Piers Visitor Market Segmentation (Visitor Satisfaction ...

6 downloads 0 Views 1023KB Size Report
Parks Victoria's Visitor Satisfaction Monitor reports on the quality of visitor ... Pier in Williamstown, Mornington Pier, Queenscliff Pier, Sorrento Pier and St Kilda ...
Piers Visitor Market Segmentation (Visitor Satisfaction Monitor 2000/01 to 2003/04)

October 2004 Dino Zanon Visitor & Asset Strategy Metropolitan Parks & Bays Division

Executive Summary Parks Victoria is the custodian of a diverse estate of significant parks in Victoria and of the management of recreational activity on Port Phillip Bay, Western Port and the Yarra and Maribyrnong Rivers. Assets managed on the bays and rivers include 271 vessel platforms such as piers, jetties, wharves and landings. The major structures, the Bay’s piers, are vital recreational attractions which receive nearly 30 million visits each year. The visitors to those piers are the subject of this report. Parks Victoria’s Visitor Satisfaction Monitor reports on the quality of visitor experiences by assessing their satisfaction whilst visiting Victoria’s National, State and Metropolitan parks and the Bay’s piers. This has involved a market research company, Millward Brown, collecting 1,844 face to face interviews at 5 major piers between 2000/01 and 2003/04. The information gathered from those interviews was used to group pier visitors into 7 segments. The segmentation was developed to help refine understanding of the various groups of visitors to piers. Each segment is well differentiated from other segments but has strong consistency within the segment. The surveys were conducted during summer, over four years at five locations: Gem Pier in Williamstown, Mornington Pier, Queenscliff Pier, Sorrento Pier and St Kilda Pier. These piers represent a wide geographical spread through Port Phillip Bay, and due to their high visitation and diversity should be highly representative of pier visitors throughout the bay. Sample size in each case was between 300 and 400 people. For methodological reasons the sample obtained has not been stratified to match overall visits to all piers. Therefore although the segments may be highly representative, care must be taken in relation to the relative size of each segment as these may not accurately reflect all users at all piers. This report identifies and describes the segments, and in particular their distinctive differences in behaviours, experiences, market preferences, service preferences and demographics. The knowledge gained from this project provides valuable information for use in future design of piers and services for the majority of users. Key characteristics of the seven segments are summarised below: • Sightseers make up 32% of the sample. Sightseers enjoyed the scenery and had high service expectations for information on tourist features. They stayed at the pier for relatively short periods and did not visit as frequently as other segments. Many were first time visitors. There was only weak association between the satisfaction of Sightseers and the services provided, with lighting for night use having the most influence on satisfaction. Sightseers were more likely to have tertiary qualifications and be visiting as tourists, i.e. as part of a holiday from interstate or overseas. There are more Sightseers at Gem Pier and St Kilda Piers than other piers. • Walkers make up 26% of the sample. Walkers were more likely to enjoy the walk and to regard kiosk and cafes as positive aspects. Many however visited piers for social purposes. They tended to have low service expectations. The only large gap between expectations and performance was for directional markers and signs to identify landmarks. Walkers stayed at piers for less time than other segments and did not visit as frequently as some, however there were many repeat visitors. There was only weak association between their satisfaction and services provided, with seating and benches having the most influence on satisfaction. Walkers were more likely to be Victorians, have tertiary qualifications and to be female. There are more walkers at St Kilda Pier than at other piers in the survey. • Anglers make up 17% of the sample. Anglers enjoyed the fishing and stayed at the pier for much longer than other segments and visited slightly less frequently than

