Climate Adaptation in Coastal Caravan Parks - The Western Coastal ...

Climate Adaptation in Coastal Caravan Parks Economic Value and Equity Research Report Report 2

Second Report of the ‘Value and Equity Framework for Climate Adaptation: Coastal Caravan and Camping Parks Case Study’ Project

Prepared for the Western Coastal Board by: Christine Walker, Alliance Strategic Research Dr Boyd Blackwell, AquaEquis Consulting Dr John Rolf, R and Z Consulting

Published by the Western Coastal Board © The State of Victoria, November 2012 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. ISBN: 978-1-74287-683-2 (online) For more information contact: Western Coastal Board PO Box 103 Geelong VIC 3220 Phone: 03 5226 4008 www.wcb.vic.gov.au DISCLAIMER This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. This report has been prepared for the Western Coastal Board, an independent advisory body established under the Coastal Management Act, 1995. The views expressed in this document are those of the Western Coastal Board and have not been endorsed by the Victorian Government. Acknowledgement of Country and Indigenous Australians The Western Coastal Board respectfully acknowledges the original custodians of the Western Coastal Region of Victoria; their rich culture, deep affinity with the land and spiritual connection to it. Cover Photo: Returning from the surf at Surfside Holiday Park in Warrnambool. (Photo courtesy Warrnambool City Council)

This project was developed through contributions from the following organisations and others:

Table of Contents Index of Tables

4

Index of Figures

6

Notes to Reading the Report

6

Glossary of Terms

7

Executive Summary

8

1. Introduction to the Report

16

2. Research Objectives

17

3. Key Concepts

18

3.1

The Total Economic Value of CCPs

18

3.2

Social Equity

20

4. Research Methodology

21

4.1

Market Valuation

21

4.2

Non-Market Valuation and Social Equity

21

4.3

Key Methods

21

5. CCPs Included in the Study

24

6. Research Findings

26

6.1

Market Values of CCPs

26

6.2

Characteristics of CCP Campers, and Township Residents

26

6.3

Utilisation of CCPs

28

6.4 Tenure

30

6.5

Camper Commitment to Holiday

32

6.6

Important Attributes of CCPs

33

6.7

The Value of a CCP Stay to Campers

38

6.8

Responding to Change

41

6.9

Coastal Adaptation Preferences

44

6.10 Non-Market Value of Beach and Caravan Sites

48

6.11 Equity Preferences for CCP Adaptation

51

7. Discussion of Findings

57

8. Application for Adaptation Management

60

9. Conclusion

61

Climate Adaptation in Coastal Caravan Parks Economic Value and Equity Research Report

Acknowledgements 6

3

10. Further Research

61

Appendix A: Detailed Information on the Choice Modelling

63

Appendix B: Detailed Information on the Travel Cost Methodology

72

Appendix C: Resident Survey Instrument

76

Appendix D: CCP User Survey Instrument

86

Appendix E: Climate Adaptation Scenarios

94

Appendix F: Methods of Analysis

95

References 98


Index of Tables

4

Table 1:

CCP Camper Sample

23

Table 2:

Resident Sample

23

Table 3:

Key CCP Location Characteristics

24

Table 4:

Key CCP Financial Characteristics

26

Table 5:

Summary of Campers’ Demographic Characteristics

27

Table 6:

Summary of Residents’ Demographic Characteristics

28

Table 7:

Years Campers Have Visited

28

Table 8:

Number of Times & Nights Will Stay -Campers

29

Table 9:

Resident Utilisation of the Coastal Foreshore areas and CCP in the past 12 months 29

Table 10: Camping Site Status – Campers

31

Table 11: Years Resident - Residents

31

Table 12: Time & Money Spent Camping - Campers

32

Table 13: Amount Invested in Camping Equipment - Campers

33

Table 14: Importance of CCP Attributes – Campers

34

Table 15: Issues of importance to Campers – Residents

35

Table 16: Importance of CCP Location – Campers

36

Table 17: Environmental and Recreational Importance of CCP Attributes to Residents

37

Table 18: Importance Contribution of CCP – Residents

38

Table 19: Visitation, Camper Surplus and Asset Values 2012

40

Table 20: Action Taken when this CCP is Not Available – Campers

42

Table 22: Awareness of Coastal Crown Land Funding

44

Table 23: Adaptation Preferences by Location

47

Table 24: Value of Sites and Beaches – Campers

49

Table 25: Value of Park and Beaches – Camper Visitation Class

49

Table 26: Non-Market Value of Beach and CCP sites – Residents

49

Table 27: Value of Park and Beaches – Resident Class

50

Table 28: Equity Preferences – Access – Campers and Residents by Location

52

Table 29: Equity Preferences – Accommodation Mix Revenue Sources – Campers and Residents by Location

54

Table 30: Equity Preferences – Financial Burden – Campers and Residents by Location

56

Table 31: Conditional LogitModels – Campers

67

Table 32: Different Models – Campers

67

Table 33: Latent Class Model - Campers

68

Table 34: Conditional Logit Models – Residents

70

Table 35: Latent Class Values – Residents

71

Table 36: Individual Travel Cost Models – Campers

74

Table 37: Gross Value Estimates using Different Allocations of Time Costs – Campers

75


Table 21: Action if Coastal Reserves and Foreshore Areas (Inc. CCP) were Unavailable - Adaptation of Residents 43

5

Index of Figures Figure 1: Total Economic Value of CCPs

19

Figure 2: Importance of CCP Attributes – Campers

33

Figure 3: Importance of Location – Campers

35

Figure 4: Environmental and Recreational Importance of CCP Attributes – Residents

37

Figure 5: Demand for Camping

39

Figure 6: Adaptation Preferences – Campers and Residents

46

Figure 7: Equity Preferences – Access to Affordable Camping – Campers and Residents

51

Figure 8: Equity Preferences – Accommodation Mix to Maintain Revenue – Campers and Residents 54 Figure 9: Equity Preferences – Financial Burden – Campers and Residents

56

Figure 10: Example Choice Set from Visitor Survey

65

Figure 11: Example Choice Set from Resident Survey

65

Acknowledgements Climate Adaptation in Coastal Caravan Parks Economic Value and Equity Research Report

The authors are grateful to the managers of CCPs involved the study for their information and co-operation, the Steering Committee and the project group for their guidance and assistance throughout the project. Specific thanks is made to Steve Blackley the Executive Officer of the Western Coastal Board for his guidance, assistance and contribution to this project. The authors would also like to acknowledge the Camping and Recreational Vehicle Association (CRVA) for their willingness to share their research.

Notes to Reading the Report This report provides detailed information about the campers and residents in relation to the CCPs in the five locations covered in the study. The scope of this report is intentionally broad, as it provides useful information to coastal reserve managers in those locations for their use in decision making in coastal adaptation. Specific information about non-market values and social equity is provided as a key output of this research. Where items are referred to as being significantly different they are at 95% confidence levels. Differences between the subgroups are only commented upon where they are statistically significant. Detailed research materials, results and notes are provided on the Choice Modelling and Travel Cost methodologies in the Appendices for those who wish to understand these further.

6

Glossary of Terms A number of terms are used frequently in this report. Most of these have been defined from a common understanding of the Project Team for the purposes of the study and these are set out in the table below.

Adaptation ASR Campers Caravan and Camping Parks (CCPs) Casual campers Choice modelling Consumer surplus Decision Support Framework Economic efficiency Equity Location Market value Net benefit Non-market valuation Non-market values Price elasticity of demand Residents Scenario Scenario response Seasonal campers Site Social equity Social preferences Tenure Travel cost method Value WCB Welfare gain WTP

Sites are renewed on an annual basis and where vans and annexes remain in place. A response to climate change that seeks to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems to climate change effects. Refers to any one of the consultants, Alliance Strategic Research, AquaEquis consulting or R & Z Consulting. People staying in the caravan park in any sort of accommodation. Caravan and camping parks located on coastal Crown land. Sites are booked on a casual basis. A non-market valuation technique that asks people about their preferred choice and quantifies the trade-offs involved in that choice to estimate the economic value of a good or service. The difference between the benefit users receive from a resource and any fees charged. Also called the net benefit to users. The third report developed for this project which seeks to illustrate how social and economic information should be included in CCP adaptation decision making Refers to a situation where society is doing 1) the most from what it has or 2) what is desired with the least value of inputs. Refers to the distribution of goods and services in society. The focus is on what the community thinks is fair. Where the camping ground is situated (eg. town). The money that changes hands in the exchange of goods and services. The benefit that remains after costs are deducted. A measure of surplus or profit. Also called, ‘consumer surplus’. The economic valuation of goods and services not traded in markets. Economic values of goods and services which were not traded in markets.


