expert witness written statement: tourism 1. expert ...€¦ · island and bass coast shire is...
TRANSCRIPT
1
EXPERT WITNESS WRITTEN STATEMENT: TOURISM
1. EXPERT WITNESS DETAILS
Mr Stewart Moore
Founder and Chief Executive Officer
EarthCheck Pty Ltd
Level 5, 189 Grey Street,
South Brisbane, Queensland, 4101
2. EXPERT’S QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE AND AREA OF EXPERTISE
2.1 Stewart Moore is the founder and CEO of EarthCheck. He is Executive Director for the
APEC International Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Chairman of the National Centre
for Studies in Travel and Tourism. He has over 30 years of experience in a wide range of
disciplines including business and strategic planning, tourism policy development,
tourism destination management and marketing, sustainability, risk management, and
corporate and social responsibility.
2.2 Qualifications
• Masters of Regional Science (Regional Planning and Sustainable Development)
• Bachelor of Regional and Town Planning (Honours)
• Graduate Diploma in Applied Finance and Investment (Securities Institute of Australia)
• Hotel Development and Design Course (Cornell University)
• Heritage Conservation Course (Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, University
of York)
• Certificate IV in Training and Assessment
• Diploma of Sustainability
2.3 Industry Memberships
• Fellow of the Financial Services Institute of Australia
• Fellow of the Australian Tourism Research Institute
• Corporate Member of Royal Australian Planning Institute
• Tourism Forecasting Council of Australia (10 years)
2.4 Industry Directorships
• Chairman, National Centre for Studies in Travel & Tourism Pty Ltd
• CEO & Board Director, EarthCheck PTY LTD
• Advisory Board, Griffith University Institute for Tourism
• Vice Chairman, Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) Foundation
• Director Business South Bank
• Managing Director, APEC International Centre for Sustainable Tourism
2
• Past Chairman, Queensland Chapter of Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) (8 years)
• Past Director Gold Coast Visitors and Convention Bureau (3 years)
• Past Director, Australian Tourism Research Institute (ATRI) (12 years)
• Past Director, Centre for Regional Tourism Research, Southern Cross University (3
years)
• Past Director, Fraser Coast South Burnett Regional Tourism Board (2 years)
2.5 EarthCheck is an international business advisory group that specialises in sustainable
tourism and destination management. We do this via a suite of products and services
including software as a service platforms, certification programs for destinations,
businesses, and new infrastructure; and key insights and advice via our consulting team
and network of university research centres. The concept of total tourism management
underpins our approach to project and program delivery.
2.6 EarthCheck has first-hand knowledge of Phillip Island’s visitor economy, having been
commissioned by Bass Coast Shire Council to prepare the Phillip Island And San Remo
Visitor Economy Strategy 2035.
3. DETAILS OF OTHER SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS TO THE STATEMENT, AND THEIR
EXPERTISE.
Support on preparing the expert witness statement was provided by the following EarthCheck
staff:
3.1 Nigel Russell, General Manager – Consulting
Nigel Russell is a senior destination management professional, practising in the UK and
Australia for over 25 years. He has wide-ranging experience in market research, project
feasibility program management, research & development, and stakeholder
management experience in the tourism and economic development sectors. During his
career, Nigel has developed a broad range of senior level experience in tourism
3
management and delivery including; tourism development, marketing, change
management, research, and intelligence and business support.
3.2 Dr Tramy Ngo, Research Analyst
Dr Tramy Ngo leads EarthCheck’s tourism research and analysis functions. Tramy is a
tourism expert with a specialist interest in tourism management and research. She is
skilled in both qualitative and quantitative research methods, including visitor
market analysis and Tourism Research Australia database analysis. Tramy is a Research
Fellow at Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University.
4. INSTRUCTIONS ON SCOPE OF STATEMENT
4.1 EarthCheck CEO, Stewart Moore was engaged by Harwood Andrews on behalf of Bass
Coast Shire Council to provide expert evidence on the value of tourism (specifically,
nature based tourism) on Council’s economy and the potential impact on the same and
Council’s local economy from the construction and operation of a gas import facility and
an underground gas transmission pipeline (‘the project’), in the event the Project
detrimentally impacts Western Port. The instruction covered:
1. Review the exhibited EES documents relevant to your area of expertise, in particular:
a. Summary Document;
b. Main Report:
i. Chapter 3: Project development
ii. Chapter 4: Project description
iii. Chapter 5: Key approvals and assessment framework
iv. Chapter 19: Business
v. Chapter 25: Environmental Management Framework;
c. Technical Report N: Business impact assessment;
d. Attachment II: Legislation and policy report;
e. Attachment III: Environmental risk report;
f. Attachment VI: Draft Planning Scheme Amendment C272morn including the
Draft Incorporated Document;
g. Attachment VII: Map Book.
2. Review the Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the
Environmental Effects Act 1978 (2006).
3. Review Council’s public submission lodged in response to exhibition of the EES. 2
zzemail\P.2 - S.1\P:18/09/20 5:46 ha.
4. Prepare an expert witness statement before 2 October 2020 containing your opinion
on the following matters, as relevant to your area of expertise:
a. Does the EES adequately document investigation, avoidance, and minimisation
of the potential impact of the Project on tourism (specifically, nature based
tourism) on Phillip Island and surrounding areas within Council’s municipality,
and its value to Council’s local economy and the Victorian economy, in the
4
event the Project detrimentally impacts Western Port? If not, why not and
what impact is it likely to have?
b. Are there any specific measures or changes (including to the design or
management of the Project via the draft Amendment, works approval and
environmental management framework) you recommend to avoid, mitigate or
manage the effects of the Project on the economic value of tourism to
Council’s municipality within acceptable limits having regard to the draft
evaluation objectives in the EES scoping requirements, relevant policy,
legislation, best practice, and the principles and objectives of “ecologically
sustainable development”?
c. If you do recommend such measures, then to the extent that it is within your
expertise to do so, please provide you opinion on whether or not such
measures are feasible.
The expert witness statement must:
i. Comply with Planning Panels Guide to expert evidence, April 2019;
ii. Provide a summary of key issues, opinions, and recommendations.
5 DETAILS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF ANY PERSON WHO CARRIED OUT ANY TESTS OR
EXPERIMENTS UPON WHICH THE EXPERT HAS RELIED IN PREPARING THE STATEMENT.
5.1 Nigel Russell, General Manager-Consulting
• Pg Dip Tourism, Strathclyde University
• BSc: Hons Town and Regional Planning, Dundee University
5.2 Dr Tramy Ngo, Research Analyst
• PhD Tourism Management, Griffith University
• Master of Tourism Administration, Christ University, India.
• Bachelor of Economics (Tourism Management), Hue University of Economics, Vietnam
6. EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION
6.1 I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters
of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the
Panel.
5
7. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES, OPINONS AND STATEMENTS
Value of tourism and nature-based tourism to the Phillip Island Tourism Region
7.1. Tourism is an important component of Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire’s economy.
Tourism policy and strategy objectives clearly demonstrate that nature-based tourism is
at the forefront of the region’s appeal as a tourism destination. Section 8.1 of this
statement provides a summary of tourism policy and strategy, setting out the importance
of nature-based and sustainable tourism. This information sets out a clear agenda in
marketing and destination management policy and strategic directions at the following
levels:
• Commonwealth;
• Victorian;
• Tourism Region (Mornington, Phillip Island and Gippsland); and
• Local government (Bass Coast Shire).
These documents set out economic, social, and environmental ambitions for this
important economic sector. Consideration of tourism policy and strategy is absent from
the EES review at present.
7.2. The importance of nature-based tourism in policy terms is most clearly expressed at local
level in the Phillip Island and San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy 2035. The strategy’s
vision is “Phillip Island (including San Remo) is recognised nationally and globally as a
world leading sustainable tourism destination, where tourism is embraced by the
community”. The strategy notes that; “If the Visitor Economy Strategy is a success, in
2035: Phillip Island and San Remo in Victoria will have become synonymous the world-
over with sustainable island tourism communities. One of a handful of Australia's
destinations certified to the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria, Phillip Island and San
Remo will set a new benchmark for sustainable tourism communities, tourism working in
harmony with the environment and community demonstrated through measurable
results.”
7.3. At a national level, environment and nature is an essential component for Australia’s
tourism industry as a whole. Of Australia’s top 12 international markets for high value
travellers identified by Tourism Australia in 2018, 11 placed ‘Nature and wildlife’ as their
number one reason to visit Australia. Countries include China, Germany, Hong Kong,
India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, United Kingdom, USA.
For Japanese visitors, ‘Nature and wildlife’ is the second driver of destination choice after
‘Food and wine’.
7.4. Nature-based tourism is also identified as a high level priority for Victoria. The Victorian
Visitor Economy Strategy1 places a focus on generating more opportunities for
Melburnians to be enticed to travel to regional Victoria. Specifically, nature-based
experiences are the top experience grouping recorded by visitors across the state, with
1 Victoria State Government 2016, Victoria Visitor Economy Strategy, available at: https://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1340979/Visitor_Economy_Strategy.pdf
6
18.8 million or 19.6% of all visitors to Victoria.2 The contribution of nature-based tourism
is reflected in the Visitor Economy Strategy, the document stating “Strategic public
investment is required for Victoria to maintain its competitive advantage. Investment by
governments in high quality sports, arts and cultural, nature-based and local
infrastructure helps to attract visitors and spur private sector investment”. Government
has also prioritised investment at key visitor attractions, include the Penguin Parade at
Phillip Island Nature Park, a key tourism attraction for the region. This is reflected in the
allocation of some 47.7% of investment from the Regional Tourism Infrastructure Fund,
delivering some $48.2 million to the development of Phillip Island Nature Parks.3 This
contribution of nature-based tourism to local and regional economies cannot be
understated.
7.5. Other evidence of the strategic interest and support for nature-based tourism by the
State Government is presented in the priority to build on the potential of regional and
rural Victoria with the key output to “Increase nature-based tourism”15
7.6. In 2019, the Phillip Island Tourism Region4 generated $579 million in visitor expenditure,
and $255.8 million in Gross Value Added.
