures, attributed expenditures, Top End contributions and NT contributions over the 10-year period using the crude Method 1.

Figure 8: Method 1 total

Some significant variations which parallel changes in visitation to KNP are clearly indicated. The gap between time series sometimes varies slightly, reflecting changes in the market mix. In the next three figures, Method 2 has been used to generate similar but market-specific data. The international visitors’ contribution is displayed first (Figure 9).

The relatively small gap between total and attributed expenditures in the time series signals that the international market is characterised by a relatively large attribution factor, in contrast to the remaining groups featured below. For that group, 2001 was high performing year and a dramatic decrease took place in 2002, following world and national events.


22

Figure 9: Method 2 international

The data for interstate visitors (Figure 10) shows that, despite significantly varying total and attributed expenditures for that market, the contributions of interstate visitors to the NT and Top End economies have been fairly steady, with a serious decline in 1997 and a significant recovery in 2004.

Figure 10: Method 2 interstate

The relative contribution of Territorians as a market is relatively smaller, and has been declining overall (Figure 11). This data is by nature less reliable but the relative contribution is probably consistent with prior knowledge of that market. The relatively small gap between the NT and Top End contributions signals the lesser difference between substitution rates for both regional spheres. In other words, there were significantly less Territorians (relative to other origin groups) suggesting that if KNP did not exist, they would have travelled elsewhere in the NT but not the Top End.

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$

Total expenditures

Attributed expenditures

Contribution to NT Contribution to Top End

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

50,000,000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

$

Total expenditures Attributed expenditures Contribution to NT Contribution to Top End


23

Figure 11: Method 2 intra-Territory

The next set of figures (Figures 12-15) display (in the form of market-segmented bar charts) the four time series in a way which makes it easy to compare the relative contributions of those markets to each.

Figure 12: Relative contributions of origins segments to total expenditures

0

3,000,000

6,000,000

9,000,000

12,000,000

15,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$

Total expenditures Attributed expenditures Contribution to NT Contribution to Top End

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$

Intra-Territory Interstate

International


24

Figure 13: Relative contributions of origins segments to attributed expenditures

Figure 14: Relative contributions of origins segments to Top End final injections

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$

Intra-Territory Interstate International

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$

Intra-Territory InterstateInternational


25

Figure 15: Relative contributions of origins segments to Northern Territory final injections

When examining Figures 12-15 sequentially, it becomes clear that, while interstate visitors dominate the total expenditures over the years, their relative contributions to attributed expenditures and eventually to final injections in the NT and the Top End decrease relative to that of overseas visitors. This reflects the larger attribution and substitution factors of international visitors. The decrease in international visitation in the recent years (against increases in interstate visitation should be of concern as the mix could make KNP and the Top End and NT tourism economies vulnerable to interstate variations to a certain extent and the costs of managing these markets might become a concern.

The last exercise undertaken with the time series consists of a dynamic comparison between methods. Methods 1 and 2 (the latter being the total of international, interstate and intra-Territory time series) are compared across time (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Comparisons between methods – total and attributed expenditures

The figures above show that the relative gap between the methods changes with the relative mix/importance of the origin sub-markets. It also shows that the relationship between the two methods is not systematic and that in some

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$

Intra-Territory InterstateInternational

40,000,000

45,000,000

50,000,000

55,000,000

60,000,000

65,000,000

70,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$

Method 2 total

Method 2 attributed

Method 1 total

Method 1 attributed


26

years, either method might provide a larger estimate than the other. This depends on the specific characteristics of the market of importance.

The values of greater importance are those associated with the final contributions to Top End and NT regions. While the gaps between methods also vary according to market mix, it becomes clear that Method 1 consistently overestimates final contributions relative to Method 2. The remarkably small gap in the final years of 2003 and 2004 cannot be explained by any simple factor. In fact, 2003 and 2004 are relatively different from each other in terms of market mix but the final figures meet closely (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Comparison between final contributions

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

20,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$

M2 NT contribution

M2 Top End contribution

M1 NT contribution

M1 Top End contribution


27

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

It is important to reiterate that the estimates discussed so far provide a lower boundary for the direct and non-substitutable contribution of KNP to tourism in the Top End and NT. The value for the Top End is larger in the sense that the region would lose at least $14 million if KNP did not exist but the NT would lose less ($7.93 million), as some visitors would spend time and money elsewhere in the NT instead. The approach is consistent with crude cost-benefit analysis general principles and methodology in that it assesses economic assets in terms of their marginal opportunity costs and benefits and provides a basis for resources allocation. It suggests that tourism-related assets (potentially controlled by a number of relevant parties, mixing private and public interests) contribute to public welfare in ways that can be compared for the sake of assessing needs for re-investment.

But it is clear that KNP contributes more in absolute terms: • Total expenditures associated directly with it (this was made evident in the calculations methodology); • Indirect and induced monetary flows (the methodology deliberately ignored such aspects for reasons discussed

above); and • Marketing impacts on the tourist region.

The first two items are explicitly defended and endorsed in the method devised by Carlsen and Wood (2004) for the sake of developing public interest statements about such assets. The third item is important in a different context, beyond economic accounting and more within the realm of strategic economic development. It is of particular relevance to KNP (perhaps more than in the regions examined in Carlsen and Wood (2004)) and its iconic status and justifies further discussion.

For arguments’ sake, it could be argued that KNP plays a greater role in bringing tourists to the Top End of Australia than what is measured by the CBA-like methodology adapted from Carlsen and Wood (2004). This arises because the latter cannot evaluate the marginal (opportunity) value associated with the branding of the broader region which emanates from the existence of the park, its features, activities and status. While reputation and brand assets are well-recognised, significant resources that play critical roles in tourism-led economic development, they are typically difficult to document, evaluate and control.

Part of the difficulties reside with the intangible nature of such brand assets, the shared ownership of the assets (usually involving private and public sector potential beneficiaries, and in KNP’s case Indigenous communities with small or large investments in tourism as such) and the shared and incomplete contributions to maintaining or further investing in that reputation. As it is particularly difficult to measure the contribution and information or awareness values of KNP’s reputation (as a place) and brand (as a commercial tourism venture) for those who visit that region (but might or might not go to the park), this type of consideration is usually ignored. While the method used was deliberately conservative, it might considerably under-evaluate the park’s contribution to overall destination awareness and visitation. This chapter does not intend to undertake a full discussion of the implications of such intricate issues but to provide an overall suggestion of some existing evidence that the estimates provided constitute lower boundaries and that KNP might well justify more credit. This includes such facts as:

• The alleged and highly credible dependence of the Darwin and Top End tourism industries on KNP as a major focus and attraction. Claims originating from industry itself abound and have political implications for the Indigenous communities owning the park and the authorities managing it. For instance, the claims that Darwin suffers from its inability to retain many visitor segments using it as a transit point towards KNP point at a much greater role of KNP in bringing tourists in the NT, in particular in the Top End.

• The overwhelming domination (in Top End marketing) of images, landscapes and experiences originating from (or typical of) KNP can be easily established.

• The important media presence in scientific, community, social and cultural reports, as well as for entertainment associated with KNP (although this is now broadening to other regions such as Arnhem Land and the Kimberley Region).

• The importance of the World Heritage status of KNP is ambiguous, as it is much less publicised and used politically (in contrast to Tasmania’s comparable World Heritage Area role in tourism and politics).

• The fact that in the past, much has been made of the impact of seasonal closures of attractions and accommodation facilities within KNP on the Top End tourism industry at large.

• The sometimes inadequate use of the term “Kakadu” to describe products, attractions, tours and places not really within the geographical boundaries of the KNP or on the traditional space occupied by the Gagadju people. Examples (such as the AMWAY convention which took place in 2002 – and was located south of Adelaide River township and which presented itself as a dream meeting in Kakadu – which was quite distant from it, with an optional two-day stay in the actual park), obviously seen as an attractive label.


28

• The proclamation in the April/May special edition of Australian Traveller magazine that Kakadu National Park was heading the list of 100 Things to Do in Australia Before You Die.

From an economics viewpoint, the argument can be made that the image or brand investment in “Kakadu the place”, the iconic landscape, the park, the World Heritage area and its people are a shared quasi-public good whose benefits (and need for reinvestments) have not been thought through. KNP as such manages various aspects of that place, but does not control (deliberately) many of its marketing assets. While the argument that there are important positive spill-overs for the Top End region is easily made, it is unclear how responsibilities with respect to managing the Kakadu brand investment should be attributed and who should claim the costs and benefits associated with it. It might well then be argued that the investment in that brand originates from many parties other than KNP (the park or its owners) and that it is itself a shared asset.

While the above considerations matter for the future strategic development of the tourism industry in the Top End, it is probably simpler to consider that the current opportunity benefits measured with the Carlsen and Wood (2004) method constitute the direct net contribution of KNP to regional tourism, and leave the discussion about region-wide externalities to a different level of debate.

Economic Value: Protected Areas as Public Sector Contributions to Tourism As discussed, the objective of providing a monetary estimate of the contribution of KNP to tourism in the regional economy is based on a large number of assumptions and methodological choices that need careful scrutiny if they are to be considered credible for those in charge of public funding decisions. This section briefly overviews the findings of this application to KNP and situates them within the appropriate context.

The approach adopted in this report and supported by Carlsen and Wood (2004) implicitly establishes a link between the net contribution added to a region’s tourism due to the existence of a protected area and its funding needs, justified for the sake of maintaining the value of its assets. Irrespective of the status of KNP, the application of this methodology finds that tourism generates significant revenue in both the Top End and NT regions, of a magnitude of around $58.1 million (using the basic Carlsen and Wood (2004) method) or $60.42 million (using the modified split-origins method). As only a fraction of this expenditure is attributable to the existence of KNP and its natural and cultural components, it was necessary to estimate an attribution factor using a range of motivational, behavioural and importance variables. For KNP, it was found that the attribution factor was estimated to be 88% (in the basic method), that is, about $51.1 million of direct tourist expenditure is attributable to the park’s natural and cultural landscape. This is considered a lower bound estimate of the value of KNP’s environment to the visitors expressing their motivations to visit the region in terms of a series of possible attributes.

The methodology also provides an estimate of the amount of “new” tourist expenditure generated from interstate and overseas visitors as well as the level of expenditure retained in the state when intra-Territory visitors holiday in and around the Top End and the NT. This substitution factor is estimated using a scenario question to identify the alternative tourist destination choices if KNP did not exist. Whilst the limitations of scenario and projections are acknowledged, this does provide an estimate of the amount of new or retained tourist expenditure attributable purely to KNP. The calculated substitution values originating from various scenarios are shown in Table 18.

Table 18: Substitution values

Method Data for 1995-2004 average

Basic Split/Aggregated Substitution value of for Northern Territory $8.28m $7.85m

Retained for Top End $15.79m $14.49m

There are a number of distinct features relating to the context of KNP which call for some supplementary comments to interpret these values and triggered the development of methodological extensions to the Carlsen and Wood (2004) approach. The values calculated above apply for the average visitor numbers during the period 1995-2004 originating from the NTTM. An alternative and equally valid indicator for the present is provided by the year 2004 visitor figures (the NTTM being discontinued in the course of 2005) (Table 19).

Table 19: 2004 visitor figures

Method Data for 2004 only

Basic Split/Aggregated

Substitution value of for Northern Territory $7.79m $7.85m

Retained for Top End $14.87m $14.62m


29

It shows that 2004 was a fairly typical year and that overall the data suggests a tourism contribution of around $8 million to the NT and $15 million to the Top End for KNP. In interpreting these figures, the following comments and implications need to be made:

• In the context of KNP, it is believed that the contribution to the Top End region is more relevant on political grounds and $15 million is the more meaningful value for policy-makers and industry alike. As was elaborated in the previous section, KNP is recognised and considered as a core component of the Top End product, and is administratively and organisationally closely connected with that region’s tourism sector. The reduction in values observed when the NT is considered is less pertinent to the present analysis and mainly reflects the fact that a large proportion of visitors would have visited Uluru and the Alice Springs region, not that the latter are substitutes to KNP. There are good grounds to suggest that the decision to spend time in the Centre is for many visitors largely independent from that of travelling to the Top End (and vice versa) and that the time spent in the Centre is not markedly affected by their stay in the Top End. In other words, the tourism industrial context and the mechanics of substitution calculation make the Top End the region of greatest relevance for the analysis of KNP.

• The value calculated remains conservative in the sense of Carlsen and Wood (2004) and represents a yearly additional financial injection in the region due purely to KNP that contributes positively to the regional economy. Authorities in charge of tourism in that region would be justified to spend up to this amount to maintain that tourism asset on the grounds explored in this report, especially if there were concerns that the asset was deteriorating. Furthermore, arguments could be made (in a more subjective manner) to argue that KNP accounts for even more of the attractiveness of the Top End region through the branding that has been created around it and its iconic natural and cultural landscapes.

• As KNP holds other values, it is clear that further funding could also be politically justified to sustain different purposes. For instance, the existence value of the KNP environment in an agreed level of “natural” state (including acceptable nature and cultural attributes) could justify much greater funding, but its assessment requires an altogether different methodology. The preservation of KNP’s assets and heritage, irrespective of tourism, could call for further funding on completely different grounds not explored in the present study. The issue could become quite complex once it is recognised that the preservation of natural and cultural assets constitutes, at the end of the day, the chief attractiveness of the protected area.

All these comments were made in the context of a public sector perspective on KNP, which does not reflect the political, social and cultural reality of KNP. Two important considerations need to be restated:

• KNP is jointly managed by its traditional owners and the Australian Government through the Kakadu Board of Management and the Director of National Parks. Approximately half of the park is Aboriginal land and the remainder is under claim. The traditional owners have leased their land to the Director of National Parks for a national park. The park’s primary aims are to protect and conserve natural and cultural heritage values and serve the interests of the traditional owners. The view of some is that tourism has grown faster than is desirable for these objectives and without sufficient traditional owner involvement.

• Much tourism management, marketing and planning in the Top End is supported by the NT government through the NTTC. The importance of tourism regionally is recognised by the NT and it is the jurisdictional level most intent in ensuring its regional sustainability. This situation has led to a recognised disconnection between the investments made by the NTTC and those from DEH with respect to the positioning of KNP in terms of tourism development and marketing in general.

It is possible that cross-jurisdictional complexities have hindered the tourism potential of KNP to fully develop (in scope as much as in depth), and that less than optimal efforts have been directed towards developing this potential. In theory, the relevant public purses (potentially with private interests from inside and outside the park) would be justified to have re-invested up to $15 million yearly to maintain this asset, in a number of forms ranging from tourism-dedicated infrastructure, facilities, product development and marketing. If the objective had been to accelerate growth, further funding could even have been beneficial, if it could be demonstrated that it resulted in net added injections in the local economy.

It is not within the scope of this report to examine the financial context of past and present KNP and NTTC budgets, nor to determine where the responsibility lies for the upkeep of KNP as a tourism asset, as it is shared by a number of stakeholders and perceptions about these roles change. But it must be noted that bureaucratic coordination failures could well partly be blamed for having prevented KNP from being funded adequately to reach its full tourism potential. In the context described above, “full tourism potential” does not necessarily entail accelerating growth of tourist numbers, or even of expenditures per se. It has been mentioned that excessive tourists presence has been discouraged by some traditional owners and park authorities, especially if these groups do not feel they control the terms of its development nor obtain the spectrum of benefits associated with it. The necessary funding for tourism benefits to be maintained (by the NT and Australian Governments) in the present context could instead include activities supporting acceptable or appropriate product development of interest to traditional owners, measures to foster genuine entrepreneurship and retaining economic flows in the region, instruments to deal with seasonality and innovative forms of joint marketing supporting cultural sensitivities, training in tourism and hospitality, ecologically sustainable facilities and designs, and greater investments in tourism research and planning.


30

Chapter 6

IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

It is clear that the usefulness of the present exercise and its method lies in its ability to suggest funding implications. The figures derived in the present exercise must be contrasted with KNP’s budgetary history, in particular by investigating the split between activities supported by past KNP budgets and the extent to which the latter support appropriate and sustainable tourism activity benefiting selected stakeholders. This would likely suggest some redirection of public funds towards the maintenance of tourism assets and a need for enhanced coordination between the NT and the Director of National Parks to maintain tourism activities that contribute to the livelihoods of traditional owners of the park, preserve the heritage at the core of its attractiveness and provide net economic tourism injections on a regional scale.

The improvements in regional coordination are needed because KNP holds the key to the region’s iconic attraction features and yet is not in a position (in terms of its own aspirations, resources and budgets, leadership and organisational limitations) to do everything for everyone. It cannot be expected to preserve its vast natural and cultural assets (themselves incompletely understood and evolving), service highly differentiated tourist segments and lead the strategic development of tourism in the Top End. Coordination with other agencies could take the form of more in-depth regional tourism planning that would allow KNP to clearly identify the types of tourists and experiences it is willing and in a good position to deliver. That would allow the design of facilities appropriate for icons located inside KNP and the development of complementary activities and attractions deemed not desirable within KNP boundaries but supported in its peripheral sub-regions.

This would in turn need to be supported by greater levels of shared investments in tourism intelligence, including tourism trends monitoring and data infrastructure, but also extending towards building up the capacity to manage flexibly evolving niche market needs which are high-value but also can trigger infrastructure cost escalation. It is imperative for KNP to find ways of increasing its ability to deliver the natural and cultural experiences it promises (directly or indirectly) in its presentation and marketing, and to foster the ability to experiment locally with innovative product designs and joint business ventures involving locals while still retaining its ability to deal with the various threats its landscape is subjected to. It is often perceived by outside commentators that the approach towards tourism in KNP has been akin to setting limits to acceptable change in the natural and cultural environment of KNP which are disproportionate to the scale of the threats to which it is subjected. While dealing with large-scale irreversible issues such as climate change, saline intrusion in the coastal regions, multiple weed species invasion and control of cane toads and feral species in specific sub-regions of KNP, the willingness to experiment with relatively small-scale enterprises within KNP has been inadequate.

Dealing with tourism as a source of positive and negative impacts as much as a means of livelihood requires that it be seen as a learning process. This learning includes areas in which protected areas have developed well-established tools (major infrastructure development and planning, natural impact assessment, wildlife viewing facilities, general landscape interpretation, tourists flow management, etc.) and it can call on other areas where knowledge is place-specific (cultural product development, participatory wildlife management, seasonal extension methods, tourist behaviour monitoring, etc.). It is important to invest in experimentation with tourism, as tourist movements are not static and learning about tourism involves learning to change.

This can be in part addressed by coordinated investments in tourism intelligence. The latter is here interpreted broadly to include data acquisition and sharing efforts as well as improved regional monitoring of tourist movements and expectations, and possibly even product design experimentation involving new forms of culture-sharing and interpretation. With respect to the specific examination of tourists’ behaviour and characteristics, it is particularly important to retain the means to coordinate and compare local data (say, KNP specific) with that of surrounding regions, to understand the relationships between KNP as an attractor, and tourists’ activities and travels in and out of KNP to improve the use of Top End resources, and better understand the connections between investments in attractions, infrastructure and marketing on a regional scale.