12 Month Permits

The responsiveness of camper visits to changes in CCP fees. Permanent residents either renting or home owners and home owners who are not permanently resident (holiday home owners). Potential climate change threats to CCPs. Hypothetical adaptation strategy. Sites are renewed on an annual basis (or booked year to year) but where vans, annexes are removed from the site at the end of the season. The actual camping allocation within the caravan park. Refers to the fairness of how burdens and benefits are distributed across affected groups Things which are preferred by people. The conditions under which land or buildings are held or occupied A non-market valuation technique that uses the current travel costs and visits of users to a recreation site to estimate its economic value. Refers to economic value which is anthropocentric. This includes both market and non-market values. Western Coastal Board A gain in economic welfare from a change in policy. An increase in consumer surplus will contribute to the welfare gain. Willingness to pay. How much benefit campers or residents receive from the CCP or how much campers or residents are prepared to pay to protect the CCP or the beach.

7

Executive Summary This Research Report presents for the first time information about the economic and social value of caravan and camping parks (CCPs) on coastal Crown land to campers and residents which should be considered in decision making for climate change adaptation. This information includes social equity preferences and both economic market values and nonmarket values.This is the second document generated through the ‘Value and Equity Framework for Climate Adaptation: Coastal Caravan and Camping Parks Case Study’ project led by Victoria’s Western Coastal Board as a part of the federal Coastal Adaptation Decision Pathways program. Key benefits of this research include: • The findings presented in this report estimate for the first time the significant non-market economic values associated with recreation and protection of CCPs on Victorian coastal Crown land and beaches. • This study has demonstrated how non-market valuation techniques can be used to provide more precise information about the preferences and values that different groups in society hold for natural and built coastal assets.


• This research also takes a leap forward, by assessing the equity preferences of both campers and residents as members of broader society. Together, the explicit balancing of equity and economic efficiency provides an important mechanism to make adaptation decisions.

The Importance of Caravan and Camping Parks Coastal CCPs and reserves are an important resource to the community. They have a great attraction to a wide range of residents and visitors who use them in a multitude of ways. They provide affordable recreational and tourism options for all Victorians and make a real contribution to the economies, communities and environments of coastal towns. CCPs are typically located close to foreshores, estuaries, bushland or environmentally sensitive areas which make the coast such a great place and often underpin the recreation and lifestyle that attracts people to visit and live by the coast. However, these locations are often exposed to potential changes to coastal climate conditions and their associated hazards such as sea level rise inundation, increased coastal erosion and flood inundation.

Understanding Caravan and Camping Parks Despite recognition of the importance of CCPs, little is known of the social and total (market and non-market) economic values of CCPs and the coastal reserve to people who use CCPs and those who live in the area. Without full comprehension of the social and economic values of these assets as a baseline for CCP business performance, it is difficult to understand and assess the impacts that climate change, and the impacts of our adaptation responses, may have on CCPs and the adjacent reserve. This gap in important social and economic information affects our ability to address adaptation challenges effectively. Adaptation responses are also likely to have a range of implications for CCPs and the adjacent coast. They may require additional funding , change access to the coast and affect our use of the coast. There has been limited understanding of people’s preferences for equitably sharing the burdens arising from different climate change adaptation options. These burdens may include, but are not limited to, financial costs, changes in amenity and changes in access to the coast.

Underpinning this research are two key concepts: • Total economic value, which includes market and non-market economic values (ie those not traded in markets). For example, while there is an entry price for parks, this price does not include a premium for being close to the beach, foreshore or coastal nature reserve, or comparatively undeveloped land, nor the benefit of the holiday. • Social equity which is derived from a concept of social justice and requires that basic needs be met and that benefits and burdens be spread fairly.

Research Methodology The approach taken by this project was to establish economic market values and non-market values and social equity preferences associated with five CCPs in Victoria: • Portarlington Holiday Park; • Barwon Heads Caravan Park; • Apollo Bay Recreation Reserve; • Surfside Holiday Park, Warrnambool; • Gardens Caravan Park, Port Fairy. Research was conducted with a total of 770 campers and

8

Table A: S ummary of Campers’ Demographic Characteristics

Age

The travel cost method and choice modelling were used to establish the non-market values associated with CCPs.

Children

Research Survey Findings

Gender

Market values of CCPS No existing estimates of land values for the CCPs were available. The reasons for this were because: • Land values were not required for administrative purposes of charging rates or land taxes. • The land is public and is not anticipated to ever be sold, and therefore market values do not apply. • CCPs on coastal Crown land may include low lying land that is subject to inundation and for this reason could not be administered for other commercial purposes. Attempting to establish asset value of CCPs using their current returns is problematic since it is not the intention of the land managers to maximise the return on the asset. A range of financial values were obtained for the five CCPs, with: • Revenues ranging from $0.63m to $3.8m; • Direct operating costs ranging from $0.46m to $2.1m; • Asset values ranging from $1.7m to $6.9m (obtained for each of the parks except Warrnambool).

Characteristics of CCP campers and Township Residents Campers (in this survey) are predominately middle aged, middle income and families as shown in Table A. This profile is consistent with previous studies of camping and caravanning where families with school age children are seen to be the main ‘user’ group (ASR 2011, Ipsos 2005). Residents profile varies from that of the camper.

Campers n=388

Residents n=382

49 yrs

53 yrs

59%

30%

Male

43%

42%

Female

57%

58%

Retired

15%

34%

CCP Campers Sample

Work status

Place of work

Education Total Gross Household income

Average Age Under or over 12 yrs in h’hold

Outside township

16%

where resident Tertiary Average income ‘000s

27%

26%

$82.6

$62.1

Table B: R esident Utilisation of the Coastal Foreshore areas and CCP in the past 12 months Residents Sample

Visit coastal foreshore areas

94

Visited the CCP in past 12 months for any purpose

69

Don’t visit the CCP park at all

31

For social events such as BBQs or visiting people staying there Stayed there yourself Used recreational or sporting facilities such as the oval or club house/rooms

Utilisation of CCPs

Walked, cycled or run within the park or through the

A sizable proportion of campers have visited the site where they were surveyed more than once (83%), and 17% were staying for the first time. On average they have visited for a large number of years (14.7 yrs).

park to the beach or coastal reserve

Residents also use the CCP – 69% of residents have used the park for one reason or another over the past 12 months as shown in Table B. At some CCPs the town’s sporting facilities are located within the camping ground, but they also use the CCP for other recreation.

Total n=382 %


residents. Campers were surveyed between 13 – 23 January 2012 with a total of n=388 interviews conducted. Residents were interviewed following the main holiday period (to avoid holiday rentals) between 9 -20 February 2012. A total of n=382 interviews were conducted mainly door to door, but some street intercept interviews were also undertaken.

47

13

31

58

Residents Survey Question Q4

Tenure Many campers have been visiting the CCPs included in the study for many years. Some locations attract more first time visitors and others have a seemingly more entrenched patronage. Understanding the nature of campers’ tenure will be important for decision makers as it is highly likely to influence responses to change.

9

Camper commitment to holiday It is evident that in taking this holiday campers have made a substantial commitment of time and money and involved a number of people as shown in Table C. It is important for decision makers to understand each camping site provides benefit to more than one person. Table C: Time & Money Spent Camping - Campers CCP Campers Sample People

Expenditure

Total n=388

Average no. people on trip

3.0

Average no. people staying per night

4.1

Average $ spend per day

$61.7

% spent locally

89%

Campers Survey Question Q6,7,9,11 A high number of people staying is associated with older, longer term campers with higher investment in equipment.

Important attributes of CCPs


Campers see the amenity of the CCPs from a security and facility point of view as very important as shown in Figure D. The opportunity to stay with family or friends is an important social aspect of their park stays. These attitudes were strongly influenced by how long people have been coming to stay and vary between the locations included in the study. The CCPs are in themselves a major attraction for visitors who first and foremost saw the opportunity to relax in the caravan park itself as very important as shown in Figure E. Figure D: Importance of CCP Attributes – Campers

Campers Survey Question Q16

10

The accessibility of the beach is also core. Beyond this, the features of the area were not greatly important to campers. Residents see their involvement in protecting the coast as very important and this information provides us with an insight to the stance they take for their own township as shown in Figure F. They also think it’s very important that others can come and enjoy the local area, which suggests less friction between residents and campers than has been thought. Furthermore, residents understand many aspects of the CCP stay are very important to those staying there.

The value of a CCP stay to campers Campers hold large and statistically significant non-market economic values for the recreation arising from their visits to parks. Campers are willing to pay $44-$67 per person per site, which is beyond that currently charged per person for average campers. Campers therefore receive substantial benefits from their CCP recreational stay. The consumer surplus across all sites is calculated as $49 per person per night, which extrapolates to a $90m benefit provided to the community annually from these five sites. This value implies an “asset value” for the five CCPs of $1.25bn. This estimate can be considered as the benefit provided to the public and campers specifically. This enables a valuation of the CCPs in terms of their revenue value and their public use value. The unresponsiveness of campers’ visits to park entrance fees provides an indication of the extent to which campers will bear the cost of funding responses to climate impacts, regardless of their preferences or general willingness to pay.