Figure 1: Tourism Satellite Account - direct economic contribution of the Phillip Island
Tourism Region (2014/15-2018/19) 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
GVA (Basic prices, $ million)
$155.9 $184.1 $199.8 $192.9 $255.8
Share in VIC’s direct tourism GVA (%)
1.6% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.9%
Tourism GRP (Basic prices, $million)
$175 $208 $224 $215 $282
Share in VIC’s direct tourism GSP (%)
1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6% 1.9%
Employment (FTEs) 3,014 3,572 3,914 3,684 4,489
Share in VIC’s direct tourism employment (%)
2.1% 2.4% 2.4% 2.2% 2.5%
7.4 Regarding nature-based tourism (for definition of nature-based tourism, please refer
to section 8.7 of this statement), 665,000 visitors participated in nature-based
activities in the Phillip Island tourism region in 2019, representing a 9.4% average
2 Victoria State Government 2019, Visitor Experiences in Victoria, available at: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1865164/Visitor-Experiences-in-Victoria-year-ending-December-2019.pdf 3 Victoria State Government 2017, Victorian Visitor Economy Strategy: Action Plan 2016-2020, available at: https://djpr.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1469314/Visitor_Economy_Strategy_Action_Plan.pdf 4 Section 8.7 of witness statement - Definition of Bass Coast Shire and Phillip Island for data purposes
7
annual increase since 2015. 25% of the Phillip Island tourism region’s visitors
participated in nature-based experiences in 2019, higher than average participation
across the whole of Victoria (19%5), illustrating the importance of the sector to the
region.
7.5 If pre-COVID tourism forecasts are applied, an additional 51,000 nature-based tourism
visitors to the region would be expected by 2025. If a broader definition of nature-
based visitation (including beach visits) was taken, participation would extend to 1.7
million visitors participating in nature-based tourism activities in 2019.
7.6 In 2019, nature-based experiences generated $191.8 million, accounting for 33% of
total visitor expenditure of the region. This sum represents a $84.4 million increase
since 2015.
Destination positioning and the important role played by destination image
7.6. Tourists are motivated to visit a particular destination by the information that they
receive through media and marketing together with the need to have their own needs
and wants satisfied (leisure, relaxation, events, bird watching etc.) Destination image
forms a vital part in the consumer’s process of selecting a destination. Images have a
strong influence on travel behaviour as they represent the destination in a tourist’s
mind and become a key component of the decision making process in the selection of
a holiday or visitor experience.
7.7. Destination attractiveness is therefore the summation of impressions, ideas and
beliefs about destinations based on information provided through direct (marketing)
and indirect (social media) sources.
Potential economic impact of the project on tourism on Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire
7.8. While modelling is not available to accurately assess the potential economic impact
on the Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire regions, it is possible to see the potential for
economic loss when the region is so heavily reliant on nature-based tourism. Based
on 2019 values, a 20% reduction in nature-based tourism would result in the loss of
approximately $38.35 million in visitor expenditure. Similarly, if the Phillip Island
tourism region lost 10% of its overall visitation due to impacts of the project, this could
see a decline in GRP of approximately $28.2 million. Further detail on this analysis is
contained in section 8.3 of this statement.
Issues and opinions regarding assessment of tourism within the EES
7.9. On review of market circumstances and project documentation, the key issue with
regard to assessment of tourism in the ESS is that it fails to consider the project’s
potential impacts on tourism in Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire, with consideration
of risks and potential impact largely limited to the construction area in Mornington
Shire, Casey, and Cardinia Local Government Areas. As such, EES documentation
5 Source: Visitor Experiences in Victoria Factsheet Dec 2019, TEVE Research Unit, Business Victoria
8
contains no consideration of investigation, avoidance, and minimisation of impact on
the region’s visitor economy.
7.10. With EES scope largely excluding Bass Coast Shire, there are two principal areas of
potential tourism impact omitted from assessment:
I. The potential for large scale development such the project to cause reputational
risk to Phillip Island’s status as a tourism destination, which has largely been built
on its status as a nature-based destination.
II. The potential for environmental damage which would directly harm the
environmental assets which tourism on the Island is built upon. This
environmental damage would have the potential to directly lead to financial loss
for businesses and communities reliant on tourism. The health of the Western
Port ecosystem and environment is of significant importance to the region’s
tourism industry and appeal.
Reputational risk
7.11. The nature of tourism in the majority of destinations, including Phillip Island, is that it
relies on the environment, heritage, and culture for much of its tourism appeal.
Destination appeal is not confined to administrative boundaries on maps - visitors
relate to broader destinations, not administrative boundaries. Many years of
investment from businesses, communities and tourism agencies have led to careful
cultivation of the destination brand and positioning. In this sense, the project has the
potential to impact directly on Phillip Island and the wider Bass Coast Shire area as a
premier tourism destination and the economic benefits which visitor spending
provides for communities and businesses.
7.12. During construction and operational phases of projects, negative news cycles have the
potential to have significant detrimental impact on tourism economies, particularly
where quality of environment and nature-based tourism experiences form leading
components of destination branding, positioning, and appeal. Research highlights the
importance of natural resources for tourism, and human-induced events impacting
ecosystems can have detrimental consequences for the tourism industry relying on
these assets as attractions and for the delivery of experiences. A destination’s success
relies on a distinctive and appealing brand, which is extremely difficult to establish and
maintain. The tourism industry is “one of the most susceptible and vulnerable to crises
or disasters” (Pforr, 2009) since the success of a destination rests heavily on “its ability
to offer tourists a perceived safe and pleasant place to visit” (Breda and Costa, 2006).
7.13. Examples in Australia, such as development within the Great Barrier Reef region,
highlight the impact that environmental damage, or even perceived damage, can have
on tourist’s perceptions and destination image. Research on the Great Barrier Reef6
identified a strong correlation between negative news events covering environmental
6 Salvatierra, J. & Walters, G. (2017). The impact of human-induced environmental destruction on destination image perception and travel behaviour: The case of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Vacation Marketing 2017, Vol. 23(1) 73–84.
9
issues and phrases such as coral bleaching, damage to the reef, dead reef, sediment,
and dull, and dips in social media sentiment from visitors regarding the destination.
The study demonstrated that environmental degradation and communication around
these issues impacts visitors’ experiences and perceptions of destinations. Quotes
from social media posts referred to specific developments such as the York Peninsula
Development Road or the Gladstone clean coal power plant and the impact these have
on the Reef. The study demonstrated that environmental degradation and
communication around these issues impacts visitors’ experiences and perceptions of
destinations.
7.13.1. Furthermore, a 2017 study demonstrated that development of the resources sector
in Roma and Gladstone led to fewer tourism products being developed and a decline
in the quality of existing products7. Self-reinforcing cycles were described, where
development led to a decline in visitors, a reduction in tourism’s quantifiable
economic impact and an institutional shift that favoured further developments in the
resources sector. This has “pushed it [leisure tourism] out” of Gladstone, which used
to be Gladstone’s main industry. Nowadays, Gladstone is seen to have little appeal to
tourists. Further information on these examples is contained in section 8.4 of this
statement.
Financial and economic risk from potential environmental impact
7.14. Commentary on the potential for the project’s development to cause environmental
damage to Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire is outside the scope of this expert witness
statement, however, it is important to note the potential for environmental impact on
the tourism economy on Phillip Island and surrounding areas as a material
consideration.
7.15. Section 8.4 of this statement presents a series of case studies where major incidents
associated with fossil fuel projects have been evidenced to have had significant
economic impact on tourism destinations, with impact extending significantly beyond
the municipality where infrastructure is developed. For instance, the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon spill generated significant economic impacts to US coastal economies (Florida,
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) predicted to be USD22.7billion over three
years (2010-2013). Leisure and hospitality employment in these economies estimated
to be 15% of total private employment.
7.16. Given these issues, it is concluded that the EES does not adequately assess
investigation, avoidance, and minimisation of the potential impact of the Project on
tourism (specifically, nature based tourism) on Phillip Island and surrounding areas
within Council’s municipality, and its value to Council’s local economy and the
Victorian economy, in the event the Project detrimentally impacts Western Port. With
regard to specific sections of EES documentation, section 8.5 of this statement
7 Char-lee J. Moyle, Brent D. Moyle & Susanne Becken (2017) A multi-sectoral model of tourism and resource sector transformation, Tourism Recreation Research, 42:4, 422-435
10
documents the areas where these omissions are important with regard to fully
considering potential regional tourism impact.
Opinion on expert witness statement of Chris McNeill, Ethos Urban
7.17. It is my view that the statement correctly notes that; ‘the Business Impact Assessment
did not deal with the broader question of regional tourism’.
7.18. With regard the statement (pg4) ‘In my opinion, and with reference to the Landscape
and visual elements of the EES, the impact is likely to be low’, my view is that as Bass
Coast Shire and the tourism sector was largely excluded from the EES assessment, this
statement requires further review.
7.19. In commentary which addresses tourism impact (pg 23) the following statement is
made ‘Potential impacts are likely to be restricted to the Gas Import Jetty works area.
As much of the Gas Pipeline will be located underground, the impact on regional
tourism can be expected to be negligible’. As per the content of sections 7.6 - 7.16 of
this statement, I believe that this narrow view of tourism impact fails to reflect the
broader regional dimension of the industry and the importance of destination
perception and image. The project’s large-scale nature provides scope for negative
impact on tourism which is significantly greater than has been considered.
Recommendations on measures and/ or changes to the design of the environmental
management statement
7.20. Recommendations are as follows:
• EES scope should fully incorporate the Bass Coast Shire area to enable full
consideration of regional tourism impact (as part of business considerations).