The methodology developed by Carlsen and Wood (2004) has gone a fair way to addressing the question of how KNP-based tourism contributes economically to the broader Top End region, and has shown that the protected area is a critical driver of regional tourism, if not the main beneficiary.

In a region such as the Top End where tourism is dominated by natural and cultural assets scattered in an extensive landscape (symbolised by KNP) and where infrastructure maintenance costs are particularly high, it would make sense to understand the differentiated roles played by various protected areas and how they contribute as a grouped asset to tourism. This would allow building a regional typology of protected areas, and would ultimately suggest differentiated tools to monitor their tourism contributions, and the best way to allocate tourism-specific investments across the system. This study of KNP constitutes the first step towards examining the role of protected areas in the NT within the tourism system and establishing where it fits in a tourism and recreation spectrum context. From that viewpoint, this report has


31

clearly established that KNP is the dominant Top End attraction and landscape and that it belongs to a first strategic tier of iconic protected areas deserving much tourism-specific attention and financing for the sake of supporting appropriate and sustainable tourism.


32

APPENDIX A: MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF KAKADU NATIONAL PARK USING THE HISTORICAL DATA FROM THE NORTHERN TERRITORY TRAVEL MONITOR (NTTM)

Introduction The main report to Parks Australia North and Tourism NT (Tremblay & Carson 2006) provided an extensive overview the Northern Territory Travel Monitor (NTTM) data for the period 1995-2004. The overview focused particularly on visitor activity, including visitor numbers, visitor nights, modes of transport, motives, accommodation utilised and activities in the Kakadu sub-region (Sub-region 12). The analysis was based on merging together information from the Commercial Accommodation Survey (CAS) and the Household Survey (HHS) components of the NTTM.

The estimation of visitors to Kakadu sub-region using this survey data used a methodology developed by ACNielsen for the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, now Tourism NT. This approach provides reliable estimates of visitation to a region and was extended to provide the necessary sub-region estimates so that the visitor number data from Kakadu National Park could be compared with the more widely used visitor estimates from the NTTM. It should be noted that sub-regional estimates were not published from the NTTM surveys prior to this work being undertaken for Kakadu National Park.

Also, while Sub-region 12 is referred to as “Kakadu”, the sub-regional boundaries do go beyond the national park. The sub-region includes the Mary River area (east of Adelaide River) where tourism has grown with the development of some new types of tourism products, including houseboats. However, as the NTTM methodology relies entirely on having spent at least one night in the sub-region to be included as a visitor and there are few accommodation suppliers in the Mary River area, the impact of the outer region being included was deemed to have an insignificant impact on visitor estimates.

While the NTTM was developed to provide estimates on a regional level, the method used to extend these estimates to a sub-regional level was deemed reliable (as far as the NTTM is reliable) for the assessment of visitor numbers and nights. However, it is not sufficiently robust due to small samples and high variability in expenditure responses to be useful for expenditure calculations on a sub-regional scale. For this reason, the Kakadu National Park Visitor Economic Survey (KNPVES) (2004) was undertaken.

Because the NTTM was used to provide visitor numbers and nights which were then used as part of the economic valuation estimates described in the main body of this report, a more thorough description of those estimates are provided for those interested in understanding this data in more detail.

NTTM Visitation Data The descriptive analysis found here relies on aggregated estimates originating from the CAS and HHS datasets to provide an overall picture of tourists in Kakadu. Sub-regional estimates of visits to that sub-region and their duration (in terms of number of nights) were produced specifically to establish total visitation. The methodology therefore allows reasonable statistics about visitors and visitor nights (the best source available at this point in time) to be contrasted with a number of basic travel attributes. As there have been difficulties associated with expenditures figures in the past, the dedicated KNPVES has been used to produce the expenditures analysis in the main body of this report.

Total visitors The number of visitors to Kakadu per year has fluctuated between 1995 and 2004 (Figure 1A). Total visitation seems to have been significantly affected by global events. For instance, the decline in 2001 coincided with September 11 and the low reached in September 2003 coincides with the SARS epidemic. Although there was a slight recovery in total visitor numbers in 2004, numbers have not yet returned to the peak level achieved in 2000, which might have been connected with the Sydney Olympics.

Figure 1A: Total visitors per year

0

2 0 ,0 0 0

4 0 ,0 0 0

6 0 ,0 0 0

8 0 ,0 0 0

1 0 0 ,0 0 0

1 2 0 ,0 0 0

1 4 0 ,0 0 0

1 6 0 ,0 0 0

1 8 0 ,0 0 0

2 0 0 ,0 0 0

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4

y e a r

visi

tors


33

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Jan-M

ar95

Jul-S

ep95

Jan-M

ar96

Jul-S

ep96

Jan-M

ar97

Jul-S

ep97

Jan-M

ar98

Jul-S

ep98

Jan-M

ar99

Jul-S

ep99

Jan-M

ar00

Jul-S

ep00

Jan-M

ar01

Jul-S

ep01

Jan-M

ar02

Jul-S

ep02

Jan-M

ar03

Jul-S

ep03

Jan-M

ar04

Jul-S

ep04

quarter

visi

tors

Late shoulder season High season Low season Early shoulder season

Figure 2A: Total visitors per quarter

The yearly fluctuations are replicated in the quarterly results. Most years follow the same pattern typical to Top End tourism. It is noticeable that the larger component of yearly fluctuations is generally clearly established in the high season peak – except for the year 1996 when a decline in the early shoulder season was accompanied by relatively good performance during the peak. Figure 2A shows the evolving relative contribution (expressed in % of yearly visits) of each quarter to the yearly total visitor numbers according to the NTTM – and therefore does not reflect absolute numbers.

Total visitor nights Visitor nights per year follow similar yearly trends to total visitors (Figure 3A). An exception to this occurred in 2002 when the number of visitor nights increased from 2001 whereas the total number of visitors decreased. It would seem that although visitor numbers had decreased that year, there were significant market changes and/or those who did visit the KNP region were taking advantage of competitive pricing during the post September 11 period to extend their duration of stay. This fits with the observation that more domestic visitors came to the region, with many of the visitors driving and caravanning.

Figure 3A: Visitor nights per year

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

year

visi

tor-

nigh

ts


34

When examined on a quarterly basis, visitor nights display similar fluctuations to those observed for total visitors (Figure 4A). However, in this instance the variations in the October to December quarters exceeded those in the peak season quarters of July to September. Once again the lowest October to December results occurred in 2001 and 2003, with the late shoulder high having been reached back in 1996.

Figure 4A: Visitor nights per quarter

Despite the minor variations noted above, the data reveals that visitor nights per quarter correlates fairly consistently with the total number of visitors. It is useful to examine the implied average length of stay (calculated from the ratio of total nights to total visitors) by quarter-years.

Visitors to KNP by origin Table 1A and Figure 5A show the number of visitors from 1995-2004 by origin. Not surprisingly there was a significant drop in the number of international visitors in 2002 and 2004, following September 11 and SARS in 2001 and 2003 respectively. Other periods of decline (from 1995-1997 or from 1998-1999) are more difficult to explain and cannot be associated with a single cause.

Table 1A: Visitors to Kakadu per year by origin

Year Intra-territory Interstate International Total

1995 60,943 70,951 53,005 184,900

1996 47,852 81,621 43,505 172,977

1997 51,891 49,292 56,833 158,016

1998 38,613 71,107 58,134 167,854

1999 33,046 65,102 64,219 162,367

2000 63,141 71,616 63,027 197,784

2001 38,790 59,693 74,119 172,602

2002 43,103 60,420 47,415 150,938

2003 23,243 59,315 50,729 133,286

2004 26,511 91,013 38,511 156,035

Coinciding with the decrease in the number of international visitors in 2002 is a corresponding increase in the number of intra-Territory visitors. This could indicate that local marketing campaigns to counteract the downturn in international visitation played a role. The data also shows a significant increase in the number of intra-Territory visitors

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Jan-M

ar95

Jul-S

ep95

Jan-M

ar96

Jul-S

ep96

Jan-M

ar97

Jul-S

ep97

Jan-M

ar98

Jul-S

ep98

Jan-M

ar99

Jul-S

ep99

Jan-M

ar00

Jul-S

ep00

Jan-M

ar01

Jul-S

ep01

Jan-M

ar02

Jul-S

ep02

Jan-M

ar03

Jul-S

ep03

Jan-M

ar04

Jul-S

ep04

quarter

visi

tor-

nigh

ts

Late shoulder season Early shoulder season High season Low season


35

between 1999 and 2000, coinciding with a period during which international visitation was stable. Noticeably, the number of intra-Territory visitors dropped significantly in 2003 and 2004.

Figure 5A: Visitors to Kakadu per year by origin

Since 1995, interstate visitation has fluctuated, with a strong peak in 1996 followed by a sudden dip in 1997, eventually resulting in 2000 figures on par with those experienced in 1995. After a slight reduction in numbers in 2001-2003, the number of interstate visitors hit an all-time high in 2004. It is difficult to establish the role played by organised travel (and bookings in commercial accommodation and tours) in the fact that this seems to be synchronised with the time when the number of international visitors hit rock bottom.

In terms of total visitor numbers, the best results were achieved in 2000 after a significant dip in the intervening years between 1995 and 2000. However, the 2004 figures represented a 21% decline as compared to the year 2000. Figure 5A clearly shows the fluctuations that have occurred in each sector at various historical stages. These stages are clearly linked to global events and domestic marketing campaigns.

In Figure 6A it can be clearly seen that interstate visitors display more extreme seasonality. It is often the case in the NT that the timing of the visits of international independent travellers is influenced by the onset of cold weather in other states. International visitors also display significant seasonal patterns, and they have in general had a greater impact on the late shoulder season of October to December. Intra-Territory travellers on the other hand play a relatively greater role in the early shoulder months of April to June.

Figure 6A: Visitors to Kakadu per quarter by origin

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

year

visi

tors

Intra-Territory Inter-State International

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Jan-M

ar95

Jul-S

ep95

Jan-M

ar96

Jul-S

ep96

Jan-M

ar97

Jul-S

ep97

Jan-M

ar98

Jul-S

ep98

Jan-M

ar99

Jul-S

ep99

Jan-M

ar00

Jul-S

ep00

Jan-M

ar01

Jul-S

ep01

Jan-M

ar02

Jul-S

ep02

Jan-M

ar03

Jul-S

ep03

Jan-M

ar04

Jul-S

ep04

quarter

visi

tors



36

Visitor nights to KNP by origin The trends for visitor-nights by origin correlate closely with the statistics for total number of visitors. Duration of stay slightly exceeding two nights per visitor is consistent across years and places of origin. The only year in which the length of stay dipped below two nights for the total number of visitors was in 2001 (1.9 nights). The longest duration of stay for the total number of visitors was experienced in 2002 (2.5 nights). It is not possible to identify any clear pattern across sub-markets (Figure 7A).

Figure 7A: Visitor nights per year by origin

Visitors to KNP by accommodation types As Kakadu is a relatively remote location with limited accommodation choice, there is obviously a high correlation between choice of accommodation and availability. Units and flats are particularly scarce in the region (relative to the rest of the NT) and this is reflected in the results. Constraints on tour types and limitations regarding hostels, free camping facilities (and the absence of a large resident population of friends and relatives) make these forms of accommodation less used by visitors than the top two choices; caravan parks and hotels/motels (Figure 8A).

Figure 8A: Visitors per year by accommodation type

Although hotels/motels appear to be much more popular, some sampling issues might interfere. It is unclear how the sampling process based on commercial accommodation affects the results and what would be observed if free camping (and to a certain extent caravan parks) could be better assessed. Also, many tourists with caravans, campervans and/or camping equipment may use a mix of free and paid camping accommodation throughout the course of their journey but they are surveyed at the commercial locations.

Also of significance is the prevalence of mixed-use properties in the region. A number of properties noteworthy at the regional level offer a combination of lodge style accommodation (and could therefore be categorised as hotels/motels) and camping facilities.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

year

nigh

ts


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

year

visi

tors

Hotel/Motel Caravan park Unit/f lat Hostel VFR Free camping


37

Visitor nights in KNP by accommodation types As noted above, Units and flats account for very few visitor nights due to low availability in the region (Figure 9A). There have also been few hostels in the region and significant variations can occur from year to year if one or more properties enter, temporarily close or leave the market.

Figure 9A: Visitor nights per year by accommodation type

Both free camping and staying with friends and relatives produce volatile results. Both sectors were subject to annual peaks and troughs in alternate years between 1999 and 2004, with significant spikes in 2000 followed by equally significant dips in 2001. These might depend on local marketing initiatives or sampling irregularities.

Caravan park and hotel/motel usage were relatively stable, with caravan parks experiencing their lowest number of visitor nights in 1998 and hotels/motels subject to a serious decline in 2002. The hotel/motel sector recovered well in 2003 prior to a stabilisation over the following 12 month period.

Visitors to KNP by motives Clearly, the majority of visitors to KNP are on holiday and therefore leisure/pleasure motives dominate (Figure 10A). The small resident population and low number of business operating within KNP naturally lead to small numbers of visiting friends and relatives (VFR) and business visitor shares. Conference facilities at one major hotel may contribute to the number of visitors who cite business as their main reason for travel, however they could also categorise themselves as “other” in some circumstances. It is unclear what “other” reasons may be, however it is assumed that specific travel purposes such as school excursions as well as Darwin residents on short breaks may contribute to this category if they do not interpret their motives as being purely pleasure related.

Figure 10A: Visitor numbers per year

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

year

visi

tor-

nigh

ts

Hotel/Motels Caravan Parks Unit/Flats Hostel VFR Free camping

020,000

40,00060,00080,000

100,000

120,000140,000160,000

180,000200,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

year

visi

tors

Holiday/pleasure VFR Business Other


38

The same data is presented on a quarterly basis in Figure 11A. Seasonal fluctuations in the pleasure sector are reasonably consistent. The slightly higher spike in 1996 coincides with the noted increase in caravan park users at that time. The higher spike in 2000 corresponds with the general peak in tourist numbers experienced around the time of the Olympics and prior to the slump in tourism in the following year as a result of September 11.

Figure 11A: Visitor numbers per quarter by motive

Visitors to KNP by mode of entry Air travel is the dominant mode of entry to the NT for travellers interviewed in KNP. In most years, intra-Territory tourists (visitors who do not “enter the NT”) represent the next largest proportion of traveller numbers, with the self-drive market to the NT providing a significant number of visitors on a yearly basis (Figure 12A). Coach transport is relatively underutilised as a mode of entry in the NT by visitors to KNP and it seems to have declined since the early 1990s.

Figure 12A: Visitors per year by mode of entry

0

10,000

20,000

30,00040,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Jan-M

ar95

Jul-S

ep95

Jan-M

ar96

Jul-S

ep96

Jan-M

ar97

Jul-S

ep97

Jan-M

ar98

Jul-S

ep98

Jan-M

ar99

Jul-S

ep99

Jan-M

ar00

Jul-S

ep00

Jan-M

ar01

Jul-S

ep01

Jan-M

ar02

Jul-S

ep02

Jan-M

ar03

Jul-S

ep03

Jan-M

ar04

Jul-S

ep04

quarter

visi

tors

Holiday/pleasure VFR Business Other

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

year

visi

tors

Intra-Territory Fly Coach Self-drinve (inNT) Other


39

Visitor nights to KNP by mode of entry The yearly relative proportion of visitor nights per NT entry mode (Figure 13A) seems reasonably consistent with the number of visitors per year. It shows that those who enter the NT with their own vehicle tend to stay longer in KNP on average.

Figure 13A: Visitor nights per year by mode of entry

Descriptive Overview of KNP Visitors (Using CAS Data) The purpose of this section is to provide a reliable profile of tourists who visited KNP using the accumulated 10-year time series available in the NTTM. In this section however, the CAS data has been singled out for analysis. The CAS was a more extensive questionnaire and included more information on where visitors went during their trip and the activities in which they participated. The data therefore excludes the following types of visitors:

• Visitors staying only with friends and relatives during their NT visit; • Visitors undertaking free camping only during their NT visit; and • Visitors who visited KNP but did not spend a night in the park (day trip only).

The three groups excluded constitute a small proportion of total visitation and are considered of lesser interest for marketing purposes. The following technical comments are also useful to depict the sample represented in this section:

• Visitors included in the sample are those who declare “having visited KNP” in the particular trip where they are interviewed for. The filter-criterion corresponds to question 23a [item09] in CAS survey 2004 (variable “Kakfil02”) which applies to respondents who indicated they “have visited” KNP during the trip for which they were interviewed. Location of interview does not have to be KNP but must be in the Top End.

• While the data is judged to be of excellent quality overall, the analytical focus below is not on absolute values (numbers) but on the relative proportions for the main visitor attributes (percentages). This provides very useful marketing information and an appropriate overview.

• It was decided to exclude the respondents who “may” visit KNP, as their intentions cannot be relied on and this does not provide a measure of strength. Furthermore, whenever useful, the analysis includes changes through time and an assessment of implications.

This section therefore provides a simple profile of those tourists who were interviewed in the Top End between 1995 and 2004 while they were staying in commercial accommodation and who indicated they had visited KNP at the time of interview.

Characteristics of travel parties Origin According to the CAS, visitors to KNP generally originate, in approximately equal proportions, from interstate or overseas. Few visitors overall originate from within the Northern Territory (Table 2A). A larger proportion of Territorians would be accounted for if those not staying in commercial accommodation were considered.

050,000

100,000150,000200,000250,000

300,000350,000400,000

450,000500,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

year

nigh

ts

Intra-Territory Fly Coach Self-drive Other


40

Table 2A: Percentage of visitors by origin

Origin %

Intra-Territory 3.1

Interstate 48.0

International 48.8

Total 100.0 Composition Most travel parties, regardless of their origins, consist of approximately two adults. Children make up a relatively small proportion of total visitors to KNP (Table 3A).

Table 3A: Travel parties

Origin Average No. Adults

Average No. Children

Intra-Territory 1.76 0.42

Interstate 2.11 0.16

International 1.92 0.05

Total 2.00 0.11 Travel party type Intra-Territory visitors are more likely than others to be unaccompanied (Figure 14A). Although they are least likely to be part of an adult couple, they are more likely to be travelling as part of a family group.

Figure 14A: Travel party type

Adult couples predominate in the other two groups, where family groups are uncommon. It is not clearly established whether couples are spouses, companions or friends. The larger proportion of couples in the interstate category is attributed to a combination of several markets including youth international travellers and retired couples.

International visitors are more likely than others to be part of a larger group of friends or relatives. It is also likely that these friends are new acquaintances on organised tours. The possibility of responding “other” explains why categories do not necessarily add to 100%.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Intra-territory Interstate International Total

%

Unaccompanied Adult couple Family group Friends rellos group Business group


41

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total

%

Inter-State International

As components of larger groups Relatively few travel parties were attached to larger groups (only 14.5-17.25% across sectors). International visitors to KNP were the most likely to travel as part of a larger group (Figure 15A). It must be noted that this refers to the entirety of their journey within the NT, not only to the KNP component.