Figure E: Importance of Location – Campers

Survey Question Q17


Responding to change Given the high level of campers returning to the same CCP (83%), it is a testing question to ask what they would do should the CCP not be available to them in the future. Most intend to continue camping and caravanning, 48% would go to another coastal area and 22% to a different park in the same town as shown in Table G. [Campers’ have assumed there will be other sites and parks available as implied by the options for responses].

Table G: A ction Taken when this CCP is Not Available – Campers CCP Campers Sample

Total  n=388 %

Go to another coastal area and use another caravan park

48

Still come to this town but go to a different caravan park

22

Go on a different type of holiday away from the coast

18

Stay at home - do not come on holiday

5

Still come to this town but use other accommodation

4

Go to another coastal area and use other accommodation

2

Don’t know

1

Campers Survey Question Q18


Figure F: Importance of CCP Attributes – Residents

11

Few residents say they will move to other areas (5%) if the coastal reserves (including CCPs) in their area are not available as shown in Table H. Nonetheless some do, thereby demonstrating the significance of these reserves to their residency. The most common response is to say they would take action to ensure the reserves are available (40%).

Coastal adaptation preferences

Table H: A ction if Coastal Reserves and Foreshore Areas (Inc. CCP) were Unavailable - Residents

There is a strong preference amongst both residents and campers to allow nature to take its course. Many campers also prefer the option of building a sea wall, and residents preferred this most often. The most strongly preferred options are graphed below. The strong ‘do nothing’ response is partly explained from comments within the choice modelling, such as these below.

Total  n=382 %

Residents Sample Take action to ensure reserves were available

40

Continue living here and not use them

37

Stay here but visit coastal reserves in other areas

11

Consider moving to another coastal area

5

Move away from the coast altogether

2

Understanding people’s likely response and preferences for action to changes in conditions is central to this study. To that end people were asked about how they would like to see climate change impacts managed in the future as shown in Figure I.

“Nature does what it wants. We can’t do anything against what nature wants us to do.” Port Fairy camper “Nature is going to happen, no money can stop it.” Portarlington camper


“Nature will take its course like at Kingscliff in Queensland and people just moved.” Barwon Heads resident Figure I: A daptation Actions Preferred – Campers & Residents12

80% 60%

13%

10%


20% 0%

35%

23%

40% 49%

30%

55% 33%

16% 7%

30%

26%

24%

25%

19%

19%

Campers Residents Campers Residents Campers Residents Campers Residents Public Caravan park Inc. no. of camping Ensure low cost Make all sites users should grounds at the beach crown land camping powered to increase contribute more via by using other coastal continues to be revenue site fees to caravan reserves to increase available along the parks for the future revenue available coast 1st Preference

2nd Preference

Campers Survey Question Q20, Residents Survey, Q14

Respondents were asked their first preference from a list of 8 possible responses, and then their second preference

1

12

In terms of establishing non-market values associated with preserving the assets of the beach and caravan sites, the average camper would pay an additional $1.03 per night to avoid each 1% loss in CCP sites, and $0.36 per night to avoid each 1% loss in beach width, indicating they valued protection of the CCP sites more than the beach. This is shown in Table J. Table J: V alue per person of Sites and Beaches in Each Park Non market $ value

CCP Campers Sample Park (willingness to pay per 1% retention in sites per

$1.03

night) Beach (willingness to pay per 1% retention in beach

$0.36

width at high tide per night) Average nights per annum

26.1

Table K: E stimate of Value of Beach and Sites Protection Non market $ value

Residents Sample Park (willingness to pay per 1% retention in sites per annum) Beach (willingness to pay per 1% retention in beach width per annum)

There is considerable support for the continuation of camping in coastal reserves from both campers and residents as shown in Figure L. Campers would like to see it expanded. Both groups most often preferred a user pays model with campers providing the funding for coastal management which is in accord with the current funding model. However, this does not mean everyone feels able to pay more. “I think they charge enough at this caravan park as it is. It is more expensive than other caravan parks in other parts of Australia.” Warrnambool camper “It’s already too expensive. It can’t get any more expensive.” Warrnambool camper

Figure L: E quity Preferences – Campers & Residents

80% 13%

10%

20% 0%

35%

23%

40% 49%

30%

55% 33%

16% 7%

30%

26%

24%

25%

19%

19%

Campers Residents Campers Residents Campers Residents Campers Residents Public Caravan park Inc. no. of camping Ensure low cost Make all sites users should grounds at the beach crown land camping powered to increase contribute more via by using other coastal continues to be revenue site fees to caravan reserves to increase available along the parks for the future revenue available coast 1st Preference Campers Survey Question Q23, Residents Survey, Q17

$5.83

Equity preferences for CCP adaptation

Residents are prepared to pay $4.08 and $5.83 per annum per person for each 1% improvement in the protection of parks and beaches respectively, indicating they value protection of the beach more than the CCP sites. This is shown in Table K. However, overall campers value both the beach and the sites higher than residents on a per annum basis.

60%

$4.08

2nd Preference


Non market value of beach and caravan sites

13

Discussion of findings

Adaptation Preferences

This research has established camper and resident preferences for equitably sharing the burdens arising from climate change adaptation options, and estimated the market and non-market values and social and community values associated with CCP stays.

Despite the high preparedness to pay there was a considerable proportion of campers and residents who believe in ‘doing nothing’ in response to climate change impacts. Comments indicate this view is held because ‘resisting nature is futile’. A similar portion wanted a seawall/ barrier built as the adaptation approach.What campers and residents believe they will do in the face of unavailability of the CCP or coastal foreshore is very telling. Ultimately whilst many campers are deeply entrenched in one camping ground they see that experience as transferrable, which then allows them to avoid the climate impacts.

Campers and residents Differences in the demographics of the population between campers, residents and locations are likely to impact responses to proposed adaptation responses and warrant dedicated consideration by decision makers. These demographic differences will also impact people’s ability to adapt to changing conditions. Engaging campers and residents in consultation ahead of any changes will be important. Campers will not be present at all times, and establishing a way to communicate with campers when not at the CCP may be warranted. Virtually all residents use foreshore areas in their town at some stage in the year, and many use the CCP. As residents they are necessarily key stakeholders in adaptation change, but they are also stakeholders as users of the Crown land. This study has found that residents and campers share beliefs about the attractions of a CCP stay, and have similar preferences for the management of CCPS. This common ground between these two stakeholder groups provides a good starting point for the discussion of equitable adaptation options. Climate Adaptation in Coastal Caravan Parks Economic Value and Equity Research Report

The CCPs are in themselves a major attraction for visitors who first and foremost saw the opportunity to relax in the caravan park itself as very important. The accessibility of the beach is also core. Beyond this, the features of the area were not greatly important to campers.

Non-market economic value That coastal camping is a valued experience is evident through the results in a number of ways. There is considerable consumer surplus (benefit) evident in the non-market estimation. Campers and residents also directly attribute high importance to aspects of the CCPs. Campers are prepared to pay to protect the CCP and beach, and they want to be able to continue camping as established through the choice modelling exercise. These non-market economic values define ‘what’s at stake’ in a very different context. These camper surpluses are useful in helping to estimate the economic value of coastal reserves in the form of CCPs to the broader community. In summary, the recreational value of assets being managed are significant, and the potential impact to the public and community benefit considerable.

14

Equity Preferences Both campers and residents express a preference to see the continuation of access to low cost coastal camping. Campers would prefer to see more access. There is not a strong demand to increase facilities as a way to increase revenue and this suggests minimal investment/service CCPs may appeal and allow continued use of vulnerable land as CCPs. Both campers and residents thought campers should pay more to fund coastal adaptation, however this may be partly informed by the knowledge held about of the current contribution of fees to coastal management. Further, being able to pay means that coastal camping will continue – a strong preference held by campers. Few residents prefer funding to come from the local area, ie. themselves. These equity preferences have been provided in a simplistic way without a scenario or context and can be taken to reflect the underlying attitude of campers and residents. However it should be expected that in specific circumstances these opinions may shift considerably.

Revenue Repeat campers form the base load of demand for summer CCP stays, and contribute a known annual revenue stream which greatly assists managers in forecasting and planning. Disruption of repeat behaviour has the potential to reduce the number of nights stayed which may have implications for revenue. The potential movement of revenue maybe profound, and may not recover quickly because it will take time for people to re-establish repeat visit behaviour and the resulting regular income stream. This clearly has implications for the development of adaptation options and the funding of coastal adaptation. It has been assumed there is considerable unmet demand for CCPs, and that CCPs will always have ‘replacement campers’ available due to difficulties accessing sites at peak times. If the conditions of the CCP change considerably, the base of repeat campers and current unmet demand may also change and this has revenue implications.