• EES assessment fails to consider impact on regional tourism. Coverage of key
potential risk and impact areas for the tourism industry should include:
o Reputational risk to tourism destinations (Phillip Island and surrounds in this
case) from a project that conflicts with the destination’s positioning as a
premier nature-based tourism destination. Specifically, the project’s potential
to detract from the destination’s well-established environmental credentials,
destination perception, and ultimately visitation/expenditure in the
destination.
▪ Modelling and testing impact with key current visitor segments on
sentiment regarding the project and visitors’ propensity to consider
Phillip Island as a destination to visit is an example of how regional
tourism impact could be fully considered in this area.
o Potential for detrimental environmental impact resulting from the project on
Phillip Island and surrounding areas, and specifically potential impact on its
tourism industry. Examples of a range of major environmental disasters
illustrate the need to fully consider economic risk to the tourism economy of
11
Phillip Island and surrounding areas. This type of impact would extend
significantly beyond the area close to the project’s key components.
▪ An example of impact testing in this could be detailed econometric
modelling of economic impact based on a range of environmental
scenarios, building on the analysis presented in section 8.3 of this
statement.
Feasibility of implementing recommended measures
7.21. It is my opinion that EES assessment failed to consider tourism impact in the areas
(omissions) outlined.
7.22. The work components required to consider tourism impact in a comprehensive
manner are largely based on incorporating methodologies which allow full
consideration of economic impact on the regional tourism economy. I believe that it
is feasible for this type of assessment to take place as per the EES scope requirements
on tourism.
12
8. APPENDICES
13
8.1. APPENDIX 1: Tourism Policy and Strategy Review
8.1.1 This section of the statement provides a summary of tourism policy and strategy,
setting out the importance of nature-based and sustainable tourism. This information
sets out a clear policy agenda in marketing and destination management policy and
strategic directions at the following levels:
• Commonwealth;
• Victorian;
• Tourism Region (Mornington, Phillip Island and Gippsland); and
• Local government (Bass Coast Shire).
These documents set out economic, social, and environmental ambitions for this
important economic sector. Consideration of tourism policy and strategy is absent
from the EES review at present.
Federal
8.1.2. The Federal Government recognises ‘aquatic and coastal’ and ‘nature and wildlife’ as
two of three key strengths driving international visitation (the other being food and
wine).89 The Federal Government places emphasis on nature-based tourism and
recognises the country’s excellence in eco, sustainable, and conservation-based
tourism, some products rated as the best in the world.2 In fact, Tourism Research
Australia recognises that nature-based tourism is the second most popular reason for
international visitors to experience regional visitation.10
8.1.3. Tourism Australia was in the midst of preparing its Tourism 2030 as COVID-19 started
to impact the Australian Visitor Economy. This said, the planning work conducted to
that point by the Beyond 2020 Steering Committee continues to represent natural/eco
experiences as a high priority.2
State
8.1.4. The Victorian Government recognises the contribution of regional tourism to the
state’s economy as reflected in its series of documents documenting the value of
tourism. The contribution includes the number of overnight visitors, contribution to
gross regional product and the number of jobs generated from the sector. For
example, the Mornington Peninsula has the third highest number of regional
overnight visitors for the state (behind the Great Ocean Road and Geelong and the
Bellarine) with 2.3 million visitors or 7% of the total of all visitors. 11 These visitors are
8 Tourism Australia 2019, Corporate Plan 2019-2023, available at: https://www.tourism.australia.com/content/dam/assets/document/1/7/6/o/d/2014861.pdf 9 Beyond Tourism 2020 Steering Committee, Report to Government, available at: https://www.austrade.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/10371/TACA12685%20Beyond%202020%20Steering%20Committee%20-%20Gov%20update%20-%20Web.pdf.aspx 10 TRA 2019, The Beach, Bush and Beyond: Understanding regional dispersal of Australian tourists, Tourism Research Australia, available at: https://www.tra.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/185/Regional%20Dispersal%20-%20Summary%20-%20October%202019.pdf.aspx 11 Victoria State Government 2019, Regional Victoria’s Top Attractions, available at: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1865161/Regional-Victorias-Top-Attractions-year-ending-December-2019.pdf
14
estimated to have contributed $1.1billion to the regional economy in 2019. 12 For
Phillip Island/Penguin Parade, some 1.4 million visitors were recorded, or 4% of all
visitors to regional Victoria, 13 generating some $529 million to the regional economy
there. Employment generating from the tourism sector to the Mornington Peninsula
and Phillip Island has been calculated at 12,200 jobs and 5,900 jobs, respectively.
Gippsland sees 11,000 jobs generated from the sector.
8.1.5. The Victorian Visitor Economy Strategy14 places focused attention on generating more
opportunities for Melburnians to be enticed to travel to regional Victoria. As shown in
tourism's total contribution to gross regional product and employment (direct and
indirect), 2013-2014, Victoria State Government, 2016 (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Phillip Island is recognised as the State’s leading contributor to gross regional
product (GRP) and both direct and indirect employment by percentage of GRP.
12 Victoria State Government 2020, Victoria’s Visitor Economy: Tourism GRP and jobs in Victoria’s regions, available at: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1855603/Value-of-Tourism-to-Victoria-summary-2018-19.pdf 13 Victoria State Government 2019, Regional Victoria’s Top Attractions, available at: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1865161/Regional-Victorias-Top-Attractions-year-ending-December-2019.pdf 14 Victoria State Government 2016, Victoria Visitor Economy Strategy, available at: https://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1340979/Visitor_Economy_Strategy.pdf
15
8.1.6. Specifically, nature-based experiences are the top experience recorded by visitors across the state, with 18.8 million or 19.6% of all visitors to Victoria.15 The contribution of nature-based tourism is reflected in the Visitor Economy Strategy, stating “Strategic public investment is required for Victoria to maintain its competitive advantage. Investment by governments in high quality sports, arts and cultural, nature-based and local infrastructure helps to attract visitors and spur private sector investment (p.24)”. Government has also prioritised investment at key visitor attractions, include the Penguin Parade at Phillip Island Nature Park, a key tourism attraction for the region in question. This is reflected in the allocation of some 47.7% of investment from the Regional Tourism Infrastructure Fund, delivering some $48.2 million to the development of Phillip Island Nature Parks.16 This contribution of nature-based tourism to local and regional economies cannot be understated.
8.1.7. Other evidence of the strategic interest and support for nature-based tourism by the State is presented in the priority to build on the potential of regional and rural Victoria with the key output to “Increase nature-based tourism” (p.22).13 The Strategy notes Parks Victoria as a key strategic partner in the delivery of the outputs, with the State suggesting, “Parks Victoria will seek to partner with operators, Regional Tourism Boards and stakeholders to grow and promote nature-based tourism in regional Victoria.” to deliver on the output of “Nature-based tourism promoted” .
8.1.8. The State’s Active Victoria strategic framework extends the focus on nature-based tourism, prioritising in their Strategic Direction 3: Additional focus on active recreation, “Connecting planning and development of outdoor recreation to nature-based tourism opportunities, with particular emphasis on potential benefits to regional economies” (p.24).17
Regional
8.1.9. Gippsland and Mornington Peninsula both reflect the value of coastal environments and nature-based tourism in their respective tourism strategies. Destination Gippsland recognise their valued assets found in nature tourism documenting in their Destination Management Plan (DMP), “Gippsland contains the largest area of public land in Victoria, with 1.6 million hectares encompassing forest, state and national parks, UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, Marine Coastal Parks and Reserves and Ramsar Wetlands,” (p.8),18 reflecting the critical nature of the Westport coastal and marine environments. Destination Gippsland plan to capitalise on the global growth of nature-based tourism in their priority areas included in the DMP – specifically, Strategic Priority 3: Develop Gippsland’s experiences to encourage new and existing markets to visit, stay and spend; and Strategic Priority 5: Invest in place making to support the visitor economy.
15 Victoria State Government 2019, Visitor Experiences in Victoria, available at: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1865164/Visitor-Experiences-in-Victoria-year-ending-December-2019.pdf 16 Victoria State Government 2017, Victorian Visitor Economy Strategy: Action Plan 2016-2020, available at: https://djpr.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1469314/Visitor_Economy_Strategy_Action_Plan.pdf 17 Victoria State Government 2017, Active Victoria: A strategic framework for sport and recreation in Victoria 2017-2021, available at: https://sport.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/55602/download.pdf 18 Destination Gippsland 2019, Towards 2030 – Gippsland Destination Management Plan: A Blueprint for Growth, available at: https://assets.visitgippsland.com.au/documents/Gippsland-DMP-Final-Report-26082019-1.pdf
16
8.1.10. In creating Hero and Supporting Experiences to achieve the desire outcomes, Gippsland is set to develop natural areas to reflect the outstanding natural environments offering walking, picnicking, camping, boating and a common theme of fishing.
8.1.11. Specifically, the development of the George Bass Coastal Walk has attracted commitments of $19.6 million from the State Government in 2018 to develop a world class attraction bordering the area in question. The likely benefits of this development are presented in the document as:
• Low growth: Generate an estimated 10,000 additional visitor nights and $2.0m
in additional visitor expenditure each year.
• Medium growth: Generate an estimated 19,500 additional visitor nights and
$3.2 million in additional visitor expenditure each year.
• High growth: Generate an estimated $4.0 million in additional visitor
expenditure each year.