Figure 15A: Travel parties as components of larger groups

Those from interstate and the NT were the least likely to travel in the NT in larger groups, indicating the relative influence of the self-drive market in this sub-market (Figure 16A).

Figure 16A: Percentage of interstate and international travel parties in larger groups

Trip Characteristics of Relevance for the Economic Analysis When decided to visit NT International visitors were also asked if they had planned to visit NT before entering Australia. Almost 93% said they had planned their visit to the NT before their entry into Australia (Table 4A).

Table 4A: Intention to visit Northern Territory prior to travel

Number

Yes 597,526

No 37,832

Not stated 10,062

Total 645,420

13

13.5

14

14.5

15

15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

Intra-territory Interstate International


42

Regions visited The number of NT regions and sub-regions visited by KNP respondents varied according to the origin of visitors. Interstate visitors travel on average more widely than others (Figure 17A). This is due to self-drive visitors travelling through a number of regions to get to their final destination. Territorians visited the least number of regions per trip, indicating that intra-Territory KNP visitors are more likely to embark on shorter, single-destination trips from home (mostly Darwin) and back.

Figure 17A: Average number of regions and subregions visited by respondents’ origin

There has been little variation in the number of regions and sub-regions visited each year by individual travellers, reflecting the stable overall proportions of fly-in and self-drive visitors as well as the limited number of circuits available (Figure 18A). However, the trend line indicates a slight decrease in the number of sub-regions visited over the 10 year period.

Figure 18A: Number of regions and sub-regions visited by year

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total

Number Of Regions Visited Number Of Sub-regions Visited Linear (Number Of Sub-regions Visited)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Number Of RegionsVisitedNumber Of Sub-regions Visited


43

Accommodation choices Figure 19A refers to the main accommodation categories used by KNP respondents wherever they were at the time of interview. It provides a simple picture of accommodation use at that time which does not reflect accommodation use at KNP nor the distribution of visitor-nights in those establishments.

Figure 19A: Main type of accommodation used

Paid tours in NT trip Data from KNP visitors about types of paid tours undertaken (anywhere in the NT) has only been collected from 2002 until 2004. Among the categories listed, national park tours were the most popular with both interstate and international visitors; however, intra-Territory travellers visiting the Top End were less likely to visit the National Park on a commercial tour (Figure 20A). A significant proportion of KNP visitors also participated in crocodile-viewing tours while travelling in the Top End, irrespective of their origin.

Figure 20A: Paid tours in Northern Territory trip (2002-2004)

Trip duration estimates This data from the NTTM was only collected in 2003 and 2004. It does not appear to be reliable as the means relating to the number of nights in various parts of the trip are much higher than previously calculated statistics. The values are not credible and it is possible that a few factors, including a number of outliers, are responsible for these exaggerated

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

IntraTerritory InterState International Total

%

Hotel/Motel Caravan park Unit / f lat Hostel

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fishing tours 4WD tours Crocwatchtours

Nat Parkstours

Ballooningtours

Town tours Indigenous tours

%



44

values. The magnitude of the number of nights in the NT for instance is usually less than 10 days across all markets (when calculated on the detailed NTTM data), which means that some of the self-reported values below are implausible.

Figure 21A: Trip duration estimates

Season of visit Figures 22A and 23A represent a 10-year summary of seasonal distribution for visitors of various origins. In Figure 22A, it is possible to examine the behaviour of each group. Intra-Territory KNP visitors can be found in the NT in the non-peak quarters. International visitors are more prominent in the late low season but remain important in the high season. Interstate visitors display the most typical and regular seasonal behaviour, clearly dominating the peak season. In Figure 23A, it is possible to examine the relative importance of each quarter with respect to total visitor numbers. It is clear that the period from July to September is critical for the Northern Territory.

Figure 22A: Seasonality by origin (view for each origin segment)

Figure 23A: Seasonal distribution over the years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


nigh

ts

Nights in the NT Nights other Australia Nights outside Australia

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

%

jan-mar apr-jun jul-sep oct-dec

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


%

jan-mar apr-jun jul-sep oct-dec


45

Motivations/influences Visitors whose main purpose in visiting the NT was either holiday or pleasure were asked what influenced their decision to holiday in the NT. Respondents were presented with a list of things to do, see or experience (multiple reasons allowed). Over the five years since this question was introduced, KNP visitors provided the following reasons for deciding to travel in the NT (Figure 24A).

Figure 24A: Motivations and influences

Although a vast range of motivations were recorded, the dominant choices for interstate and international travellers to visit the NT were seeing/experiencing the outback, icons, wildlife and something different. To a secondary extent (less than 30%) World Heritage, Indigenous culture and adventure/explore were also significant. As these respondents were not necessarily in KNP at the time of responding, it is useful for readers to contrast the above with the corresponding results of the dedicated KNP survey analysed in this report. It is also clear that NT residents were more likely to identify previous NT experience, fishing, and icons or wildlife as the main reasons for their NT trip including KNP.

Visitor Behaviour – Actual and Intended Interests and activities The NTTM also queried respondents about activities included in “this NT trip”, not specifically during their visit to KNP. Table 5A shows the percentage of KNP visitors (divided by origin) who said the activity/interest was included in this NT trip (over the period of time a specific item was included in the survey).

Table 5A: Interests and activities

Activity Intra-Territory Interstate International All

Indigenous art/culture 38.0 57.7 73.2 64.6

Bushwalking 37.5 59.1 61.0 59.3

Other wildlife viewing 33.4 37.2 45.9 41.3

Swimming 40.8 40.4 42.3 41.3

Bird watching 23.1 29.1 30.6 29.6

Photography 13.2 27.0 32.6 29.3

Four-wheel-driving 20.5 25.5 28.7 26.9

Scenic flights 7.2 31.5 19.8 25.0

Historic sites 7.7 25.4 20.9 22.7

Boat cruises 6.8 22.2 14.7 18.1

Overnight safaris 9.1 8.5 25.5 16.8

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

recom

menda

tions

icons

meet p

eople

previo

us N

T exp.

differ

ent

weathe

r

Worl

d Heri

tage

histor

ical s

ights

pack

age d

eals

fishin

g

wildlife

abori

ginal

cultu

re

outba

ck

adve

nture/

explo

re

none

of th

ese

%

Intra-Territory Inter-State International Total


46

Fishing 20.0 24.2 4.2 14.3

Other art/culture 10.0 15.9 12.7 14.2

Camel riding 6.7 11.8 12.1 11.8

Markets 3.5 16.1 7.9 11.7

Heritage trails 1.5 9.5 10.7 9.9

Sport activities 4.9 5.9 11.0 8.4

Fossicking 3.1 4.4 2.1 3.3

Hunting 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.5 Some results produced by the NTTM might seem unexpected and require interpretation with respect to the survey

context. It is known that some activities are interpreted quite loosely by some visitors. For instance, the high scores associated with Indigenous art/culture, bushwalking, swimming, bird watching and photography were likely to reflect a broad range of participation in those activities. Many tourists might regard seeing some rock art as sufficient to qualify in the first activity, or to undertake a few minutes’ walk to qualify as bushwalking, or to jump in a waterhole to relax as swimming and seeing birds on a wildlife cruise as bird watching and/or photography. Many of the categories which rate in the medium ranges (four-wheel-driving, scenic flights, historic sites, boat cruises, overnight safaris, etc.) are associated with traveller types and correspond to specific segments (usually associated with transport mode, spatial coverage, time and budget).

Territorians visiting KNP display lower participation rates than other KNP visitors while in the NT for all activities except fishing and hunting. This is likely to be due to the fact that they are more likely to undertake single purpose trips (with a single main activity) and interpret the items more narrowly (for instance Territorians identifying bushwalking as an activity are more likely to refer to extended walks and bird watching as dedicated trips to view birds) than other travellers.

Places Visited at Time of Interview The NTTM provides respondents with a list of places they might have visited and asks them to indicate where they have already been at the time of interview. Figure 25A represents the proportion of KNP visitors who had visited a number of significant places at the time of interview. The list does not include KNP, as it this variable was used to select the sub-sample analysed in this section.

The main places identified by KNP visitors (in the present NT trip) included the NT Museum & Art Gallery, Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge), and Litchfield National Park. This suggests a fair amount of shared visitation between the parks mentioned, probably due to some tour designs combining more than one national park and the fact that these parks constitute obvious circuits even for independent travellers.

Figure 25A: Places visited

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Darwin

Botanic

Gard

ens

Litch

field

Nation

al Park

Territo

ry Wild

life Park

Window

on th

e Wetl

ands

Charle

s Darw

in Nati

onal

Park

Mary R

iver W

etlan

ds

Fogg D

am

NT Mus

eum & A

rt gall

ery

Nitmilu

k/ Kath

erine

Gorg

e

Simps

ons G

ap/W

est M

acDon

nell

Alice S

pring

s Des

ert P

ark

Kings C

anyo

n/Wata

rrka

Arnhem

Land

All Ulur

u (ac

ross c

oding

s)

%

Intra-territoryInterstateInternationalTotal


47

Places intended to visit A similar question (offering the identical choices) pertaining to places intended to visit is included in the NTTM. For that question, a different pattern of answers was obtained (Figure 26A). The dominant places that KNP visitors in the Top End indicated they intended visiting in the NT (during this trip) were the icons found in the Centre (Uluru, Watarrka, Alice Springs Desert Park, etc.) and Litchfield National Park. This probably indicates they have little extra time to visit other Top End attractions (in this trip), although it is likely that some interstate visitors learned about Litchfield while in the Top End and intended to include it in their itinerary.

Figure 26A: Places intended to visit

For the sake of providing a different picture, independent from the timing of the survey in respondents’ itineraries, the data of places visited and intentions was merged. Figure 27A combines places visited and of interest for KNP visitors during their trip in the NT. It shows that Nitmiluk National Park, Litchfield National Park, the NT Museum & Art Gallery and Uluru National Park dominate the NT places associated with KNP visitation.

Figure 27A: Places visited or intended to visit

0

5

10

15

20

25

Darwin

Botanic

Gard

ens

Litch

field

Nation

al Park

Territo

ry Wild

life P

ark

Window

on th

e Wetl

ands

Charle

s Darw

in Nati

onal

Park

Mary R

iver W

etlan

ds

Fogg D

am

NT Mus

eum & A

rt gall

ery

Nitmilu

k/ Kath

erine

Gorg

e

Simps

ons G

ap/W

est M

acDon

nell

Alice S

pring

s Des

ert P

ark

Kings C

anyo

n/Wata

rrka

Arnhem

Land

All Ulur

u (ac

ross c

oding

s)

%


010203040506070

Darwin

Botanic

Gard

ens

Litch

field

Nationa

l Park

Territo

ry W

ildlife

Park

Window

on th

e Wetl

ands

Charle

s Darw

in Nati

onal

Park

Mary R

iver W

etlan

ds

Fogg D

am

NT Mus

eum & A

rt gall

ery

Nitmilu

k/ Kath

erine

Gorg

e

Simps

ons G

ap/W

est M

acDon

nell

Alice S

prings

Des

ert Park

Kings C

anyo

n/Wata

rrka

Arnhem

Land

All Ulur

u (acro

ss co

dings)

%



48

APPENDIX B: KAKADU NATIONAL PARK VISITOR ECONOMIC SURVEY

The Kakadu National Park Visitor Economic Survey (KNPVES) was conducted over a six-month period. The survey was distributed at multiple points within the park and at accommodation places throughout the sub-region. The final figures for the distribution of origin of respondents to this survey during the six month period (valid respondents only) follow (Table 1B):

Table 1B: Visitor origins – KNPVES

KNP economic survey Frequency Valid %

Intra-Territory 86 5.5

Interstate 810 51.5

Overseas 678 43.1

Total 1574 100.0

This can be contrasted with figures for the Northern Territory Travel Monitor (NTTM) found in Tables 2B and 3B.

Table 2B shows the proportions arising from the Commercial Accommodation Survey (CAS) only. It suggests that the 2004 KNPVES might have a larger proportion of Territorian and smaller proportion of international visitors than has been the case over the last 10 years in commercial accommodation.

Table 2B: Visitor origins – NTTM – CAS only

NTTM – CAS – kak02 filter – 10 year average Frequency Valid %

Intra-Territory 4143.6 3.1

Interstate 635105.8 48.0

Overseas 645419.9 48.8

Total 1321958.3 100.0

The complete NTTM data (Table 3B), however, is the one which has been used for the sub-regional descriptions

contained in the main body of this report and it presents fairly different proportions for a number of reasons. The adjusted NTTM data includes visitor estimates from the Household Survey (HHS) which is the component of the NTTM designed to capture all those visitors who did not use any commercial accommodation during their stay in the NT. Thus, the HHS captures large numbers of intra-Territory and visiting friends and relatives visitors, who are less well documented in the CAS survey. This data suggests that the KNPVES includes less intra-Territory respondents than desirable and the proportion of intra-Territory visitation has declined in 2003 and 2004. Interestingly, it also shows a larger proportion of interstate-to-international travellers than for the CAS proportions (Table 2B), and it suggests that the proportion of interstate visitors has increased considerably in 2004 relative to previous years. This fits relatively well with the data from the KNPVES. The 2004 KNPVES seems to provide an intermediate picture with respect to visitor origins and the two sets of NTTM data suggest it constitutes an acceptable representation of the situation.


49

Table 3B: Visitor origins – complete NTTM data

NTTM (CAS+HHS) – with AC Nielsen weights

Year Intra-Territory Interstate International Total

1995 60,943 0.33 70,951 0.38 53,005 0.29 184,900

1996 47,852 0.28 81,621 0.47 43,505 0.25 172,977

1997 51,891 0.33 49,292 0.31 56,833 0.36 158,016

1998 38,613 0.23 71,107 0.42 58,134 0.35 167,854

1999 33,046 0.20 65,102 0.40 64,219 0.40 162,367

2000 63,141 0.32 71,616 0.36 63,027 0.32 197,784

2001 38,790 0.22 59,693 0.35 74,119 0.43 172,602

2002 43,103 0.29 60,420 0.40 47,415 0.31 150,938

2003 23,243 0.17 59,315 0.45 50,729 0.38 133,286

2004 26,511 0.17 91,013 0.58 38,511 0.25 156,035

Mean % 25.42 41.29 33.29

There are few other reliable sources of visitor information beyond the NTTM. The Kakadu National Park Visitor Survey 2000-2001 (KNPVS) (ATECH; submitted to Kakadu National Park, Environment Australia by Atech Group) provides an overall picture which is sufficiently recent for comparisons. The overall project included two types of surveys, with some respondents answering park-wide surveys and other visitors answering site-specific surveys. This uncovered issues with respect to the importance of the “origin” variable mix similar to those with the NTTM surveys discussed above (Table 4B).

Table 4B: Visitor origins – site and park-wide surveys

KNPVS 2000-2001 Aggregate of site surveys

Park-wide survey

Intra-Territory 19 5

Interstate 29 44

Overseas 52 51

Total 100 100

From the published report, the park-wide survey was distributed by Kakadu National Park (KNP) staff to vehicles passing through the two entry stations and on request to visitors at the Bowali Visitor Centre. The site-specific surveys were provided to the survey team for subsequent distribution at individual sites which were pre-determined. Although not detailed in the report, it is likely that in the first case (the park-wide survey), there was less likelihood of follow-up and higher probability of non-response. This might also more severely affect specific respondent groups, such as Territorians.

With respect to site-specific surveys, inspection of the sampling sites reveals that, while it involved a fairly large sample, well distributed over time and space, surveys were distributed by KNP staff at a selection of attractions within KNP, including waterfalls, visitor centres, boat ramps and other features of interest. This is likely to have been followed by greater response rate (more personal interaction with the place and staff), and might have captured a better representation of those located at those sites.

The KNPVES and the NTTM surveys, on the other hand, are based on accommodation locations and capture different travel journey stages of KNP visits. It is possible that certain types of visitors (a proportion of interstate travellers probably) spend more time around accommodation venues and participate relatively less in the activities or attractions on which the KNPVS 2000-2001 site surveys are based on. In other words, a sampling frame based on these locations would capture less of those KNP visitors who don’t do much while in the park or who are less likely to visit the iconic tourist locations. It is possible that the KNPVS over-estimates the proportion of international visitors due to their greater likelihood of visiting the icons and their greater likelihood of responding.

Notwithstanding the different years of the surveys, the KNPVES occupies a relatively balanced position (with a profile situated between that suggested by the NTTM and that from the KNPVS 2000-2001) with respect to its “origins”


50

composition. It includes fewer Territorians (less than the numbers who actually “enter” the park) and is closer to the CAS data and the KNPVS park-wide statistics. On the other hand, it holds fairly equal numbers of interstate and international visitors – which puts it somewhere in a middle ground between the NTTM data (suggesting much more interstate) and the KNPVS, suggesting many more international visitors.

Beyond methodological disparities, a number of external factors can explain some of the differences between the surveys:

• Structural change since late 2001 and peculiarities of year 2004 (NTTM suggesting declining proportion of international visitors in 2003-2004 potentially due to issues with access to the Top End);

• Changing marketing campaigns from the NTTC (in frequency, targets and timing) and variations in product supply (including structure of tours, pricing, content, promotions, etc.); and

• Behaviour of Territorians (and a proportion of interstate travellers visiting friends and relatives) might be affected by local events, volatile attitudes towards KNP and the Sydney Olympics, etc.

Overall, this analysis suggests that the 2004 KNPVES provides an acceptable mix of respondents which displays a useful portrait of visitation and that it holds a structure adequate for the task for which it has been designed.

Final Sample Attributes – Group Membership It is useful to provide preliminary observations on the validity of the sample based on this and other ancillary variables, but much more complicated to make comparisons in this case. The 2004 KNPVES provides relatively detailed information about the context of travel in and within KNP (Tremblay & Carson 2006). It establishes that 62% of respondents were independent self-drive visitors in KNP, with the remaining joined in some type of tour, which does not exclude the possibility they were visiting the NT with their own transport and decided to participate in a tour dedicated to or including KNP in its itinerary. Many also drive within KNP (with rental or private vehicles) and join in tours (cruises, scenic flights, 4WD, etc.) while they are in the park.

The NTTM looks at entry to the NT and any transport mode used within the NT (in this trip), and includes an estimate of the main form of transportation within the NT. Since 1999, the proportion of entry by self-drive into the NT has ranged from 20-30% of KNP visitors (with more than 40% for interstate and around 15% for international respondents). Respondents report however that more than 90% of their main transport within the NT is by road, as visitors either get into tour coaches or rent vehicles.

The 2000-2001 KNPVS provides KNP-specific data on transport. The park-wide survey captured 31% of respondents on commercial tours and 69% as independent travellers (36% with own private vehicles, 28% rental vehicles and 5% as “other” (bus, taxi, bicycle and light aircraft)) with a fair amount of seasonality in the proportions. The site-specific survey found that 42% respondents were on commercial tours and 58% were independent travellers (37% with private vehicles, 18% rental vehicles and 3% “other”. The larger proportion of independent travellers in the park-wide survey (compared with the aggregated site-specific ones) matches the larger proportion of interstate travellers discussed before.