While this research has shown there is considerable scope to increase revenue from fees in the CCPs included in the study, it is not the purpose of Crown land to provide the highest return on investment. Crown land provides a benefit to the community. The non-economic values obtained in this study have quantified that benefit.

Application of information to adaptation Through this research, decision makers are provided with new and useful information which will assist them in factoring in the human implications of coastal adaptation responses and assist in meeting obligations under the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008. These human impacts are summarised via: • non-market economic values which enumerate the benefit to the public of using coastal Crown land as CCPs; • social equity preferences which reveal what people think is most fair and how the benefits and burden of risk or change could be shared across different groups or communities; and • attributes of importance which highlight what social attributes people think are most important within a CCP.

This research provides information that could allow for the inclusion of impacts on recreation users in a tangible way in social benefit-cost analysis or other analyses frameworks that are concerned with choosing the best (both efficient and equitable) course of action in adapting to climate change. The non-market values provided will help decision makers balance the objectives of ensuring profitability, a return to society and funding of other coastal management activities. Together, the market and non-market values make a significant contribution to estimating the economic value of CCPs to society. In addition, the balance between market and non-market values for a given site can be explicitly compared for the first time. These estimates allow Committees of Management (CoMs) to consider the broader economic and social consequences of decisions involved in managing CCPs and vice versa for coastal Crown lands (e.g. beaches). Because this study has obtained economic values held by the broader community (residents) for CCP and beach conservation, the broader community benefit provided by CoMs can therefore be considered in a more holistic, yet measured, fashion2.2

’Measured ‘ means exactly that, as opposed to ‘considered’.

2


These values can be transferred to other CCPs on Crownland or for the entire estate of coastal CCPs. Hence decision makers are able to establish ‘what is at stake’ in a more comprehensive fashion than previously.

15

1. Introduction to the Report CCPs on coastal Crown land occupy an important place in the social, economic and environmental landscape, providing multiple benefits to the public in various forms. They provide affordable holiday destinations and access to the coast’s myriad recreation and tourism opportunities. The physical character of many coastal towns and their foreshores is often heavily influenced by their caravan parks, while the summer influx of friends, family and visitors to enjoy the ambience of a beachside holiday has a profound effect on community. Coastal CCPs also play a crucial role in providing the majority of revenue for the day-to-day management of Crown land reserves along the Victorian coastline, and provide a range of flow-on benefits to local communities and their economies.


However, the location of coastal CCPs often renders them physically exposed to the risks associated with climate change, which in turn threatens the benefits and values they provide. Despite widespread recognition of the importance of CCPs, little evidence is available of the social and economic values of CCPs and the foreshore to the wide range of people who use them. Little is also known of community preferences for equitably sharing the burdens of different climate change adaptation options and their implications. Given the focus on risk management in climate adaptation, it is essential that value and equity are properly considered, as these are the primary determinants of consequence. The Western Coastal Board, as one of Victoria’s Regional Coastal Boards charged with facilitating implementation of the Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS), has long been interested in promoting full consideration of triple bottom line issues in coastal decision making. The Hierarchy of Principles in the VCS 2008 requires that integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) takes into account the environmental, social and economic implications of decisions, and that seeks to ensure an integrated analysis of economic, social and environmental and cultural heritage implications of decisions. In response to these issues and the opportunity afforded by the Australian Government’s Coastal Adaptation Decision Pathway program (CADPP), the Western Coastal Board and Deakin University developed the Value and Equity Framework for Climate Adaptation: Coastal Caravan and Camping Parks Case Study’ project (CCPs project). Contributions were received from a range of regional partner organisations. The CCPs project aimed to generate new information on economic value and social equity and provide guidance on how that can be used to improve decision making for climate

16

adaptation. The project has been developed in three distinct phases: • A literature review to assess current knowledge concerning non-market economic value and social equity in caravan parks and adaptation. This informed the development of the methodology for field research and the operation of the Decision Support Framework. • Targeted field research to estimate market and non-market economic values and generate social equity preferences of campers and residents in adjacent towns. The results of which are presented in this report. • A Decision Support Framework to illustrate how to generate, interpret and apply social and economic information in key adaptation decision-making processes.

2. Research Objectives The overarching research objective is to provide nonmarket economic and social equity values to be used in the development of a transferable framework to assist decision making in response to climate change impacts for coastal Caravan and Camping Parks (CCPs) on Crown land. This information is also expected to make a substantial contribution to the body of evidence concerning nonmarket economic values and social equity regarding the coast. Specifically the research set out to establish: • Camper and Resident preferences for equitably sharing the burdens arising from climate change adaptation options in terms of: -- Changes in amenity; -- Different opportunities to access the coast; -- Financial costs.

• Estimates of the market and non-market values of CCPs as revealed by: -- Direct users - campers; -- Residents; -- Crown land and park managers; and -- Key stakeholders. • The economic, social and community values associated with CCP stays. • The economic benefits of Crown land to residents and campers.


• An understanding of how the above preferences differ depending on whether one is resident or a visitor (camper).

17

3. Key Concepts The ultimate value of a CCP is potentially built from a diverse range of sources. This project focused on the measurement of the two key concepts of economic value and social equity values: • Economic value consists of market and non-market values. Market values are the monetary value of goods and services traded in markets while non-market values are the monetary values of goods and services not traded in markets (Daly and Farley 2004). Examples of non-market economic values are the value of beaches on adjacent Crown land, or the enjoyment of a beach holiday. • In the context of this project, social equity refers to the fairness of how the burdens and benefits of climate change adaptation (or lack thereof) are distributed across groups affected: CCP campers, residents and the broader community.

3.1 T he Total Economic Value of CCPs


The diversity of economic values held by people for CCPs on Crown land is diagrammatically presented in Figure 1. Examples are provided for each type of market or nonmarket value. Those values measured in this study are indicated by the tick marks ().

The third focus of this study, social equity, is not an economic measure so is not represented in this diagram of economic value.

Market values As illustrated by Figure 1, CCPs (although on Crown land and not available for sale) have a range of market values, including: • The net returns from managing CCPs broken into: -- Revenue; and -- Direct operating costs. • The value of built assets within the CCP boundary; • The value of land within the CCP boundary; • The direct expenditure by campers in the economy which includes the: -- Value of investment by campers in their CCP equipment. There are other market values that CCPs provide to the economy including the ‘multiplier effect’ of expenditure from campers. Because expenditure by campers becomes income and expenditure by others, it creates a ripple across the economy.

Figure 1 sets out the elements which make up the total economic value. The top level of this figure shows the split between market values and non-market values:

CCPs may also provide an indirect ‘use’ benefit to the value of surrounding properties. For example Pearson, Tisdell and Lisle (2007) found that properties in close proximity to Noosa National Park exhibited a premium in price, even when other factors were controlled.

• Market values are represented by the money that changes hands in the exchange of goods and services. They are apparent in the sale of land or other assets where the purchase price represents the value of the asset. The measurement of market values often rests in accounting practices.

CCP market values such as revenues, costs and asset values for this research were obtained directly from CCP managers. Direct operating costs can be deducted from revenue to give an indication of profit, but typically there are other overhead expenses and any remaining profit is reinvested in CCPs or coastal management.

• Non-market values are values that are not represented by markets. They may relate to intangibles such as ‘enjoyment’ and are less frequently measured largely because of this intangibility. These non-market values in relation to CCPs are expanded in the diagram below. While the approach taken in this research may seem simple, the interplay between market and non-market values for CCPs is complex, e.g. advancing profits from the management of CCPs may offset or add to the non-market values held by campers or residents. Another example is the loss of beachfront camp sites from a storm event may reduce the revenue available to CCP managers and reduce the non-market values held, not only by campers, but also by

18

residents and the broader community.

Figure 1: T otal Economic Value of CCPs

Total Economic Value

Market value

Non-‐market value

(captured by the market)

(not captured by the market)

Direct use value •

net returns to operators from  current use of land • expenditure by users  in economy • CCP land values • CCP asset values

Passive use value

Existence value

Indirect use value

• recrea?onal, CCP and community 

• knowing the CCP exists although no use is intended

Use value

Non-‐use value



•

Benefits from market valua2on Source: Blackwell 2012 Source: Blackwell (2012)

Op61 (n=69), having visited 29.1 years on average;

• The capacity for adaptation between different demographic groups may vary.

• 12 month permit holders8 (n=62) are also likely to have been visiting for more years - 22.5 years on average; • Retirees (n=60) have visited for an average of 28.9 years.

