Victorian Alpine Resorts Economic Contribution Study · · 2017-07-12Victorian Alpine Resorts Economic Contribution Study EY | i ... Source: ARCC (adjusted Mt Hotham adjusted based

Victorian Alpine ResortsEconomic ContributionStudy

2016/17 Summer Season

21 June 2017

A member firm of Ernst & Young Global LimitedLiability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislat ion

NoticeErnst & Young was engaged on the instructions of Alpine Resorts Co-ordinating Council (ARCC) toestimate the economic and social significance of the alpine resorts ("Project"), in accordance withthe contract dated 21 June 2016.

The results of Ernst & Young’s work, including the assumptions and qualifications made in preparingthe report, are set out in Ernst & Young's report dated 21 June 2017 ("Report"). The Report shouldbe read in its entirety including the introductory chapters, the applicable scope of the work and anylimitations. A reference to the Report includes any part of the Report. No further work has beenundertaken by Ernst & Young since the date of the Report to update it.

Ernst & Young has prepared the Report for the benefit of ARCC and has considered only theinterests of ARCC. Ernst & Young has not been engaged to act, and has not acted, as advisor toany other party. Accordingly, Ernst & Young makes no representations as to the appropriateness,accuracy or completeness of the Report for any other party's purposes.

No reliance may be placed upon the Report or any of its contents by any recipient of the Report forany purpose and any party receiving a copy of the Report must make and rely on their ownenquiries in relation to the issues to which the Report relates, the contents of the Report and allmatters arising from or relating to or in any way connected with the Report or its contents.

Ernst & Young disclaims all responsibility to any other party for any loss or liability that the otherparty may suffer or incur arising from or relating to or in any way connected with the contents of theReport, the provision of the Report to the other party or the reliance upon the Report by the otherparty.

No claim or demand or any actions or proceedings may be brought against Ernst & Young arisingfrom or connected with the contents of the Report or the provision of the Report to any party. Ernst& Young will be released and forever discharged from any such claims, demands, actions orproceedings.

Ernst & Young have consented to the Report being published electronically on the ARCC websitefor informational purposes only. Ernst & Young have not consented to distribution or disclosurebeyond this. The material contained in the Report, including the Ernst & Young logo, is copyrightand copyright in the Report itself vests in Ernst & Young. The Report, including the Ernst & Younglogo, cannot be altered without prior written permission from Ernst & Young.

Ernst & Young’s liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Victorian Alpine Resorts Economic Contribution Study EY | i

Table of contents

Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 81.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 81.2 Purpose of this report ....................................................................................................... 81.3 Report Outline .................................................................................................................. 8

2. The alpine region .................................................................................................................... 92.1 Location ........................................................................................................................... 92.2 Overview of resorts .......................................................................................................... 9

3. Visitors, employees and businesses ..................................................................................... 113.1 Visitor Analysis ............................................................................................................... 11

3.1.1 Visitation statistics ...................................................................................................... 113.1.2 Visitor demographics .................................................................................................. 123.1.3 Visitor experience ....................................................................................................... 14

4. Economic contribution and employment ................................................................................ 174.1.1 Data gathering ........................................................................................................... 174.1.2 Estimate economic contribution .................................................................................. 17

4.2 Economic contribution of Victorian alpine resorts ............................................................ 184.2.1 Economic contribution to Victoria ................................................................................ 184.2.2 Economic contribution to the Greater Alpine Region ................................................... 194.2.3 Economic contribution to Local Government Areas (LGAs) ......................................... 20

4.3 Comparison with 2011 Summer Economic Contribution study ......................................... 21

5. Broader social and recreational benefits ............................................................................... 225.1 Use value ....................................................................................................................... 22

5.1.1 Travel and time costs ................................................................................................. 225.1.2 Health Benefits ........................................................................................................... 235.1.3 Environmental benefits ............................................................................................... 23

5.2 Non-use value ................................................................................................................ 235.2.1 Existence value .......................................................................................................... 23

Victorian Alpine Resorts Economic Contribution Study EY | 2

Executive summary

The alpine resorts

The alpine resorts of Victoria generate economic activity for the State as they attract a numbers ofVictorian, interstate and international visitors. The Victorian alpine region offers a wide range ofactivities for visitors during the summer months including musical festivals, bush walking, tennis,boat racing, mountain biking, swimming, road cycling, downhill cycling, cross-country cycling,athletics and nature watching. The region also boasts regional food and wine trails offering visitors ataste some of the best food and wine Victoria has to offer.

The value of the resorts to both state and regional economies identified in this report demonstratesthe importance of the alpine resorts to local economies and the state of Victoria.

This analysis demonstrates that the alpine resorts help boost economic activity in regions and agrowth in unemployment would become more of an issue if the alpine industry and resorts were todecline in quality and appeal. The alpine resorts are of importance in terms of their economiccontribution to the regions closest to where the resorts are located.

Visitors to the alpine resorts during the summer season

It is estimated that there were a total of 348,366 visitors to the Victoria alpine resorts acrosssummer. If a conservative assumption of length of stay is used these visitors produce almost485,722 visitor days.

In the Victorian alpine resorts, visitors from interstate made up 10 per cent of total visitors and485,822 visitor days; and an average 1 per cent of visitors at Victoria’s alpine resorts were fromoverseas, representing around 4,913 visitor days. Despite all it has to offer, international tourismduring the summer season in the Victorian alpine region remains low. This indicates an opportunityto further develop international tourism in regional Victoria.

The economic contribution of the alpine resorts

Gross direct visitor expenditure generated by the Victorian alpine resorts was $108 million. In2011/12, total gross direct visitor expenditure in the Victorian alpine resorts was $95 million (in2011/12 prices) or $103 million (in 2016/17 prices). This expenditure covers all visitor transactions,including food, beverages, lift passes, entry fees and local travel. The flow-on consequences of thenet additional expenditures were analysed using an input/output based model. The results of thisanalysis for Victoria in the 2016/17 summer season shows an economic contribution (gross stateproduct) of $121 million, compared to what would have been the case in the absence of theeconomic contribution of the alpine resorts in the summer season.

Importantly, job opportunities generated was approximately 1,205 in Victoria during the summerseason.

Table 1: Economic contribution of the alpine resorts to Victoria (all figures presented in $2016/17)

Victorian economic contribution 2011 2016/17

Direct gross expenditure ($m) $103 $108

Employment (Jobs) 956 1,205

GSP (Value-added) ($m) $104 $121

Source: EY analysis


The Victorian alpine resorts

Victoria is home to six officially designated alpine resorts which lie in the east and northeast of Victoriabetween 120km and 380km from Melbourne. The alpine resorts are a tourist destination for Victoria asthey attract a number of local, interstate and international visitors, bringing economic benefit to theregions located in close proximity to the resorts.

While the majority of tourism in this region is driven by snow and ski resorts in the winter, outside ofthe snow season, the mountains provide a good location for bushwalking, horse-riding, cycling, scenicdriving and fishing.

Visitation statistics

According to visitation data provided by the ARCC, Mt Buller and Mt Stirling had the most visitors inthe 2016/17 summer season, with 106,883 people visiting the resort. This accounted for around 31%of the total visitation to all Victorian alpine resorts during the season.

Falls Creek accounted for the most number of visitor days, followed by Mt Buller/Stirling and MtHotham. In terms of visitors’ length of stay, it has been assumed that Mt Hotham average 1.7 andFalls Creek averaged 1.8 days which were the highest among the resorts. Winter season averagelength of stay estimates were used as proxies and manually adjusted downwards to recognise thatsummer activities are fewer than winter. It is assumed that overnight visitors in summer stay half aslong as overnight visitors in winter.

As there are no overnight facilities at Lake Mountain, all visitors to the resort were day-trip visitors.