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 2









others. Despite this many were repeat visitors. One interesting characteristic of Anglers is that their visits are more independent of weather conditions than other segments, with many more present as a proportion in rainy conditions. Anglers had slightly lower satisfaction than other segments but had a mix of high and low service expectations and performance ratings. They have several large gaps between expectation and performance which appear to be fishing related. There was only weak association between their satisfaction levels and the services provided, with clean toilets having the most influence. Anglers were more likely to be Victorian, to have primary with some secondary education, to be young and middle family people, to be male and to be from a non English speaking background. There are more Anglers at Mornington and Queenscliff Piers. Passive & Water Based (Miscellaneous) Recreators make up 9% of the sample. This segment was a catch all groups that undertook a diverse range of less common activities. They arrived at the pier in larger groups and were more likely to enjoy the boats and ferries. Passive & Water Based Recreators were more likely to be young couples with no children. They had average scores for satisfaction, service expectations and performance ratings, with one large gap between expectation and performance, which was for boat mooring facilities. There were several strong associations between their satisfaction and services; with sufficient toilets, good maintenance of the pier and lighting for night use having the strongest influences. They are fairly evenly distributed across the piers surveyed. In Transits make up 8% of the sample. This segment usually visits piers while travelling, touring or passing through, and their main reason for visiting is to catch a ferry or boat. They stayed at the pier for the less time than other segments, had less frequent visits and were the most common first time visitors. They were also more likely to be international visitors and less likely to be Victorians. They were more likely to be middle family people and to be from an English speaking background. In Transits were more likely to enjoy the boats and ferries. They had many high service expectations but no large gaps in service ratings. There were few associations between their satisfaction and services, good maintenance of the pier having the most influence. Predictably, In Transits are well represented at Sorrento Pier particularly when conditions are fine; and are less well represented at all other piers except for Gem Pier. Non Recreators make up 5% of the sample. This segment visits piers for work or other non-recreational purposes. They stayed longer than others, visited more frequently but were often alone. They were more likely to be mature family people. They had average satisfaction; but many high service expectations and low performance ratings, giving the most gaps in services. The availability of a low landing had the most influence on their satisfaction. They were more likely encounter problems. Contrary to these detractions they were most likely to strongly recommend visiting the pier to others (perhaps for business reasons). There is more of this segment at Gem Pier and much less at Mornington Pier. Daily Visitors make up 3% of the sample. This segment was distinctive because they had highest frequency of visit, on average they visit nearly every day. They usually arrived at the pier by themselves, stayed longer than others and were more likely to be aged 70+. They were also more likely to be male and to have primary and some secondary education. This segment was the most likely of all to encounter problems, and had the lowest satisfaction. Daily Visitors had many high service expectations and few high performance ratings, giving two large gaps being general maintenance of the structure and information on tourist features. Strong associations between the services provided and their satisfaction included adequate rubbish disposal facilities, boat mooring facilities, availability of a low landing and sea water depth. This segment visited all piers equally.

Additional detailed information is located in the body and attached tables of the report. Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 4 TABLE OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................... 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 6 2.0 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................. 7 3.0 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 7 4.0 SUMMARY RESULTS .................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Piers Visitors versus Victorian Community...................................................................... 12 4.2 Piers Visitors Segments .................................................................................................. 12 5.0 DETAIL RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 15 PIERS SEGMENT No. 1 – SIGHTSEERS 32% OF TOTAL VISITORS................................. 16 5.2 PIERS SEGMENT No. 2 – WALKERS 26% OF TOTAL VISITORS ................................ 18 5.3 PIERS SEGMENT No. 3 – ANGLERS 17% OF TOTAL VISITORS................................. 20 5.4 PIERS SEGMENT No. 4 – PASSIVE/WATER BASED (MISCELLANEOUS) RECREATORS 9% OF TOTAL VISITORS ............................................................................ 22 5.5 PIERS SEGMENT No. 5 – IN TRANSIT 8% OF TOTAL VISITORS ................................ 23 5.6 PIERS SEGMENT No. 6 – NON RECREATORS 5% OF TOTAL VISITORS .................. 25 5.7 PIERS SEGMENT No. 7 – DAILY VISITORS 3% OF TOTAL VISITORS........................ 27 6.0 GRAPHIC RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 29 7.0 PIER MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS........................................................................... 33 ATTACHMENT – CROSS TABULATIONS & MEANS................................................................ 33 APPENDIX A – Distance Measures between and within Segments........................................... 34 Note: Cover photo of Gem Pier at Williamstown.