8.1.12. Fishing features strongly in the Destination Gippsland DMP – both as an activity in and of itself, and as a food tourism opportunity, with visitors connecting with Support Experiences: Destination Fishing and Fishing Villages, predicted to benefit San Remo for its ‘seaside charm’ (p. 73)
8.1.13. In their 2014 Destination Management Plan, the Mornington Peninsula Region tourism industry also acknowledge the strategic value of nature-based tourism, stating the Environment as one of their Destination Values. Specifically they highlight, “Western Port was chosen [as a key environmental need for the future] because it has outstanding natural values, including a Ramsar wetland of international importance, on the fringe of the expanding city of Melbourne. Biosphere reserves aim to keep special places-like Western Port-special by fostering conservation and sustainable development.” (p.22)19
Local
8.1.14. Bass Coast Shire Council reflects the existing and projected contribution of the natural environment to their economy in their Economic Development Strategy 2016-2021, where they state: “The natural environment underpins the Bass Coast economy and is a key driver for tourism […] and Council clearly understands that the natural environment forms the basis of the local economy.” (p.5).20 Specifically, Bass Coast Shire Council state the importance of, “developing a long term strategy for Phillip Island and San Remo that recognises the contribution of the natural environment to tourism and the significance of other locations across the Shire (p.25)
13
8.1.15. Phillip Island and San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy: 2035 Growing Tourism. This Strategy is completely underpinned by the natural assets existing in this specific
19 Mornington Peninsula Region Tourism Industry 2014, Destination Management Plan, Pt II, available at: https://industry.visitmorningtonpeninsula.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5cmsBukDALw%3D&portalid=8 20 Bass Coast Shire Council 2016, Economic Development Strategy 2016-2021, available at: https://d2n3eh1td3vwdm.cloudfront.net/general-downloads/Economic-Development-and-Tourism/Economic-Development-Strategy-and-One-Year-Action-Plan.pdf
17
tourism economy. The Strategy states, “Boasting world-class wildlife viewing, surf, coastal scenery and high octane sporting events, it is no surprise that Phillip Island and San Remo have now positioned themselves as a premier region for nature, family and fun.” (p.2). Furthermore, “While the region’s natural environment, its flora and fauna, and its natural visual and recreational amenities are already major attractors for visitors, the value of Phillip Island and San Remo in providing ready access to wildlife and recreation in natural settings is likely to grow as people become increasingly urbanised.” (p.5).21
8.1.16. The importance of nature-based tourism in the ability for Phillip Island and San Remo to achieve their projected outcomes cannot be understated. As presented in an extract from the Strategy in Table 1, there are significant contributions projected from nature-based tourism in just off-peak visitation increases.
Figure 2: Market off-peak and Growth Potential in 2035
Market Segment
Phillip Island &
San Remo Today
Goal 2035 What would drive the growth?
Increase in Spend 2035
Off-peak Spend
Nature-based Activities
151,500 visitors 77,500 nights $17.8 million
Retain the region’s share, but encourage off-peak visitation
New walks, active promotion, strict planning controls
$37.7M From current
15% Off-peak ($9.4M)
8.1.17. The vision for Phillip Island and San Remo is to be ‘World Famous for Sustainable Tourism’. They plan to “set a new benchmark for sustainable tourism communities, tourism working in harmony with the environment and community demonstrated through measurable results” (p.15).16
8.1.18. This can only be achieved through the preservation of natural assets and continued focus on preserving and conserving these assets to deliver what will become post-COVID-19 even more important as visitors seek local experiences which offer open spaces and connection to nature.
21 Bass Coast Shire Council, Phillip Island and San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy 2035: Growing Tourism, available at: https://d2n3eh1td3vwdm.cloudfront.net/general-downloads/Strategies/2016-08-29-FINAL-Phillip-Island-San-Remo-Visitor-Economy-Strategy-2035-Growing-Tourism.PDF
18
8.2. APPENDIX 2: Characteristics And Value Of Tourism And Nature-Based Tourism To The
Phillip Island Tourism Region And Bass Coast Shire
In assessing potential impact, the EES should have considered the following issues regarding
the importance of tourism in Phillip Island and throughout Bass Coast Shire:
The importance of sustainability in tourism policy and strategy
8.2.1 Tourism policy and strategy objectives clearly demonstrate that nature-based tourism
are at the forefront of the destination’s appeal as a tourism destination. This is most
clearly expressed in the Phillip Island And San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy 2035.
The strategy’s vision is “Phillip Island (including San Remo) is recognised nationally
and globally as a world leading sustainable tourism destination, where tourism is
embraced by the community”.
8.2.2 The strategy notes that; “If the Visitor Economy Strategy is a success, in 2035: Phillip
Island and San Remo in Victoria will have become synonymous the world-over with
sustainable island tourism communities. One of a handful of Australia's destinations
certified to the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria, Phillip Island and San Remo will set
a new benchmark for sustainable tourism communities, tourism working in harmony
with the environment and community demonstrated through measurable results.”
8.2.3 From analysis of the Island’s tourism products and experiences, it is clear that nature-
based tourism dominates, with a strong overall reliance on a high quality
environment.
Figure 3: Map of Leading Phillip Island Visitor Experiences22
22 Phillip Island And San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy 2035.
19
Phillip Island’s reputation and brand as a sustainable tourism destination
8.2.4 Tourism agencies, Bass Coast Shire Council, local communities, and businesses have
spent many years investing in market positioning to cement Phillip Island as a leading
nature-based destination. To achieve the Phillip Island And San Remo Visitor Economy
Strategy 2035 vision, the destination must leverage its natural advantage. Recognising
this importance, three hero experiences23 underpin what the island offers to visitors.
8.2.5 While the impact of COVID-19 on Australia’s tourism industry is not yet fully
quantified, it is likely that it will change the way people travel in the future. It is
expected that destinations which offer rural settings and nature-based themes are
well placed to capitalise. In this sense, Phillip Island is well placed to capitalise on
future demand.
8.2.6 The importance of Phillip Island’s nature-based tourism positioning and appeal as a
premier destination is also reiterated in research and tourism positioning at
Commonwealth and Victorian Government levels.
Australia
8.2.7 Australia’s pristine natural environment is a key asset for tourism providing attractions
and experiences24.
8.2.8 International tourists
Tourism Australia has identified high value travellers as a primary target audience for
Australia. High value travellers Tourism Australia aims to attract are characterised not
only by above average trip expenditure, and likelihood to stay longer, but also by their
key drivers for destination choice. Of Australia’s top 12 markets for high value
travellers identified by Tourism Australia in 2018, 11 placed ‘Nature and wildlife’ as
their number one reason to visit Australia.
23 Phillip Island And San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy 2035. 24 Tourism Research Australia (2019). State of the Industry 2017-2018. Published April 2019. Accessed from https://assets-corporate.visitvictoria.com/documents/TRA_State-of-the-Industry-2018.pdf
20
8.2.9 Domestic tourists
For the domestic market which will play a critical role in tourism’s recovery from
COVID-19, nature and wildlife is the third most common driver of destination choice,
after ‘safety and security’ and ‘value for money’. According to Tourism Australia’s
Consumer Demand Project, almost half (47%) of Australian travellers state that ‘World
call nature and wildlife’ is important to their destination choice25. In addition, nature
is critical to Australia’s image. Over two thirds (69%) of Australian travellers associate
‘Aquatic and coastal’ with Australia, 63% associate ‘Nature’ with Australia and over
half (52%) associate ‘Wildlife’ with Australia26.
Victoria
8.2.10 Nature-based experiences are the State’s top group of experiences, with 18.8 million
visitors for the year endling December 2019. This exceeds the popularity of other
experiences such as cultural experiences (11.9 million visitors), event experiences (5.9
million visitors), food and beverage experiences (5.4 million visitors), winery
experiences (3.2. million visitors), or golf experiences (0.976 million visitors)27. Overall,
19% of all visitors to Victoria participated in nature-based experiences, whereby more
visitors to regional Victoria are more likely to participate in nature-based experiences
(22%) than visitors to Melbourne (15%)28.
8.2.11 In 2018, Visit Victoria developed a marketing campaign build on research that found
Melburnians visit regional Victoria for ‘time out’ from the confines of everyday life and
to reconnect with nature and physical space.
The economic importance of tourism to Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire
8.2.12 Visitation
The Phillip Island tourism region29 has experienced an average annual growth of 6.3% since 2015, reaching 2.7 million visitors in 2019.
25 Tourism Australia (2020). Traveller Fact Sheet 2020 – Australia. Published April 2020. Accessed from https://www.tourism.australia.com/content/dam/assets/document/1/c/1/c/t/2241245.pdf 26 Tourism Australia (2020). Traveller Fact Sheet 2020 – Australia. Published April 2020. Accessed from https://www.tourism.australia.com/content/dam/assets/document/1/c/1/c/t/2241245.pdf 27 State of Victoria (2020). Visitor Experiences in Victoria. Accessed from https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1865164/Visitor-Experiences-in-Victoria-year-ending-December-2019.pdf 28 State of Victoria (2020). Visitor Experiences in Victoria. Accessed from https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1865164/Visitor-Experiences-in-Victoria-year-ending-December-2019.pdf 29 Phillip Island tourism region - see appendix 4 for full detail on sources of tourism data
21
Figure 4: Visitation to Phillip Island and Victoria (2015-2019) (000’)
8.2.13 Visitors to Phillip Island generated 3.1 million visitor nights during 2019, accounting for 2% of the state’s visitor nights. 95.2% of these visitor nights were contributed by domestic visitors.
Figure 5: Visitor nights generated in Phillip Island (2015-2019) (millions)
8.2.14 International daytrip visitors
Due to its proximity to Melbourne, Phillip Island is well regarded as a daytrip destination for international visitors to Melbourne. In 2019, the destination welcomed 475,000 international daytrippers - representing a 4.1% average yearly increase from 2015. 25% of these international day visitors were Chinese visitors. Almost all these international daytrip visitors experienced nature-based tourism while visiting the Phillip Island (94% in 2019).
6.3%
9.9%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Phillip Island Victoria
92.6% 95.7% 94.3% 92.5% 95.2%
7.4% 4.3% 5.7% 7.5% 4.8%
2.4
2.7
3.0
2.6
3.1
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Domestic night share International night share Visitor nights
22
Figure 6: International daytrip visitors to Phillip Island (2015-2019)
8.2.15 Visitor Mix
International visitors attracted to the Phillip Island tourism region have been stable at approximately 2% of the total visitor market.
Figure 7: Visitor Mix of Phillip Island in 2015 and 2019
8.2.16 Visitor Expenditure
Visitor expenditure in the Phillip Island tourism region increased at an average annual rate of 11.2% over the past five year period, generating $579 million in 2019. Phillip Island exceeded the expenditure growth rate of Victoria (10.2%).