Again, notwithstanding the possible structural changes that might have taken place between 2000 and 2004, the proportions of respondents taking part in tours found in the 2004 KNPVES (38%) sits between the values of the park-wide survey (31%) and of the site-specific survey (42%) from the 2000-2001 KNPVS, making it a satisfactory mix for the sake of estimating expenditures.

Final Sample Attributes – Other Indicators It is useful to provide a picture of other relevant indicators and contrast it to accumulated information from the NTTM. A first variable easily compared is the main motive of respondents. The comparison needs to be made specifically with NTTM respondents who indicate having visited KNP, and two samples (originating from two filters) are described below.

Table 5B examines the KNPVES sample and shows that close to 90% of respondents indicated their main motive was pleasure/holiday while in the NT. The CAS only sample (kak02 filter) in Table 6B shows a very similar distribution, and even the NTTM (CAS + HHS) in Table 7B provides a picture not too dissimilar.

Table 5B: Visitor motives – KNPVES

KNPVES Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

Pleasure / holiday 88.0 93.5 63.0 89.2

Visiting friends and relatives 6.9 3.0 12.3 5.5

Business / work-related 4.1 2.4 15.1 3.9

Sport, education or other 1.0 1.1 9.6 1.4


51

Table 6B: Visitor motives – CAS only

CAS only – kak02 filter Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

Holiday / pleasure 74.3 82.2 95.4 87.2


Business 9.4 9.3 0.3 6.2

Other 11.9 4.2 2.9 3.8

Table 7B: Visitor motives – NTTM and CAS

NTTM (CAS + HHS) Total

Holiday / pleasure 78.12

Visiting friends and relatives 7.13

Business 8.63

Other 6.13

Another relevant indicator is the main form of accommodation (Tables 8B and 9B). This is not as reliable an indicator for comparative purposes, as the KNPVES focuses on accommodation type within KNP and the NTTM-CAS on the main form of accommodation in the whole NT journey. Yet, it does provide a picture for the proportion of caravanners. The data suggests that there are more caravanners and less hostel-stayers in the 2004 KNPVES than the NTTM shows has been historically for the whole of NT stays, but this is not necessarily reflected in KNP as such. Furthermore, it must be noted that the NTTM data is an average for 1995-2004 and there has been a clear decline over the years in hostel accommodation for all origin segments.

Table 8B: Accommodation type – KNPVES

KNPVES Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

Hotel / motel room 30.7 31.5 10.5 30.0

Hostel / backpackers 4.0 17.7 3.9 9.9

Holiday unit / flat 4.4 1.4 0.0 2.9

Cabin /onsite van 6.3 2.3 9.2 4.7

Caravan sites / camping sites 49.7 45.3 53.9 48.0


Table 9B: Accommodation type – NTTM/CAS only

CAS only Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

Hotel / motel 68.1 47.2 46.4 47.5

Caravan park 24.4 45.7 23.9 34.4

Unit / flat 2.8 2.7 0.9 1.8

Hostel 4.7 4.5 28.7 16.3

Similar comments apply to the main form of NT entry, as there have been changes over the years (Tables 10B and

11B). Nevertheless, the match between the surveys is good, with the KNPVES displaying a little more than 56% of its respondents flying into the NT and the CAS a very similar proportion. The proportions for road entry into the NT are also similar, with the relative importance of rail entry slightly affecting the data for 2004.


52

Table 10B: Mode of entry to Northern Territory – KNPVES

KNPVES Interstate Overseas Total

Air – International 1.7 25.2 12.4

Air – Domestic 46.5 40.8 43.7

Road 47.4 30.9 40.1

Rail 4.3 3.0 3.7

Boat 0.0 0.1 0.1

Table 11B: Mode of entry to Northern Territory – CAS only

CAS – kak02 Interstate Overseas Total

Fly 49.3 66.6 56.2

Coach 4.7 14.8 9.5 Road

Self-drive 41.3 16.2 27.7

Other 4.7 2.5 3.5

Descriptive Overview of the Kakadu National Park Visitor Survey This section describes the characteristics of travelling parties, behaviours and activities associated with the 2004 KNPVES in more detail, and provides additional visitor profile information not used in the earlier summary on expenditure and economic value analysis. Characteristics of Travel Parties The validity of the “origins” distribution is discussed earlier. The changing proportion of interstate and overseas visitors on a monthly basis can be observed below (Table 12B) and matches what is found in the NTTM and in the 2000-2001 KNPVS. In the present case, intra-Territory visitors were consistently scarce during the July to December period (5.5%). Although the average percentages of interstate and international visitors to the park for the entire period were more evenly matched (51.5% and 43.1% respectively), the proportions rose and fell alternately until December, when only two overseas visitors responded.

Table 12B: Number and proportion of visitors by origin

Month of interview Interstate Overseas Intra-

Territory Total

July 8 7 1 16

% 50.0 43.8 6.3

August 199 111 38 348

% 57.2 31.9 10.9

September 462 374 39 875

% 52.8 42.7 4.5

October 115 156 5 276

% 41.7 56.5 1.8

November 26 28 3 57

% 45.6 49.1 5.3

December 0 2 0 2

% 0.0 100.0 0.0

Total 810 678 86 1574

% 51.5 43.1 5.5


53

There are seven cases where basic information related to the context of the survey (month or origins) was absent, and the figures above represent the valid data for this variable only. The overall proportions appear in Figure 1B.

Figure 1B: Visitors by origin

Figure 2B shows the relative origins of the sample on a monthly basis.

Figure 2B: Proportion of visitors by origin in KNP

Table 13B and Figure 3B summarise the data for domestic visitors. Of the 57% domestic visitors, over half were from New South Wales and Victoria. Queensland provided surprisingly few visitors (less than 10%) and Northern Territory respondents accounted for just 5.4% of the total number of visitors. According to the KNPVES survey, South Australia was underrepresented when contrasted with evidence originating from the CAS data. This is not expected to create any bias.

Table 13B: Number and percentage of domestic visitors

Normal state of residence Frequency % of total % of domestic

Australian Capital Territory 30 1.9 3.3

New South Wales 244 15.4 27.2

Victoria 232 14.7 25.9

Queensland 146 9.2 16.3

South Australia 53 3.4 5.9

Western Australia 77 4.9 8.6

Tasmania 28 1.8 3.1

Northern Territory 86 5.4 9.6

Total 896 56.7 100.0

51.5

43.1

5.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory

%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

July August September October November December

%

Interstate International Intra-Territory


54

Figure 3B: Percentage of domestic visitors

Table 14B provides a picture of the origins of the international visitors in the total sample (with two cases where it is missing).

Table 14B: Number and proportion of visitors by origin

Country Frequency % Valid %

Australia 903 57.1 57.2

New Zealand 43 2.7 2.7

Europe 333 21.1 21.1

United Kingdom 182 11.5 11.5

United States / Canada 87 5.5 5.5

Other 31 2.0 2.0

Total 1579 99.9 100.0

Missing 2 0.1

Total 1581 100.0

Most international respondents came from Europe, with United Kingdom respondents being categorised separately in Table 15B. While some visitors specified their country of origin (as requested in the survey), some simply stated they were from “Europe”, which is why results are summarised above. Similarly, visitors from the United Kingdom may have also identified themselves as either English or Irish or United Kingdom. When variables are combined, it can be ascertained that international visitors to KNP are overwhelmingly from European Union countries. The United States supplies a moderate stream of visitors, but there are few visitors from other parts of the world.

Table 15B: Proportion of international visitors by origin

Normal country of residence Frequency % Normal country of

residence Frequency %

Australia 903 57.1 Ireland 23 1.5

New Zealand 43 2.7 Asia 4 0.3

Europe 62 3.9 Japan 17 1.1

Germany 142 9.0 United States 64 4.0

France 47 3.0 Canada 23 1.5

Spain 8 0.5 Middle East 6 0.4

Italy 13 0.8 South Africa 4 0.3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

NSW

VIC

QLD

NT

WA

SA

ACT

TAS

%


55

Normal country of residence Frequency % Normal country of

residence Frequency %

Holland 35 2.2 United Kingdom 93 5.9

Switzerland 26 1.6 England 66 4.2

Total 1579 99.9

Missing 2 0.1

Total 1581 100.0

Composition of travel party The most common travel party configuration found in the sample is composed of two adults and no children. This applies to all market segments regardless of origin, although visitors from the NT tend to be more likely to visit in larger family groups. It also corroborates the results of the NTTM (Table 16B).

Table 16B: Adults in travel party

Number Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

1 95 106 17 218

% 12.1 16.2 20.0 14.3

2 522 372 34 928

% 66.7 56.7 40.0 60.9

3-5 141 137 29 307

% 18.0 20.9 34.1 20.1

6-27 25 41 5 71

% 3.2 6.3 5.9 4.7 Table 17B shows that over 90% of adult parties travel without children.

Table 17B: Children in travel party

Number Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

0 693 628 65 1386

% 88.4 95.7 76.5 90.9

1 39 16 8 63

% 5.0 2.4 9.4 4.1

2 38 10 11 59

% 4.8 1.5 12.9 3.9

3-9 14 2 1 17

% 1.8 0.3 1.2 1.1


56

Table 18B and Figure 4B show the number and proportion of parties with at least one member in each of the listed age groups. The total number of people found in the travel parties surveyed was 2,362.

Table 18B: Age groups in travel party

Age Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

0-13 85 27 16 128

% 10.5 4.0 18.6 8.1

14-17 28 10 2 40

% 3.5 1.5 2.3 2.5

18-24 65 158 15 238

% 8.0 23.3 17.4 15.1

25-34 157 322 42 521

% 19.4 47.5 48.8 33.1

35-44 153 151 35 339

% 18.9 22.3 40.7 21.5

45-54 277 99 29 405

% 34.2 14.6 33.7 25.7

55-64 324 129 11 464

% 40.0 19.0 12.8 29.5

65+ 151 75 1 227

% 18.6 11.1 1.2 14.4

There is a relatively clear pattern and relationship between age distribution and origins for KNP respondents’ travel

parties. International visitors have a greater propensity to belong to the 25-34 age group, whereas more interstate visitors belong to the older age groups, with the 45-64 groups dominating the picture.

Figure 4B: Number in age group of travel party by origin

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0to13 14to17 18to24 25to34 35to44 45to54 55to64 65plus

Num

ber



57

Size The data for the total size of travel parties confirms the observations made above (Figure 5B). Most travel parties consist of two adults, whether they are couples, friends or acquaintances.

Figure 5B: Size of travel party by origin

Gender Table 19B shows the gender distribution against the origins of travel party members.

Table 19B: Gender found in various travel parties by origins

Gender Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

Male 700 530 71 1301

% 86.4 78.2 82.6 82.7

Female 721 575 68 1364

% 89.0 84.8 79.1 86.7

The fact that the sample is dominated by couples ensures that many travel parties include at least one male and one female member and that differences are not extreme. This includes the large number of retired couples who visit the Top End in the high season. International travel parties on the other seem to be more likely to be made of females, whereas intra-Territory groups are more likely to include males. In the former case, this might be a reflection of different likelihoods of non-response or may signal different motives. In over 75% of all cases, however, groups consist of a male and female member. Travel party type The majority of travellers to KNP either drive themselves into the park (with private or rental vehicles) to visit attractions within KNP and surrounding areas (Table 20B and Figure 6b). The other two important groups include those driving into KNP to join some park tours (possibly involving road, cruise and/or scenic flights) and the substantial numbers of international and interstate tourists joining tour groups from Darwin. Few respondents entered from Katherine or were part of extensive tours originating from elsewhere in Australia.

Table 20B: Mode of travel within KNP

Mode of Travel Intra-Territory Interstate Overseas Total

Independent self-drive 67 511 352 930

% 81.7 65.3 54.7 61.7

Self-drive to park-tours 5 90 59 154

% 6.1 11.5 9.2 10.2

Organised tour ex Darwin 6 158 221 385

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4+

%



58

% 7.3 20.2 34.3 25.5

Organised tour ex Katherine 1 4 0 5

% 1.2 0.5 0.0 0.3

Greyhound bus 0 3 1 4

% 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3

International tour 0 0 6 6

% 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4

Interstate tour 3 16 5 24

% 3.7 2.0 0.8 1.6

Figure 6B: Mode of travel within KNP

Motives Over 89% of KNPVES respondents had travel/leisure motives. Another 5.5% were visiting friends and relatives, and this could also indicate leisure motives. Only 3.9% were visiting on business or work related matters. An analysis of the data by origin shows that greater percentages of Territorians cited visiting friends and relatives, business/work or other motives, reflecting important social, cultural and economic connections between Darwin and Jabiru (Table 21B and Figure 7B).

Table 21B: Travel motives by origin

Motive Intra-Territory Interstate Overseas Total

Pleasure / holiday 46 706 621 1373

% 63.0 88.0 93.5 89.2

Visiting friends or relatives 9 55 20 84

% 12.3 6.9 3.0 5.5

Business / work-related 11 33 16 60

% 15.1 4.1 2.4 3.9

Sport, education or other 7 8 7 22

% 9.6 1.0 1.1 1.4

Total 73 802 664 1539

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Independent self-drive

Self-drive to park-tours

Organised tour ex Darwin

Organised tour ex Katherine

Greyhound bus

International tour

Interstate tour

%



59

Figure 7B: Travel motives by origin

Main Reasons for Visiting KNP This question refers specifically to KNP rather than the reason for travelling to the NT. Responses are presented in Table 22B and in Figure 8B.

Table 22B: Main reasons for visiting KNP

Origin Art/ Culture

Bush-walking Fishing Swimming Camping Scenery Wildlife Environ-

ment

Interstate Mean 1.08 0.27 0.13 0.1 0.24 1.38 1.33 1

Std. Dev. 1.08 0.67 0.51 0.44 0.65 1.19 1.12 1.09

Overseas Mean 1.26 0.44 0.03 0.1 0.21 1.02 1.77 0.89

Std. Dev. 1.05 0.82 0.25 0.43 0.61 1.1 1.08 1.07

Intra-Territory Mean 1.14 0.53 0.27 0.28 0.43 0.58 0.42 0.59

Std. Dev. 1.16 0.89 0.73 0.68 0.88 0.95 0.89 1.01

Total Mean 1.16 0.36 0.09 0.11 0.24 1.18 1.47 0.93

Std. Dev. 1.08 0.76 0.44 0.45 0.65 1.16 1.14 1.08

Respondents were asked their main reasons for visiting KNP and to rank their three top responses – a process which was not followed and applied properly by all respondents. In order to analyse and integrate all the responses, a point system was applied. If the question was answered correctly (that is three ranked choices were identified), the first choice was worth three points, the second choice two points and the third choice one point. If respondents ticked three boxes but did not rank them, each response was awarded two points, so that each respondent contributed six points in total. The scores were then averaged to produce the results shown in Figure 8B.

Figure 8B: Main reasons for visiting KNP

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pleasure/Holiday

VFR

Business/Work related

Sport, Education, Other

%


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

aboriginalart/ culture

bushw alking fishing sw imming camping scenery seeingw ildlife

naturalenvironment



60

These results show that seeing wildlife, the scenery, Aboriginal art/culture and the natural environment constituted the main reasons for visiting KNP. Remaining activities produced scores much lower than these first four. It is worth noting that bushwalking is relatively strong for intra-Territory respondents, while fishing, swimming and camping attracted much lower scores. It is clear that the availability of equal-quality substitutes in the Top End can explain these differences. Prior Visits to KNP Most international and interstate visitors had not been to KNP before, whereas most Territorians had (Table 23B and Figure 9B). The relatively large proportion of Territorians who had been to KNP between three to 10 times indicates a fair amount of return visitation by longer-term NT residents.

Table 23B: Prior visits to KNP

Number of Visits Interstate Overseas Intra-

Territory Total

0 647 633 20 1300

% 81.0 94.9 25.3 84.1

1 96 25 9 130

% 12.0 3.7 11.4 8.4

2 25 5 5 35

% 3.1 0.7 6.3 2.3

3-10 28 4 29 61

% 3.5 0.6 36.7 3.9

11-20 2 0 4 6

% 0.3 0.0 5.1 0.4

21-50 1 0 10 11

% 0.1 0.0 12.7 0.7

25 0 0 2 2

% 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.1

Figure 9B: Prior visits to KNP

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0

1

2

3 to 10

11 to 20

21 to 50

25

%



61

Prior Knowledge of KNP, of World Heritage Area Status of KNP and Decision to Visit KNP Respondents were asked to indicate where they found out about KNP prior to their entry into the NT, whether they had decided to visit before NT entry and whether they were aware that KNP was a World Heritage Area (WHA). There was a very high rate of awareness on all counts, particularly within the interstate market. The rate of awareness of WHA status was slightly lower for Territorians than for remaining domestic travellers (Figure 10B).

Figure 10B: Prior knowledge of KNP

Perceived Importance of KNP The next three questions from the KNPVES concentrated on the relative importance of KNP in influencing respondents to visit the Kakadu region, the Top End and the NT. These five-point Likert scale questions are utilised for the sake of assessing the relative contribution of the park to tourist spending, which is detailed in the main body of this report. In the first case, respondents were asked how important KNP was in relation to their visit in Jabiru/Kakadu region. Results appear in Table 24B.

Table 24B: Importance of KNP to Kakadu visitors

Importance Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

Least important 10 1 4 15

% 1.3 0.2 5.1 1.0

Somewhat important 9 6 1 16

% 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.1

Moderately important 79 61 13 153

% 10.3 9.7 16.5 10.4

Quite important 191 162 16 369

% 24.9 25.8 20.3 25.0

Most important 479 399 45 923

% 62.4 63.4 57.0 62.5

Total 768 629 79 1476

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Aware prior to visiting NT Decided prior to visit NT World Heritage Area

%

Interstate Overseas


62

As expected, the majority of responses were “most important” (with “quite important” also recording a high level of response), signalling that without the park as an attraction, many would not have visited the region, across all origins. In the second case, respondents were asked how important KNP was in relation to their visit in the Top End region. Results appear in Table 25B.

Table 25B: Importance of KNP to Top End visitors



% 1.1 2.4 8.5 1.9


% 2.4 3.2 8.5 3.0


% 12.0 15.2 10.6 13.3


% 35.1 38.9 14.9 36.0


% 49.4 40.3 57.4 45.8

Total 747 586 47 1380

Once again “most important” was the most common response, although proportionally less Territorians opted for “quite important” (Figure 11B). This seems to signal that, given the shorter nature of Territorians’ journeys, some were definitely out to visit KNP (hence the large proportion of “most important” responses) and others were intercepted while passing by, for instance to access Oenpelli and Arnhem Land.

Figure 11B: Importance of KNP to Top End visitors

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Least important Somew hat important Moderately important Quite important Most important

%



63

Lastly, respondents were asked how important KNP was in relation to their travels in the NT (Table 26B).

