Report to the

1Gillespie Economics and BDA GroupReport to theDepartment of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

Economic Activity of Australias World Heritage Areas

Final Report

July 2008

Gillespie Economics

BDA Group Economics and EnvironmentEXECUTIVE SUMMARYAustralia currently has 17 properties on its World Heritage (WH) List. As well as protecting the cultural and natural heritage for which they are listed, these sites can stimulate economic activity nationally and in the region, state or territory where they are located.This economic activity arises from expenditures associated with management of the sites as well as expenditure of visitors to the sites. The aim of this study was to:analyse and report on the economic activity and contribution of 15 of Australias World Heritage Areas (WHAs) to the regional, state/territory and national economies The Great Barrier Reef and Heard Island and McDonald Island World Heritage Areas have been excluded from the study due to their special complexities and governance arrangements.;analyse and report on the historical perspective of the financial costs and benefits of the operation of each WHA; andto the extent possible, separate and report on the financial costs of the World Heritage management component of each property (i.e. costs directly attributable to World Heritage status).

The framework used to undertake this study was Regional Economic Impact Assessment (REIA). REIA is primarily concerned with the effect of an impacting agent e.g. an individual or a business, on an economy in terms of a number of specific economic activity indicators, such as gross regional output, value-added, income and employment. Based on visitation and management cost data provided by DEWHA and the state and territory agencies that manage the WHAs, input-output analysis was used to estimate the direct and indirect impacts of each WHA at the regional, state or territory and national level.Regional Analysis ResultsAt the regional level, the 15 WHAs are estimated to contribute: $7 011.4 million in annual direct and indirect regional output or business turnover;$3 135.0 million in annual direct and indirect regional value added;$2 117.3 million in direct and indirect regional household income; and42 873 direct and indirect regional jobs.

State/Territory Analysis Results NSW WHAs are estimated to contribute: $4 203.3 million in annual direct and indirect state output or business turnover;$1 898.2 million in annual direct and indirect state value added;$1 252.1 million in direct and indirect state household income; and21 704 direct and indirect state jobs.

Queensland WHAs are estimated to contribute: $4 148.6 million in annual direct and indirect state output or business turnover;$1 849.0 million in annual direct and indirect state value added;$1 217.2 million in direct and indirect state household income; and24 225 direct and indirect state jobs.

Victoria WHAs are estimated to contribute: $948.9 million in annual direct and indirect state output or business turnover;$973.8 million in annual direct and indirect state value added;$267.8 million in direct and indirect state household income; and5 235 direct and indirect state jobs.

Western Australia WHAs are estimated to contribute: $83.7 million in annual direct and indirect state output or business turnover;$37.6 million in annual direct and indirect state value added;$24.7 million in direct and indirect state household income; and503 direct and indirect state jobs.

South Australia WHAs are estimated to contribute: $6.0 million in annual direct and indirect state output or business turnover;$2.8 million in annual direct and indirect state value added;$1.9 million in direct and indirect state household income; and47 direct and indirect state jobs.

Tasmania WHAs are estimated to contribute: $ 721.8 million in annual direct and indirect state output or business turnover;$313.5 million in annual direct and indirect state value added;$208.2 million in direct and indirect state household income; and5 372 direct and indirect state jobs.

Northern Territory WHAs are estimated to contribute: $ 257.1 million in annual direct and indirect territory output or business turnover;$116.9 million in annual direct and indirect territory value added;$70.4 million in direct and indirect territory household income; and1 211 direct and indirect territory jobs.

National Analysis Results At the national level, the 15 WHAs contribute: $16 104.3 million in annual direct and indirect national output or business turnover;$7 246.1 million in annual direct and indirect national value added;$4 111.5 million in direct and indirect national household income; and83 349 direct and indirect national jobs.

95 per cent of these impacts are from visitor expenditure with the remainder from management expenditure. The regional, state/territory and national impacts of each WHA are summarised in Tables ES1 and ES2. An important caveat on the above results is that in accordance with standard practice in regional economic impacts assessments of protected areas, the methodology used analysed all expenditure associated with visitors to the WHAs. There is no way to tell from the secondary data utilised, how much of that visitor expenditure is attributable to the WHAs alone. The relative contribution of each of the WHAs to total impacts on the Australian economy is illustrated in the following Figure. Figure ES1a: Impact of WHAs on the Australian Economy0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Wet Tropics of QLD