Table 7: Y ears Campers Have Visited Warrnambool  Port Fairy  n=76 n=86

CCP Campers Sample

Total  n=388

Portarlington  n=76

Barwon Heads  n=75

Apollo Bay n=75

Visited

14.7 yrs

18.3  yrs

18.6  yrs

10.7 yrs

12.2  yrs

17%

3%

23%

41%

8%

Average no. years visited % staying for the first time

13.7 yrs 9%

Those wo have a 12 month renewable permit. Campers with seasonal permits are referred to as seasonal campers throughout the report.

8

28

Table 8: N umber of Times & Nights Will Stay -Campers9 Total  n=324

Barwon Portarlington  Heads  n=58 n=74

Apollo Bay  n=44

Warrnambool  n=70

Average no. times will stay this year

4.9

6.6

8.5

7.1

1.6

Average no. nights stay per year

29.3

38.6

41.3

41.9

15.0

Average no. nights will stay this time

15.3

18.0

17.4

11.4

13.9

Not only have campers visited over a number of years, a sizable proportion visit more than once in the year (see table 8). Amongst those who have visited more than once, the number of separate visits for the year is quite high. Locations closer to Melbourne (Portarlington, Barwon Heads and Apollo Bay) have a higher number of visit occasions over the course of the year and hence the total number of nights per year is also higher. Those aged 61 years and over (n=66) have a higher number of nights stayed per annum – 47 nights on average, and retirees (n=58) an average of 56.2 nights for the year. Repeat camping behaviour is extensive and very important to the revenue stream of CCPs. The 12 month permit campers allow park managers to estimate their base revenue from their fees. Seasonal campers (those who rebook every year) also provide a base revenue stream. Disrupting the patterns of repeat campers may impact revenue streams quite strongly in the short term as it may take some time to re-establish the repeat visiting behaviour which underlies the bulk of camping in CCPs.

Residents’ Use of CCP & Coastal Foreshore Areas Nearly all (94%) of residents have visited the coastal foreshore areas in their township in the past 12 months. Residents also use the CCP – 69% of residents have used the park for one reason or another over the past 12 months. At some CCPs the town’s sporting facilities are located within the camping ground, but they also use the CCP for other recreation. Usage of the park by residents is particularly high in Barwon Heads. The football ground and the new club rooms are located within the CCP and appear to account for many social visits to the CCP from residents. Residents’ use of the CCP varied by demographics: • 85% of those with a university education had used the CCP in the past 12 months; • Those working are more likely to have used the CCP (76%) than those not working (60%); • 75% of people under 60 years have used the CCP compared to 58% of those over 60 years;

Table 9: R esident Utilisation of the Coastal Foreshore areas and CCP in the past 12 months WarrnamApollo Barwon Portbool  Bay  Heads  Total  arlington Residents Sample n=75 n=75 n=78 n=77 n=382 % % % % %

Port Fairy n=77 %

94

94

96

84

97

99

69

58

91

57

60

77

Don’t visit the CCP park at all

31

42

9

43

40

23

For social events such as BBQs or visiting people staying there

47

39

81

24

44

44

Stayed there yourself

13

9

37

9

7

3

31

n/a

86

20

n/a

49

58

52

88

37

57

53

Visited the CCP in past 12 months for any purpose

Used recreational or sporting facilities such as the oval or club house/rooms Walked, cycled or run within the park or through the park to the beach or coastal reserve


Amongst those who have visited the CCP before. ie those who are visiting for the first time are not included in the calculation as they will not have an average per year.

9

2.5 17.2 15.5

• 35% of residents have been camping or caravanning themselves in the past five years, of these 37% have stayed at the CCP in their town in the past 12 months.

The 12 month permit camper also accounts for a considerable portion of the total non-market value generated by CCPs (discussed further in Section 5.7).

Visit coastal foreshore areas

Port Fairy  n=78


CCP Campers Sample Filter: Those who have visited more than once

29

Comparison between Campers & Residents Utilisation of CCPs by campers on a repeat basis is seen to be high. Residents also have a high level of use of the CCP and adjacent foreshore. Obviously the nature of the use between the two groups is very different, but the shared utilisation is important for decision makers to consider. Key points for decision makers • Visits to the CCPs from repeat campers are high and many would spend a considerable amount of time in the CCP over the course of the year. Their familiarity with the CCP suggests they would notice changes to the CCP, and to the beach and natural environment surrounding it. • Campers have a high investment in time in the area and are likely to see themselves as important stakeholders in decision making although absent for long stretches during the year. • Virtually all residents (fewer in Apollo Bay) use foreshore areas in their town at some stage in the year and many the CCP, indicating these areas provide value to them. It may be concluded residents are also key stakeholders in the future management of CCPs from a recreational point of view. • CCPs have a recreational value to residents, and their visits to the area means they will notice changes occurring in the CCP.


• Repeat campers provide a known revenue stream for coastal management and disruption (such as loss of sites) of this repeat behaviour will reduce the number of nights stayed which may have implications for revenue. • Utilisation of the coastal foreshore and CCP areas varies by demographics such as income and education and these are likely to impact the response to change.

6.4 Tenure Many campers return year after year to the same camping ground and they see themselves as having tenure in the area, in the CCP and even down to specific sites10. This tenure may be emotional as well as actual such as for 12 month permit holders. Residents also have considerable tenure in the area – they own houses or rent and many have lived in the area for a long time.

Tenure of Campers The type of site campers use in the CCP has a relationship to repeat visiting behaviour and hence tenure. Three types of CCP camping site types are documented as shown in Table 10: • 12 month permit sites which are renewed on an annual basis and where vans and annexes remain in place. • Seasonal sites which are renewed on an annual basis (or booked year to year) but where vans and annexes are removed from the site at the end of the season. • Casual sites are where bookings are made on a casual basis. Warrnambool does not have any 12 month permit sites. In Port Fairy 12-month permit sites have been moved from Crown Land to Council Land which forms part of the CCP (these sites were included in the survey). There are marked differences between the CCPs in the mix of type of sites interviewed in this study. For example, Apollo Bay had the greatest percentage of casual campers and Port Fairy the least. Sixteen percent of the sample are 12 month Permit Holders, but this group is statistically significantly over-represented in certain demographics and reveal an older, entrenched visitor: • 25% of those over 51 years are 12 month permit holders; • 28% of those having>$20k invested in camping equipment are 12 month permit holders; • 28% of those who have visited for more than 11 years are 12 month permit holders; • 28% of those who are retired are 12 month permit holders. This group effectively accounts for 50% of the non-market value revealed by this study. This is discussed further in Section 5.7. Seasonal campers are the type of camper most interviewed in this study (46%). Their characteristics are not statistically different from 12-month permit holders or casual visitors.

Alliance Strategic Research, The Caravan Park Industry, 2008 and 2011

10

30

Table 10: C amping Site Status – Campers Total  n=388  %

Portarlington  n=76  %

Barwon Heads  n=75  %

Apollo Bay  n=75 %

Warrnambool  n=76  %

Port Fairy  n=86  %

12 month Permit sites (n=62)

16

20

21

29

n/a

10

Seasonal (n=178)

46

36

39

13

71

67

Casual (n=148)

38

45

40

57

29

22

Thirty eight percent of campers are Casual campers and this group is over represented in certain categories, revealing a younger camper newer to the camping ground:

Key points for decision makers • There are a sizable proportion of campers who have long term tenure in the CCPs. They have well established holiday patterns, plus a long term commitment to the location and the type of holiday. It is therefore reasonable to assume they see themselves as stakeholders in the CCP and its future.

• 88% of those visiting for the first time are casual visitors; • 70% of those who had borrowed equipment are casual visitors; • 57% of those under 40 years of age are casual visitors.

• Lower income and older people generally have longer term relationships with the camping ground. These two groups appear to enjoy a stable (unchanging) holiday arrangement (as demonstrated by their continued behaviour).

Tenure of Residents Residents also have long tenure in the township as shown in Table 11. A sizable proportion of residents visited the township prior to living in it, and indeed visitors may be a source of residents for these townships.

• Those who are most likely to be impacted by change are those who are most entrenched. This is more often an older group, lower income group of campers.

As would be expected, older residents, 51 years plus have lived in the town for longer (28.3 years on average), than younger residents, under 40 years (12.1 years on average).

• Should any one group be more disadvantaged or impacted than other groups by changes to the operation of the CCP, and their access to it, this will drive to issues of equitable use of the CCP resource.

Comparison between Campers & Residents

• Decision makers should consider that those who are more entrenched (most often older and lower income campers) are less likely to be able, or willing, to adapt.

Campers and residents both have considerable tenure in the locations covered in the survey. It is quite probable many campers would see the CCP as ‘their place’ at the coast. Many residents have been converted from visitors and are therefore likely to appreciate why others visit the area.