71.8% of visitor expenditure was contributed by domestic overnight visitors, followed by 23.7% from daytrippers. International travellers’ spend accounted for 4.5% of total tourist expenditure in the region in 2019 (please note, the value of international day trippers is excluded from this total).
60%
38%
2%
2015
57%
41%
2%
2019
Daytrip visitors
Domesticovernight visitors
Internationalvisitors
403,342
424,688
442,533
468,556 474,544
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
23
Figure 8: Visitor Expenditure in the Phillip Island Tourism Region (2015-2019)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Current prices, $ million
Daytrip visitors 96 108 113 120 137
Domestic overnight visitors 264 319 365 345 416
Inbound visitors 18 14 16 23 26
Total tourism spend in the Phillip Island Tourism Region
378 441 494 488 579
Shares - %
Daytrip visitors 25.4 24.5 22.9 24.6 23.7
Domestic overnight visitors 69.8 72.3 73.9 70.7 71.8
Inbound visitors 4.8 3.2 3.2 4.7 4.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Tourism Research Australia’s regional tourism satellite accounts (Phillip Island)
8.2.17 Phillip Island tourism region’s direct economic contribution from tourism30
Figure 9 summarises the direct contribution of tourism to the visitor economy of the Phillip Island tourism region. Analysis indicated that the Phillip Island tourism region experienced a relatively positive growth in tourism value, increasing GVA share from 1.6% in 2014/15 to 1.9% in 2018/19. The employment share of the Phillip Island tourism region in Victoria’s direct tourism employment also increased by 0.4% since 2014/15 to 2.5% in 2018/19.
Figure 9: Tourism Satellite Account - direct economic contribution of the Phillip Island Tourism Region (2014/15-2018/19)
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
GVA (Basic prices, $ million)
155.9 184.1 199.8 192.9 255.8
Share in VIC’s direct tourism GVA (%)
1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.9
Tourism GRP (Basic prices, $ million)
175 208 224 215 282
Share in VIC’s direct tourism GSP (%)
1.7 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.9
30 The tourism economic value estimates using tourism satellite accounts are calculated at the financial year basis.
24
Employment (FTE) – person
3,014 3,572 3,914 3,684 4,489
Share in VIC’s direct tourism employment (%)
2.1 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.5
Source: Tourism Research Australia’s regional tourism satellite accounts (Phillip Island and Victoria)
8.2.18 Tourism businesses
In 2018/19, 466 tourism businesses were recorded in the Phillip Island tourism region. More than half of these companies (54.8%) were micro-scaled, employing between 1-4 personnel. 37.9% were small scaled with 5-19 employees, followed by 7.2% medium companies (20-199 employees).
Figure 10: Tourism business by employment size in Phillip Island (2014/15-2018/19)
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
2018/19
BUSINESSES Micro (1-4 employees) 152 167 166 149 159
Small (5-19 employees) 87 91 87 106 110
Medium (20-199
employees) 20 19 14 18 21
Large (200+
employees) 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL EMPLOYING 259 277 267 273 290
NON-EMPLOYING 165 166 149 170 176
Total 424 443 416 443 466
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS Business Register (unpublished data), compiled by Tourism Research Australia
8.2.19 Employment contributions by tourism industry
In 2018/19, businesses in the catering services accommodate more than a third of tourism employees in the region (36.7%). The accommodation sector generated 18% of tourism jobs, followed by retail trade (12.6%).
25
Figure 11: % of personnel employed by tourism industry
Importance of Nature-based tourism in the Phillip Island Tourism Region
8.2.20 Number of Nature-based Visitors
665,000 visitors participated in nature-based activities in the Phillip Island tourism region, representing a 9.4% average annual increase since 2015. If pre-COVID tourism forecasts are applied, an additional 51,000 nature-based tourism visitors would be expected by 2025.
If a broader definition of nature-based visitation (including beach visits) was taken, participation would extend to 1.7 million visitors in 2019.
Figure 12: Visitors to Phillip Island Tourism Region and participation in nature-based experiences (2015-2025) (000’)
36.7%
18.0%
12.6%
7.8%
4.8%
4.8%
4.2%
3.6%
3.3%
2.3%
1.9%
0.1%
0.0%
Cafes, restaurants and takeaway food services
Accommodation
Retail trade
Clubs, pubs, taverns and bars
Travel agency and tour operator services
Education and training
Air, water and other transport
Cultural services
Other sports and recreation services
Road transport and transport equipment rental
All other industries
Casinos and other gambling services
Rail transport
464 469 625 614 665
1,692
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Nature-based tourism experience (historic)
Nature-based tourism experience (projected)
Extended nature-based tourism experience (historic)
Extended nature-based tourism experience (projected)
26
Visitor participation in nature-based experiences generated 1.2 million visitor nights to the region in 2019, 6.9% up from 2018 and 9.1% increase per year from 2015.
Figure 13: Visitor nights generated from nature-based experience, Phillip Island (2015-2019)
8.2.21 Nature-based Tourism in Victoria
Phillip Island accounted for 3.5% of nature-based experience participation in Victoria in 2019.
Figure 14: Phillip Island Tourism Region’s share of Victoria’s nature-based tourism activities (2015-2019)
806 721
1,153 1,069 1,143
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Nature-based tourism Extended nature-based tourism
2.9%
4.8%
2.3%
3.5%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
Daytrip segment Domestic overnightsegment
International segment Total market share
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
27
Popularity of nature-based experiences in the Phillip Island Tourism Region
8.2.22 25% of the Phillip Island tourism region’s visitors participated in nature-based
experiences in 2019, higher than average participation across the whole of Victoria
(19%31), illustrating the importance of the sector to the region.
8.2.23 In terms of market segments, approximately 90% of international visitors, 33% of
domestic overnight visitors, and 20% of day visitors to the region took part in nature-
based experiences during 2019.
8.2.24 Nature-based activities have increased in appeal over the past 5 year period. In 2019,
nature-based experiences contributed 25% of all visitors to Phillip Island, compared to
22.3% in 2015.
Figure 15: Participation in nature-based tourism experiences among visitors to Phillip Island (2015-2019)
8.2.25 Top nature-based activities in the Phillip Island Tourism Region Visit national parks and participating in bushwalks are the two most popular activities.32 Nearly half of visitors to the region enjoyed these experiences.
31 Source: Visitor Experiences in Victoria Factsheet Dec 2019, TEVE Research Unit, Business Victoria 32 Based on a five-year average to 2019
14.6%17.6% 19.0% 20.5% 18.3%
30.2%
24.0%
30.8% 31.8% 31.0%
92.9%87.7%
92.7%90.2% 89.6%
22.3% 21.4%25.1% 27.0% 25.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Daytrip visitors Domestic overnight visitors International visitors Total visitors
28
Figure 16: Participation in nature-based tourism activities (2015-2019)
Economic value of nature-based experiences in the Phillip Island Tourism Region
8.2.26 Visitor Expenditure Patterns of expenditure per day of daytrip, domestic overnight and international visitors associated with participation in nature-based tourism experiences in the Phillip Island tourism region have been used to identify a value estimate for nature-based tourism. In 2019, nature-based experiences generated $191.8 million, accounting for 33% of total visitor spend of the region, representing a $84.4 million increase from 2015.
Figure 17: Visitor spend associated with nature-based experience in Phillip Island (2015-2019)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Current prices, $ million
Daytrip visitors 14.0 19.0 21.5 24.6 25.1
Domestic overnight visitors 77.3 76.6 130.9 129.8 144.4
Inbound visitors 16.0 11.5 14.0 19.8 22.2
Total nature-based tourism spend of Phillip Island
107.3 107.2 166.3 174.1 191.8
Shares - %
Daytrip visitors 13.1 17.8 12.9 14.1 13.1
Domestic overnight visitors 72.0 71.5 78.7 74.5 75.3
Inbound visitors 14.9 10.7 8.4 11.4 11.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
42.9%
42.7%
30.9%
18.3%
6.6%
2.3%
0.3%
Visit national parks / state parks
Bushwalking / rainforest walks
Visit wildlife parks / zoos / aquariums
Visit botanical or other public gardens
Go whale or dolphin watching
Snorkelling
Scuba diving
29
8.2.27 GVA, GRP and employment contributions33 In 2019, participation in nature-based experiences in the Phillip Island tourism region is estimated to contribute $93.4 million to the local economy and generate 1,487 full-time jobs.
Figure 18: Nature-based tourism GVA estimates in the Phillip Island Tourism Region (2015-2019)
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
GVA (Basic prices, $ million)
44.3 44.7 67.3 68.8 84.7
Tourism GRP (Basic prices, $ million)
49.6 50.5 75.6 76.6 93.4
Employment (FTE) – person 856 868 1,318 1,314 1,487
33 The estimate is based on the proportion of visitor spend of nature-based tourists in overall visitors.
30
8.3. APPENDIX 3: Potential economic impact on nature based tourism in the Phillip Island
Tourism Region
8.3.1 At this stage, calculating detailed estimates of potential negative economic impact on
participation in nature based experiences in the Phillip Island tourism region caused
by the project are not possible.
8.3.2 However, as an illustration of the importance of the sector, figure 19 provides
hypothetical scenarios (using 2019 values) of the potential economic loss generated
by 10%, 15% and 20% drops in overall and nature-based visitation.
Figure 19: Potential economic loss due to decline in tourism visitation to the Phillip Island Tourism Region
Visitor
numbers (day,
international and
domestic overnight
(000s)
International daytrippers
(000s)
Decline in
Visitor spend ($M)
Decline in GVA (M$)
Decline in GRP ($M)
Decline in Employment
(persons)
10% decline in visitation
265.8 47.5 57.90 25.6 28.2 449
15% decline in visitation
398.6 71.2 86.85 38.4 42.3 673
20% decline in visitation
531.5 94.9 115.80 51.2 56.4 898
Decline in
Nature-based Visitor
numbers (000')
Decline in Visitor spend ($M)
10% decline in visitation 66.5 19.18
15% decline in visitation 99.7 28.76
20% decline in visitation 132.9 38.35
31
8.4. APPENDIX 4: The nature of tourism risk and the potential for impact from large-scale
development on tourism economies
8.4.1 When viewed from a risk identification and mitigation perspective, my experience is
that there are two principal areas where potential for tourism impact can be
generated from large scale construction and development projects (including
energy/ fossil fuel projects).