Table 2 2016/17 summer visitation statistics by resort

Resort Total visitors Number of visitor days Average length of stay

Falls Creek 94,269 169,684 1.8

Lake Mountain 46,631 46,631 1.0

Mt Baw Baw 42,635 42,635 1.0

Mt Buller/Stirling 106,883 128,260 1.2

Mt Hotham 57,948 98,512 1.7

All resorts 348,366 485,722 1.4Source: ARCC (adjusted Mt Hotham adjusted based on assumed through traffic)

Outlined in the following figure is a breakdown of the patrons by origin. The survey results reveal thatacross all of Victoria’s alpine resorts, 88% of the visitors are from Victoria, while 10% are interstatevisitors and the remaining approximate 1% are from overseas.

Figure 1 Visitor origin distribution by resort

Source: EY Sweeney survey results

Total visitation to Victoria’s alpine resorts in the summer season has experienced an increase over thepast decade. Since the 2011/12 summer season, the total number of visitors across Victoria’s alpineresorts has increased by 21%, while the number of visitor days has increased by 22% over that time.

Figure 2 Visitation statistics over time (All resorts)

Source: ARCC (based on unadjusted vehicle and passenger counts)


This indicates that more people are visiting an alpine resort during the summer months. In terms ofvisitor origin, in 2016/17 there were a higher proportion of Victorian visitors to the alpine resortscompared to 2011/12 (up from 76% to 89%), but with a lower share of international visitors (down from3% to 1%). However, the share of interstate visitors declined from 22% to 10%.

Figure 3 Comparison of visitor origin (2011 vs 2015/16)


Compared with 2011, the number of visitors from Victoria has increased by 52%, while internationalvisitor days has decreased by 43%. Similarly interstate visitor days has decreased by 43%.

Table 3 Comparison of visitor days by origin

2011/12 2016/17 % changeVictorian 286,177 434,482 52%Interstate 80,744 46,326 -43%International 8,638 4,913 -43%All visitors 375,559 485,722 29%

Source: ARCC

Economic Contribution to Victoria

The Victorian alpine resorts also have a broader impact across the state with the analysis showing thatit contributes $121 million to the Gross State Product (GSP) of Victoria in the summer season, andapproximately 1,205 jobs across the state. Of the 1,205 jobs, approximately 710 were directlyemployed in industry supporting summer activities in the alpine region. This estimate includes full time,part time and casual work in industries such as tourism support and tours, accommodation, food andbeverage and retail. The indirect jobs supported by the alpine resorts are spread across the retail,accommodation, transport and manufacturing sectors.

Table 4 Economic contribution to Victoria (all figures presented in $2016/17)

Direct impact Indirect impact Total impact

Gross expenditure ($m) $108 $154 $262Employment (Jobs) 710 495 1,205GSP (Value-added) ($m) $48 $73 $121

Source: EY analysis

The table below shows that in comparison with the previous study undertaken in 2011. While some ofthis change can be attributed to differences in the methodology used in the previous study (describedin more detail in section 4.3), the increase in output has been driven by increases in total visitation andexpenditure.


Table 5 Economic contribution comparison (2011/12 vs 2016/17) (all figures presented in $2016/17)

Total impact 2011 201�/1� % change

Direct gross expenditure ($m) $103 $108 5%Employment (Jobs) 956 1,205 26%GSP (Value-added) ($m) $104 $121 16%

Source: EY analysis

In terms of each resort’s economic contribution to Victoria, Mt Buller (which also includes Mt Stirling)was the most significant contributor accounting for $43 million in value added and 430 jobs. 254 ofthese jobs were created on the mountain supporting tourism, accommodation, food and beverage andretail industries. This was driven by the high number of Victorian visitors compared to the other alpineresorts. It has been estimated that more than 98,000 Victorians (compared to interstate adinternational visitors) visited Mt Buller and nearby Mt Stirling during the summer season and spentapproximately $47 million in total (direct expenditure). A further 103 indirect jobs were created from theflow on expenditures related to wider activities on Mt Buller/Stirling. Falls Creek was the secondlargest contributor providing $79 million in total expenditure and adding $36 million in value added with362 jobs.

Figure 4 Total economic contribution (direct and indirect) to Victoria by resort

Source: EY analysis

Economic contribution to the Greater Alpine Region1

The Victorian alpine resorts contribute around $80 million in value added to the Gross RegionalProduct (GRP) of the Greater Alpine Region and over 880 jobs through both direct and indirectimpacts.

Table 6 Economic contribution to Greater Alpine Region (all figures presented in $2016/17)

Direct impact Indirect impact Total impactGross expenditure ($m) $108 $75 $183Employment (Jobs) 623 257 880GRP (Value-added) ($m) $45 $35 $80

Source: EY analysis

1 The Greater Alpine Region includes the Shire of Alpine, Shire of Baw Baw, Shire of Mansfield and Shire of Murrundindi LocalGovernment Areas (LGAs)


In terms of the economic contribution of each resort to the Greater Alpine Region, Mt Buller/Stirlingand Falls Creek were the largest contributors accounting for $29 million in value added in Mt Bullerand $24 million value added in Falls Creek. 314 and 264 jobs respectively to the region.

Figure 5 Total economic contribution (direct and indirect) to the Greater Alpine Region by resort

Source: EY analysis

Economic contribution to Local Government Areas (LGAs)

In terms the Victorian alpine resorts’ economic contribution to the various LGAs, Falls Creek and MtHotham resorts contributed around $36 million to the Gross Regional Product (GRP) of the AlpineShire (down from $43 million in 2011). Mt Buller/Stirling’s contribution to the GRP of the MansfieldShire decreased from $32 million in 2011 to $24 million in the 2016/17 summer season. The lowerreported GRP in the Alpine Shire can be linked to a revision on how the number of visitors to MtHotham has been calculated. Previous reports of Mt Hotham have not accounted for the traffic passingthrough the region and thus may have over-reported the number of visitors staying in Mt Hotham.

Figure 6 Value added by Local Government Area (LGA) (all figures presented in $2015/16)

Source: EY analysis

Employment increased in the Alpine Shire in the period between the 2011 study and this study. Thishas been driven by visitation uplift as due to technology advancement and business efficiencies,employment multipliers have decreased in recent years (i.e. there is now less job creation fromincrease direct expenditure).

Figure 7 Employment by Local Government Area (LGA)

Source: EY analysis


1. Introduction

1.1 BackgroundRegular economic impact and contribution studies on behalf of the Alpine Resorts Co-ordinatingCouncil (ARCC) have been undertaken for almost 30 years with the most recent study beingcompleted in 2011. This economic contribution study aims to highlights the importance of the Victorianalpine resorts (“the resorts”) to the Baw Baw Shire, Alpine Shire, Mansfield Shire, Murrindindi Shireand the state of Victoria, by estimating its economic contribution to each of these regions across thewinter and summer months, as well as the broader social and recreational value of the Resorts. Thisincludes value associated with recreation, education, the environment, and community cohesiongenerated by the Resorts. Calculating the impact of resorts outside of Victoria was not part of theproject scope.

The resorts are a key tourist destination for Victoria, providing a range of summer activities. TheVictorian alpine region consists of a number of key resort locations, with the five key areas consideredfor the purpose of this report being:

Ź Falls CreekŹ Lake MountainŹ Mt Baw BawŹ Mt Buller/StirlingŹ Mt Hotham.

1.2 Purpose of this reportThe purpose of the study is to obtain reliable knowledge about the economic significance of the alpineresorts, specifically to:

Ź Quantify the economic activity that is generated by the Victorian alpine resorts in the winterseason (Part 1 – to be released separately) and in the in the summer months (Part 2 – this report)

Ź Quantify the regional benefits generated by Victorian alpine resorts, in the Local GovernmentArea (LGAs) in Victoria where the resorts are situated (across both winter and summer)

Ź Identify the broader social and recreational benefits of the Victorian alpine resorts.