Table 11: Y ears of Residence - Residents Residents Sample

Total  n=382

Portarlington  n=77

Barwon Heads  n=78

Apollo Bay  n=75

Warrnambool  n=75

Port Fairy  n=77

Residency

Average no. years lived here

21.4 yrs

18.7 yrs

17.4 yrs

25.6 yrs

27.9 yrs

17.6 yrs

Visiting prior to

Average no. years visited before

residency

living here

25.6 yrs

24.7 yrs

38.6 yrs

23.1 yrs

20.2 yrs

20.1 yrs

51%

64%

54%

35%

33%

70%

Proportion who visited prior to living here



CCP Campers Sample

31

6.5 C amper Commitment to Holiday Whilst many campers return each year and visit a number of times over the year it is also relevant to understand the number of people involved, and their expenditure. It is evident that in taking this holiday campers have made a substantial commitment of time and money and involved a number of people. There is evidence (as shown in Table 12) these holidays involve the dropping-in of people for overnight stays, since the number of people staying most nights is larger than the number of people away for the whole trip. It is important for decision makers to understand each camping site provides benefit to more than one person. A high number of people staying is associated with older, longer term campers with higher investment in equipment. The average number of people staying per site per night is 4.1. More people stay at sites where the following characteristics are noted: • Those who have invested >$50k in camping gear have an average of 5.9 people staying per night; • Those 61+ years have an average of 7.4 people staying per night at their site; • Those with 12 month permits have an average of 5.5 people staying per night; • Those earning 90 ...................................................................................9 Refused............................................................................98

84

Q22. Please read out the number which best indicates your total household income before tax? < $20,001..........................................................................1 20,001 – 30,000................................................................2 30,001 – 40,000................................................................3 40,001 – 50,000................................................................4 50,001 – 60,000................................................................5 60,001 – 70,000................................................................6 70,001 – 80,000................................................................7 80,001 – 90,000................................................................8 90,001 – 100,000..............................................................9 100,001 – 110,000..........................................................10 110,001 – 120,000..........................................................11 120,001 – 130,000..........................................................12 131,001 – 140,000..........................................................13 140,001 – 150,000..........................................................14 151,000...........................................................................15 Refused............................................................................98

Q23. Is there anything ELSE you’d like to raise about the value of caravan parks and their surrounding areas, including beaches, that we haven’t touched on, or about this survey?

Q24. [RECORD GENDER]

Female................................................................................2

Thank and close Thank you very much for your participation. As I said earlier, The research is looking to understand the value of coastal caravan parks and highlight the importance of caravan and camping parks located on coastal Crown land, such as the bay/ocean / river foreshore here at (LOCATION). The Information Sheet and Brochure provide more information about the project, and as you will see it’s part of a larger project that is looking at how information like this can be properly included in decision making. I’d encourage you to contact the Western Coastal Board if you would like to find out more information or to be placed on a list of people to receive a notification when the final report is available electronically. All the results from the study will be aggregated. Your privacy will be protected in accordance with the Australian Privacy Act and in accordance with the Australian Social and Market Research Society code of ethics for research. Could I record your name and phone number as my supervisor may contact you about aspects of this survey. Your details will not be used for any other purpose. Name: _______________________________ Phone Number: ________________________ Thank you very much and have a good day.

Time ended:

__________________..................................

Time taken: ____________ (mins)


Male...................................................................................1

85

Appendix D: C CP User Survey Instrument Western Coastal Board A Questionnaire for Park Users (Interview 1 respondent from every nth site, unless site numbers require selecting every site.) RECORD:

Name of park Camp/van site no. (from map) Date

___ / ___ / 12

Time (24 hr clock)

Interviewer name Introduction Hello, I am (NAME) from Marketmetrics and I am undertaking interviews for a caravan and camping park research project on behalf of the Western Coastal Board. The research is looking to understand the value and highlight the importance of caravan and camping parks located on coastal Crown land, such as the bay/ocean /river foreshore here at (LOCATION). I was wondering if you would be interested to answer some questions about your visit and enjoyment of this caravan park? This sort of study hasn’t been done before, and we are interviewing a thousand people at 5 locations along the west coast.


(Hand brochure/information sheet which has details of project, contacts and ethics approval) Your personal information and individual responses will not be passed to the camp manager. All the information you provide will be securely stored and your answers aggregated with others so that it can’t be identified. The interview will take around XX minutes. Would you be happy to help out by doing the interview now? Continue............................................................................1 Refused..............................................................................2 Call back............................................................................3 RECORD: 12 Month Permit................................................................1 Seasonal.............................................................................2 Casual................................................................................3

86

Q1.

How many years in total have you come to this caravan park? _____(NUMBER OF YEARS) IF first time SKIP TO Q4

Q2.

On average how many different times would you personally stay in this caravan park per year? Number of times:____ If one in Q1 and one to this question SKIP TO Q4

Q3.

On average, how many nights would you personally stay in this caravan park per year ?? ___

Q4.

And for your stay this time, how many nights in total will you be at this caravan park on this site? TRY TO OBTAIN ANSWER IN NIGHTS. IF GIVEN IN WEEKS CONVERT TO NIGHTS Number of nights (KEY IN NO.) _______

Q5.

How many nights in total will you be away from home on holiday for this trip, this time? (not just including this caravan park)TRY TO OBTAIN ANSWER IN NIGHTS. IF GIVEN IN WEEKS CONVERT TO NIGHTS Number of nights (KEY IN NO.) _______

Q6.

How many people travelled to this caravan park in your vehicle for this trip, this time? Total in your vehicle_____ IF MORE THAN ONE ASK: How many of these are aged under 18 years?

One....................................................................................1 Two....................................................................................2 Three..................................................................................3 Four...................................................................................4 Five -10..............................................................................5 11 or more.........................................................................6 Don’t know/can’t say........................................................99

Q7.

On average how many people in total are staying at this camp site each night on this trip? Total at camp site_____

Q8.

What is the post code where you live? _______

Q9.

Apart from the Caravan Park site fees and your trip approximately how much do you personally spend on average per night for your stay here on holidays? Total PER NIGHT OF EXPENDITURE $ .00

Self only.............................................................................1 2........................................................................................2 3........................................................................................3 4........................................................................................4 5........................................................................................5 6-10...................................................................................6 10+....................................................................................7

Q11. Of the total (AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS QUESTION) about what percent would you spend in the local or closest town? __% ENTER IN WHOLE PERCENTAGE

Q12. RECORD ACCOMMODATION ON SITE. MULTI RESPONSE Tent/s...................................................................................

1ONLY - SKIP TO Q14

Cabin...................................................................................

2ONLY - SKIP TO Q14

Caravan/Camper van/mobile home.......................................

3 GO TO Q13


Q10. When you mention that amount, how many people are you spending for?

87

Q13. IF CARAVAN/CAMPER VAN/MOBILE HOME CONFIRM Is this caravan… READ OUT Is this your own van............................................................1 Rented off site....................................................................2 Rented on site....................................................................3 Borrowed ..........................................................................4 Other (SPECIFY)______________________

Q14. About how much would have you invested in all your camping/caravan equipment that you are using for this trip? SHOW CARD Nothing, all borrowed.......................................1 SKIP TO 16 $1 - $499...........................................................................2 $500 - $999.......................................................................3 $1,000 - $4,999.................................................................4 $5,000 - $9,999.................................................................5 $10,000 - $19,999.............................................................6 $20,000 - $49,999.............................................................7 $50,000 - $100,000...........................................................8 $100,000 - $149,000.........................................................9 $150,000 - $199,000.......................................................10 $150,000 - $199,000.......................................................11 $200,000 - $249,000.......................................................12 > $250,000......................................................................13

Q15. How many years old is most of your caravan and camping equipment you are using on this trip? ___(YEARS)

Q16. Thinking about this caravan park, and staying here, using a scale of 1 – 7, where 1 is very unimportant and 7 is a very important, please tell me how important the following aspects of the caravan park are to you personally: Climate Adaptation in Coastal Caravan Parks Economic Value and Equity Research Report

ROTATE

Importance of Caravan Park

1. T he built facilities available to you at this caravan park

2. The opportunity to meet and socialise with other people and families staying in this caravan park

3. The opportunity to stay together at this caravan park with your family or friends

4. Trees, landscaping, wildlife and natural features within this caravan park

5. Sense of community within this caravan park and the people sharing the experience

7. The opportunity for a relatively inexpensive holiday 8. The opportunity for a ‘back to basics’ or simple sort of

6. The sense of security and safety within this caravan park

holiday

88

Rating 1 Very unimportant

2

3

4 (neutral)

5

6

7 N/A Very important

Q17. Thinking about this caravan park, and its location more broadly, again using a scale of 1 – 7 where 1 is very unimportant and 7 is very important would you please tell me how important the following aspects are to you personally: ROTATE FORCE ANSWER

Importance of Caravan Park

Rating 1 Very unimportant

2

3

4 (neutral)