Table 26B: Importance of KNP to NT visitors



% 1.9 2.8 8.5 2.5


% 3.0 4.0 10.6 3.7


% 14.9 18.6 4.3 16.2


% 30.4 33.9 17.0 31.5


% 49.7 40.7 59.6 46.1

Total 736 607 47 1390

The majority of respondents confirmed the iconic status of KNP by indicating that KNP was of major importance to them during their trip. When combined with the response “quite important”, the overwhelming majority of people recognised the importance of KNP, although it is not clear whether they fully considered that they might have come to the NT for other icons such as Uluru. Territorians were particularly adamant about the importance of KNP because they were less likely to be on a long journey including other icons. Less than 25% of all respondents were indifferent (with responses ranging between moderately to least important) (Figure 12B).

Figure 12B: Importance of KNP to NT visitors

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%



64

The next question asked respondents to provide an opinion about their perceptions of the importance of KNP in attracting people to the region. Results from the five-point Likert scale (with one representing least important and five representing most important) appear in Table 27B and Figure 13B.

Table 27B: Perceived importance of KNP to the region by origin

Origin Mean N Std. Deviation

Interstate 4.40 757 0.80

Overseas 4.43 635 0.66

Intra-Territory 4.52 82 0.71

Total 4.42 1474 0.74

Figure 13B: Perceived importance of KNP to the region by origin

Results were consistently high. Results for the intra-Territory sample (and other groups) reflect the views of people who have a positive bias towards KNP, demonstrated by their presence in the park. The larger standard deviation for interstate respondents perhaps suggests their opinions are more diverse about the importance of KNP to the region, but it remains high on average.

Table 28B and Figure 14B document the total distribution of scores, showing actual numbers and proportions.

Table 28B: Importance of KNP



% 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6


% 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.2


% 8.7 6.9 8.5 7.9


% 33.8 40.3 26.8 36.2


% 55.0 51.8 63.4 54.1

4.20

4.25

4.30

4.35

4.40

4.45

4.50

4.55

4.60



65

Figure 14B: Importance of KNP to the region

Duration of Trip Components In this section, the respondents’ length of stay in the NT, in the Top End and in KNP are analysed and contrasted. These three pieces of information were requested jointly in Question 2 of the KNPVES survey, forcing respondents to reflect on the boundaries of the Top End and the NT. The ‘number of nights’ categories used in each item differ to reflect the spread for each category, as informed from secondary data from the NTTM. For instance, the length of stay in the NT allows comparisons with the NTTM.

Most visitors to KNP stayed between one to three nights (Table 29B and Figure 15B). This confirms NTTM data which indicates the average length of stay in most accommodation types, in most regions throughout the NT, is approximately two nights.

Table 29B: Length of stay in KNP

Nights Frequency %

0 50 3.2

1-3 1161 73.4

4-7 273 17.3

8-80 97 6.1

Total 1581 100.0

Figure 15B: Length of stay in KNP

In many instances a trip to KNP was made in conjunction with extended visitation to the NT. The data indicates a pattern of stay of less than two weeks in the Top End for the majority of holiday makers

(59.1%), combined with the significant component (23.2%) of longer duration visitors (Table 30B and Figure 16B). The

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 nights 1 to 3 nights 4 to 7 nights 8 to 80 nights

%


66

latter group consists significantly of domestic travellers, including the archetypical ‘grey traveller’ couples (stereotyped as retired couples from interstate who self-drive (usually with caravans or campervans) and spend long periods of time, coinciding with winter in the southern states, at camping facilities throughout the NT).

Table 30B: Length of stay in Top End

Nights Frequency % Valid %

1-4 nights 283 17.9 18.7

5-7 nights 357 22.6 23.6

8-13 nights 294 18.6 19.4

14-30 nights 212 13.4 14.0

31-180 nights 367 23.2 24.3

Total 1513 95.7 100.0

Missing 68 4.3

Total 1581 100.0

Figure 16B: Length of stay in Top End

Beyond the non-applicability to intra-Territory respondents, there was a considerable rate of invalid responses to this question, indicating that many respondents misunderstood this question or could not answer it. This is possibly due to the fact that some respondents they were not travelling beyond the Top End, therefore deemed the question not to be applicable to their circumstances or could not identify clearly what the NT is (while a rudimentary definition of the Top End had been provided). Those who did answer were relatively evenly distributed between the three categories of one, two or three weeks’ duration in the NT (Table 31B and Figure 17B). A small proportion stayed in excess of two months.

Table 31B: Length of stay in NT

Nights Frequency % Valid %

1-7 nights 348 22.0 27.0

8-12 nights 329 20.8 25.5

13-21 nights 354 22.4 27.4

22-60 nights 228 14.4 17.7

65-180 nights 32 2.0 2.5

Total 1291 81.7 100.0

Missing 290 18.3

Total 1581 100.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

1-4 5-7 8-13 14-30 31-180 Unspecif ied

Nights

%


67

Figure 17B: Length of stay in NT

For the sake of integrating the information above, average number of nights spent by each segment in each spatial component has been computed (Table 32B). Relative to the duration of their stay in the NT and the Top End, Territorians spend significantly less time in KNP than any other group.

Table 32B: Duration of stay by origin

Origin Nights in Kakadu Nights in Top End Nights in Northern Territory

Mean 3.16 11.90 19.69

N 780 658 697

Std. Deviation 3.93 13.72 22.03

Median 2 8 14

Interstate

Maximum 80 180 180

Mean 2.45 8.26 14.58

N 660 503 586

Std. Deviation 1.67 9.86 14.96

Median 2 6 10

Overseas

Maximum 19 90 150

Mean 1.77 75.39 84.96

N 78 80 78

Std. Deviation 1.24 30.23 15.35

Median 2 88 88

Intra-Territory

Maximum 7 N/A N/A

Mean 2.78 14.52 21.23

N 1518 1241 1361

Std. Deviation 3.07 21.35 24.72

Median 2 7 13

Total

Maximum 80 180 180

0

5

10

15

20

25

1-7 8-12 13-21 22-60 61-180 Unspecified

Nights

%


68

The results above are presented in two different ways. In Figure 18B, the average values for each origins segment are contrasted. This features the anomalies for intra-Territory responses, which suggest that some respondents provided the number of nights in the NT including time they spent at home.

Figure 18B: Duration of stay in various areas by origin segments

A different presentation is displayed in Figure 19B. It features the ratio of nights spent in KNP to the number of nights in the Top End, as well as nights in KNP to the number of nights in the NT. The average time spent in KNP by survey respondents lies between 33% (interstate travellers) and 41% (international travellers) of their time in the Top End. The average applies only to Territorians who responded properly the question and remains high, as most of them were on journeys specifically dedicated to that region. As expected, ratios of nights in KNP to the number of nights within the NT are smaller, but feature the same relative patterns.

Figure 19B: Ratio of nights spent in KNP

Trip Attributes Linked to KNP This section examines attributes related specifically to the KNP trip segment. Percentages in the table below reflect the proportions of respondents who would be classified as belonging to these general categories (in the general statistics) or who identified the specific type of entry out of each origin group. Most respondents entered KNP by road, and the few who entered by air reflect the small proportion of entrants with business, cruise and other distinct motives. The majority of road entrants were driving private vehicles. The general statistics from Table 33B are reproduced in Figure 20B.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Nights in Kakadu Nights in Top End Nights in NT


0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

ratio KNP to Top End ratio KNP to NT

%

InterstateOverseasIntra-TerritoryGroup Total


69

Table 33B: Transport attributes of entry into KNP (can be combined)


General statistics Private vehicle 367 129 65 561

% 45.3 19.0 75.6 35.6

4WD 287 125 37 449

% 35.4 18.4 43.0 28.5

Rented vehicle 175 206 8 389

% 21.6 30.4 9.3 24.7

Caravan/motorhome 216 88 6 310

% 26.7 13.0 7.0 19.7

Details of KNP entry

Air 4 7 0 11

% 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.7

Figure 20B: Transport used to enter KNP

The survey asked respondents to identify the locations of all overnight stops they had made within KNP. Figure 21B shows the percentage of visitors from each market segment who stayed at the various sites within KNP and each respondent could contribute to multiple locations. The responses reflect sites visited, not the number of nights spent in each location. Respondents can belong to more than one category above. As respondents also had to indicate the type of accommodation matched the location in a format similar to the NTTM, it is possible to provide a picture of overall accommodation use. Once again, respondents could identify more than one type of accommodation and the statistics reflect visitation, not overall person-nights. Respondents to the survey favoured caravan parks and campgrounds, reflecting the dominance of interstate visitors.

Figure 21B: Accommodation choice in KNP

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Private vehicle

4WD

Rented vehicle

Caravan/motorhome

%


05

101520253035404550

Hotel Hostel Caravan Park Campground VFR

%



70

Actual Activities Undertaken in KNP Table 34B reproduces actual participation in activities while in KNP.

Table 34B: Number and proportion who have undertaken activities in KNP

Activity Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

Aboriginal art/culture 532 462 59 1053

% 76.1 79.2 79.7 77.7

Bush walking 485 381 54 920

% 69.4 65.1 73.0 67.7

Other wildlife viewing 469 400 51 920

% 67.0 68.6 68.9 67.8

Crocodile watching 486 384 49 919

% 69.4 65.9 66.2 67.7

Bird watching 465 397 43 905

% 66.5 68.1 58.1 66.7

Boat cruises 391 278 33 702

% 55.9 47.8 44.6 51.8

Camping 304 314 51 669

% 43.6 53.9 68.9 49.4

Swimming 331 231 40 602

% 47.3 39.6 54.1 44.4

Other art/culture/historic sites 322 207 42 571

% 46.1 35.5 56.8 42.1

Four-wheel-driving 221 184 33 438

% 31.6 31.6 44.6 32.3

Bush/safari tours 129 167 12 308

% 18.5 28.7 16.2 22.7

Guided tour with Aboriginal guides 174 101 19 294

% 24.9 17.3 25.7 21.6

Bush food tasting 71 66 17 154

% 10.2 11.3 23.0 11.3

Scenic flights 72 37 14 123

% 10.3 6.4 18.9 9.1

Fishing 61 9 19 89

% 8.7 1.5 25.3 6.6

As can be observed in Table 34B or Figure 22B, the top response was Aboriginal art/culture, with the next four responses (bushwalking, crocodile watching, other wildlife viewing and bird watching) fairly evenly distributed in the total sample. The similarity with top activities while in the NT suggests a number of possibilities:

• KNP embodies the quintessential set of activities for some NT visitors, and they find there what they were in the NT for (or at least the Top End);


71

• The NT incorporates a limited number and diversity of possible activities, and respondents are likely to find the main ones in most locations; and

• There is some degree of self-selection and the respondents are likely to present in KNP activities as what they sought in the NT because of the location of the survey and a positive bias towards KNP in general.

A few disparities can be observed between origin groups, but they do not seem significant in contrast to activities while in the Top End. This suggests that supply-side constraints (limitations on what can be done in KNP) play a role in shaping these results.

Figure 22B: Proportion who have undertaken activities in KNP

Intended Activities in KNP Respondents were also asked to indicate which activities they intended to participate in the remaining part of their stay in KNP (Table 35B). This question is similar to that applying for the whole of the NT journey, and as for the former, the proportions of answers are much lower, indicating respondents have either already undertaken most activities of interest to them at the time of the survey, or they are unaware of what these might be.

Table 35B: Intended activities in KNP



% 15.6 20.1 14.9 17.5


% 12.7 17.2 8.1 14.4


% 10.0 10.6 14.9 10.5


% 8.7 12.2 5.4 10.0


% 8.9 11.8 5.4 9.9


% 7.3 9.9 18.9 9.1

0102030405060708090

Aborig

inal a

rt/cult

ure

Other w

ildlife

view

ing

Bush w

alking

Crocod

ile w

atchin

g

Birdwatc

hing

Boat c

ruise

s

Campin

g

Swimming

Other a

rt/cult

ure/hi

storic

sites

4WDing

Bush/s

afari t

ours

Guided

tour

with Abo

rigina

l guid

es

Bush f

ood t

astin

g

Scenic

fligh

ts

Fishing

%



72


% 8.6 9.6 6.8 8.9

Swimming 51 54 10 115

% 7.3 9.3 13.5 8.5

Bush walking 50 54 10 114

% 7.2 9.2 13.5 8.4


% 5.4 8.8 9.5 7.1


% 6.7 6.5 9.5 6.8


% 5.3 6.9 2.7 5.8


% 5.1 4.6 13.5 5.4

Camping 31 34 5 70

% 4.4 5.8 6.8 5.2

Fishing 35 19 6 60

% 5.0 3.3 8.0 4.4 In the case of intentions, boat cruises and crocodile watching ranked high on the list for interstate and international

visitors. Responses from Territorians were relatively spread throughout the full range of potential intentions but a few odd results suggest the latter did not restrict their intentions to the current trip when they answered the question. These results are reproduced in Figure 23B.

Figure 23B: Proportion of visitors who intend to undertake listed activities while in KNP

0

5

10

15

20

25

Boat c

ruise

s

Crocod

ile w

atchin

g

Guided

tour

with Abo

rigina

l guid

es

Other a

rt/cult

ure/hi

storic

sites

Other w

ildlife

view

ing

Bush f

ood t

astin

g

Aborig

inal a

rt/cult

ure

Swimming

Bush w

alking

Bush/s

afari t

ours

4WDing

Birdwatc

hing

Scenic

fligh

ts

Campin

g

Fishing

%

Interstate

Overseas

Intra-Territory

Total


73

Actual and Intended Activities in KNP As for activities within the NT, the data relating to activities that had already been undertaken is combined with data relating to intended activities in Table 36B. In this view of overall activities preferences (done or intended), Aboriginal art/culture, crocodile watching, other wildlife viewing and bushwalking rate highly with all types of visitors.

Table 36B: Activities respondents have done or intend to do while in KNP



% 84.7 88.9 86.5 86.6


% 82.1 83.0 74.3 82.1


% 75.9 80.4 74.3 77.7

Bush walking 535 435 64 1034

% 76.5 74.4 86.5 76.1


% 71.8 75.0 60.8 72.6


% 71.4 68.0 59.5 69.3

Camping 335 348 56 739

% 48.0 59.7 75.7 54.5

Swimming 382 285 50 717

% 54.6 48.9 67.6 52.8


% 54.8 47.7 62.2 52.1


% 38.3 38.1 54.1 39.1


% 34.9 27.9 40.5 32.2


% 23.9 37.5 25.7 29.8


% 17.5 21.2 41.9 20.4


% 15.4 11.0 32.4 14.4

Fishing 96 28 25 149

% 13.7 4.8 33.3 11.0


74

The data above confirms the relative dominance of the following culture and nature activities within KNP: 1. Aboriginal art/culture; 2. Crocodile watching; and 3. Other wildlife viewing.

These are followed closely by bushwalking, which can be interpreted quite loosely by different respondents. Any form of walking through the landscape can be associated with that response. As it dominates choices for intra-Territory respondents, it is likely that for them it reflects a particular suitability of KNP in fulfilling that role against other local alternatives.

While the list of activities was fixed in its design, it is striking that respondents signalled a much higher proportion of activities already undertaken compared to the activities intended to be. This is unlikely to be due to surveys being completed in the late stages of trips to KNP. It more likely to be explained by:

• The fact that many activities are recurrent (such as bushwalking or bird watching undertaken on many consecutive days). Visitors undertaking recurrent activities have responded that they already participated in such activities even if they intend to re-participate. This fits the larger proportion of boat cruises and crocodile-watching signalled as “intend to” because they are more likely to be a “one-only” occurrence during a specific KNP visit.

• The liberal interpretation of many of these activities. Bushwalking has already been mentioned and swimming is subject to the same qualifications – it could include pool swimming at a resort. Bird watching is likely to be included by anyone who observed some birds on a boat cruise or exploring the landscape. Similarly, Aboriginal art/culture might well only signal having observed rock art, which constitutes iconic activities within KNP.

Expenditure Data This section examines data related to expenditures as reported in the 2004 KNPVES. Respondents were asked to record expenditure in two columns on the survey form. In the first column, the whole travel party’s expenditure for the past 24 hours was to be listed against 12 categories. If the travel party had been in KNP for less than 24 hours respondents were asked to calculate anticipated expenditures for the following 24 hour period. In the second column respondents were asked to provide expenditure data for the travel party’s entire trip duration inside KNP. As parts of this question were incompletely or inconsistently answered by many respondents, the following measures were adopted to clean the data prior to analysis:

• Where data on the last 24 hours only was provided, this was translated into whole trip by adjusting for the number of days in park;

• Where whole trip in KNP only was provided, this was adjusted to 24 hours by similar reverse process; • Where respondents answered both questions, the average of daily and whole-trip figures were calculated and

used for each responding party; and • Where no question was satisfactorily or properly answered, the case was excluded from that part of the

analysis. The following approach was adopted: • Tables/figures were first produced that included all values as reported by respondents for the sake of providing

the total picture. This “raw” data was examined but not included in the body of this report. • A number of values were odd or excessive, so a typical role (such as eliminating values more that two standard

deviations away from the average) was used to determine the proportion of these that were cleaned out for the sake of subsequent calculations and KNP value assessment. The tables and figures referred to as “cleaned” therefore exclude them. Rules to decide on exclusion were as follows:

o values more than two standard deviations away from mean o number of cases where detailed examination suggested inconsistent answers in other categories – due

to possible deliberate miscalculation, carelessness, or misunderstanding of questions o number of expenditure categories in which no answer was entered; cases retained include all answers

(or only one missing – in which case the value is recoded as “$0”); there were 534 cases with no useable answer for the expenditures question there were 14 cases with 11 out of 12 expenditure categories missing there were 10 cases with 10 out of 12 expenditure categories missing in total 558 cases were eliminated from total expenditure calculations (534+14+10)

• As the sample size for each item differed and sub-groups (when cross-tabulations are applied by origin or other travel party attribute) varied, sub-sample sizes are provided in this section. It stems from the detailed examination that there have been difficulties arising in particular with respect to respondents associated with larger tours, as they were seldom aware or capable of estimating their share of group expenditures. This means that they are slightly under-represented in some of the samples examined in this section.


75

General expenditures per party Table 37B represents general expenditures per party per trip to KNP for interstate, international and intra-Territory visitors. The data has been cleaned according to the protocols described above.

Table 37B: Expenditures per party (entire trip)

Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total Expenditure

Mean N Std. Dev Mean N Std. Dev Mean N Std. Dev Mean N Std. Dev

Accommodation 78.99 142.41 62.31 110.90 60.21 90.66 70.95 127.75

F&B – hotels/rest. 33.85 52.83 27.61 48.30 42.50 52.77 31.65 51.06

F&B – supermarket 16.81 25.89 16.56 28.35 21.13 33.91 16.93 27.40

Cultural tours/indig 15.66 51.24 10.48 37.90 9.08 37.02 13.12 45.39

Other tours/shows 27.69 71.18 26.37 63.54 10.43 25.61 26.24 66.42

Scenic flights 13.66 48.38 13.56 49.66 12.08 48.81 13.54 48.90

Transport 69.99 162.54 62.72 129.18 60.43 89.55 66.42 146.04

Aboriginal art work 14.14 82.08 12.12 57.03 37.55 120.82 14.48 75.33

Gifts/souvenirs 12.66 26.38 9.35 34.65 3.42 14.38 10.78 29.82

Entertainment 4.39 24.72 0.87 5.69 5.46 19.52 2.95 18.87

Park fees 14.54 18.73 13.26 17.62 14.34 17.08 13.99 18.18

Other incidentals 7.08

530

16.92 5.44

429

14.30 5.41

52

10.94 6.30

1011

15.60 The data indicates that interstate travel parties have the highest expenditures in nine of the 12 categories, whereas

Territorians showed the highest expenditure for the other three categories; food, beverage and Aboriginal artwork. Although this unexpected result may have been biased by the greater size of intra-Territory travel parties, this might also reflect expenditures patterns specific to the Oenpelli/Gunbalanya Open Day and dedicated trips around KNP for that purpose.