This report analyses the impact of the summer season.

1.3 Report OutlineThis report proceeds as follows:

Ź Chapter 2 – The alpine regionŹ Chapter 3 – Visitors, employees and businessesŹ Chapter 4 – Economic contribution and employmentŹ Chapter 5 – Broad social and recreational benefits


2. The alpine region

2.1 LocationVictoria is home to six officially designated alpine resorts which lie in the east and northeast of Victoriabetween 120 and 380 km from Melbourne. The alpine resorts are a tourist destination in Victoria asthey attract a number of local, interstate and international visitors, bringing economic benefit to theregions located near the resorts.

The Victorian alpine region’s major snow and ski resorts are Mount Buller/Stirling, Falls Creek, MountBaw Baw, Mount Hotham and Lake Mountain. Stretching from the east to the north-east of the state,the alpine region is comprised of the Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Alpine Shire, Shire ofMurrindindi, Shire of Mansfield and Baw Baw Shire. While the majority of tourism in this region isdriven by snow and ski resorts, outside of the snow season, the mountains provide a good location forbushwalking, horseriding, cycling, scenic driving and fishing.

2.2 Overview of resortsFalls Creek

The Falls Creek resort is approximately four and a half hours drive from Melbourne and has a villageatmosphere. Falls Creek is home to one of the country’s newest mountain bike trail networks withcross country flow trails all through the village and resort area. The Alpine Loop is one of the mostchallenging and spectacular cycling trails in the country. There are also a myriad of walking, hiking andwater activities for tourists during the summer season.

Lake Mountain

Lake Mountain is located on a plateau approximately 120 kilometres to the north east of Melbourne. Ithas no overnight accommodation but is accessible on a day-trip basis from Melbourne with a drivingtime of about two hours. Lake Mountain is the perfect day-tripper destination for bushwalking,mountain biking, road cycling, trail running, leisurely picnics and nature walks. Visitors looking foradventure can experience the exhilaration of a 240-meter dual flying fox, slide down the Tube Run orjoin a game of Laser Skirmish.


Mt Baw Baw

Mt Baw Baw is about 170 kilometres from Melbourne with a driving time of about two hours. Mt BawBaw’s spectacular alpine landscape and mountainous terrain make it attractive for adventurer.Summer visitors can experience exhilarating downhill mountain biking, bush walking and familyfriendly adventures surrounded by the peace and serenity of the bush.

Mt Buller/Mt Stirling

Mt Buller/Stirling Alpine Resort, in terms of visitor numbers, is the largest Victorian alpine resort. It is awell-developed resort with a diverse range of activities comparable to those found anywhere in theAustralian Alps. It has developed a program of year round events to better utilise the resorts extensivefacilities. Mt Buller is a popular destination for visitors looking for 4WD action. With phenomenal cross-country, downhill mountain biking and road cycling trails, Mt Buller has much to offer in the summerseason. Mt Stirling visitors enjoy enchanting horse riding throughout the beautiful mountainous terrain.The abundance of natural flora in full bloom make Mt Stirling an ideal destination to visit in the summerfor bushwalking, motorcycling and scene helicopter flights.

Mt Hotham

The Mt Hotham resort is built close to the top of the mountain. Mt Hotham’s flora and fauna make it astunning destination for bushwalking. Visitors can also take guided history walks and learn about therich history of the alpine region. From the top of Hotham to the bottom where the rivers flow with snowmelt, summer visitors enjoy picnics with uninterrupted 360 degree views all within easy walkingdistance from the lodge. The walking trails are sheltered by shady snow gums and the 4WD trackscross through rolling plains, rivers and razorbacks, offering a little bit of paradise for everyone. There isalso road cycling, cross-country mountain biking, horse riding, tennis, golf and the DP Tube Parkenjoyed by hundreds of families each year.


3. Visitors, employees and businesses

3.1 Visitor AnalysisThe following analysis is based on data provided by the ARCC and the results of visitor surveysundertaken by EY. Visitor surveys were conducted as an intercept study at various locations within theresorts. As part of the process, members of the public were randomly intercepted by interviewers andasked to complete a survey. The surveys were conducted during February and March 2017, and werecompleted on a tablet computer, either by the visitor themselves, or by the staff member who read outthe questions. The table below provides a summary of the number of responses received for eachresort.

Table 7 Visitor survey responses by resort

Resort Number of responses

Mt Buller 119Falls Creek 132Mt Hotham 137Mt Baw Baw 164Lake Mountain 140Total 692


3.1.1 Visitation statisticsAccording to visitation data provided by the ARCC, Mt Buller/Stirling had the most visitors in the2016/17 summer season, with 106,883 people visiting the resort. This accounted for around 31% ofthe total visitation to all Victorian alpine resorts during the season. Falls Creek accounted for the mostnumber of visitor days, followed by Mt Buller/Stirling and Mt Hotham.

As there are no overnight facilities at Lake Mountain, all visitors to the resort were day-trip visitors.

Table 8 Visitation statistics by resort

Resort Total visitors Number of visitor days Average length of stay

Falls Creek 94,269 169,684 1.8

Lake Mountain 46,631 46,631 1.0

Mt Baw Baw 42,635 42,635 1.0

Mt Buller/Stirling 106,883 128,260 1.2

Mt Hotham 57,948 98,512 1.7

All resorts 348,366 485,722 1.4Source: ARCC

Total visitation to Victoria’s alpine resorts in the summer season has increased over the past decade.Since the last economic contribution study was prepared on the 2011/12 summer season, the totalnumber of visitors across Victoria’s alpine resorts has increased by 21%. This indicates that morepeople are visiting an alpine resort during the summer months.


Figure 8 Visitation statistics over time (All resorts)

Source: ARCC (based on unadjusted vehicle and passenger counts)

3.1.2 Visitor demographics

Visitor origin – proportion of total visitors

The following figure provides a breakdown of the patrons by origin. The survey results reveal thatacross all of Victoria’s alpine resorts, 89% of the visitors are from Victoria, while 10% are interstatevisitors and the remaining 1% are from overseas.

Figure 9 Visitor origin as a proportion (%) of total visitors


Visitor origin – total visitors numbers

Mt Buller/Stirling is the most visited resort, with over 106,000 visitors over the 2016/17 summerseason. This is followed by Falls Creek with over 94,000 visitors over the summer season.


Table 9 Total visitors by origin and resort

Resort Victorian visitors Interstate visitors International visitors Total visitors

Falls Creek 72,088 20,597 1,584 94,269

Lake Mountain 44,512 1,413 707 46,631

Mt Baw Baw 42,012 311 311 42,635

Mt Buller/Stirling 98,411 7,169 1,303 106,883

Mt Hotham 48,014 9,934 0 57,948

All resorts 305,037 39,424 3,906 348,366Source: ARCC (adjusted Mt Hotham adjusted based on assumed through traffic)

Gender

In terms of gender, the results were relatively consistent across all resorts with around 65% of visitorsbeing male, and 34% females.

Figure 10 Gender by resort

* chose not to disclose genderSource: EY Sweeney survey results

Age of visitors

In terms of the age distribution, the survey found highest represented age group was 45+. There wasan even split of 22% respectively for both the 25 to 34 age group and the 35 to 44 age group. Whenconsidering the age distribution within individual resorts, Mt Hotham had the highest percentage ofvisitors aged 45+ whilst Mt Buller had the highest percentage of visitors aged 24 and under.

Figure 11 Visitor age by resort



Annual household income (after tax)

In terms of annual household income, the results were relatively similar across all resorts. Falls Creekhad the highest proportion of visitors with an income of more than $175,000 whilst Mt Buller had themost visitors with an income of less than $35,000.