5

6

7 N/A Very important

1. The proximity to the coast and beach activities such as swimming, surfing, lying on the beach

ater based activities such as boating, jet skis, canoeing, 3. W

2. Outdoor activities nearby such as walking, fishing kayaking

5. The natural beauty of the location, town and general envi4. The township and its facilities such as restaurants, shops ronment

7. Surrounding tourist attractions (other than the coast ) such 6. The opportunity to relax in the caravan park itself as wineries, galleries, entertainment

8. The opportunity to participate in social activities either with family/frientds in the area or community activities 9. Close to home, not a long trip

Still come to this town but: Go to a different caravan park............................................1 Use other accommodation..................................................2 Go to another coastal area: To another Caravan park..............................................3 Use other accommodation............................................4 Stay at home – do not come on holiday .............................5 Go on a different type of holiday away from the ................6 Don’t know......................................................................99

Q19. Are you aware that coastal Crown land caravan parks provide a significant proportion of funding for the management of the coast in this area? Yes.....................................................................................1 No......................................................................................2 Partly (Specify.....................................................................3


Q18. So, if this caravan park were not available in the future (for whatever reason), what would you do? : READ OUT, SINGLE RESPONSE

89

Q20. As you know, many coastal caravan parks are located close to beaches and estuaries, which often make the parks such great places to stay. In the future there is potential for climate variability and climate change that might result in things like more intense storms, frequent flooding and erosion of beaches and cliffs. This could result in a range of impacts on the coast, and on caravan and camping parks, over the next 30-40 years and into the future. This may affect things like the amount of coastal land available to use, the number of camp sites and the width of the beach. If this was to happen, which of the following responses would you prefer? I’ll show you some options and tell me which two seem to make the most sense to you. SHOWCARD, RANK FIRST and SECOND PREFERRED Construct new seawall/barrier..............................................................................1 Adding sand to the beach as required or on a regular basis ................................2 Move parts or all of this caravan park into the coastal reserve areas next to it......3 Relocate the park somewhere else altogether away from the impacts..................4 Change accommodation mix in park such as increasing cabins............................5 Change park amenities eg raise toilet blocks above flood levels...........................6 Reclaim the land by building out into the sea.......................................................7 Allow nature to take its course............................................................................8 DO NOT READ OUT There won’t be any impacts here/on the coast.....................................................9 Don’t known.....................................................................................................99

Q21. I am now going to show you four different sets of hypothetical outcomes that might eventuate in 30 to 40 years if some of the potential climate impacts occur at coastal caravan parks ie if we experience more intense storms, frequent flooding or erosion of beaches and cliffs.


The outcomes look similar, but they’re not.Most actions that could be taken to address potential impacts on caravan and camping parks are likely to have financial or other costs ie some impacts might be reduced, yet they may be costly or may affect other parts, or uses, of the coast. We are trying to identify if park visitors would be prepared to pay higher site costs to retain as much access as possible to caravan parks and beaches. There are no right or wrong answers. For each one I show you please tell me which one of the three options you’d choose. You might not really like the choice, but it might be the one you think is the best of a bad bunch. Rotation of choice blocks 1,2,3,4

Q22. What was the main reason for the options you chose in the previous questions? OPEN ENDED RESPONSE

Q22. Which of the following do you think is the fairest way to manage possible future changes. ROTATE SETS SHOWCARD

Q23. Of the following please let me know your first and second preference for what you’d like to see happen:

90

RECORD 1 and 2 RANKED PREFERENCES st

nd

1. Reduce the number of caravan/camping sites close to or on the beach and allow nature to take its course

2. Move the camping ground away to avoid the impacts of nature

3. Ensure this Crown land caravan park continues to be available at all costs

4. Ensure low cost Crown land camping continuesto be available along the coast

5. Increase the number of camping grounds at the beach by using more Crown land coastal reserves None of these (DO NOT READ OUT) To maintain revenue to manage the caravan park and the coast in the area which of the following would be your first and second preference for what you’d like to see happen:


nd

6. Increase the number of cabins to increase the revenue available

ake all sites powered to increase the revenue avail8. M 7. Increase prices of all sites to increase revenue able

9. Increase the number of camping grounds at the beach by using other coastal reserves to increase the revenue available

To share the financial burden to manage the caravan park and coast which of the following would be your first and second preference for what you’d like to see happen:....................


nd

11. Public Caravan park users should contribute more via site fees to caravan parks for the future

12. All Victorians should contribute to public caravan parks for the future

13. All Australians should contribute to public caravan parks for the future

14. All people in this area should contribute to public caravan parks for the future None of these (DO NOT READ OUT) And finally could I ask some questions about you that will help us understand who we have spoken to in the interviews and will help us understand the information collected. READOUT


10. Increase the number of 12 month permits available. None of these (DO NOT READ OUT)

91

Q24. What is the highest level of education you have achieved? Did not complete high school.............................................1 Completed high school.......................................................2 Trade qualification..............................................................3 Some college/post secondary..............................................4 Bachelor degree..................................................................5 Postgraduate university studies...........................................6 Refused............................................................................98

Q25. What is your employment situation? Self employe.......................................................................1 Employee part-time............................................................2 Employee full-time..............................................................3 Unemployedn.....................................................................4 Homemakern.....................................................................5 Studentn............................................................................6 Retiredn..............................................................................7 Other [PLEASE SPECIFY.......................................................8 Refusedn..........................................................................98

Q26. Do you have your children here on this trip, and if so how old are they? Children all under 12..........................................................1 Children all over 12............................................................2 Children under and over 12................................................3 All adult children................................................................4 No children on trip..............................................................5


No children at all................................................................6

Q27. Into which age group do you fit? 15 – 17..............................................................................1 18 – 30..............................................................................2 31 – 40 .............................................................................3 41 – 50 ............................................................................ 4 51 – 60 .............................................................................5 61 – 70 .............................................................................6 71 – 80 .............................................................................7 81 – 90 .............................................................................8 >90 ...................................................................................9 Refused............................................................................98

92

Q28. Please read out the number which best indicates your total household income before tax? < $20,001..........................................................................1 20,001 – 30,000................................................................2 30,001 – 40,000................................................................3 40,001 – 50,000................................................................4 50,001 – 60,000................................................................5 60,001 – 70,000................................................................6 70,001 – 80,000................................................................7 80,001 – 90,000................................................................8 90,001 – 100,000..............................................................9 100,001 – 110,000..........................................................10 110,001 – 120,000..........................................................11 120,001 – 130,000..........................................................12 131,001 – 140,000..........................................................13 140,001 – 150,000..........................................................14 151,000+.........................................................................15 Refused........................................................................... 98

Q29. Is there anything ELSE you’d like to raise about the value of caravan parks to you that we haven’t touched on, or about this survey?

Q30. Was there any feedback you’d like to give the camp manager (this will be provided confidentially – you or your site will not be identified)?

Thank you very much for your participation. As I said earlier, The research is looking to understand the value of coastal caravan parks and highlight the importance of caravan and camping parks located on coastal Crown land, such as the bay/ocean / river foreshore here at (LOCATION). The Information Sheet and Brochure provide more information about the project, and as you will see it’s part of a larger project that is looking at how information like this can be properly included in decision making. I’d encourage you to contact the Western Coastal Board if you would like to find out more information or to be placed on a list of people to receive a notification when the final report is available electronically. [RECORD GENDER] Male...................................................................................1 Female................................................................................2

All the results from the study will be aggregated. Your privacy will be protected in accordance with the Australian Privacy Act and in accordance with the Australian Social and Market Research Society code of ethics for research. [Text same as info sheet ................................................YET TO BE FINALISED] Could I record your name and phone number as my supervisor may contact you about aspects of this survey. Your details will not be used for any other purpose. Name: _______________________________

Phone Number: ________________________

Thank you very much and have a good night. Time ended:

__________________..................................

Time taken: ____________ (mins)


Thank and close

93

94

Retain 60% Retain 100% Retain 100%

Relocate part of park to adjacent site & retain remainder

Relocate part of park to adjacent site & lose remainder

Relocate all park operations to adjacent site

Relocate part of park to adjacent site & retain remainder

Attack

Adapt

Retain 80%

Retain 100%

Retain 95%

Retain 80%

Retain 75%

Increase 10% Retain 100%

Seawall and reclamation

Construct ‘floating’ sites

Retain 75%

Retain 50%

Retain 75%

Retain 100%

Periodic beach nourishment

Retain 95%

Retain 90%

Retain 75%

Beach nourishment only as required

Retain 80%

Retain 75%

Retain 80%

Seawall plus beach nourishment as required

Retain 20%

Retain 25%

Retain 75%

Retain 100%

Maintain existing seawall only

Lose sites and change accommodation mix in park Relocate and adapt park infrastructure to deal with impacts eg raise above flood levels

Retain 100%

Construct new seawall only

Protect

Retreat

Retain 100%

Option

Approach

H

VH

H

L

H

VH

H

H

L

M

VH

M

H

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Park sites Beach outcome Cost Plgton outcome 2040 2040 L,M,H,VH


Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

BHeads

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

?