Perhaps due to their greater propensity to be visiting friends and relatives, Territorians recorded the lowest expenditure on accommodation, tours, gifts and souvenirs and other incidentals. International visitors recorded the lowest expenditure on food and beverage, artwork and entertainment. It is likely that international respondents, not knowing what facilities were available in Kakadu, were more inclined on average to take some provisions with them. Figure 24B shows the average total expenditures per day by origin.

Figure 24B: Total expenditures per party per day

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Accom

modati

on

F&B - hote

ls/res

t.

F&B - sup

ermark

et

Cultura

l tours

/indig

enou

s

Other to

urs/sh

ows

Scenic

fligh

ts

Transpo

rt

Aborig

inal a

rt work

Gifts/so

uven

irs

Enterta

inmen

t

Park fe

es

other

incide

ntals

$


76

Accommodation and transport clearly constitute the highest expenditure items for all groups, followed by food and beverage (including supermarket purchases). These are henceforth referred to as main expenditures. When analysed on the basis of origin groups, interstate visitors spend consistently more on both accommodation and transport; international visitors are the next highest spenders in these categories, followed by Territorians (Figure 25B).

Figure 25B: Main expenditure categories by origin

General expenditures per person Table 38B represents travel party expenditures on a daily basis.

Table 38B: Expenditures per person per day

Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total Expenditures per day per person Mean N Std. Dev Mean N Std. Dev Mean N Std. Dev Mean N Std. Dev

Accommodation 32.17 530 52.02 27.00 429 42.79 23.83 52 43.89 29.55 1011 47.94

F&B – hotels/rest. 13.85 530 22.79 12.21 429 20.95 18.55 52 33.71 13.40 1011 22.75

F&B – supermarket 6.88 530 10.77 7.15 429 12.41 7.79 52 14.77 7.04 1011 11.71

Cultural tours/indig 6.63 530 19.81 4.92 429 23.51 1.96 52 6.35 5.66 1011 21.05

Other tours/shows 12.34 530 33.44 12.91 429 37.74 3.10 52 7.92 12.11 1011 34.59

Scenic flights 5.40 530 19.45 6.60 429 25.15 5.75 52 24.20 5.93 1011 22.27

Transport 31.62 530 71.98 28.20 429 67.11 30.56 52 78.57 30.11 1011 70.26

Aboriginal art work 8.72 530 73.26 5.46 429 25.32 11.95 52 35.94 7.50 1011 56.14

Gifts/souvenirs 5.35 530 11.88 3.99 429 15.73 1.38 52 7.00 4.57 1011 13.50

Entertainment 1.86 530 11.15 0.42 429 2.73 1.90 52 6.40 1.25 1011 8.42

Park fees 6.35 530 7.73 5.61 429 6.21 6.10 52 7.31 6.02 1011 7.10

Other incidentals 3.29 530 8.67 2.46 429 6.87 2.69 52 6.18 2.91 1011 7.84

When viewed on a per person basis, the following observations emerge: • Interstate visitors spend more than other groups on accommodation, cultural/indigenous tours, transport,

gifts/souvenirs, park fees and other incidentals; • International visitors spend less than other groups on food and beverage, indigenous artwork, entertainment and

park fees; and • Territorians spend more than the other groups on food and beverage and indigenous artwork but less than the

other groups on accommodation, tours and gifts/souvenirs. Expenditures on art work were partially related to visits to Oenpelli open day.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


$

Accommodation F&B - hotels/rest. F&B - supermarket Transport


77

The per person outlook revealed the following: • Interstate visitors spend most per travel party, but least per person on scenic flights; • International visitors spend most per person on other tours and scenic flights. However they spend least per

person on transport and other incidentals; and • Territorians spend most per person on entertainment.

In summary, it is clear that due to length of stay and party types, interstate visitors in KNP represent the greatest economic force. Territorians also have a significant impact on certain expenditure categories. Overseas visitors spend less, per person on average than domestic visitors on most categories.

To establish whether specific critical variables play a role and affect various expenditures categories, the data (mainly “total expenditures”, which results from the aggregation of all expenditure items) has also been analysed differently by disaggregating it for various travel party attributes. Only those variables which seem to discriminate significantly and impact on expenditures, directly or indirectly or those of specific interest to this study are reported below.

The first variable examined is the standard “origins” of travel party attribute (Table 39B).

Table 39B: Total expenditures by origin


Mean N Std. Dev Mean N Std. Dev Mean N Std. Dev Mean N Std. Dev

Per party 309.45 530 342.07 260.66 429 278.06 282.03 52 276.34 287.34 1011 313.79

Per person 134.45 530 167.30 116.93 429 123.77 115.56 52 150.07 126.04 1011 149.56 Data from Table 39B is represented in Figures 26B and 27B.

Figure 26B: Total expenditures by origin (per party)

It is important to note that total expenditures for intra-Territory travel parties are significantly higher than would be hypothesised. It has therefore proven useful to interrogate the size of intra-Territory travel parties to assess the effect of size on this result. Figure 27B is based upon per person expenditure and confirms that the intra-Territory samples must have included some large travel parties who spent considerably as a group.

Figure 27B: Total expenditures by origin (per person)

287.34282.03

260.66

309.45

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310


$

Total expenditure for party

c

126.04

115.56116.93

134.45

105

110

115

120

125

130

135


$

Total expenditure by person


78

The variable “main accommodation in the NT” is examined in Table 40B.

Table 40B: Main/preferred accommodation in the NT

Main/preferred accommodation Total exp party Total exp

person

Mean 429.5 196.2

N 248 248 Hotel / motel room

Std. Deviation 352.9 190.7

Mean 532.6 175.9

N 28 28 Holiday unit / flat


Mean 355.9 142.6

N 43 43 Visiting friends and relatives


Mean 249.0 125.1

N 80 80 Guest house / hostel / backpackers


Mean 318.3 116.3

N 48 48 Cabin /onsite van


Mean 206.3 91.0

N 548 548 Caravan sites / camping sites


Mean 286.4 125.8

N 995 995 Total


Table 40 and Figure 28B show that expenditures correlate closely with the pricing structures for different forms of

accommodation. It is not surprising that the more exclusive properties attract the highest expenditure levels per person. What is surprising is the large expenditures recorded by those who are visiting friends and relatives. This indicates that this group does spend money on accommodation whilst in the region, but the data does not identify on what items this money is exactly spent.


79

Figure 28B: Total accommodation expenditure per person

On a per person basis, the data above shows that total expenditures are lower for caravan/camping travellers (while in the NT), but the main explanation for this rests with the accommodation costs themselves. As caravanners have a significant length of stay, many still constitute significant spenders overall. Table 41B and Figure 29B report results linked with mode of entry into the NT. This data confirms that visitors on tours and with rented vehicles (two-wheel-drive, four-wheel-drive or campervan) display significantly larger expenditures per person than those with private transportation.

Figure 29B: Total expenditure per person by mode of entry to KNP

It is possible to verify the connection between the party type information and the mode of entry into the park, which is described in Table 41B. Only the first three categories have a sufficient sample size for meaningful analysis.

125.8

91.0

116.3125.1142.6

175.9196.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Hot el/ Mot el room Holiday unit / f lat VFR Guest House/Host el/ Backpackers

Cabin/ On sit e van Caravansit es/ Camping sit es

Tot al

$

46.8

98.471.7

93.7 81.1

141.2 146.4 133.2

187.6

125.6 128.4

65.2

126.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Air

Private

4WD

Private

4WD w

ith ca

ravan

Private

2WD

Private

2WD +

carav

an

Rented

2WD

Rented

4WD

Campe

rvan/m

otor h

ome

Tour c

oach

(2WD or 4

WD)

Expres

s/Sch

edule

d/Inte

rcity

bus

Other

Bicycle Tota

l

Small sample size

$


80

Table 41B: Total expenditure per person by mode of entry to KNP

Mode of travel Total

expenditure for party

Total expenditure by

person

Mean 271.8 114.2

N 706 706 Independent self-drive


Mean 303.5 133.4

N 116 116 Self-drive to park-tours


Mean 325.4 166.0

N 132 132 Organised tour ex Darwin


Mean 880.0 480.0

N 2 2 Organised tour ex Katherine


Mean 206.3 81.3

N 4 4 Greyhound bus


Mean 300.6 275.6

N 2 2 International tour


Mean 456.9 387.0

N 6 6 Interstate tour


Mean 285.1 126.2

N 968 968 Total


This data confirms the general ranking of various types of visitors in terms of their total expenditures, ranging from tours (originating mainly from Darwin), to combinations of drive and tour, to independent self-drive, as those spending least (Figure 30B).

Figure 30B: Total expenditure per person/party by mode of travel

Independentself-drive Self-drive to

park-tours Organised tourex Darw in


Total expenditure for party0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

$


Total expenditure for party


81

APPENDIX C: DIFFERENCES IN VISITOR NUMBER ESTIMATES

A number of potential considerations and adjustments are discussed sequentially below. [i] The Northern Territory Tourism Monitor data does not include day trippers. While the 2000-2001 KNP survey establishing expenditures and duration of visits in the park included a meaningful proportion of visitors on day trips to the park, this does not happen in the Northern Territory Tourism Monitor (NTTM) figures which are based on accommodation-based distribution. Hence it does not include visitors not spending at least one night in the sub-region.

Examination of the 2002 Kakadu National Park Visitor Survey (KNPVS) (ATECH data from 2000-2001) established the proportions of day visitors to the whole sample, as shown in Table 1C.

Table 1C: Proportion of day visitors

Origin Proportion

Intra-Territory 5.8

Interstate 3.2

International 2.8

Total 3.2

This implies that for each visitor staying at least one night in the NT, 0.33 day trippers should be counted. [ii] The NTTM data does include non-Kakadu National Park visitors that stayed in sub-region 12. It is expected that a number of visitors included in the NTTM data did not visit Kakadu National Park (KNP) on the trip for which they were surveyed. This is not expected to bias the results in a significant way for the following reasons:

• Most visits to the Mary River area (and the activities it incorporates) are complementary to those of KNP. The analysis of NTTM showed that attractions along the Arnhem Highway are locally complementary to KNP rather than substitutes for tourists. Visitors who might have decided to stay in the caravan parks, hostels or road-side accommodation along that way most probably were including these visits as part of their KNP journey.

• Visitors who might have decided to undertake a number of small trips and maintain Darwin as a base fit the same profile and would experience the same level of complementarity between these locations.

• Intra-Territory visitors (mainly from Darwin) are likely to dominate the remaining group that visits the Mary River area without entering KNP. They are likely to have fishing and camping as their primary motives and their expenditures can legitimately be excluded from the study following the same logic applying to the calculation of the attribution factor.

It is hypothesised that, in total, the NTTM might overestimate KNP visitors, due to the reasons above, by around 1-2%. Summary for [i] and [ii] Given the comparability – but in reverse directions – of the two potential divergences discussed so far, it is suggested that they can be considered to cancel each other. In fact, neutralising both effects is likely to maintain the overall estimate as “conservative” in the sense supported by Carlsen and Wood (2004). [iii] Adjustments might be needed to reflect seasonal variations in visitor types. In the final calculations below, an estimate using overall average and a second estimate balancing figures by taking into account origin-group differences are provided. This allows the study to test the robustness of the approach and provide contribution estimates associated with distinct groups. It is important for the second scenario that average proportions of the three origin groups be utilised consistently throughout the exercise for the critical variables of visitation, length of stay, expenditure per party, attribution factor and substitution factor. Table 2C features the proportion of visitors from each origin group which were found (on average in the last 10 years) during each quarter.


82

Table 2C: Group proportions by quarter

Quarter Intra-Territory Interstate International

Jan-Mar 0.36 0.22 0.42

Apr-Jun 0.27 0.48 0.25

Jul-Sep 0.18 0.52 0.29

Oct-Dec 0.31 0.22 0.47 Kakadu visitor numbers It is, at this time of change in the availability of statistical time series, appropriate to contrast the various sources and past estimates of visitor numbers in KNP, for the sake of assessing the reliability of any of the former sources. Although the NTTM is discontinued, it is useful to contrast it against parks sources. This discussion does not aim to compare the technical merits of measures and calibration methods. It will only be noted here that the various estimates provided by stakeholders all have their procedural weaknesses and that details about calibration were not investigated for this report. The NTTM, like the National Visitor Survey (NVS) and International Visitor Survey (IVS), is a broad region statistical instrument relying on built-in assumptions, themselves linked with regular calibration and weighted measures to assess on-the-ground conditions.

The same principles apply to local measures provided by KNP as estimates of visitation. Time series are presented in Figures 1C and 2C, featuring the two indicators used historically to evaluate tourist numbers in KNP. The main estimate originates from the Bowali Visitor Centre pedestrian counter (infra-red) which has been calibrated and weighed for the purpose of assessing visitor numbers.

Figure 1C: Visitor number estimates based on Bowali Visitor Centre counter; showing seasonal split on yearly data

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

year-quarter

quar

terly

vis

num

bers

oct-decjul-sepapr-junjan-mar


83

Figure 2C: Visitor numbers based on Bowali Visitor Centre counter, quarterly data displaying seasonality

Since 1996, the data from those measures suggests fairly regular and consistent seasonal variations, with a regular ratio of approximately one (low season) to two (late shoulder season) to three (early shoulder season) to four (high season). It is unclear how regularly the calibration has been revised and adjusted. The second source of data sometimes used before 2005 is built on the basis of the tickets sold at park entry stations (and in Darwin) which used to be requested to enter the park (Figure 3C). That measure reflects non-local vehicles and passenger numbers going through the gates with a declared recreation or tourism purpose.

Figure 3C: Number of visitors as per tickets sold at park entry stations

This data complements that from above and provides a similar picture with respect to seasonal patterns and the slow decline in visitor numbers since the mid-1990s. But the overall magnitudes differ, with ticket sales-based data not surprisingly suggesting lesser visitation than movements at the visitor centre. It is interesting to combine the visitor

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

84q1 85q1 86q1 87q1 88q1 89q1 90q1 91q1 92q1 93q1 94q1 95q1 96q1 97q1 98q1 99q1 00q1 01q1 02q1 03q1

quarter

visi

tors

to B

owal

i

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

year-quarter

visi

tor n

umbe

rs

oct-dec

jul-sep

apr-jun

jan-mar


84

numbers time series originating from the Bowali counter adjusted figures, ticket sales, NTTM calculations and the NVS-IVS estimates over the overlapping years where these were available. This is presented in Figure 4C.

Figure 4C: Number of visitors – comparisons between Bowali and NVS-IVS data

A number of observations can be made: • Figures derived from the Bowali counter-based method were systematically the highest, and can be considered

to constitute the upper boundary of the credible range of values for KNP visitation; • Time series originating from the NTTM could be described as the lower boundary for the same reasons, and fill

their “conservative” role in this application of the Carlsen and Wood approach; • The dynamic patterns established by the Bowali and entry tickets sales are fairly similar, although with a

magnitude differential; • The NTTM and the IVS-NVS series fit the overall patterns, with the exception of 1999 and 2000, where both

these times series display contrary trends (that is upwards) to the KNP historical data; and • Apart from the two years mentioned above, the match between the NTTM and entry ticket sales over the last

few years is reasonably good. It is important to take issue with past arguments that have been used to justify the lack of attention given to records

of absolute values of visitation for protected areas such as KNP and focussing only on the acquisition of reliable records of historical changes. This seems justified by the importance of reliable data for the sake of making credible claims about economic contributions, especially when the average gap between the lower and upper boundaries has been in the vicinity of 20% of the upper boundary of this critical variable. In fact, that gap seems to have stabilised in the order of 40,000 visitors in the years 2000-2004 and still raises questions. From the viewpoint of this study, a possible range of 20% on a critical determinant of the economic value unavoidably creates some concerns about the reliability of any of the measurement instruments described above.

As KNP is already embarking in a new and more comprehensive process to track visitor data, it is not the purpose of this study to make precise recommendations about future alternatives or complementary measures, but a number of further observations are useful:

• There has been informal reporting that past data based on ticket sales at entry gates were not a reliable source of data because there were rumours of gate avoidance by some park users. When observing the graph above, the match between entry gates data and the NTTM data suggests that entry gates might not have been at fault and that Bowali figures could have been exaggerated.

• It is worth noting that these Bowali figures have been presented in various studies (Access Economics 2002; Hansen & Stanley 2004). These strategic and economic analytical reports prepared by consultants used that data and identified it erroneously as NTTC data – while it was data inserted in NTTC statistics but simply reproduced from the sources and methods originating from KNP itself. This constitutes an undesirable practice

Data sources comparison

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

220000

240000

260000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

year

visi

tor n

umbe

r est

imat

es

NTTM estimateEntry ticket salesBowali counterNVS + IVS


85

when the performance of key tourism system components is assessed and the sources and reliability of the data can be questioned.

• Accepting that in the past there have been a range of possible values for visitation to KNP, it is useful to identify a lower and an upper boundary. What needs reiteration is that it is simple to convert the latter in lower and upper estimates of the net economic contribution of KNP to the region through tourism and that the general approach remains valid.

At the end of the day, it is clear that no method is more reliable a priori and, given the forthcoming improvements in data-gathering processes both for NT-wide data collections and KNP techniques, the most useful recommendation is for various agencies to ensure that data collected through different means can be tested against each other, and eventually complement each other with respect to ability to support destination development objectives.

Beyond differences between methods, data series from various sources confirm the decline of overall performance and show that this was accompanied by important shifts in market mix in the last five years. From closer examination of the data found in the NTTM, the same explanatory variables and contextual changes seem to have played a role in shaping visitation patterns and cycles for KNP as for Top End tourism performance in general. This was suggested in the report, which showed that the propensity to visit KNP was fairly stable over the 10-year period where data was consistently collected. It is further made plausible by observing that the general time series for KNP mimic those of the entire Top End (especially if focussed on holiday/pleasure motivated travellers).

This raises an interesting question about whether KNP is the cause of Top End tourism’s good and bad performance, or simply a consequence. As in the chicken-or-the-egg problem, this can in turn suggest either that KNP (as an attractions sub-system) is a typical component operating neither better nor worse than the rest of the Top End tourism system, or that it is critical and its performance is the cause driving up or down the rest of the Top End tourism industry. Hence the need to re-examine its perceived role within that system from the accumulated data. Motives for being in the NT and for visiting KNP, activities and awareness The KNPVES allows for the exploration of the declared motives and activities of KNP visitors (in the NT and KNP) in a way that is compatible with the NTTM methodology, for the sake of providing a more in-depth profile of KNP visitors based on both sources.