Figure 12 Annual household income by resort


3.1.3 Visitor experience

Visitor expenditure

Based on the results of the visitor survey, Victorian visitors spent an average of $210 per day acrossall resorts. This includes spending on food, shopping, travel, accommodation and other miscellaneousexpenditures. Interstate visitors spent an average of $246 per day, while international visitors spent anaverage of $478 per day.

Table 10 Visitor expenditure by visitor type and resort

Resort Victorian visitors Interstate visitors International visitors

Falls Creek $176 $224 $283

Lake Mountain $136 $40 $653

Mt Baw Baw $191 $145 $100

Mt Buller $293 $386 $238

Mt Hotham $226 $237 $0

Total $210 $246 $478Source: EY Sweeney survey results

The survey results showed that there was a difference in the average visitor expenditure between theresorts. Victorian and interstate travellers spent the most on Mt Buller, whilst international visitorsspent a larger amount on Lake Mountain. There were no international visitors recorded in Mt Hotham.

In terms of international visitor expenditure, there were limited responses from international visitors ateach resort. Therefore, while they have been described individually for each resort in the table above,for the purpose of the economic contribution study, the average expenditure across all resorts ($478)has been used.

Visitor satisfaction

Visitors were asked to rate the quality of their experience at the resort for their trip. Across all theVictorian alpine resorts, 93% of visitors rated their experience as either excellent or good. Visitorsatisfaction was relatively consistent across all the resorts with Falls Creek and Lake Mountain having


the highest rating of excellent and good (both 95%). The resort with the highest average rating was MtBaw Baw, however this was only 8%.

Figure 13 Visitor satisfaction by resort


First time visitor

According to the visitor survey, approximately 98% of visitors had been to a Victorian alpine resortpreviously, with only 2% of visitors visiting for the first time.

Figure 14: First time visitors (%)


Alternative plans

Visitors were also asked how they would have spent their money had they not have visited alpineresorts. According to the survey, 32% of visitors would have saved the money and 25% said theywould have holidayed elsewhere in Australia. Only 11% said they would have holidayed overseasinstead, while 25% responded that they would have holidayed elsewhere in Victoria.


Figure 15 Alternatives to the Victorian alpine resorts


Interstate and overseas visitors were also asked whether they would have visited Victoria at this timeof the year if they had not been visiting the alpine resorts. Visitors overwhelmingly said yes with 67%of respondents from interstate and overseas saying they would have visited Victoria regardless.Sample size for this question however was very small with only six respondents visiting Lake Mountainand two visiting Mt Baw Baw.

Figure 16: As an (interstate/overseas) visitor, would you have visited Victoria at this time of year if you were notvisiting the alpine resorts?



4. Economic contribution and employment

The estimated economic contribution of Victoria’s alpines resorts can be split between the direct andindirect impacts. The direct impact captures the spending increase in Victoria (or relevant LGA) that isattributable to the resort, while the indirect impact measures the ‘flow-on’ or multiplier effects of thedirect expenditure throughout the Victorian economy. A full description of the EY methodology isincluded in the Winter Season report.

4.1.1 Data gatheringThe initial step was to design a survey instrument which would generate the information required fromvisitors to the region plus employees and businesses in the Victorian alpine regions over the peak ofthe summer season. For this study, the survey was conducted in January and February 2017 in thepeak of the summer season.

Visitors to the mountains were questioned about their purpose of visit, length of stay and expenditureto assist in calculating their economic contribution. Visitors were also asked demographic information,levels of satisfaction and attitudes to the region in the summer season.

Surveying was done infield (on the mountains across different weekends) across all of the resorts. Theprocess was conducted with tablets, where respondents entered their details and answers directly intothe survey while the staff member waited and provided assistance if required.

Surveys were also conducted with employees and businesses within the alpine resorts and in townsnear the resorts. The employee survey findings were used to calculate the benefits of employeeincome and spending to Victoria and LGAs that had been directly linked to activities associated withthe Victorian alpine resorts.

In total, 693 surveys were undertaken with visitors. A copy of the survey have been included inAppendix E.

4.1.2 Estimate economic contributionDirect impact

For the purposes of this study, only the economic contribution attributable to visitor expenditure hasbeen considered. Therefore, the direct impact captures the direct spending increase in Victoria (orrelevant LGA/region) that is attributable to visitor expenditure at each of Victoria’s alpine resorts. Thishas been calculated based on the results of the primary market research conducted by EY and dataprovided by ARCC. The direct expenditure for all visitors is derived from:

Ź The number of visitors to the resortŹ The duration of stay of these visitorsŹ The level of expenditure of these visitors during their stay.

Indirect impact

The indirect impact measures the flow-on effects of the direct expenditure throughout the economy.The additional direct spending produces a second round of spending and income generation. Forexample, additional money spent at restaurants is allocated between the additional material inputs(such as food and drink), wages, and profits of the proprietor. Wages spent by the employees forexample, on household items, circulates the money throughout a broader section of the economycreating indirect benefits.


This study adopts an input output approach to the calculation of indirect (wider) economic impacts.REMPLAN was engaged to develop tailored input/output multipliers that reflect the specificcharacteristics of the economy for each of the relevant LGAs and for Victoria2.

REMPLAN is essentially an input-output model of the Australian economy and regional economies.Input output models trace the revenue and expenditure flows that link industries and workers withinand outside economic regions. For instance, an increase in output in one industry (the “direct impact”)would give rise to demand for inputs from other industries (industrial effect) as well as labour(consumption effect). In turn, these support industries would demand further inputs, labour, and so on.This is the so-called multiplier or indirect effect.

REMPLAN’s core data set is based on the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) nationalaccounts figures of the Australian economy, coupled with the latest Census data. REMPLAN’s keyadvantage over other input output models or “off-the shelf multipliers” is that it can be region specific.For instance, in the past, economic practitioners have used national multipliers produced by the ABS.It should be noted that the ABS has not published national input output multipliers since 1998-99 anddoes not plan to compile and reissue this table because of concerns over the abuse of them ineconomic assessments. In particular, the ABS notes that its multipliers calculated from the nationalinput output table are not appropriate for use in economic impact analysis of projects in small regions.

For small regions, multipliers tend to be smaller than national multipliers since the inter–industrylinkages are normally relatively shallow, since they usually don’t have the capacity to produce the widerange of goods used for inputs and consumption, instead importing a large proportion of these goodsfrom other regions.

REMPLAN addresses these issues by factoring in these leakage effects, based on assessing thecurrent structure of the regional economy (using workforce data).

It is acknowledged that input output models are often criticised when used in economic impact-assessments as they do not consider capacity constraints in the economy (e.g. full employment). Suchconstraints limit the extent to which economic impacts can increase in a linear fashion with changes indemand. The alternative CGE approach3 addresses some of these issues, although the nature andscale of this study did not warrant the use a detailed CGE analysis at this time.

4.2 Economic contribution of Victorian alpine resorts4.2.1 Economic contribution to Victoria

The Victorian alpine resorts also have a broader impact across the state with the analysis showing thatit contributes $121 million to the Gross State Product (GSP) of Victoria, and 1,205 jobs across thestate. Of those jobs, approximately 495 were directly employed in industry supporting summeractivities in the alpine region. This estimate includes full time, part time and casual work in industriessuch as tourism support and tours, accommodation, food and beverage and retail. The indirect jobssupported by the alpine resorts are spread across the retail, accommodation, transport andmanufacturing sectors.