Sydney Opera House

Tasmanian Wilderness

REB and Carlton Gardens

Fraser Island

Gondwana Rainforests

Greater Blue Mountains

Uluru-Kata Tjuta

WHAs

$000 / Employment No.s

Output

Value added

Income

Employment

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Wet Tropics of QLD

Sydney Opera House

Tasmanian Wilderness

REB and Carlton Gardens

Fraser Island

Gondwana Rainforests

Greater Blue Mountains

Uluru-Kata Tjuta

WHAs

$000 / Employment No.s

Output

Value added

Income

Employment

Figure ES1b: Impact of WHAs on the Australian Economy0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Kakadu

Shark Bay

Lord Howe Island

AFMS Riversleigh

Purnululu

Willandra Lakes

AFMS Naracoorte

Macquarie Island

WHAs

$000 / Employment

Output

Value added

Income

Employment

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Kakadu

Shark Bay

Lord Howe Island

AFMS Riversleigh

Purnululu

Willandra Lakes

AFMS Naracoorte

Macquarie Island

WHAs

$000 / Employment

Output

Value added

Income

Employment

The Wet Tropics of Queensland and the Sydney Opera House are the two most significant WHAs in terms of economic impact. The Tasmanian Wilderness, Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens, Fraser Island and Gondwana Rainforests are the next most significant group of WHAs. The Greater Blue Mountains, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Kakadu National Park are the next most significant group. The other WHAs have more modest relative impacts at the national level. These impacts relate to the expenditure of people who visit the WHAs and expenditure of the WHA management agency. However, management expenditure and visitation preceded inscription of these WHAs. An important question is therefore the degree to which designation of a site as WH status alters visitation and management expenditure and hence regional, state and national economic impacts. A starting point for considering this issue was to examine historical visitation and expenditure data spanning the WH inscription date, where this was available. This data is presented in Figure ES2 and ES3.

Figure ES2: Historical Visitation Data Spanning the WH Inscription Date0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

1980/81

1981/82

1982/83

1983/84

1984/85

1985/86

1986/87

198788

1988/89

1989/90

1990/91

1991/92

1992/93

1993/94

1994/95

1995/96

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/2000

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

Year

Visitor No.s

Shark Bay

Naracoorte

Purnululu

Uluru-Kata Tjuta

Kakadu

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

1980/81

1981/82

1982/83

1983/84

1984/85

1985/86

1986/87

198788

1988/89

1989/90

1990/91

1991/92

1992/93

1993/94

1994/95

1995/96

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/2000

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

Year

Visitor No.s

Shark Bay

Naracoorte

Purnululu

Uluru-Kata Tjuta

Kakadu

Denotes Inscription dateFigure ES3: Historical Management Expenditure Data Spanning the WH Inscription Date0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

1991/1992

1992/1993

1993/1994

1994/1995

1995/1996

1996/1997

1997/1998

1998/1999

1999/2000

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

Year

$

Shark Bay

Greater Blue Mountains

Purnululu

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

1991/1992

1992/1993

1993/1994

1994/1995

1995/1996

1996/1997

1997/1998

1998/1999

1999/2000

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

Year

$

Shark Bay

Greater Blue Mountains

Purnululu

Denotes Inscription dateFor Shark Bay, Naracoorte and Purnululu there is no discernable change in visitation levels following WH inscription. For Kakadu, visitation levels do seem to have rapidly increased a couple of years after the first stage of WH listing. The second inscription was in the middle of a period of rapid growth in visitation levels with no change to this pattern after inscription. The third inscription was followed by an increase in visitation and then a gradual declining over time since 1995. For Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, WH listing was during a period of rapid growth in visitation, with no change in growth after inscription.In relation to management expenditure patterns over time, for the Greater Blue Mountains, expenditure grew gradually for four years after inscription and then increased more rapidly to peak in 2005/06. For Shark Bay, management expenditure does not appear to have increased significantly until six or seven years after inscription. Management expenditure for Purnululu had a one-off increase a year or so after inscription and then dropped back more normal levels.Interpreting this information is, however, difficult. Any before and after comparison is confounded by a number of factors. Firstly, we do not know what pattern we are looking for. Are we looking for changes at the listing date, before the listing date or after the listing date - because of the time taken for listing information to reach tourists etc. Secondly, visitation levels and management expenditure over time may be affected by a wide range of economic, logistic and market factors as well as the WH listing itself. These factors include economic upturns and downturns, changes in oil prices, pilot strikes, major national tourism marketing campaigns etc. Attributing causal factors for any observed change in visitation or management expenditure is therefore problematic.A key finding of the study is that the visitation and management cost data required to undertake a regional economic impact study was highly variable in quality. Some jurisdictions had little primary data regarding total visitation levels or total management expenditure and no jurisdiction held data regarding visitor characteristics and their expenditure patterns. Detailed historical data for both visitation and management costs was scant. Future analysis of the regional, state and national economic impacts of WHAs and other protected areas would benefit from:more robust collection of data on visitation levels, demographic characteristics, length of stay, expenditure patterns in the region, state and nation and the importance of the WHA to the trip; andkeeping management accounts on a WHA by WHA or park by park basis, including detail of expenditure items and location of expenditure.