Reputational Risk to Tourism
8.4.2 The nature of tourism in the majority of destinations, including Phillip Island, is that
they rely on their environment, heritage, and culture for much of their tourism
appeal. Destination appeal is not confined to administrative boundaries on maps -
visitors relate to broader destinations, not administrative boundaries. Many years
of investment from businesses, communities and tourism agencies have led to the
careful cultivation of the destination’s brand and positioning. As such, large scale
development in neighbouring areas has the potential to cause significant direct
impact.
8.4.3 Tourists are motivated to visit a particular destination by the information that they
receive through media and marketing together with the need to have their own
needs and wants satisfied (leisure, relaxation, events, bird watching etc.) Destination
image forms a vital part in the consumer’s process of selecting a destination. Images
have a strong influence on travel behaviour as it represents the destination in a
tourist’s mind and becomes a key component of the decision making process in the
selection of a holiday or visitor experience. Destination attractiveness is therefore
the summation of impressions, ideas and beliefs about destinations based on
information provided through direct (marketing) and indirect (social media) sources.
8.4.4 During construction and operational phases, negative news cycles have the potential
to have significant detrimental impact on tourism economies, particularly where the
quality of the environment and nature-based tourism experiences form leading
components of destination branding, positioning, and appeal.
8.4.5 Research highlights the importance of natural resources for tourism, and human-
induced events impacting ecosystems can have detrimental consequences for the
tourism industry relying on these assets as attractions and for the delivery of
experiences. A destination’s success relies on a distinctive and appealing brand,
which is extremely difficult to establish and maintain34. The tourism industry is “one
of the most susceptible and vulnerable to crises or disasters” (Pforr, 2009) since the
success of a destination rests heavily on “its ability to offer tourists a perceived safe
and pleasant place to visit” (Breda and Costa, 2006).
34 Pike, S. (2005). Tourism destination branding complexity. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(4), 258-259.; Pike, S. (2005). Tourism destination branding complexity. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(4), 258-259.
32
8.4.6 Examples in Australia, such as development within the Great Barrier Reef, highlight the impact that environmental damage, or even perceived damage, can have on tourist’s perceptions and destination image. Research on the Great Barrier Reef35 identified a strong correlation between negative news events covering environmental issues and phrases such as coral bleaching, damage to the reef, dead reef, sediment, and dull, and dips in social media sentiment from visitors regarding the destination. Quotes from social media posts referred to specific developments such as the York Peninsula Development Road or the Gladstone clean coal power plant and the impact these have on the Reef. The study demonstrated that environmental degradation and communication around these issues impacts visitors’ experiences and perceptions of destinations.
8.4.7 Furthermore, a study showed that media on the extension of Abbot Point port
terminal, approved in January 2014, negatively impacted the image perception of
the adjacent Great Barrier Reef36. The construction of the port was of particular
concern because it involved dredging of large amounts of sediment. Another study
demonstrated that development of the resources sector in Roma and Gladstone led
to fewer tourism products being developed and a decline in the quality of existing
products37. Self-reinforcing cycles were described, where development led to a
decline in visitors, a reduction in tourism’s quantifiable economic impact and an
institutional shift that favoured further developments in the resources sector. This
has “pushed it [leisure tourism] out” of Gladstone, which used to be Gladstone’s
main industry. Nowadays, Gladstone is seen to have little appeal to tourists. While
time series data at a local level is limited, Figure 19 illustrates the inverted
relationship between the sectors (the correlation between the growth rates was
−0.44) at a Queensland state level.
35 Salvatierra, J. & Walters, G. (2017). The impact of human-induced environmental destruction on destination image perception and travel behaviour: The case of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Vacation Marketing 2017, Vol. 23(1) 73–84. 36 Salvatierra, J. & Walters, G. (2017). The impact of human-induced environmental destruction on destination image perception and travel behaviour: The case of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Vacation Marketing 2017, Vol. 23(1) 73–84. 37 Char-lee J. Moyle, Brent D. Moyle & Susanne Becken (2017) A multi-sectoral model of tourism and resource sector transformation, Tourism Recreation Research, 42:4, 422-435
33
Figure 19: Illustration of relationship between tourism and mining income – Gladstone
Region
Source38
Financial/Economic Risk from Environmental Impact
8.4.8 Commentary on the potential for the project to cause environmental damage to Phillip
Island and Bass Coast Shire is outside the scope of this expert witness statement,
however, it is important to note the potential for environmental impact on Phillip
Island and surrounding areas as a material consideration.
8.4.9 Paragraph 8.4.13 presents a series of case studies where major incidents associated
with fossil fuels have been evidenced to have had significant economic impact on
tourism destinations, with impact extending significantly beyond the municipality
where infrastructure is developed.
8.4.10 For instance, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill generated significant economic
impacts to US coastal economies (Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama)
predicted to be USD22.7billion over three years (2010-2013). Leisure and hospitality
employment in these economies estimated to be 15% of total private employment39.
8.4.11 Paragraph 8.4.13 also contains a summary table of economic impacts to tourism
destinations from recent major oil spills. While it is accepted that oil spills provide
their own unique set of environmental and economic risks, the examples do illustrate
the need to fully consider economic risk to the tourism economy of Phillip Island and
surrounding areas.
38 Char-lee J. Moyle, Brent D. Moyle & Susanne Becken (2017) A multi-sectoral model of tourism and resource sector transformation, Tourism Recreation Research, 42:4, 422-435 39 Oxford Economics 2010, Potential Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill on Tourism, available at: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/download/222563
34
8.4.12 My evidence on tourism matters is presented through the lenses of these potential
reputational and financial/economic risks and impacts.
8.4.13 A range of events have provided evidence of major fossil fuel projects’ potential to
impact on tourism economies. These are presented in figures 20 and 21.
Figure 20: Impacts to tourism from anthropogenic and natural disasters: Case Studies
Event Place Year Tourism impact
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Disaster
Gulf of Mexico
2010 Economic impacts to US coastal economies (Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) predicted to be USD22.7billion over three years (2010-2013);40 Leisure and hospitality employment in these economies estimated to be 15% of total private employment;41
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill disaster
Prince William Sound, Alaska
1989 Tourism dramatically declined in the region in 1989; USD19 million in visitor spending was lost in just one season; Continued oil contamination of shorelines in the 10 years following the incident;42 59% of tourism businesses in the spill area reported spill-related cancellations; 43
Ammonium nitrate explosion
Beirut, Lebanon
2020 90% of Beirut hotels damaged;44 Central tourist hub destroyed;45
Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant No. 1
Fukushima Prefecture, Japan
2011 Estimated loss of tourism income over three years 2011-2014) USD9.4 billion;46 Loss of tourism confidence in visiting the region;47
40 Oxford Economics 2010, Potential Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill on Tourism, available at: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/download/222563 41 Oxford Economics 2010, Potential Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill on Tourism, available at: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/download/222563 42 Oxford Economics 2010, Potential Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill on Tourism, available at: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/download/222563 43 Chang, S.E., Stone, J., Demes, K., and Piscitelli, M. 2014, Consequences of oil spills: a review and framework for informing planning, Ecology and Society, vol.19, no. 2, art.26 44 CNN 2020, Beirut explosion rocks Lebanon’s capital city, CNN Media, available at: https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/lebanon-beirut-explosion-live-updates-dle-intl/h_5372a5d4a996a45c2a92adfd03525251 45 Mehan, A. and Jansen, M. 2020, Beirut Blast: A port city in crisis, Port City Futures, Leiden University, The Netherlands, available at: https://philpapers.org/archive/MEHBBA-2.pdf 46 Narukawa, M. and Nohara, K. 2018, Zero-truncated panel Poisson mixture models: Estimating the impact on tourism benefits in Fukushima Prefecture, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 211, pp. 238-246. 47 Handler, I. 2016, The impact of the Fukushima disaster on Japan's travel image: An exploratory study on Taiwanese travellers, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, vol.27, pp.12-17.
35
Marcellus Shale Atlantic Coast Pipeline project
Western and Central Virginia, United States
2016 Loss of comparative advantage reducing recreation tourism expenditures by USD41.3 million which supports 387 jobs;48 “These businesses, which depend on the scenic and other amenities noted above, would simply not have enough business in the form of visitors and others to justify their now-on-hold expansions and new developments.” (Phillips et al., 2016, p.8);
Chemung, Schuyler, And Steuben Counties, New York, United States (STC Region)
2011 2008 visitor spend of USD239 million across all counties predicted to decline due to loss of ‘brand’ that is intertwined with nature based vistas and activities. Cumulative change to an industrial, rather than a scenic landscape, will generate substantial damage to the brand;49
China Petroleum Company Corporation explosion
Xingang Harbour, Dalian
2010 Impacts to tourism through environmental damage from 60,000 litres of oil leaking;50 51
Pacific Adventurer sinking; overboard containers and bunker fuel leakage
Moreton Bay Coast
2009 Impacts to sensitive ecosystems and tourist beaches along the Queensland Coast; Clean up and non-government claims (tourism interests) estimated at least AUD30 million.52
48 Phillips, S., Bottorff, C. and Wang, S. 2016, Economic Costs of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline: Effects on Property Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development in Western and Central Virginia, Key-Log. Economics LLC, available at: https://www.banktrack.org/download/economic_costs_of_the_atlantic_coast_pipeline/economic_costs_of_the_atlantic_coast_pipelinekeylogic_21616_1.pdf 49 Rumbach, A. 2011, Natural gas drilling in the Machellus Shale: Potential impacts on the tourism economy of the Southern Tier, Cornell University, available at: http://greenchoices.cornell.edu/resources/publications/drilling/Impacts_on_Tourism_Economy.pdf 50 Greenpeace 2010, Oil spill damage in Dalian, available at: https://media.greenpeace.org/archive/Oil-Spill-Damage-in-Dalian-27MZIFIA1D3E.html 51 Stanway, D.2010, China oil pill could be 60,000 metric tons: Greenpeace, Reuters Green Business News, available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-dalian-oil/china-oil-spill-could-be-60000-metric-tons-greenpeace-idUSTRE66T2LQ20100730 52 Cogliati-Bantz, V., Derrington, D., Forrest, C., Gaskell, N. and White, M. 2012, Marine Oil and Gas Pollution Spills in Australian Waters, in Chircop, A. Letalik, N., McDorman, T.L., and Rolston, S.J. (eds.), The Regulation of International Shipping: International and Comparative Perspectives, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp.371-400.