Table 11 Economic contribution to Victoria (all figures presented in $2016/17)

Direct impact Indirect impact Total impactGross expenditure ($m) $108 $154 $262Employment (Jobs) 710 495 1,205GSP (Value-added) ($m) $48 $73 $121

Source: EY analysis

2 REMPLAN modelling provides the ability to calculate the value of gross regional product and to assess likely economicimpacts of proposed changes. REMPLAN can foster an understanding of the interdependent nature of the local economy.3 These complex models are based on theoretical concepts and account for profit maximisation, household consumptionfunctions, terms of trade effects, labour market adjustments etc. These models take into account changes in prices and wageswith increases in demand. As such, their economic impact results are generally much more conservative relative to input-outputanalysis as capacity constraints are taken into account by increases in prices and wages.


The table below shows that in comparison with the previous study undertaken for the 2011/12 summerseason, direct expenditure, employment and GSP has increased. This is due to the rise in visitors andvisitor days.

Table 12 Economic contribution comparison (2011/12 vs 2015/16) (all figures presented in $2016/17)

Total impact 2011/12 2015/16 % changeDirect gross expenditure ($m) $103 $108 5%Employment (Jobs) 956 1,205 26%GSP (Value-added) ($m) $104 $121 16%

Source: EY analysis

In terms of the economic contribution of each resort to the Victorian economy, Mt Buller/Stirlingaccounted for $43 million in value-added and 430 jobs. 254 of these jobs were created on themountain supporting tourism, accommodation, food and beverage and retail industries. A further 176indirect jobs were created from the flow on expenditures related to wider activities in Mt Buller/Stirling.Falls Creek was the second highest contributor to the Victorian economy with $36million value-addedGSP and 362 direct and indirect jobs.

Figure 17 Total economic contribution (direct and indirect) to Victoria by resort

Source: EY analysis

4.2.2 Economic contribution to the Greater Alpine RegionThe Victorian alpine resorts contribute over $80 million in value added to the Gross Regional Product(GRP) of the Greater Alpine Region and over 880 jobs through both direct and indirect impacts.

Table 13 Economic contribution to Greater Alpine Region (all figures presented in $2016/17)


Source: EY analysis

In terms of the economic contribution of each resort to the Greater Alpine Region, Mt Buller/Stirlingand Falls Creek were the largest contributors accounting for $29 million in value added in Mt Bullerand $24 million value added in Falls Creek. 314 and 264 jobs respectively to the region.


Figure 18 Total economic contribution (direct and indirect) to the Greater Alpine Region by resort

Source: EY analysis

4.2.3 Economic contribution to Local Government Areas (LGAs)

In terms the Victorian alpine resorts’ economic contribution to the various LGAs, Falls Creek and MtHotham resorts contributed around $36 million to the Gross Regional Product (GRP) of the AlpineShire (down from $43 million in 2011). Mt Buller/Stirling’s contribution to the GRP of the MansfieldShire decreased from $32 million in 2011 to $24 million in the 2016/17 summer season. The lowerreported GRP in the Alpine Shire can be contributed to a revision on how the number of visitors to MtHotham has been calculated. Previous reports of Mt Hotham have not accounted for the through-trafficpassing through the region and have thus over-reported the number of visitors staying in Mt Hotham.

Figure 19 Value added by Local Government Area (LGA) (all figures presented in $2015/16)

Source: EY analysis

Employment increased in the Alpine Shire in the period between the 2011 study and this study. Thishas been driven by visitation uplift as due to technology advancement and business efficiencies,employment multipliers have decreased in recent years (i.e. there is now less job creation fromincrease direct expenditure).

Figure 20 Employment by Local Government Area (LGA)

Source: EY analysis


4.3 Comparison with 2011 Summer Economic Contribution studyThe previous Summer Economic Contribution conducted on the 2011/12 summer season dataestimated that the Victorian alpine resorts contributed approximately $95 million in direct grossexpenditure to the Victorian economy ($2011/12) or from $104 million ($2016/17). As can be seen insection 4.2.1, it is estimated that Gross State Product value added increased in 2016/17 to $121million.

This is primarily a result of increased visitation and expenditure. Since 2010/11, total visitation acrossVictoria’s alpine resorts has increased by 21%.

While visitation growth and expenditure are the primary reasons for the increase in economiccontribution from the alpine region, some of the difference may be explained by the difference ineconomic modelling approaches. In the 2011/12 study, the economic contribution was estimated usingthe National Institute of Economic and Industry Research (NIEIR) regional econometric model, whilethe current study utilises the REMPLAN Economy model. Both models use input/output multipliers toestimate economic contribution. However, changes to economic conditions and the approach incalculating multipliers mean multipliers will have changed since 2011. For example with technologyadvances and improved business efficiency, employment multipliers have decreased.

It is also important to note that the employment figures calculated in the 2011/12 study have beenconverted to annual equivalent terms, whereas the employment figures calculated in this study referonly to the employment generated during the 2016/17 summary season.

It is also worth noting that the 2011 report suggests the summer season has a smaller impact when weconsider the number of people employed. This is due to less intensity in employment activity anddemand during the summer season. The alpine resorts are particularly important to the residentemployment of the region over the summer period. With that in mind, it is important to understandunder the assumptions of the 2011 report, the 2011 figures are conservative estimates.

With the exception of the change in definition for employment, we expect any other differences to beminor. However it is still advised that any comparisons should be treated as indicative only.


5. Broader social and recreational benefits

Economic contribution studies do not fully capture the value that Victoria receives from the alpineresorts’ operations. This section presents the broader social and recreational value generated by thealpine resorts for the Victorian community that has not been captured by the economic contributionanalysis. These benefits consist of:

Ź Use value – In addition to the value represented by the price paid for a trip to an alpine resort,obtained from the direct cost of the trip (i.e. value associated with recreation, health, education,the environment, tourism, productivity improvements and community pride)

Ź Non-use values – Value that the Victorian community assign to the alpine resorts, even if they donot use the resort’s facilities (i.e. existence value).

5.1 Use valueThe price paid for a trip to the alpines (captured in Section 3) only represents a portion of the valuethat visitors received from a trip to an alpine resort. The difference between the maximum entry price avisitor is willing to pay and the actual price paid for their trip is referred to as the consumer surplus ofvisitors. If a visitor would be willing to pay more than the ticket price, then they are obtaining morebenefit from their visit than is captured in the ticket price.

This section estimates the broader social and recreational value (over and above the cost of a trip tothe snow) that visitors receive from making a visit to an alpine resort. EY approximates this additionalvalue by aggregating:

Ź Travel and time costs – Costs that visitors incur in order to make a trip to the snow. Note that thisrepresents a conservative estimate of overall consumer surplus4. Additional value, over andabove cost of a trip and travel and time costs is likely for some visitors (see Appendix C).

Ź Health: The avoided health costs associated with physical and mental health benefits from a tripto the alpines.

The sum of these two estimates is assumed to equate to the additional use value (above the cost of atrip) attributable to the alpine resorts.

5.1.1 Travel and time costsThis method assumes that the value of the alpine resorts is reflected in how willing people are to travelto visit a resort (i.e. representative of the “price” of getting to the resort). EY applied the travel costmethod to estimate the cost that visitors incurred to make a trip to the snow. These costs are assumedto consist of wage/time costs (i.e. assumed travel time (adult visits only) x minimum hourly wage).

This study uses estimated travel costs (i.e. foregone wages or cost of leisure time) as a conservativeproxy for consumer surplus.

The consumer surplus of visitors is the difference between the maximum entry price a visitor is willingto pay and the actual price paid for their trip to the snow. If a visitor would be willing to pay more thanthe ticket price, then they are getting more benefit from their visit than is captured in the ticket price(see below). This represents a broader social and recreational value in addition to the price paid for atrip to the snow (as captured in the economic contribution estimate) and travel costs incurred making avisit to Victoria’s alpine resorts.

EY estimates that the value attributable to the alpine resorts was $52.6 million in the 2016/17 summerseason based on the assumptions and detail presented in Appendix B.

4 Consumer surplus is a net benefit that can be defined as the difference between what a consumer is willing to pay and theactual price paid.