TABLE OF FIGURES Table A – Ten Factors used for Segmentation and their Corresponding Variable Loadings ........ 9 Table B – Segments and Proportion of Pier Visitors................................................................... 12 Figure 1 – Segment Membership................................................................................................ 13 Figure 2 – Pier Market Segments ............................................................................................... 29 Figure 3 – Segment’s Satisfaction with Visit ............................................................................... 29 Figure 4 – Segment’s Satisfaction with Parks Victoria Management.......................................... 30 Figure 5 – Segment’s Distance from Home (Victorians only) ..................................................... 30 Figure 7 – Segment’s Time Spent at Pier ................................................................................... 31 Figure 8 – Segment’s Party Size ................................................................................................ 31 Figure 9 – Segment’s Frequency of Visiting ............................................................................... 32 Figure 10 – Segment’s Home Origin and Victorian’s Trip Type .................................................. 32 Table C – Segments Centres...................................................................................................... 34 Table D – Segments Distances from Each Other ....................................................................... 34 Figure 11 – Segments Distances from Each Other..................................................................... 35 Table E – Factors that Contribute most to Inter-Segment Distances.......................................... 36 Figure 12 – Segment’s Case Dispersion..................................................................................... 36 Figure 13 – Dispersion Histogram of Walkers............................................................................. 37

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 5

1.0

INTRODUCTION

Parks Victoria was established in 1996 and is a statutory authority that reports to the Minister for Environment. Parks Victoria is the custodian of a diverse estate of significant parks in Victoria and of the recreational management of Port Phillip Bay, Western Port and the Yarra and Maribyrnong rivers. The management of the rivers and bays specifically includes 271 vessel platforms including piers, jetties, wharves and landings. The major structures, Port Phillip Bay’s and Westernport’s piers, are major recreational attractions and receive nearly 30 million visits per annum. Visitors made up of mostly recreators but also include people working near or off the pier, are the subject of this study.

Parks Victoria has been undertaking Visitor Satisfaction Monitoring since its establishment. The Visitor Satisfaction Monitor reports on the quality of visitors experience by measuring their satisfaction whilst visiting Victoria’s National, State and Metropolitan parks and the Bay’s piers. The monitor covers approximately 50 sites and until 2004/05 was conducted annually; it is now done biennially. Whilst the survey involves nearly 3,000 interviews annually only about 500 are undertaken at piers. From 2000/01 to 2003/04 this has involved collecting 1,844 face to face interviews at 5 major piers by a market research company, Millward Brown. Over the 4 years the information gathered from those interviews has been stable with only minor changes to the questionnaire from year to year. That data forms the basis of this segmentation study.

The surveys were conducted in summer, mostly during December and January at Gem Pier in Williamstown (394 participants), Mornington Pier (375 participants), Queenscliff Pier (307 participants),

Sorrento Pier (380 participants) and St Kilda Pier (388 participants). These piers

represent a wide geographical spread through Port Phillip Bay and have high attendance from a diverse range of visitors from local fishermen to international tourists and local workers. Therefore the results of this analysis should therefore be highly representative of pier visitors throughout the bay. However there are limitations to its representativeness. The surveys were conducted during the peak season of pier use, i.e. summer, for Corporate Indicator purposes when use is at a maximum and services are most stretched; therefore the sample is not representative of visits at all times of year. Generally this is a conservative approach as experience is usually better with less crowding and competition for services. Also the samples were obtained as sufficient for monitoring purposes and not matched (i.e. stratified) to pier visits. For example, St Kilda and Sorrento have roughly the same sample, however St Kilda is known to receive far greater visitation. Visitation weightings were not used to correct the analysis as these would have reduced the sample efficiency. Therefore although the segments maybe highly representative, care must be used with the segment’s percentages as these may not

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 6

accurately reflect all users at all times at all piers throughout the bays; however it is the best that the existing data can provide.

This report details the segments, and in particular the distinctive differences in their behaviours, experiences, market preferences, service preferences and demographics. The knowledge gained from this project provides Parks Victoria with valuable intellectual property for use in future design and construction of pier and their services for the majority of recreational and some non recreational users.

2.0

BACKGROUND

Parks Victoria and its predecessors have undertaken Visitor Satisfaction Monitoring since the early 1990’s. Most recently Parks Victoria’s Visitor Satisfaction Monitoring program has stabilised with consistent sites surveyed, with consistent questionnaires and a consistent quota of participants. Visitor Satisfaction Monitoring at the piers has a different questionnaire to parks focusing specifically on service provision and visitor experience at the pier. The questions and data used in that monitor over the four recent years of consistent surveys have been used to undertake this segmentation analysis as a secondary analysis. Because this segmentation was determined using those questionnaires naturally it is going to be restricted to the variables contained within those surveys. For example some psychographic profiles such as motivations (excluding reason for visiting) are not included. Therefore this segmentation will focus on 5 main variable groups including behaviours, experiences, market preferences, service preferences and demographics. The variables are cross reference in a separate document – Attachment – Cross Tabulations and Means.