36
MV Wakashio striking of coral reef
Mauritius 2020 1000 tonnes of fuel spilt into the marine ecosystem with over 1700 species;53 54 Impacts the natural environment upon which tourism is built for decades.55 Mauritius is a tourism dependent economy; Losses add to existing COVID-19 losses of MUR12 billion (AUD422 million).14
Figure 21: Impacts to tourism from anthropogenic and natural disasters: Case Studies
Source: Economic impacts of oil spills in island tourism destinations. An application to the
Canary Islands, Walo, 2016
53 The Japan Times 2020, The focus turns to damages owed by Japan ship owner for Mauritius spill, available at: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/08/13/national/nagashiki-wakashio-oil-spill-mauritius/ 54 McEvoy, J. 2020, ‘Damage To The Coral Reefs May Be Irreversible’: Japanese Tanker Drained Of Oil, Forbes, available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/08/13/damage-to-the-coral-reefs-may-be-irreversible-japanese-tanker-drained-of-oil/#188a28aa549a 55 ABC 2020, Japanese ship MV Wakashio breaks up on Mauritius reef after causing oil spill, available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-16/japanese-ship-mv-wakashio-mauritius-oil-spill-breaks-apart/12563154
37
8.5 APPENDIX 5: Review of EES Documentation
Does the EES adequately document investigation, avoidance, and minimisation of the
potential impact of the Project on tourism (specifically, nature based tourism) on Phillip
Island and surrounding areas within Council’s municipality, and its value to Council’s local
economy and the Victorian economy, in the event the Project detrimentally impacts
Western Port? If not, why not and what impact is it likely to have?
8.5.1 EES fails to consider impact on regional tourism.
8.5.2 On review of documentation, there are two principal areas of potential tourism
impact omitted from impact assessment:
I. The potential for large scale development such the project to cause
reputational risk to Phillip Island’s status as a tourism destination, which has
largely been built on its status as a nature-based destination.
II. The potential for environmental damage which would directly harm the
environmental assets which tourism on the Island is built upon. This
environmental damage would have the potential to directly lead to financial
loss for businesses and communities reliant on tourism. The health of Western
Port ecosystem and environment is of significant importance to the region’s
tourism industry and appeal.
8.5.3 The key issue with regard to both of these points is that the EES statement fails to
consider the project’s potential impact on tourism in Phillip Island and Bass Coast
Shire, with risks and potential impact largely limited to the construction area in
Mornington Shire, Casey, and Cardinia local government areas. As previously noted,
visitors are motivated to visit a particular destination by the information that they
receive through media and marketing together with the need to have their own
needs and wants satisfied, and destination image forms a vital part in the consumer’s
process of selecting a destination. As such, the nature of tourism destinations is that
visitors do not recognise boundaries and have a broader view of the destination – in
that sense, the project has the potential to impact directly on Phillip Island as a
premier tourism destination and the economic benefits which visitor spending
provides for communities and businesses.
8.5.4 As Bass Coast Shire and Phillip Island are omitted from impact considerations, EES
documentation contains no consideration of investigation, avoidance, and
minimisation of impact on the region’s visitor economy. The sector’s economic value
and potential impact of the project on it, have not been considered.
8.5.5 Given the issues set out in this statement, it is concluded that the EES does not
adequately document investigation, avoidance, and minimisation of the potential
impact of the Project on tourism (specifically, nature based tourism) on Phillip Island
and surrounding areas within Council’s municipality, and its value to Council’s local
economy and the Victorian economy, in the event the Project detrimentally impacts
Western Port.
38
8.5.6 While modelling is not available to accurately assess the potential economic impact
on the Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire regions, it is possible to see the potential
for economic loss when the region is so heavily reliant on nature-based tourism.
Based on 2019 values, a 20% reduction in nature-based tourism would result in the
loss of approximately $38.35m in visitor expenditure. If the Phillip Island tourism
region lost 10% of its overall visitation due to impacts of the project, this could see a
decline in GRP of approximately $28.2 million.
EES Summary Document, Environment Effects Statement, July 2020
8.5.7 While a broad range of community, economic and environmental impacts are
considered within the EES, scope of impact is largely limited to the local government
areas of Mornington Shire, Cardinia, and Casey. From a tourism impact perspective,
Bass Coast Shire and Phillip Island are excluded from consideration.
8.5.8 With the scale of development proposed in the project, potential tourism impact
would be expected to be significantly wider than this core area. Tourism in Phillip
Island and surrounds is set firmly within the context of the wider region, and
proximity of the project is highly likely to impact on the region. Development activity
in Western Port Bay has the potential to have a significant impact on surrounding
tourism destinations.
8.5.9 As previously noted, the types of tourism impact that should be considered as a
minimum include;
• The impact of reputational risks to Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire - the
negative PR and communications (during construction and operations) linked to
a major fossil fuel development project has clear ramifications for the region’s
long-established positioned as a sustainable tourism destination and premier
Victorian nature-based tourism destination. The fossil fuel focus of the project is
directly at odds with Phillip Island’s market positioning and appeal.
• Financial and economic risk to the region’s tourism sector from a potential
environmental impact event.
EES Main Report, Chapter 3 - Project Development
8.5.10 In addition to the points raised in commentary to the EES Summary Document
Environment Effects Statement July 2020 (8.3.6 -8.3.8), the following issues should
be considered:
• Project design alternatives have not factored in consideration of impact on Bass
Coast Shire and the region’s tourism industry centred on Phillip Island.
• Project design does not consider reputational risk to nearby visitor destinations
such as Phillip Island.
39
EES Main Report, Chapter 3 - Project Description
8.5.11 In addition to the points raised in commentary to the EES Summary Document
Environment Effects Statement July 2020 (8.3.6 -8.3.8), the following issues should
be considered:
• Project design alternatives have not factored in consideration of impact on Bass
Coast Shire and the region’s tourism industry centred on Phillip Island.
• Project design does not consider reputational risk to nearby visitor destinations
such as Phillip Island during construction and operational phases. This type of
reputational risk is particularly acute for the tourism sector. Phillip Island has
built its reputation and offers a clear brand imagery centred on nature-based
and sustainable tourism. Remedying a damaged tourism brand in a competitive
market place would require sustained investment over a number of years.
EES Main Report, Chapter 5 - Key Approvals and Assessment Framework
8.5.12 In addition to the points raised in commentary to the EES Summary Document
Environment Effects Statement July 2020 (8.3.6 -8.3.8), the following issues should be
considered:
• In the interests of a comprehensive evaluation, the evaluation framework could
have usefully included an assessment of impact against tourism policy and
strategy objectives at State, Regional and local levels. A summary of extant
tourism policy and strategy is contained in Appendix 3. Each of these documents
contains a series of objectives, which can form a useful set of criteria to assess
potential impact against.
EES Main Report, Chapter 19 – Business
8.5.13 As noted in commentary to the EES Summary Document Environment Effects
Statement July 2020 (8.3.6 -8.3.8), consideration of business impact excludes Phillip
Island and the Bass Coast Shire area. EES assessment has also failed to consider impact
on regional tourism. Specific considerations in this regard include:
• Methodology 19.3: a review of relevant Commonwealth, state and local
legislation and policy. This review shows no evidence of tourism policy and
strategy being considered.
• Study Area 19.4: the study area as defined excludes Bass Coast Shire Council area.
As previously noted, the tight study area related to project construction is
insufficient for consideration of tourism impact. Philip Island’s tourism economy
is inextricably linked to the setting and health of the Western Port ecosystem.
8.5.14 The result of the Bass Coast LGA area being excluded from the study area is that
potential tourism impact has not been fully considered, with the associated
mitigation, minimisation, and avoidance areas also not considered.
40
EES Main Report, Chapter 25 – Environmental Management Framework
8.5.15 In addition to the points raised in commentary to the EES Summary Document
Environment Effects Statement July 2020 (8.3.6 -8.3.8), the following issues should be
considered:
• Figure 25.4 (mitigation measures) fails to take a holistic view of impact on business
across the Western Port setting, meaning that reputational and environmental
risks for Phillip Island as a destination and its individual nature-based tourism
businesses have not been identified. As such, appropriate recognition of level and
likelihood of risks and impact on tourism is absent, along with associated
mitigation measures.
• Landscape and visual: This section although referring to regional impact, excluded
Bass Coast Shire and the regional dimension required to assess potential impact
on regional tourism. This regional scope is required to capture potential
reputational risks as well as physical and environmental issues.
EES Technical Report N – Business Impact Assessment
8.5.16 Comments on omissions as per response to on previous section - EES Main Report,
Chapter 19 – Business (8.3.12 -8.3.13.)
EES Report - Attachment II Legislation and policy report
8.5.17 Comments on omissions as per response to on previous section - Chapter 5 - Key
Approvals and Assessment Framework (8.3.11). Extension of relevant policy
frameworks include: the relevant extant policy framework of Bass Coast Shire
Council and State, regional and local tourism policy, and strategy. Consideration of
these policies would have provided for a more comprehensive assessment of
pertinent tourism issues.