Table 14 Travel cost estimate

Time costs ($m) Transport costs ($m) Total ($m)

Falls Creek $10.6 $7.5 $18.1Lake Mountain $2.3 $1.6 $3.8Mt Baw Baw $2.1 $1.5 $3.6Mt Buller/Stirling $8.6 $6.1 $14.7Mt Hotham $7.2 $5.1 $12.3All resorts $30.9 $21.7 $52.6

Source: EY analysis

5.1.2 Health BenefitsThere is a large and increasing body of evidence showing that contact with nature and parks provide awide range of physical and mental health benefits5. Other recent research suggests that access toparks can help people increase their level of physical activity6 and being close to green space isassociated with reduced depression, anxiety and other related conditions. Thus, recreation andamenity services that Victoria’s alpine resorts provide can contribute to the prevention of physical andmental health costs and improve health and lifestyle outcomes.

Based on a per person estimate of health cost from physical inactivity of $1,6607, high-level estimatesshow that approximately $24.5 million in avoided health costs can be associated with physical activityavailable at the alpine resorts. This figure has been derived based on the assumptions presented inAppendix C.

5.1.3 Environmental benefitsThe forests, woodlands and wetlands of Victoria’s parks improve water quality by naturally purifyingand filtering water and reducing the release of soil sediment, pollutants and organic matter that wouldotherwise reach our waterways.

The Victorian alpine resorts help play an important role in reducing the level of nutrients and toxicantsthat affect water quality and ecosystem health in our urban waterways and bays. It is estimated thatthe benefits of water filtration by Melbourne’s metropolitan parks network equates to approximately$2,150 per hectare per year8. Applying this figure to all the alpine resorts sees a benefit of $2.4 millionper year in water purification and filtration benefits.

5.2 Non-use valueNon-use value is the value that the Victorian community assigns to the alpine resorts, even if they donot visit the attractions. People can value a facility, service or event even if they do not attend theoffering in person. This is often known as the existence (non-use) value one obtains as a result of thepresence of a facility, service or event within one’s locality.

5.2.1 Existence valuePlacing a value on civic pride associated with the alpine resorts is problematic. This would ideallyinvolve contingent valuation and surveys of the Victorian population to understand how muchVictorians would be willing to pay to maintain the alpine resorts’ operations in Victoria, even if they donot attend any of the locations. This level of primary research is outside the scope of thisengagement. As such, EY has relied on existing publicly available studies to develop a proxymeasure (see Appendix F).

5 Townsend M and Weerasuriya, R 2010 Beyond Blue to Green, The benefits of contact with nature for mental health and well-being. Melbourne, Australia. Maller, C., Townsend, M., Brown, P. and St Leger, L., Henderson-Wilson, C., Pryor, A., Prosser, L.,Moore, M. 2008. ‘Literature Review: Healthy Parks Healthy People: The Health Benefits of Contact with Nature in a ParkContext - A Review of Current Literature’. 2nd Edition. Deakin University. Melbourne, Australia.117 Harnik. P.H. and Welle. B, 2009 Measuring the Economic Value of a City Park System, Trust for Public Land6 Harnik. P.H. and Welle. B, 2009 Measuring the Economic Value of a City Park System, Trust for Public Land.7 Medibank Private, 2008, The Cost of Physical Inactivity8 Marsden Jacobs Associates 2014, Valuing the Water Services provided by Victoria’s Parks, Report prepared for Parks Victoria


EY estimates the annual existence value of the alpine resorts operations to the Victorian non-visitingcommunity to be $2.7 million. This estimate is based on the following:

Ź Existence value – Based on the estimated values presented in previous relevant studies (seeAppendix F). For this study, an estimate of $33.83 per adult has been adopted

Ź Number of non-use adults – the number of non-use adults in the vicinity of the alpine resorts isassumed to be equal to the total population of the Greater Alpine Region (80,489 adults). This isa conservative estimate, given that the area of influence is likely to extend well beyond theboundary of the Greater Alpine Region, with many other Victorians valuing the existence of thealpine resorts.

EY recognises that use of secondary information from studies conducted in other jurisdictions as wellas on facilities that are of a different nature to visitors to the snow, limits the analysis.


Appendix A REMPLAN outputs (EY analysis)

All ResortsTable 15 Economic contribution of Victoria’s alpine resorts to the Greater Alpine Region


Gross expenditure ($m) $108 $75 $183Employment (Jobs) 623 257 880GRP (Value-added) ($m) $45 $35 $80

Table 16 Economic contribution of Victoria’s alpine resorts to Victoria

Direct impact Indirect impact Total impactGross expenditure ($m) $108 $154 $262Employment (Jobs) 710 495 1,205GSP (Value-added) ($m) $48 $72 $121

Falls CreekTable 17 Economic contribution of Falls Creek to the Alpine Shire



Table 18 Economic contribution of Falls Creek to the Greater Alpine Region


Table 19 Economic contribution of Falls Creek to Victoria


Gross expenditure ($m) $33 $46 $79Employment (Jobs) 213 149 362GSP (Value-added) ($m) $14 $22 $36

Lake MountainTable 20 Economic contribution of Lake Mountain to the Murrindindi Shire


Table 21 Economic contribution of Lake Mountain to the Greater Alpine Region


Table 22 Economic contribution of Lake Mountain to Victoria

Direct impact Indirect impact Total impactGross expenditure ($m) $6 $9 $16Employment (Jobs) 42 30 72GSP (Value-added) ($m) $3 $4 $7


Mt Baw BawTable 23 Economic contribution of Mt Baw Baw to the Baw Baw Shire



Table 24 Economic contribution of Mt Baw Baw to the Greater Alpine Region


Table 25 Economic contribution Mt Baw Baw to Victoria



Mt Buller/StirlingTable 26 Economic contribution Mt Buller/Stirling to the Mansfield Shire


Table 27 Economic contribution of Mt Buller/Stirling to the Greater Alpine Region


Table 28 Economic contribution of Mt Buller/Stirling to Victoria

Direct impact Indirect impact Total impactGross expenditure ($m) $39 $55 $93Employment (Jobs) 254 176 430GSP (Value-added) ($m) $17 $26 $43

Mt HothamTable 29 Economic contribution of Mt Hotham to the Alpine Shire


Table 30 Economic contribution of Mt Hotham to the Greater Alpine Region


Gross expenditure ($m) $22 $16 $38Employment (Jobs) $129 $53 $182GRP (Value-added) ($m) $9 $7 $17


Table 31 Economic contribution of Mt Hotham to Victoria




Appendix B Travel cost assumptions

This study uses estimated travel costs (i.e. foregone wages or cost of leisure time) as a conservativeproxy for consumer surplus, given willingness-to-pay market research is not included in the scope ofthis study.

The consumer surplus of visitors is the difference between the maximum entry price a visitor is willingto pay and the actual price paid for their trip to the snow. If a visitor would be willing to pay more thanthe ticket price, then they are getting more benefit from their visit than is captured in the ticket price(see below). This represents a broader social and recreational value in addition to the price paid for atrip to the snow (as captured in the economic contribution estimate) and travel costs incurred making avisit to the snow.

Box 1 - What is consumer surplus?Consumer surplus is a net benefit that can be defined as the difference between what a consumer is willing topay and the actual price paid.

A graphical representation of consumer surplus is presented in Figure 21. It shows a downward slopingdemand curve which indicates different levels of demand at different price points (the cost of a trip to thesnow). The amount that people are willing to pay for a trip to the snow is the area underneath the demandcurve. At the price point P*, the amount of people that would take a trip at that prove point would be Q*, andrevenues to the alpine resorts would be the shaded box P* × Q*. The consumer surplus benefit to theconsumer is therefore the amount they were willing to pay (the area underneath the demand curve up to Q*)less the amount they actually paid (P* × Q*) – this is represented by the triangle above the price point.