?

Y

Y

ABay

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Wbool

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

?

?

Y

Y

PtFairy

30

40

20

10

20

35

15

20

5

10

30

10

20

Cost/ site/ night($)

Appendix E: C limate Adaptation Scenario Matrix for Choice Modelling

Appendix F: M ethods of Analysis The survey was designed to allow analysis between locations and by key demographic characteristics. However the ability to analyse demographics within each location is limited and primarily undertaken at an aggregate level.

Descriptive Stats Analysis for the residents and CCP user surveys was undertaken using cross tabs. Averages were generated where appropriate. In some cases averages were generated from information collected in ranges in which case the mid point of the range was used. In other cases respondents gave absolute figures in which case these were used as the basis of averages. Significance tests have been applied using a z test and results reported as significant at a 95% level.

Choice Modelling The choice modelling exercise was designed for the survey of; • CCP campers; and • residents in the nearby town. The key attributes for the choice sets were determined by the project team and confirmed by the steering and reference groups. For both the CCP user and resident surveys the attributes decided upon as most appropriate were: • Possible percentage loss of beach width measured at high tide; and • Possible percentage loss of CCP. The cost attribute in the user and residents surveys were respectively: • Cost increase per night per site; and The survey was framed in terms of a future scenario where the outcomes of climate change and natural processes would reduce the availability of CCP sites and beach access. It was assumed in a base case scenario that 50% of CCP sites and beach access would be lost in the next 30 to 40 years under current policy settings. Increased management and protection measures could be introduced to reduce these predicted impacts, but would come at a cost. The choice scenarios for the visitors (campers) were preceded in the survey instrument with the following explanation, which also identified the levels for each attribute included in the choice set. SCENARIOS WERE BUILT FROM THESE VARIABLES IN DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS

CCP sites compared to now

Loss of beach width compared to now

The additional ongoing cost compared to now

50% loss of sites

20% loss of the beach

$5 increase per night

40% loss of sites



30% loss of sites



20% loss of sites




The payment levels for the resident survey ranged from $50 per annum through to $500 per annum. The final set of levels for the choice sets were determined through the experimental design and the details of which were provided in Appendix A along with the other technical methodological details. A number of variables were considered as important in explaining willingness to pay (WTP) to protect the CCP and the beach as outlined for each of the surveys by the following table.


• Weekly cost of rates or rental increase and annual increase of rates or rental

95

Variables used in explaining willingness to pay


Variable

CCP campers

Resident WTP

Having post-school education





Being Employed





Age





Income





Gender





Using tent



Using caravan or camper



Value of camping equipment



Age of camping equipment



Multi-destination visitors



Group size



Number of under-18s



Part of a larger group



Renting a cabin



Daily average expenditure



Aware that park fees contribute to protection



Holding an annual permit





Years living in town



Go camping



Use of recreation/sporting facilities per annum



Use of park for walk/cycle/run per annum



The sign and significance of these ‘explanatory variables’ was tested as part of the analysis. Regressions using these explanatory variables were undertaken for each of the sites for the CCP user survey. or the resident survey, the explanatory variables were regressed for the sites as a whole (individual regressions did not yield significant results). However, for both surveys, willingness to pay results were able to be grouped and explanatory factors tested. The grouping for the CCP user survey were based on the number of years that the respondent has been visiting the park and were categorised as: • High level of previous visitation; • Moderate level of previous visitation; and • Low level of previous visitation. The grouping for the residents were based on the number of years the respondent had lived in the nearby town or region of the CCP and were categorised in a similar way: • High number of years; • Moderate number of years; and • Low number of years. Further details of the technical methodological aspects of the choice modelling exercises were provided in Appendix A.

96

Travel Cost Method The individual travel cost method was used to analyse the willingness to pay for CCP campers. Similar to the choice modelling exercise a number of explanatory variables were used and tested to explain visits to the park and these were: Variables used in explaining days/nights of stay for CCP campers

Variable years in education; age; being employed being female having children; holding an annual permit; years visited the park; daily average expenditure per person (in addition to park fees); using a cabin; using a tent, caravan or camper using one’s own van value of camping equipment age of camping equipment; staying in a park immediately adjacent to the ocean The sign and significance of these relationships is particularly important for being able to rely on any willingness to pay estimates obtained through the analysis. Without the correct sign and significance, particularly for the travel cost explanatory variable, the benefit estimates were neither valid nor reliable. A travel cost study was conducted for the sites as a whole and for individual sites. Where results were not found to be valid or reliable for individual sites, the value for all sites together can be used a preferred proxy. A number of functional forms can used to analyse the relationship between visits and the explanatory variables, including travel cost. These along with other technical aspects and a background to the travel cost method were provided in Appendix B.


staying in a park immediately adjacent to an estuary.

97

References ABS (2011) accessed 8 Mar 2012 from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Latestproducts/65F280EE22A7ECB5CA25773B0017BC58?opendocument ABS Cat No. 6523.0 Aug 2011, Household Income and Income Distribution Alliance Strategic Research, The Caravan and Park Industry (2008 & 2011) ATO (2012) Claiming a deduction for car expenses: Cents per kilometre method. Accessed 29 Feb 2012 from: http://www.ato.gov.au/content/33874.htm Bennett J. and Blamey R. (2001).The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation.Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northhampton, MA, USA. Blackwell, B (2007a) ‘The value of a recreational beach visit: An application to Mooloolaba beach and comparisons with other out door recreation sites’, Economic Analysis and Policy, March, 37(1): 77-98. 18 Jul 11: www.eap-journal.com/download. php?file=644 Brown WG and F Nawas (1973) Impact of aggregation on the estimation of outdoor recreation demand functions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 55: 246-249. Brox JA and RC Kumar (1996) Valuing camp-site characteristics: A generalized travel-cost model of demand for recreational camping. University of Waterloo, Department of Economics, Working Papers 27: 1-22. CerdaUrrutia, A., OrregoSuaza, S.A. and VásquezLavín, F. (1997) “The economic valuation of the recreational benefits of Dichato Beach (Tome-Chile)”, Lecturas de Economía, 46(January–June): 73–94. Clawson M (1959) Method for Measuring the Demand for, and Value of, Outdoor Recreation.Resources for the Future, 10, Washington, DC. Clawson M and J Knetsch (1966) The Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press. Daly H and J Farley (2004) Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications. Washington DC: Island Press. Dobbs I (1993) Individual travel cost method: Estimation and benefit assessment with a discrete and possibly grouped independent variable, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75: 84-94.


Eiswerth MJ, Englin E, Fadali E and WD Shaw (2000) The value of water levels in water-based recreation: A pooled revealed preference/contingent behaviour model, Water Resources Research 36: 1079-1086. Englin J and JS Shonkwiler (1995) Estimating social welfare using count data models: An application to long-run recreation demand under conditions of endogenous stratification and truncation, The Review of Economics and Statistics 77: 104–112. Gum RL and WE Martin (1974) Problems and solutions in estimating the demand for and value of rural outdoor recreation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 56: 558-566. Hotelling H (1949) Letter in: An Economic Study of the Monetary Evaluation of Recreation in the National Parks Washington, DC: National Park Service. IPSOS, (2005) Victorian Coastal Crown Land Caravan and Camping Users Survey Louviere, J., Hensher, D. and Swait, J. (2000).Stated Choice Models - Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. U.K. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking fast and slow. Offenbach LA and BK Goodwin (1994) A travel cost analysis of the demand for hunting trips in Kansas. Review of Agricultural Economics 16: 55-61. Pearson L, Tisdell C and A Lisle (2007) The impact of Noosa National Park on surrounding property values: An application of the Hedonic Pricing Method. Economic Analysis and Policy 32(2): 155-171. Rolfe, J. 2006 “A simple guide to choice modeling and benefit transfer”, in J. Rolfe and J. Bennett (eds) 2006 Choice Modelling and the Transfer of Environmental Values, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV, 2011).Vehicle Operating Costs, 2011. June. Melbourne: RACV. Shaw D (1998) On-site samples’ regressions: Problems of non-negative integers, truncation and endogenous stratification, Journal of Econometrics 37: 211-223. Tisdell C (2005) Economics of Environmental Conservation. 2ndEdn, Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar. Victorian Coastal Council (VCC) (2008) Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008. Victorian Coastal Council, Melbourne.) Ward, F.A. and Beale, D. (2000) Valuing Nature with the Travel Cost Models: A Manual, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Xue, D., Cook, A. and Tisdell, C. A. (2001) Biodiversity and the tourism value of Changbai Mountain Biosphere Reserve, China: A Travel Cost Approach. Tourism Economics, 6(4): 335-357.

98