3.0

METHODOLOGY

The surveys that provided the basis of the segmentation were conducted at five piers around Port Phillip Bay in Victoria as part of the ongoing Visitor Satisfaction Monitor. The sampling quotas for each pier were determined by the need for detecting change in visitor satisfaction from year to year and were therefore approximately 100 per annum. These varied depending on pier attendance during the survey periods.

The piers included: 1. Gem Pier at Williamstown, 394 interviews. 2. Mornington Pier at Mornington, 275 interviews. 3. Queenscliff Pier at Queenscliff, 307 interviews. 4. Sorrento Pier at Sorrento, 380 interviews. 5. St Kilda Pier at St Kilda, 388 interviews. Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 7

The surveys were conducted over four periods December 2000 and January 2001, December 2001 and January 2002, December 2002 and January 2003 and finally December 2003 and January 2004. The segments were tested for change over the four time periods and some of the percentages of the segments varied. In particular, the Passive and Water Based (Miscellaneous) Recreators were more frequent in 2003/04. The Non Recreators were less frequent in 2003/04 and more frequent in 2000/01. No explanations for these differences were available. For the other years and segments there were no significant differences.

There are many variables in the Visitor Satisfaction Monitor that ask participants to rate services. There are 20 service variables that have ratings for Expectation, Performance and a derived variable Gap for matched responses (formula below).

In order for those variables not to

dominate the cluster analyses a preliminary factor analysis was undertaken on the performance and expectation variables. The factors derived from that factor analysis were used to best represent the variation in the original 40 variables. That factor analysis (a varimax with oblique rotation) confirmed earlier work and split the 20 expectation and performance ratings into 4 factors for both Expectation and Performance ratings, a total of 8 factors. The oblique rotation was selected as independence (i.e. orthogonal factors) was not a high priority at this stage as further orthogonal factor analysis was yet to be undertaken. The derived factors were Accessibility, Management Services, Recreation Facilities and Information, Interpretation and Education and the eight factors represented 60% of the variance of the 40 variables. The only change to earlier factor analysis (undertaken with less data in 2001) being the item Sufficient Toilets was moved from Recreation Facilities to Management Services as it loaded slightly better on that factor.

Gap Formula

Gap = Performance – Expectation

The “reason for visiting” question was an open response question with categorical responses. Because of the perceived importance of this variable to the segmentation it was grouped into several dichotomous variables to allow the segmentation analysis to incorporate it. The responses were grouped by reviewing the most common responses, eg. walking and fishing and including the less common responses (eg walking the dog) intuitively with the more common response (eg walking). Alternatively if the reason was intuitively different from the more common responses it was grouped with other different responses into a miscellaneous group (eg Miscellaneous Recreation) which includes diverse but low frequency reasons for visiting such as painting, drawing and swimming. Two independent researchers undertook this grouping and differences were discussed and allocated by agreement. The “reason for visiting” is detailed in the first cross tabulation, page 3, and the grouped reasons appear on page 11 in the Attachment document. The dichotomous reasons for visiting are listed in the lower section (Q7) of Table A. Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 8

Table A – Ten Factors used for Segmentation and their Corresponding Variable Loadings Rotated Component Matrix Questionnaire Item

Factor Principal Loadings Exp Factor

Perf Factor

Fishing Factor

Satisfaction Q2

Satis Factor

Age Factor

Walking Factor

Non Rec Factor

Transit Factor

Misc Rec Factor

Social Factor

0.76

First visit to this Park Q4

0.58

Number of times visited the park in the last 12 months Q5

0.52

0.41

Number of people in your party Q6

0.45

Level of satisfaction with PV Management Q17

0.72 0.41

Gender Q21

0.75

Number of hours in Park Q23

0.72 -0.51

Age group Q24 Highest level of education Q25 Would recommend to others Q30 (inverted scale)