Figure 21 Consumer surplus

This following sections present an overview of the data inputs and assumptions used to in the travelcost method.

Summary of formulas

The formulas used to calculate the total travel cost are presented below. EY assumes that all alpineresort visitors commute by car or public transport. No other modes of transport have been modelled.

Table 32 Travel cost formulas

Travel cost item Formula Price ($)

Wage/time cost Return trip travel time (hrs) x Population (Car, adult only) Minimum wage ($/hr)

Transport cost ((Total visitors ÷ pax per car) x average kms per car) $ per km


The data inputs outlined above are presented in the proceeding sections.

Victorian visitation

The following table presents the number of Victorian visitors to each of Victoria’s alpine resorts. Note,that only Victorian visitors are captured in the travel cost estimate because the scope of this study islimited to the economic contribution to Victoria.

Table 33: Victorian visitors by resort

Resort Number of Victorian visitors

Falls Creek 72,088

Lake Mountain 44,512

Mt Baw Baw 42,012

Mt Buller/Stirling 98,411

Mt Hotham 48,014

Source: ARCC

Distance from resort

The assumed distance (km) to each was required to estimate the return trip travel time (for all modesof transport). EY has assumed that the distance of each resort from the CBD as an appropriate proxyfor the average distance travelled for all Victorian visitors. The assumed distance (km) and total traveltime (hours) per round trip is presented in the table below.

Table 34: Distance from Victoria’s alpine resorts

Resort Distance travelled(km)

Travel time (hours)

Falls Creek 700 8.8

Lake Mountain 240 3.0

Mt Baw Baw 240 3.0

Mt Buller/Stirling 416 5.2

Mt Hotham 714 8.9

Source: ARCC

Mode of transport

The assumed mode of transport profile used by visitors to commute to the snow was required toestimate travel time and transport costs. For the purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed thatall trips were made by car and that, on average, there are five passengers per car.

Wage/time costs

EY used the current Australian minimum wage for adults ($16.37/hr) and assumed return trip traveltime (hours) to estimate the foregone wages of the alpine resorts’ adult visitors.

Results of travel cost analysis

Applying the assumptions outlined above EY estimates that the value attributable to the alpine resortswas $52.6 million in the 2016/17 summer season. A breakdown of the results for each resort isprovided in the table below.


Table 35: Travel cost incurred

Time costs Transport costs Total

Falls Creek $10.6 $7.5 $18.1

Lake Mountain $2.3 $1.6 $3.8

Mt Baw Baw $2.1 $1.5 $3.6

Mt Buller/Stirling $8.6 $6.1 $14.7

Mt Hotham $7.2 $5.1 $12.3

All resorts $30.9 $21.7 $52.6

Source: EY analysis


Appendix C Health benefits

The methodology used to estimate the health benefits generated by the alpine resorts is an avoidedcost approach for visitors undertaking physical activity at the resort, based on estimates found inrecent literature9.

It is important to note however, that calculating the direct attribution of alpine resorts to healthoutcomes including economic benefits is difficult and would require additional research outside thescope of this study. Therefore, the health benefits provided in this report are indicative only.

The estimate value of health benefits is based on the following assumptions.

Table 36 Health benefits calculation assumptions

Assumptions Value

Share of physically inactive visitors (i.e. doing less than the minimum recommended exercise)10 56%

Contribution of parks to recommended physical activity11 11%

Number of visitors to Victoria’s alpine resorts with primary purpose of fitness/physical activity 14,763.80

Avoided health care and productivity costs per person due to physical inactivity12 $1,660

Total health benefits (from the alpine region) $24,507,900

Source: EY analysis

9 Warburton D. E. R., Nicol C. W., Bredin S. S. D. 2006 Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. Canadian MedicalAssociation Journal 174, pp. 801–809. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.05135110 ABS 2013, Australian Health Survey: Physical Activity 2011-1211 DELWP, 2015, Valuing Victoria’s Parks: Accounting for ecosystems and valuing their benefits12 Medibank Private, 2008, The Cost of Physical Inactivity.


Appendix D Existence value assumptions

Placing a value on existence value associated with the alpine resorts would ideally involve contingentvaluation and surveys of the Victorian population to understand how much Victorians would be willingto pay to maintain the alpine resorts’ operations in Victoria, even if they do not attend a resort. Thislevel of primary research is outside the scope of this engagement.

Examples of values of this type of impact have been considered in other studies. For example,studies have estimated the average willingness to pay for the existence of various parks (see below).

Table 37 Average existence value of parks ($2016)

Author Study MeasuredAverage existence value

per non-use adult($2016 AUD)

Majid, Sinden & Randall(1983)

Benefit Evaluation ofIncrements to ExistingSystems of Public Facilities

Public park facilities inArmadale, NSW

Park 1: $21.01Park 2: $22.88

Walsh, Loomis & Gillman(1984)

Valuing Option, Existenceand Bequest Demands forWilderness

Incremental size ofwilderness protection areasin Colorado

0.5 m ha: $17.224 m ha: $38.98

Bennett, J.W. (1984)

Using Direct Questioning toValue the ExistenceBenefits of PreservedNatural Areas

Nadgee Nature Reserve onthe south coast of NSW,Australia

$80.26

Walsh, R.G., Bjonback,R.D., Aiken, R.A. &Rosenthal, D.H. (1990)

Estimating the PublicBenefits of ProtectingForest Quality

National Forests located inColorado $22.59

Source: Various, converted to AUD and inflated to June 2016 dollars

For the purposes of this study, we have assumed an existence value for Victoria’s alpine resorts of$33.83 per non-use adult. This represents the average existence value placed on parks based on thestudies listed in the table above, which provide a reasonable proxy given the similar characteristicsexhibited by the alpine resorts (e.g. tourist attraction, environmental benefits) and the parks examinedin the study.

EY recognises that a limitation of this analysis is the use of secondary information from studiesconducted in other jurisdictions as well as on facilities that are of a different nature to alpine resorts.For instance, people in other jurisdictions may value assets differently to the Victorian population.However, it was beyond the scope of this analysis to carry out surveys of Victorian residents.

Non-use adults

This value per adult was applied to the assumed number of non-use adults (i.e. adults that did not visitthe alpine resorts) in the vicinity of the region (i.e. the Greater Alpine Region). For simplicity, it hasbeen assumed that the number of non-use adults in the vicinity of the alpine resorts is equal to thetotal population of the Greater Alpine Region (80,489 adults). While this may lead to double countingfor a number of residents in the Greater Alpine Region, it is believed that overall this assumption is aconservative estimate, given that the area of influence is likely to extend well beyond the boundary ofthe Greater Alpine Region, with many other Victorians valuing the existence of the alpine resorts.

1 | EY Sweeney© 2016 Ernst & Young – EY Sweeney. All Rights Reserved. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

Appendix E Surveys

Alpine Region Economic Significance Study – Visitor Survey - Summer

Study No. 26068

Client Ernst & Young

Version Version 2 – 9 January 2017

Research Consultant Thomas Barbera and Belinda Rogerson

“Hi,

We hope you are enjoying your time in the Victorian Alpine region. The Alpine Resorts Coordinating Council would loveyour feedback as they want to improve the alpine experience for people like you. EY Sweeney has been commissioned toundertake this survey.

The survey will take about 5-7 minutes to complete and is completely confidential and anonymous.

We hope you enjoy the survey!

Please press NEXT to continue.

For access to the EY Sweeney Privacy Policy, click here ("http://eysweeney.com.au/contact-us/privacy-policy"). For anytechnical problems with this survey please send an e-mail by selecting on the link that appears at the bottom of eachpage.