EES Report - Attachment III Environmental Risk Report
8.5.18 In addition to comments in the previous section - Chapter 25 – Environmental
Management Framework (8.3.14), the key issue to reiterate is the failure to include
Bass Coast Shire within the scope of the EES process with regard to its tourism
economy.
8.5.19 With regard to business, this section of the report notes “ The non-agricultural
businesses with the potential to be materially impacted by the Project are in Hastings.
Most of these businesses are considered small businesses in terms of revenue (less
than AU$2 million dollars per annum in turnover) and employees (fewer than 20
employees). In addition, businesses are very car dependent, with a large majority of
employees, customers and suppliers accessing the sites by private vehicle”.
8.5.20 If a full regional perspective is taken where pertinent in regard to economic sectors
such as tourism, it is clear that the significant scale of the project also has the
potential to extend impact to Phillip Island tourism businesses, the majority of which
41
are also SMEs, as well as the destination’s signature nature-based businesses
including Phillip Island Nature Parks.
EES Report - Attachment IV Draft planning scheme amendment
8.5.21 In relation to section 4.12 Business Impact Assessment, the limited geographic scope
for business impact assessment, provides an incomplete assessment of business
(tourism) impact, excluding the potential for regional impact of the project on the
tourism industry. As previously noted, the limited scope results in conclusions that
only businesses (non-agricultural) in Hastings will be impacted.
42
8.6 APPENDIX 6: Ramsar wetland tourism values
8.6.1 As one example of nature-based tourism where the main motivation of the tourist is
to observe and appreciate nature as well as cultures which function in the natural
areas,56 International tourism to global wetland areas is estimated to generate tourism
expenditure of USD925 billion (AUD1286 billion) annually.57 With domestic visitors
and day trips to be added to this figure, the value generated for local communities
from wetland tourism is significant.
8.6.2 Australia is one of 171 countries that are parties to the Ramsar Convention.58 The
mission of the Ramsar Convention is to conserve and support the ‘wise use’ of all
wetlands, including that activities encouraged for the wetlands do not lead to loss of
biodiversity or diminish the values of the designated areas.59 The United Nations
World Tourism Organisation recognises wetlands, and particularly Ramsar designated
wetlands, as significant contributors to tourism economies (UNWTO 2012).
8.6.3 Ramsar Sites globally attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, delivering
direct and indirect economic contributions.60. For example, at the Rudrasagar Lake in
India, estimates of 350,000 visitors per annum frequent the site, a Ramsar declared
wetland.61 In a study of 26 Ramsar sites in Africa, tourism features as a consistent
contributor to wetland awareness among locals and visitors, and importantly, income
to surrounding communities – both from cultural (recreation and aesthetics including
tourism) and from provisioning services (such as fishing to supply visiting tourists).62
For example, in Algeria, one lake of 842 hectares is an Important Bird Area providing
habitat for migratory birds. More than 150,000 tourists visit the lake supporting local
youth employment. In another example, Lake Naivasha in Kenya recognises the
56 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and UNWTO 2012, Wetland Tourism: A great experience: responsible tourism supports wetlands and people, available at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ramsar-wwd2012-leaflet-en.pdf 57 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and UNWTO 2012, Wetland Tourism: A great experience: responsible tourism supports wetlands and people, available at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ramsar-wwd2012-leaflet-en.pdf 58 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 2019, Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention, available at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/annotated_contracting_parties_list_e.pdf 59 Australian Government 2012, Australia’s Obligations under the Ramsar Convention: Legislative Support for Wetlands, available at: https://www.environment.gov.au/water/wetlands/publications/australias-obligations-under-ramsar-convention-legislative-support-wetlands-fact-sheet 60 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and UNWTO 2012, Wetland Tourism: A great experience: responsible tourism supports wetlands and people, available at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ramsar-wwd2012-leaflet-en.pdf 61 Taran, M. and Deb, S. 2017, Valuation of provisional and cultural services of a Ramsar site: A preliminary study on Rudrasagar Lake, Tripura, Northeast India, Journal of Wetlands Environmental Management, vol,5, no.1, pp 37-43. 62 Gardner, R.C., Connolly, K.D., and Bamba, A. 2009, African wetlands of international Importance: Assessment of benefits associated with designations under the Ramsar Convention, Georgetown International Law Review, vol.21, no.2, pp. 257-294.
43
benefits of tourism to its local economy through livelihood opportunities. Several
other sites reported increased visitor numbers from birdwatching activities.63
8.6.4 The economic benefits of visitors to Ramsar sites are documented in local examples.
For example, in the Mekong Delta, popular water bird viewing sites in the U Minh
Thuong National Park receive 44,000 visitors annually, 97.5% of which are domestic
visitors contributing more than USD1 million (AUD1.4 million) in revenue to the local
economy.64 In Southern Thailand, the use value of a Ramsar site on the Krabi River was
estimated at USD9.7 million (AUD13.6 million) for recreation and tourism per year.65
In Nepal, a study of the travel cost for visitors to the Ramsar site of Ghodaghodi Lake
Complex, including food and other miscellaneous expenses for a one hour journey to
the site, provided economic benefit of USD7.71 (AUD10.80) per visitor per visit.66. In
another study from Nepal, the Jagadishpur Ramsar Site received a conservative
estimate of 10,200 visitors per year, with 98% domestic visitors, generating around
NPR 9,076,950 (AUD107,000) per year from tourism based on travel cost calculation
alone.67
8.6.5 Direct contributions from entry fees to Ramsar designated wetlands are another
income source. As reflected elsewhere in this statement, fees charged by the Phillip
Island Nature Park, a key element of the Ramsar declared area, are dependent on the
natural attributes of the wetlands. Another key Australian Ramsar designated wetland
is the Kakadu National Park. Economic benefit from entry fees there are distributed
between the Aboriginal Lands Trust to disburse to Traditional Owners and the park
itself. The former receives 40% of entry fees from the 200,000+ visitors per year, while
the remaining 60% supports operating costs and conservation initiatives within the
park.68
63 Gardner, R.C., Connolly, K.D., and Bamba, A. 2009, African wetlands of international Importance: Assessment of benefits associated with designations under the Ramsar Convention, Georgetown International Law Review, vol.21, no.2, pp. 257-294. 64 Loc, H.H., Diep, N.T.H., Tuan, V.T., and Shimizu, Y. 2018, An analytical approach in accounting for social values of ecosystem services in a Ramsar site: A case study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, Ecological Indicators, vol. 89., pp.118-129. 65 Janekarnkij, P. 2010, Assessing the Value of Krabi River Estuary Ramsar Site: Conservation and Development, ARE Working Paper No. 2553/4, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 66 Lamsal, P., Atreya, K., Prasad Pant, K., and Kumar, L. 2016, Tourism, and wetland conservation: application of travel cost and willingness to pay an entry fee at Ghodaghodi Lake Complex, Nepal, Natural Resources Forum, vol. 40, pp. 51-61. 67 Baral, S., Basnyat, B., Khanal, R., and Gauli, K. 2016, A Total Economic Valuation of Wetland Ecosystem Services: An Evidence from Jagadishpur Ramsar Site, Nepal, The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2016, pp. 1-9. 68 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and UNWTO 2012, Wetland Tourism: A great experience: responsible tourism supports wetlands and people, available at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ramsar-wwd2012-leaflet-en.pdf
44
8.7. APPENDIX 7: Tourism Data Sources and Definitions
8.7.1. Unless specifically noted, all data used in this statement is sourced from Tourism
Research Australia’s National and International Visitor Surveys. Annual growth is
estimated on the compound annual growth rate basis.
Definition of Nature-based Tourism
8.7.2. Nature-based tourism refers to visitor activities to discover natural beauty and enjoy
natural connectedness. These activities include visiting national/state parks, botanical
or other public gardens, whale or dolphin watching, bushwalking or on a rainforest
walk, scuba diving, snorkelling, and visiting wildlife parks, zoos and aquariums1.
8.7.3. The nature-based experience spectrum can also be extended to other activities such
as going to the beach, fishing, cycling, and surfing69. To be consistent with Business
VIC’s publications on tourist experience, the scope of nature-based tourism defined
by Business VIC is applied in this statement. The analysis of extended nature-based
tourism is supplementary to further capture the potential of this experience in Phillip
Island.
8.7.4. The identification of a nature-based tourist is based on the participation of visitors to
at least one of the above listed activities. For domestic visitors, these participated
activities were undertaken at the stopovers (Phillip Island or Victoria) whereas
international visitors might experience these activities somewhere else during their
Australian trip, not necessarily at the stopover levels.
Definition of Bass Coast Shire and Phillip Island for data purposes (Phillip Island Tourism
Region)
8.7.5. All data used in the statement unless otherwise specified, relates to the Phillip Island
Tourism region as noted in Figure 22. The boundaries of the Phillip Island tourism
region equate closely to that of the Bass Coast Shire Council area.
69 Tourism Research Australia’s IVS and NVS datasets, outdoor/nature activities, in alignment with Phillip island’s activity offerings.
45
Figure 22: Phillip Island Tourism Region and Bass Coast Shire map – data boundaries
Figure 23: Research acronyms used in this statement
ACRONYMS
VIC Victoria
NVS National Visitor Survey
IVS International Visitor Survey
GVA Gross Value Added
GRP Gross Regional Product
GSP Gross State Product
AGR Annual Growth Rate
TEVE Victoria's Tourism, Events and Visitor Economy
46
Figure 24: Definitions of tourism experiences referenced in this statement
Experiences Enclosed activities
Cultural Attend theatre, concerts
Visit museums
Visit art or craft workshops
Attend festivals. Fairs or events
Visit history, heritage buildings sites
Experience Aboriginal art
Visit Aboriginal sites
Attend Aboriginal performance (IN only)
Event Attend festivals, fairs, or events
Attend an organised sport event
Food and beverage Visit a winery
Visit breweries
Visit farmgate
Visit food market (DOM only)
Winery Visit a winery
Golf Play golf
Source: Tourism Research Australia’ IVS and NVS surveys