OutputValue-added

Impact of Management $000Impact of Visitors $000Impact of Management $000Impact of Visitors $000

Regional State/Territory National Regional State/Territory National Regional State/Territory National Regional State/Territory National Wet Tropics of QLD23,44729,95342,9632,057,9803,036,0714,929,47113,45816,54322,590927,1081,354,0942,213,410Sydney Opera House187,306222,195273,6682,409,5383,221,3144,332,16695,436112,342135,4261,069,6171,447,5201,947,549Tasmanian Wilderness13,70919,65235,841424,088700,4451,590,1246,1029,03716,577182,556303,576711,357REB and Carlton Gardens4,7716,3297,775687,943940,5521,315,8451,9412,6703,354292,674671,140589,803Fraser Island16,10221,03330,147378,369705,3391,144,3539,02911,33415,574172,770311,842511,202Gondwana Rainforests

NSW34,13339,57968,486357,167327,375994,35214,46516,80630,181158,081145,742444,150QLD

12,932

336,613

6,191

148,777

Greater Blue Mountains17,26334,47844,316126,956305,396414,8917,37015,07419,41358,079135,806185,160Uluru-Kata Tjuta20,15123,25440,584118,396149,582390,34510,33411,81119,79552,78266,235175,451Kakadu27,18836,13163,96221,29448,156131,00913,33817,74630,5439,33621,13458,575Shark Bay 4,1056,4169,05330,53460,763100,3392,7353,7985,04613,79626,75144,868Lord Howe Island15,79722,61627,9886,95214,34619,4097,60310,88413,3123,0726,3908,665AFMS

Riversleigh 1983244747,39621,89335,6981281892573,3509,66615,937Naracoorte9421,4102,1182,5304,6158,8155998161,1531,0651,9823,936Purnululu2,4424,7366,0925,70011,76919,4311,0061,8372,4782,5705,1848,690Willandra Lakes3,7586,4187,9923,7979,55713,0142,1033,3834,0941,6894,2425,802Macquarie Island8679581,8255527491,702539579984240325761Total 372,179488,414663,2846,639,1929,894,53515,440,964186,186241,040320,7772,948,7854,660,4066,925,316Table ES1: Output and Value-added Impacts of World Heritage Areas at the Regional, State/Territory and National Level

IncomeEmployment

Impact of Management $000Impact of Visitors $000Impact of Management No.sImpact of Visitors No.s

Regional State/Territory National Regional State/Territory National Regional State/Territory National Regional State/Territory National Wet Tropics of QLD10,58012,56215,179606,804882,1461,247,41124027132313,35117,65425,385Sydney Opera House77,97986,08991,630758,404943,5881,099,8751,1791,3481,63812,16516,44822,246Tasmanian Wilderness4,8286,71610,431123,395200,761399,6871942282873,8865,1318,205REB and Carlton Gardens1,5231,9622,112203,958265,853335,0283139453,7875,1966,814Fraser Island6,6618,45510,301100,983202,723287,3961571812172,7124,0895,889Gondwana Rainforests

NSW10,06412,03419,03487,05395,111250,7472252153772,3141,6655,076QLD

4,404

97,077

90

1,938

Greater Blue Mountains6,18410,88312,42442,54488,625104,5321311972459151,5532,116Uluru-Kata Tjuta5,4066,44210,84731,53640,86998,782941071836187172,016Kakadu7,68710,00216,9816,58613,12433,037124155285123232671Shark Bay 2,0742,7743,3358,57317,36025,222364658247366517Lord Howe Island3,9156,4317,1991,6234,1524,866861141404674100AFMS

Riversleigh 1071461762,2886,3018,98523451126183Naracoorte4445807336821,2992,224161821192945Purnululu4861,1861,3851,7433,3664,8881020264671100Willandra Lakes1,5752,4342,6609672,7733,281314250264866Macquarie Island4634826851692144287811459Total 139,976173,582205,1121,977,3082,865,3423,906,3892,5633,0823,91040,31055,34279,438Table ES1: Output and Value-added Impacts of World Heritage Areas at the Regional, State/Territory and National Level