SECTION ONE: PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND NUMBER OF VISITORS

Q1. Are you ? Male 1

Female 2

Other 3

Q2. Please type in your postcode. LIMIT RANGE 1000-9999

I’m from overseas 9

Q3. Who accompanied you to [INSERTRESORT] on this trip?

Please select all that apply

RANDOMISE

Alone 1

Couple 2

Group / Friends 3

Family 4

ASK Q4 IF Q3 = 2-4

Q4. How many people accompanied you on thistrip?

Please enter a number and do notinclude yourself.

LIMIT RANGE 1-99


SECTION TWO: INTERNATIONAL VISITORS

ASK THIS SECTION IF INTERNATIONAL VISITOR, I.E. Q2 = 9, ELSE GO TO Q11

Q6. How many nights are you staying inAustralia?

Please type in numbers.

Q7. Would you have visited Australia at thistime of year if you were not visiting theAlpine resorts?

Yes 1

No 2

Q8. Is your main reason for your visit toAustralia to visit the Alpine resorts?

Yes 1

No 2

ASK Q9 IF Q8 = 2

Q9. Did you extend your trip to Australia to visitthe Alpine resorts?

Yes 1

No 2

ASK Q10 IF Q9 = 1

Q10. By how many nights did you extend yourtrip? nights

nights


SECTION THREE: VISITOR INFO

Q11. Is this your first trip to an Alpine resort? YES 1

NO 2

ASK Q12 IF Q11 = 2

Q12. In which years have you also visited anAlpine resort in Victoria?


2016 1

2015 2

2014 3

2013 4

2012 5

2011 6

2010 or earlier 7

This is my first visit to an Alpine resort in Victoria 8

ASK Q13 AND Q14 IF Q2 DOES NOT EQUAL 3000-3999

Q13. As an interstate visitor, would you havevisited Victoria at this time of year if youwere not visiting the Alpine resorts?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 3

Q14. How many nights are you staying inVictoria?


Q15. How many nights are you staying in thisresort?


ASK Q16 IF Q2 DOES NOT EQUAL 3000-3999

Q16. As an interstate visitor, did you extend yourtrip to Victoria to visit the Alpine resorts? Ifso, please indicate by how many nights youextended it. I did not extend my trip 1

nights

nights

nights


Q17. Why have you visited the Victorian Alpineregion?


RANDOMISE

Visit friends / family 01

Holidays / Leisure time / Day trip 02

Business / work purposes 03

To visit the Alpine resorts 04

Accompanying friend or relative 05

To attend a conference 06

To attend an event / festival 08

Other (Please type in) 09

To participate in hiking/cycling/other outdoor sports 10

None of the above / No reason 11

Q18. How do you rate the quality of yourexperience at this resort on this trip?

Excellent 1

Good 2

Average 3

Poor 4

Awful 5

Q40a. Have you visited this alpine resort duringthe snow season in the past twelvemonths?

Yes 1

No 2

SECTION FOUR: ACCOMMODATION AND TRAVEL

We’d now like to ask a few quick questions on your accommodation

Q19. If you are staying overnight, what type ofaccommodation are you staying in?

If you are staying in multiple places,please select all that apply.

Ski lodge 01

Hotel 02

Motel 03

Backpackers 04

Caravan 05

Camping 06

Rented serviced apartments 07

Private serviced apartments 08

Private residence 09

Other – please specify (please type in) 10

I’m not staying overnight in this resort 11

Q20. Did you stay overnight in any towns in thearea?

Yes 1

No SKIP TO Q23 2

Q21. What is the name of the town you stayed overnight in?Please type in your answer.


Q22. How many nights did you stay in the town?


Q24. What is the cost of your accommodationper person per night in Australian Dollars?

Please type in numbers. Don’t know / Not sure 99

Q27. How much did your travel within Australiato this resort cost you per person?

Please type in an amount in AustralianDollars.

Don’t know / Not sure 99

$/person per night

$

No. of nights


SECTION FIVE: EXPENDITURE

Q28. To your best estimate, how much did youor will you spend per person per day on ?

Please type in numbers and inAustralian dollars.

1. Meals, food and drinks:

2. Shopping:

3. Equipment hire / purchase:

4. Travel to and from resort today:

5. On mountain transportation

6. Events

7. Lift pass:

8. Other

9. Activities at the resort

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$


Q30. If you had not visited Alpine resorts thisseason, how would you have spent themoney?

Please select all that apply.

Holidayed elsewhere in Australia 1

Holidaying overseas 2

Saved the money 3

General household expenditure 4

Holidayed elsewhere in Victoria 5

Other (specify) (please type in) 6

SECTION SEVEN: CLASSIFICATION AND MARKETING

Q31. What is your age?

Please type in your age.Prefer not to say 1

Q33. What is your household income (incomeof everyone in your home) after tax peryear?

Please select one response only.

Less than $20,000 1

$20,000 - $35,000 2

$35,000 - $50,000 3

$50,000 - $60,000 4

$60,000 - $100,000 5

$100,000 - $125,000 6

$125,000 - $175,000 7

More than $175,000 8

Prefer not to say 9

Q34. How many short breaks of 1-4 nights awayfrom home have you taken in the last 12months?

Please select one response only.

4 or more short breaks 1

3 short breaks 2

2 short breaks 3

1 short break 4

None 5

Q35. Have you seen any advertising for theVictorian Alpine region in the last sixmonths? If so, please indicate where yousaw it.


Television 01

Radio 02

Online video (e.g. YouTube, Vimeo) 03

Social media (e.g. Facebook, Instagram) 04

Posters and billboards 05

Online ads 06

A tourism website 07

Newspapers/magazines 08

Other (PLEASE TYPE IN YOUR ANSWER) 09

Can’t remember / I haven’t seen any advertisements 99

years old


ASK Q36 IF Q35 = 1-9

Q36. Was that advertisement(s) for ?


RANDOMISE

Tourism Victoria (Wander Victoria) 01

Snow Victoria (Nothing Feels Like Snow) 02

A specific resort, e.g. Mt. Buller, Falls Creek 03

Other (PLEASE TYPE IN YOUR ANSWER) 04

Can’t remember / I haven’t seen any advertisements 99

Q37. In the next few weeks, EY Sweeney maybe conducting some follow-up research inthe form of focus groups or interviews.Would you be interested in participating inthis research?

Yes 01

No 02

Q38. Please provide your name, and a phonenumber or email address to reach you on.

NAME FIELD COMPULSORYONE OF PHONE OR EMAIL MUST BEFILLED AT MINIMUM

RECORD NAME

RECORD PHONE NUMBER [Validate to AU format]

RECORD EMAIL ADDRESS

THAT IS THE END OF THE SURVEY – THANK YOU

The study has been conducted on behalf of the Alpine Resorts Coordinating Council.

As a market research company, we comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act. The information you have providedwill be used only for market research purposes.

Should you need to contact us please call us on 1800 35 77 39.

EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

About EYEY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. Theinsights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capitalmarkets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who teamto deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a criticalrole in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for ourcommunities.

EY refers to the global organisation and may refer to one or more of the memberfirms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst& Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provideservices to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit ey.com.

© 2016 Ernst & Young, Australia.All Rights Reserved.

Ernst & Young is a registered trademark. Our report may be relied upon by the AlpineResorts Co-ordinating Council for the purpose of understanding the economiccontribution of the Alpine reports to Victoria only pursuant to the terms of ourproposal dated 11 May 2011. We disclaim all responsibility to any other party for anyloss or liability that the other party may suffer or incur arising from or relating to or inany way connected with the contents of our report, the provision of our report to theother party or the reliance upon our report by the other party.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

ey.com/au

Victorian Alpine Resorts Economic Contribution Study · · 2017-07-12Victorian Alpine Resorts Economic Contribution Study EY | i ... Source: ARCC (adjusted Mt Hotham adjusted based

Documents