The data from the NTTM has already identified that KNP visitors were more likely to choose to visit the NT (than other Top End tourists not visiting KNP) for the following reasons (with declining importance):

• To visit World Heritage Areas; • To see wildlife; • To see the outback/wilderness; • To see icons; • To experience real aboriginal culture; and • To have an adventure.

All these motives feature quintessential Top End expectations and this portion of data alone confirmed the iconic nature of KNP itself through its fit with those general descriptors (as opposed to many more precise ones where KNP visitors were analogous to non-visitors). In other words, those tourists expressing a desire to experience the above essential motivations also associate them with KNP. The match with the KNPVES data becomes critical. When asked about their main reasons for visiting KNP within a group of activities that can be undertaken across the Top End, this latter group of respondents identified the motives outlined in Figure 5C.

Figure 5C: Main reasons for visiting KNP

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

aboriginalart/ culture

bushw alking fishing sw imming camping scenery seeingw ildlife

naturalenvironment



86

While it is plain that the number of expected experiences in KNP and in the Top End is supply-side constrained, the relative importance of seeing wildlife, the scenery, Aboriginal art/culture and the natural environment rates strikingly above that of bushwalking, swimming or camping and other popular activities also enjoyed in the Top End. The latter three activities are undertaken by many (and sometimes probably account for more time and effort that the primary motivations listed above) but they do not constitute a “motive” to visit KNP as such in their perceptions. This supports the view that the former group of experiences constitute primary drivers for visitation (both to KNP and the NT) and that KNP is identified as the chief place where these experiences can occur.

But once in the Top End, it is possible that the secondary activities such as swimming, camping and bushwalking are either:

• Supporting activities allowing and compatible with the enjoyment of the primary drives onsite (for instance in KNP) – in this case they can constitute primary means to reach the basic motive but are not identified as drivers as such;

• Secondary attractions located in the gateway services centre or around the primary attractions spaces (such as KNP and other protected areas) which can support specific needs (for instance to occupy children), or facilitate coping with the climate (swimming), or make the journey between gateway and specific attractions more interesting; and

• Tertiary necessities such as simple attributes of the mode of travel (for instance for tourists going around the country camping) and reflect simply a mode of travel choice not specific to the Top End or NT component of the trip.

As the issue of the standing of KNP in the tourist mind was unclear at the outset, the KNPVES also queried prior knowledge of KNP’s World Heritage Area (WHA) status and whether visitors had decided to visit KNP prior to their arrival in the NT (Table 3C and Figure 6C).

Table 3C: Prior knowledge of KNP

Prior Knowledge Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

Know about Kakadu prior to visiting Northern Territory 790 591 - 1381

% 98.9 88.9 - 89.1

Decided to visit Kakadu prior to visit Northern Territory 713 562 - 1317

% 89.2 85.2 - 85.5

Kakadu World Heritage Area 730 445 71 1246

% 93.4 69.1 92.2 82.9

Figure 6C: Prior knowledge of KNP

While the reliability of the responses for this question is uncertain (due to possible biases associated with factors such as pride and the context of the survey), it seems that the role and place of KNP as a critical and significant tourist attraction is well-supported by the data, and that many tourists in the Top End (and in fact in the NT) have already made up their mind about including it in their itinerary. This suggests there are limited benefits from trying to increase their awareness once inside the NT (of its existence purely – but there could be other benefits from marketing specific aspects).

0102030405060708090

100

Aware prior to visiting NT Decided prior to visit NT World Heritage Area

%

Interstate Overseas


87

Cross-tabulations between the above three awareness indicators and variables such as information sources consulted, time spent in KNP, the Top End or NT, and the number of visits to the NT prior to this trip suggest significant relationships explaining awareness or general knowledge. Both the decision to visit KNP prior to being in the NT and the awareness that KNP was a WHA displayed significant relationships with the stated importance of KNP in the overall Top End and NT visits. This positive association validates the value of this general question about the general significance of KNP to Top End travel. Also, respondents who stated their main motive for being in the NT was business/work and sport, education and other were less likely to have known of KNP or have decided to visit KNP – but their knowledge of its WHA status was not different.

It is worth noting that there were no stated differences with respect to awareness of KNP or decisions to visit it between those visiting KNP on tours from Darwin and those self-driving. There was a slightly positive correlation between self-drive and knowledge of WHA status, but this is affected by an intervening statistical association with domestic origins. The samples for respondents participating in interstate and international tours were too small to make any conclusions. While there are strong grounds to suggest KNP is a critical driver of holiday/pleasure markets and that it dominates the mental and physical landscapes that Top End visitors seek to experience in this region, it is unclear how it performs in channelling expenditures in the region(s) and in retaining tourists or adding to the duration of their local visitation.

The figures originating from data discussed below reflect some relevant statistics. In Figures 7C and 8C, mean and median values for the number of nights spent in KNP, the Top End and the NT are presented. This is followed by mean and median values of the ration of nights spent in KNP to those spent in the Top End and in the NT (Figure 9C). The rationale for presenting both means and medians is to further limit the impact of outliers and provide two meaningful indicators of the relative amount of time spent in KNP.

The data associated with intra-Territory visitors is not included because it can be inferred after close examination that there are problems (for some respondents in this group) with the way they have interpreted the time spent travelling in the Top End or the NT, with a number of such KNP visitors from the NT showing that most of their time was dedicated to KNP (or Arnhem Land) but others also providing implausible values for the time they were spending travelling in the Top End or in the NT – in other words a huge variance in responses within that group. The analysis below therefore focuses on valid interstate and overseas travellers which answered all three questions related to time spent in KNP, Top End and the NT correctly.

Figure 7C: Means of duration of stay in various areas by origin

3.30

12.07

20.08

2.51

8.55

15.68

2.95

10.53

18.16

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00


Interstate

Overseas

Total


88

Figure 8C: Medians of duration of stay in various areas by origin

Figure 9C: Mean and median values of the ration of nights spent in KNP to those spent in the Top End and the NT

It seems from the figures that interstate visitors spend 30-35% of their nights in the Top End in KNP (or 18-21% of their NT nights). The figures for overseas visitors are 33-41% of nights in the Top End in KNP (or 19-23% of their NT nights). This data shows that, although KNP and its environment play a critical role in bringing these visitors to the Top End, they end up spending around one-third of their time in the park and its vicinity. It is not necessarily unusual for market segments to spend a significant amount of time on their way towards an attraction or in service centre hubs and transport gateways. But there is no historical data available on trends in the proportion of time spent in KNP, in Darwin and in other regions of the Top End competing for tourists’ time budgets.

2

9

14

2

6

10

2

7

13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


num

ber o

f nig

hts

Interstate

Overseas

Total

0.30

0.38

0.33

0.21 0.18

0.23

0.19

0.22 0.18

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Interstate - mean Interstate - median Overseas - mean Overseas - median Total - median

KNP to TE KNP to NT


89

One variable of particular interest in explaining the time spent in KNP is the mode of travel in terms of differentiating between those participating in tours and the self-drive market. The KNPVES allowed differentiation between (and provided sufficient sample size for) the categories shown in Table 4C.

Table 4C: Mode of travel compared to number of nights KNP, Top End and NT

Travel mode within Kakadu Nights in KNP Nights in Top End Nights in NT

Mean 3.36 12.07 20.81

N 661 661 661

Std. Dev. 3.95 14.47 20.92 Independent self-drive

Median 3 8 14

Mean 2.86 8.86 17.36

N 105 105 105

Std. Dev. 1.52 5.12 11.36

Self-drive to park-tours (in the survey interpreted as driving to the park but taking tours from Jabiru or Cooinda).

Median 3 8 14

Mean 1.62 6.32 9.86

N 206 206 206

Std. Dev. 0.88 7.10 8.66 Organised tour ex Darwin

Median 2 5 8 It stems from the table above (and is plainly visible in Figure 10C) that independent self-travellers consistently

spend more time in KNP, in the Top End and in the NT in general, which is consistent with general wisdom.

Figure 10C: Mode of travel compared to number of nights in KNP, Top End and NT

3.36

12.07

20.81

2.86

8.86

17.36

1.62

6.32

9.86

0

5

10

15

20

25


Mea

n nu

mbe

r of n

ight

s

Independent self-drive

Self-drive to park-tours

Organised tour ex Darwin


90

But the data above reflects general trends for the Top End and the NT, as Table 5C shows.

Table 5C: Mode of travel compared to number of nights in Top End or NT

Travel mode within KNP Proportion of KNP nights to Top End nights

Proportion of KNP nights to NT nights

Mean 0.38 0.22

N 661 661

Std. Dev. 0.22 0.15 Independent self-drive

Median 0.33 0.19

Mean 0.40 0.22

N 105 105

Std. Dev. 0.23 0.17 Self-drive to park-tours

Median 0.33 0.19

Mean 0.35 0.21

N 206 206

Std. Dev. 0.25 0.16 Organised tour ex Darwin

Median 0.33 0.17

Given the evidence about the consistent importance of KNP as an attractor and the limited time spent there by most

travellers (considering only those who actually visit KNP), a number of comments ought to be made: • Extending the length of stay (relative and absolute) in KNP might or might not be recognised or desirable

objectives for park management and KNP owners or stakeholders; • It is unclear to which extent extension of the duration in KNP would translate into:

o Increased local expenditures (it has been noted that there is a negative relationship between length of stay and daily expenditures);

o Increased satisfaction (and likelihood of repeat visits); o Increased profitability of commercial operations inside KNP; o Increased pressure on infrastructure needs and other costs of supporting tourism activity within KNP; o Improvements or worsening of seasonality;

• It stems from the considerations above that various groups visiting KNP differ with respect to: o The levels of flexibility allowing them to consider extending time spent in KNP, and the personal

value they would get from it; o The degree of responsiveness they are likely to display towards price/cost considerations; o The number, diversity and access to activities or attractions (around the themes of wildlife, Aboriginal

culture, nature, and scenery, etc) that would be needed to persuade them to spend more time in KNP and what would be needed for them to consider this to constitute good value for money (relative to other Top End alternatives or other destinations altogether); and

o The extent to which they could be affected negatively by tourists’ congestion or perceived commercialisation of parts of KNP if more products were developed and the marketing of those became more evident (this is particularly relevant for KNP not only because its refers to living Aboriginal culture, but also because KNP sells its cultural and landscape diversity, which is difficult to grasp and appreciate in little time).

It is clear that tourists self-select to a large extent, with some contented to focus on nature and culture on display and facilitated and others (either time-rich, budget-rich or both) willing to look for differentiated products and experiences. Deciding whether the latter can justify supplementary infrastructure investments requires some strategic planning from KNP management and from the regional tourism industry. From the viewpoint of this report, it can be emphasized that it is important for KNP to decide what role it wants to play in Top End tourism and whether it wants to maintain its current share of tourists’ presence and expenditures or increase or decrease it. If an increase was being considered, then yearly financial support for KNP tourism activities (from various sources) would need to match the impending increased economic contribution.

In a way, what is happening at the present is that some of the essence of the region (strongly associated with KNP as evidenced by both data sources) is experienced inside KNP and much is experienced outside of KNP. The wetlands, wildlife viewing opportunities, Aboriginal and other local cultures are encountered around the Top End and this is not necessarily a bad thing from the tourism sector viewpoint, as it entails general and dispersed benefits and costs. It


91

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Bush w

alking

Aborig

inal a

rt/cult

ure

Swimming

Other w

idlife

view

ing

Crocod

ile w

atchin

g

other

art/cu

lture/

histor

ic sit

es

Birdwatc

hing

Boat c

ruise

s

Campin

g

4WDing

Bush/s

afari t

ours

Fishing

Guided

tour

with A

borig

inal g

uides

Bush f

ood t

astin

g

Scenic

fligh

ts

% Intend to do

Have done

positively helps spread economic benefits and multiple impacts but it might also create consumer perception, disappointments and looser coordination of the nature and culture put on display. This means that KNP is (in the mind of tourists and industry) expected to deliver the leading experiences that can not be produced elsewhere, and these might well be some of the most difficult or costly to deliver, given natural vagaries, seasonality, public safety concerns, apprehensions about cultural preservation and social reality.

Whatever strategic approach is endorsed with respect to the positioning of KNP within the Top End, tourism products and the range of activities on offer within the park need careful preparation. Some information gathered in the surveys can assist. In the KNPVES, a question about the spectrum of activities expected in the NT journey by KNP visitors was devised and both interest levels and participation were recorded. Figures 11C and 12C show stated participation rates (did/intend to do) for activities in the NT and in KNP.

Figure 11C: Activities in NT done/intended by all respondents

Figure 12C: Proportion of all respondents having done/intended listed activities in KNP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Aborig

inal a

rt/cult

ure

Crocod

ile w

atchin

g

Other w

idlife

view

ing

Bush w

alking

Birdwatc

hing

Boat c

ruise

s

Campin

g

Swimming

other

art/cu

lture/

histor

ic sit

es

4WDing

Guided

tour

with A

borig

inal g

uides

Bush/s

afari t

ours

Bush f

ood t

astin

g

Scenic

fligh

ts

Fishing

%

Intend to

Have done


92

While the patterns are similar (between Figure 11C and 12C), it can also be observed that some respondents must have excluded KNP from their consideration when answering about the NT as some participation rates are greater for KNP than for the NT. This possibility does not affect the conclusions reaching the general match between them.

Once again, there was a strong correspondence between activities undertaken in the NT and in KNP. This fact was used earlier to suggest KNP embodies the quintessential set of activities for some NT visitors, and they find there what they were in the NT for (or at least the Top End), but recognising that the NT incorporates a limited number and diversity of possible activities, and respondents are likely to find some of those in many locations.

In relative terms, the data above suggests a definitive conceptual competitive advantage for KNP in terms of the following culture and nature activities and experiences it represents:

1. Aboriginal art/culture; 2. Crocodile watching; and 3. Other wildlife viewing.

The KNPVES also listed activities which featured under the heading “wish I could have done” and at least 10% of actual respondents expressed some yearning for (in decreasing order of importance):

1. Guided tours with aboriginal guides; 2. Bush food tasting; 3. Scenic flights; 4. Fishing; and 5. Four-wheel-driving.

It was noted that these unfulfilled expressions of interest reflect a combination of unmet demand (inadequate supply), inappropriate pricing, limited access, information gaps and time limitations, as perceived by respondents actually visiting KNP. Two other activities attracted more than 5% of respondents identifying them as not done but desirable and can also refer to the same constraints as above:

1. Swimming; and 2. Bush safari tours.

It must be remembered that the list above indicates some potential unmet demand, not the absolute interest in those activities, as many respondents had participated in all of those. Alternative NT attraction: substitutes and complements Combining the above KNPVES-driven interpretation of visitor motives with the detailed examination of the NTTM produces a further set of useful observations about visitor behaviour and choices which ought to be useful for planning (for the NTTC and for KNP) (Table 6C). The focus here was on the linkages between attractions found in the NT, including alternative protected areas. It was found that KNP visitors were more likely to visit a number of NT alternative attractions located more or less in proximity to KNP. At the outset, the positive relationship between the propensity to visit KNP and other major NT attractions is affected by the motives (pleasure/holiday at the expense of business or visiting friends and relatives) and this was tested and adjusted for. From the observations related to both actual visits and intention to visit other attractions by KNP visitors, the following provides a specifically KNP viewpoint which is plausible.

These observations are important and put a different perspective on past statements about the relative performance of KNP. For instance, Hansen and Stanley (2004) contrast the declining visitor numbers in KNP to figures available for other important protected areas found in the NT. This warrants some comments:

• They mistakenly present the data as originating from the NTTC. As mentioned above, the data for KNP is based on Bowali counts and the data for the other parks originates from collections undertaken by Parks & Wildlife NT.

• Their financial year comparisons clearly show that the parks with clear growth are Uluru NP and Watarrka NP in the Centre, while Nitmiluk and Litchfield have shown no growth since 1998.

• Comparisons between parks which play such different strategic roles are dangerous. Litchfield NP for instance has a completely different visitor mix and the vagaries of international tourism events are less likely to affect it. The growth of visitors to Watarrka NP on the other hand has been driven by facilities and tour operators, in the sense that it has become a standard feature in visits to that region, but not necessarily the main driver for visitation (Tremblay & Carson 2006). Furthermore, it has an excessively large proportion of day visits. The real meaningful comparison at the end of the day is between the Kakadu (as Top End icon) and Uluru (as Centre icon) and the relative performances of these regions.


93

Table 6C: Substitutes and complements

Attraction Criterion General comments

Local-circuit minor complements

Fogg Dam

Windows on the Wetlands

Mary River wetlands

Darwin-based attractions fitting natural and cultural themes (Darwin Botanic garden, markets, etc.)

NT wildlife park (by extension of the above)

Included in some tours and in many independent travellers’ itineraries – around 20-40% overall visit (or intend) as well as KNP.

• Complements wetlands landscapes and wildlife-viewing opportunities for tours seeking differentiation or damage-control when visitors did not experience some activities in KNP.

• Can be a complement for independent travellers (breaking up the journey) and a substitute for some – when access (including accommodation) or cost of KNP is an issue.

Major regional complements

Litchfield National Park

Nitmiluk National Park

NT Museum & Art gallery

Included in the majority of tours and independent travellers’ itineraries – more than 50% visit or intend to.

• Clear complements for time-rich travellers; but can compete with duration of stay in KNP, especially on the basis of ancillary activities (swimming, camping, bushwalking, etc.).

• Substitutes when time is constrained and Top End trip starts/ends in Darwin.

• Hold some iconic drawing power in themselves.

• For parks – past perceptions that the landscape and natural environment attributes are strong. Less so for wildlife viewing and cultural access.

• NT Museum provides a good scope on the above.

Major NT complements / substitutes

Uluru / Ayer’s Rock

Kata Tjuta / Olgas

Around 50% of KNP visitors include in same trip – more for overseas.

• Budgeted component holding highest iconic value.

• Hold similar intrinsic motives linked with nature and culture.

• Complements on NT scale for independent, substitutes in overall trip components for tours and time-poor travellers.

Alice Springs Desert Park

Watarrka National Park

Simpsons Gap / West MacDonnell

Secondary attractions to the above scoring between 20-40%.

• Complementary to Uluru/Kata Tjuta and included in many tours or itineraries.

• Slowly developing their own brands and iconic status.

• Play a role in the regional context in providing opportunities for differentiated landscape, wildlife viewing opportunities and cultural experiences.


94

APPENDIX D: ROBUSTNESS OF THE KAKADU NATIONAL PARK VISITOR ECONOMIC SURVEY

It is useful to assess if the Kakadu National Park Visitor Economic Survey (KNPVES) survey sample is representative by making a number of simple comparisons with the Northern Territory Tourism Monitor (NTTM) beyond those already completed in earlier appendices. While it is clear that the respondents surveyed between August and December 2004 cannot be expected to perfectly replicate the attributes of overall visitors to KNP during the 10 years of the NTTM, it is worth investigating a number of indicators available through the Commercial Accommodation Survey (CAS) to address two questions:

• Does the KNP survey data differ significantly from the NTTM during the same period of time (August-December 2004)? This will be answered by examining NTTM quarters July-September and October-December 2004.

• To what extent does the period of time (that year in the history of the park) provide a representative performance of KNP? In other words, might the second half of 2004 have been an unusual basis for calculations?

While it is important to raise them, these questions cannot be answered fully for a number of practical reasons. The NTTM itself is not perfect and some odd results can be obtained in some years, especially with respect to intra-Territory travel. Yet uncovering methodological discrepancies needs to be documented and can suggest improvements. Importantly, whether data from 2004, on which many calculation parameters depend, constitutes a representative year and the most useful basis for this analysis is an open question. It might well be the case that it is not or, to the contrary, it might well represent the only useful indicator of what the future might look like.

Some of the most critical variables for the present study are examined below, but comparability is limited by construction. The KNP survey was designed to complement the NTTM, not to test it or appraise its methodology. The comparisons below include three sets:

• Those originating from the KNP survey • Those originating from the NTTM with values averaged over the last 10 years (NTTM Kak) – filtered to

include only respondents who were surveyed in the Top End (region 1) and had visited KNP at the time of interview.

• Those from NTTM Kak but only quarters 39 and 40 (corresponding to the same time period as the KNP survey)

All NTTM figures originated purely from CAS and are appropriately weighted. [a] Origin of visitors The importance of visitor origins has been made clear in this study by usually reporting results disaggregated along those lines. It is therefore important to ensure that proportions of visitors belonging from the three main groups are acceptable.

Table 1D: Visitor origins

Origin KNP Survey

NTTM Kak

NTTM Kak qtrs 39-40

Interstate 51.5 48.0 60.7

Overseas 43.1 48.8 35.9

Intra-Territory 5.5 3.1 3.3

From the data above, it can be seen that the KNP survey struck a reasonable proportion of visitors from the three categories:

• Intra-Territory visitors were slightly over-represented in the KNP survey, but it must be reiterated that the NTTM figures are only from the CAS and the Household Survey (HHS) would probably have contributed slightly towards more visits from that category. The little desirability of and benefits from including more such visitors has been discussed above.

• The KNP survey stands in between the NTTM 10-year average and the NTTM data for quarters 39 and 40, suggesting a reasonable balance. Seasonality usually plays a role in amplifying some categories and the KNP survey probably offers a good trade-off.

The KNP data is therefore deemed adequate from that viewpoint.


95

[b] Participation in tours Researchers involved in this project were anxious to ensure from the outset that the proportions of self-drive and tour-based visitors into KNP would be adequate. Early results showed an over-representation of self-drive respondents (more easily captured by onsite interviewers due to individual flexibility). The balance was restored by:

• Putting pressure on accommodation providers servicing tours to push the survey; and • Approaching a number of dissimilar tour operators and requesting their help in conducting surveys during their

tours. The above comments being made, it must be noted that it is not really possible to directly compare the surveys with

respect to participation in tours as the context of tour-related questions was different. The KNP survey queried about the context of the visit to KNP while the NTTM asks about whether the majority of the NT trip is in the context of a larger tour. It is quite possible for respondents to take a trip around the NT and visit KNP independently from Darwin in the last leg of their stay and even more common for independent travellers to go from one region to the next and undertake a KNP trip from Darwin – so as to benefit from guiding services, vehicle and access provided by a short or longer trip in the region. Table 2D represents the results for the KNP survey which re-examines the context of the trip to KNP as such.

Table 2D: Context of trip to KNP

Context Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

Independent self-drive 65.3 54.7 81.7 61.7

Self-drive to park + local tour 11.5 9.2 6.1 10.2

Organised tour ex Darwin 20.2 34.3 7.3 25.5

Organised tour ex Katherine 0.5 0.0 1.2 0.3

Greyhound bus 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.3

International tour 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.4

Interstate tour 2.0 0.8 3.7 1.6

It shows that 25-30% of visitors in that sample visited KNP while on tour, with the largest numbers starting from Darwin. In the NTTM, respondents were asked if they are travelling in the NT as part of a large tour group. The proportion over all years surveyed and during the last two quarters of 2004 appears below.

Table 3D: Tour groups

Part of larger tour group Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

NTTM Kak – all years surveyed 15.1 14.5 17.2 15.8

NTTM Kak – quarters 39 and 40 0.0 15.6 14.6 14.7

Another section of the NTTM might be more instructive for the sake of comparisons (Table 4D). It asks respondents if they have taken part in any of the following types of tours during their stay in the NT. Again, this is only an indication and does not apply necessarily to KNP, as many KNP tours are overnighters.

Table 4D: Types of tours

% who undertook

NTTM Kak – all years

NTTM Kak – qtrs 39 and 40

Half-day tour 34.1% 41.8%

Full-day tour 27.7% 41.4%

Overnight tour 21.3% 14.4%


96

The comparison between the past average and the second half of 2004 suggests a drop in the longer tours, but this question does not refer to tours into KNP specifically, only to having participated in some tours. With up to 40% visitors in the Top End (who have visited KNP) undertaking some sort of half-day and full-day tour during their NT visit, the value of 25-30% visiting parties being on tours seems plausible. [c] Main motive for visit This variable is never expected to compare with the main sample of the NTTM because it must be the case that a large proportion of all those categories visiting the NT not for pleasure or holiday motives do not leave the larger urban or services centres. Table 5D contrasts similar questions, identifying the main reason for visit in the two surveys in the three contexts.

Table 5D: Motive for visit

Motivation Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total


Visiting friends or relatives 6.9 3.0 11.5 5.4

Business / work related 4.1 2.4 14.1 3.9 KNP survey

Other 1.0 1.1 9.0 1.4



Business / work related 13.7 0.6 54.8 9.8

NTTM Kak02 – all years

Other 5.4 1.7 10.7 4.0



Business / work related 11.4 1.1 29.5 9.7

NTTM Kak02 – qtr39-40

Other 5.9 0.5 61.6 8.2

Once the appropriate respondents have been filtered, the proportion of visitor parties in KNP motivated by pleasure/holiday and business compare well with those found in the NTTM, apart for the Intra-Territory (small) group. The latter were biased towards parties in the region for cultural, holiday and visiting friends or relatives purposes rather than business. It is notable that quarters 39-40 values differ significantly from the 10-year average and therefore the KNPVES survey is not necessarily the source of the problem. Given the smaller size and lesser importance of intra-Territory visitors in supporting regional expenditures, this is not expected to have a severe impact on the survey. [d] Mode of entry into NT This variable is introduced because it is commonly used to monitor tourism in the NT as it is usually important for NT tourists’ segmentation and the question appeared in both surveys (Table 6D).

Table 6D: Mode of entry into NT

Mode Interstate Overseas Total

Fly 48.3 93.5 88.9

Coach

Self-drive 47.4 30.9 40.1 KNP survey

Other 1.0 1.1 1.4

Fly 49.3 66.6 56.2

Coach 4.7 14.8 9.5

Self-drive 41.3 16.2 27.7


Other 4.7 2.5 3.5


97

Fly 60.0 80.1 65.2

Coach 6.5 0.8 4.3

Self-drive 30.6 18.9 25.4


Other 2.9 0.2 1.8

It can be seen that the KNP survey included a larger proportion overall of visitors who flew than self-drove in the NT (not in KNP) and that overall result is due to the dominance of this mode of entry by international tourists. It is noticeable that this reflects a recent trend as the NTTM data for the recent quarters confirms a general increase in air entry into the NT by KNP visitors. [e] Party size Results for this variable vary considerably between the two sources originating from the NTTM (Table 7D). The KNPVES seems to include more interstate couples than average, more overseas threesomes and more groups of intra-Territory parties than in the past history of the NTTM. But the data from quarters 39 and 40 (in the NTTM) is also very different from the historical averages and for many categories, much closer to the KNP survey results, suggesting recent travel in the region has changed significantly in the last quarters.

Table 7D: Party size

Party size Interstate Overseas Intra-Territory Total

1 11.5 15.9 18.8 13.8

2 58.6 53.7 29.4 54.9

3 25.9 23.9 42.4 26.0 KNP survey

4+ 4.0 6.6 9.4 5.4

1 47.8 13.6 27.4 21.6

2 38.6 76.5 63.8 68.9

3 4.2 4.7 5.0 4.8


4+ 9.4 5.1 3.8 4.6

1 0.0 13.7 28.7 18.6

2 70.3 81.7 61.7 74.1

3 0.0 2.5 5.5 3.5


4+ 29.7 2.2 4.2 3.8

Overall, from the inspection and comparison using NTTM past results, the KNP survey seems well-balanced and there seems to be no obvious concerns or inconsistencies in results.


98

REFERENCES

Access Economics (2002). Kakadu Region Economic Development Strategy, Report prepared for the Northern Land Council, Darwin June 2002.

AUSTROP (2002). Tourism & Recreation Values of the Daintree and Fraser Island, Report prepared for the Australian Tropical Research Foundation (AUSTROP) by Kleinhardt-FGI (Corporate Advisors).

Bellerose, P. & Tremblay, P. (1985). ‘Etude sur les différentes méthodes d'évaluation des dépenses touristiques et leurs difficultés d'application’, Les Dossiers du Centre d'Etudes du Tourism, Montréal.

Carlsen, J. & Wood, D. (2004). Assessment of the Economic Value of Recreation and Tourism in Western Australia’s National Parks, Marine Parks and Forests, CRC for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast.

Department of Canadian Heritage (DCH) (2003). Economic Impact Model for Parks and Protected Areas - Instruction Manual, For the Canadian Tourism Commission and the Canadian Parks Council.

Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (1999). Australia’s Kakadu: Protecting World Heritage, Response by the Government of Australia to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee Regarding Kakadu National Park, April.

Dharmaratne, G.S., Sang, F.Y. & Walling, L.J. (2000). ‘Tourism potentials for financing protected areas’, Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3): 590-610.

Driml, S. & Common, M. (1995). ‘Economic and financial benefits of tourism in major protected areas’, Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 2(1): 19-39.

Driml, S. (1997). Towards Sustainable Tourism in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, Information Paper, Wet Tropics Management Authority (WTMA), Cairns.

Driml, S. (2002). ‘Travel cost analysis of recreation value in The Wet Tropics World Heritage Area’, Economic Analysis and Policy, 32(2): 11-26.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Madden, J. & Spurr, R. (2000). ‘Economic impacts of inbound tourism under different assumptions regarding the macroeconomy’, Current Issues in Tourism, 3(4): 325-363.

Eagles, P.F.J. (1995). ‘Tourism & Canadian parks: Fiscal relationships’, Managing Leisure, 1: 16-27. Eagles, P.F.J. (2001). ‘Nature-based Tourism Management’, in G. Wall (Ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Tourism,

Occasional Paper Number 17, Department of Geography Publication Series, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Eagles, P.F.J. & McCool, S.F. (2002). Tourism In National Parks And Protected Areas - Planning And Management, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.

Eagles, P.F.J. (2003). ‘International Trends in Park Tourism: The Emerging Role of Finance’, The George Wright Forum, 20(1): 25-57.

Eagles, P.F.J., McLean, D. & Stabler, M.J. (2000). ‘Estimating the Tourism Volume and Value in Parks and Protected Areas in Canada and the USA’, George Wright Forum, 17(3): 62-76.

Hansen, G. & Stanley, O. (2004). ‘The Economic Impact of the Proposed Increase in the Park Use Fee for Kakadu National Park’, Confidential report to Parks Australia North, January 2004.

Hassall & Associates (2001). ‘Socio Economic Impact Assessment of the Contribution of Marine Tourism Operators to the Cairns – Douglas Region’, Report Undertaken for the Association of Marine Tourism Operators.

Hundloe, T., McDonald, G. & Blamey, R., (1990). Socioeconomic Analysis on Non-Extractive Natural Resource Use in the Great Sandy region, Report to NSW EPA.

IUCN – The World Conservation Union (2006). ‘World Heritage Sites; Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, Australia’, viewed 29 January 2006, http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/kakadu.html.

Kakadu Board of Management and Parks Australia (KBM/PA) (1998). Kakadu National Park Plan of Management. Knapman, B., Lea, J. & Stanley, O. (1990). The Economic and Financial Significance for Current and Potential

Recreation and Tourism in Kakadu National Park and the Conservation Zone, Resource Assessment Commission, Canberra.

Knapman, B. & Stanley, O. (1991). A travel cost analysis of the recreation use value of Kakadu National Park, AGPS for the Resource Assessment Commission, Canberra.

Knapman, B., Stanley, O. & Lea, J. (1991). Tourism and Gold in Kakadu: The Impact of Current and Potential Natural Resource Use on the Northern Territory Economy, Australian National University, North Australia Research Unit, Darwin.

Merrifield, J. & Gerking, S. (1982). Analysis Of The Long-Term Impacts And Benefits Of Grand Teton National Park On The Economy Of Teton County, Wyoming, Institute for Policy Research, Laramie, Wyoming: Funded by the University of Wyoming.

Press T., Lea, D., Webb, A. & Graham, A. (1995). Kakadu: Natural and Cultural Heritage and Management, Australian Nature Conservation Agency & North Australia Research Unit, ANU, Canberra.

Stoeckl, N. (1994). ‘A travel cost analysis of Hinchinbrook Island National Park’, Paper presented to the Tourism Research National Conference, 10-11 February, Gold Coast.

Stynes, D.J. (1999). Guidelines For Measuring Tourism Spending, East Lansing, MI: Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University.


99

Stynes, D.J. & Propst, D.B. (1993). Micro-Implan Recreation Economic Impact Estimation System: MI-REC User's Manual Version 3, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University.

Tremblay, P. & Carson, D. (2006). ‘Economic Value of Tourism in Watarrka National Park,’ Report presented to Parks and Wildlife NT, Tourism Research Group, Funded by the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, April 2006.

Union, T.W. (1998). United Nations List of Protected Areas, IUCN, Cambridge. Uysal, M., McDonald, C.D. & Martin, B.S. (1994). ‘Australian Visitors to US National Parks and Natural Areas’,

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 6(3): 18-24. World Commission on Protected Areas of IUCN (WCPA) (1998). Economic Values of Protected Areas: Guidelines for

Protected Area Managers, No. 2, Task Force on Economic Benefits of Protected Areas for the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) IUCN in collaboration with the Economics Service Unit of IUCN.

World Commission on Protected Areas of IUCN (WCPA) (2000). Financing Protected Areas – Guidelines for Protected Area Managers, in collaboration with the Economics Service Unit of IUCN, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Wescott, G.C. (1994). ‘The Economic Impact of National Parks in Victoria, Australia’, in Protected Area Economics and Policy: Linking Conservation and Sustainable Development, M. Munasinghe & J. McNeely (Eds), distributed for the World Conservation Union by the World Bank, Washington, D.C.


100

AUTHOR

A/Prof Pascal Tremblay Pascal Tremblay holds the Chair of Tourism at the Charles Darwin University in Darwin, Northern Territory. His research interests include the economic organisation of the tourism sector in the context of the knowledge economy, wildlife tourism management, indigenous tourism development, tourism destination management and marketing as well as the economics and marketing of parks and natural areas. Email: [email protected]

The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC) is

established under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research

Centres Program. STCRC is the world’s leading scientific institution

delivering research to support the sustainability of travel and tourism -

one of the world’s largest and fastest growing industries.

Research Programs

Tourism is a dynamic industry comprising many sectors from accommodation to hospitality, transportation to retail and many

more. STCRC’s research program addresses the challenges faced by small and large operators, tourism destinations and

natural resource managers.

Areas of Research Expertise: Research teams in five discipline areas - modelling, environmental science, engineering &

architecture, information & communication technology and tourism management, focus on three research programs:

Sustainable Resources: Natural and cultural heritage sites serve as a foundation for tourism in Australia. These sites exist

in rural and remote Australia and are environmentally sensitive requiring specialist infrastructure, technologies and

management.

Sustainable Enterprises: Enterprises that adhere to best practices, innovate, and harness the latest technologies will be

more likely to prosper.

Sustainable Destinations: Infrastructural, economic, social and environmental aspects of tourism development are

examined simultaneously.

Website: www.crctourism.com.au I Bookshop: www.crctourism.com.au/bookshop I Email: [email protected]

Postgraduate Students: STCRC’s Education Program recruits high quality postgraduate students and provides scholarships,

capacity building, research training and professional development opportunities.

THE-ICE: Promotes excellence in Australian Tourism and Hospitality Education and facilitates its export to international markets.

Education

STCRC uses its research network, spin-off companies and partnerships to extend knowledge and deliver innovation to the

tourism industry. STCRC endeavours to secure investment in the development of its research into new services, technologies

and commercial operations.

Australia’s CRC Program

The Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program brings

together researchers and research users. The program

maximises the benefits of research through an enhanced

process of utilisation, commercialisation and technology

transfer. It also has a strong education component

producing graduates with skills relevant to industry

needs.

Extension & Commercialisation

00000 2007ReportCover_NoText 3/23/07 10:31 AM Page 2

CAIRNSNQ CoordinatorProf Bruce Prideaux

Tel: +61 7 4042 1039

[email protected] CoordinatorMs Alicia Boyle

Tel: + 61 8 8946 7267

[email protected] QLD CoordinatorMr Noel Scott

Tel: +61 7 3381 1024

[email protected]

LISMORENSW CoordinatorRegional Tourism ResearchDr Jeremy Buultjens

Tel: +61 2 6620 3382

[email protected]

SYDNEYSustainable DestinationsMr Ray Spurr

Tel: +61 2 9385 1600

[email protected] CoordinatorAdjunct Prof Malcolm Wells

Tel: + 61 3 6226 7686

[email protected]

CANBERRAACT CoordinatorDr Brent Ritchie

Tel: +61 2 6201 5016

[email protected]

ADELAIDESA CoordinatorGary Crilley

Tel: +61 8 8302 5163

[email protected]

PERTHWA CoordinatorDr Jeremy Northcote

Tel: + 61 8 6304 2307

[email protected]

MELBOURNEVIC CoordinatorA/Prof Sue Beeton

Tel: +61 3 9479 3500

[email protected]

NATIONAL NETWORK

Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre

A U S T R A L I A N C A P I T A L T O U R I S M

S P I N - O F F C O M P A N I E SU N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R SI N D U S T R Y P A R T N E R S

CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd

ABN 53 077 407 286

PMB 50 Gold Coast MC

Queensland 9726 Australia

Telephone: +61 7 5552 8172

Facsimile: +61 7 5552 8171

Chairman: Sir Frank Moore AO

Chief Executive: Prof Terry De Lacy

Director of Research: Prof Leo Jago

Website: www.crctourism.com.au

Bookshop: www.crctourism.com.au/bookshop

Email: [email protected]

00000 2007ReportCover_NoText 3/23/07 10:31 AM Page 3

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF KAKADU NATIONAL PARK TO TOURISM … · 2018-10-29 · ECONOMIC...

Documents

Transcript of ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF KAKADU NATIONAL PARK TO TOURISM … · 2018-10-29 · ECONOMIC...