-0.60

Accessibility Expectation Factor Q9x6 items

0.76

Management Service Expectation Factor Q11x5 items

0.84

Recreation Facilities Expectation Factor Q13x5 items

0.81

Information Interpretation & Education Expectation Factor Q15x4 items

0.71

Accessibility Performance Factor Q10x6 items

0.62

Management Service Performance Factor Q12x5 items

0.76

Recreation Facilities Performance Factor Q14x5 items

0.80

Information Interpretation & Education Performance Factor Q16x4 items

0.70

Main Reason - Fishing Q7 Main Reason - Walking or Other Exercise Q7 Main Reason - Sightseeing or Touring Q7

0.87 0.84 -0.76

Main Reason - Catching Ferry or Travelling Q7

0.91

Main Reason - Socialising or Meal Q7

0.91

Main Reason - Miscellaneous Recreation Q7 Main Reason - Non-recreation Q7

0.91 0.85

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 12 iterations. Only high loadings, exceeding 0.4, are shown.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 9

Because segmentation uses mathematical distances to determine grouping or segments, the intuitive grouping of these less frequent reasons for visiting is likely to influence the consequent segment formation. Grouping participants by different reasons for visiting makes those participants much more likely to form a single segment because there is no mathematical distance between them; it effectively equates them. Hence Segment 4 Passive and Water Based (Miscellaneous) Recreators formed a single group because the reasons for visiting although diverse were grouped as miscellaneous recreation.

This was unavoidable as the

alternative was to include 100+ individual reasons for visiting dichotomous variables in the factor analysis; that factor analysis would have discarded those variables as they did not make up much of the overall variance; this effectively equates them anyway.

The 8 Expectation and Performance factors were then combined with 17 other variables including 7 reasons for visiting (refer above) dichotomous variables, 3 experience variables, 3 demographic variables and 4 behavioural variables. A factor analysis (a varimax orthogonal using missing value mean replacement) was performed on these 25 variables (19 if counting “main reason for visiting” only once) and 10 factors were derived for segmentation purposes. These factors and their loading from contributing variables are displayed in Table A. The factor names have been derived from the highest variable loadings in the table. Together these 10 factors explained 65% of the variance of all the individual 25 contributing variables listed (eight of which were factors themselves derived from the 40 service variables and seven were dichotomous variables constructed from one variable).

The cluster analysis was conducted using the k clustering technique in SPSS v12. This technique normally requires the analyst to select an arbitrary number of clusters with the cluster membership percentage not a determining factor for clustering. To include only reasonable sized segments, however, the final selection of 7 clusters was determined by performing k cluster analyses for 2 to 10 clusters (each had converging solution) and examining the clustering until further division into more clusters seemed to have less purpose. Specifically the 7 clusters were chosen by examining successive cluster membership and cross tabulations with the proceeding cluster membership and examining the successive cluster break up. This continued until the successive cluster formulation did not seem to break up any of the larger groups. Using this method the 7 cluster solution broke up a large 6 solution group but the 8, 9 & 10 cluster solutions only broke up the smaller groups. The 8, 9 and 10 solutions were not selected as they simply created groups which had very small membership and therefore less interest from a service provision and market perspective.

Whilst the 10 factors were the main variables used for determining segment mathematical centroids and mathematical distance to segments, i.e. formulating the segments; these variables are not used to examine the difference in the segments in the results section. All of the original Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 10

variables available and some derived variables were used in the post hoc analysis to examine the differences between segments as these were more meaningful for comparative purposes. These also included a few multi-response variables which would have been impossible to include in the segmentation. Significant differences were found between segments for just about every variable. These are reported in the results section following. The underlined “segmenting” variables shown are those variables which contributed most to the factors that separated that segment from the others.

It should be noted however that segmentation solutions are not unique as there are always multiple solutions. Different segmentation solutions may have been found by specifying more or less clusters to the K Clustering technique, by using another clustering technique, if no factor analysis had been done or if all 40 service variables were included. For example, the Walker segment may have eventually broken down into a Walkers and a Socialisers cluster if more clusters were specified in the K Cluster technique. The seven segment solution represents a compromise between effort, complexity and understanding. There had been previous attempts to do the segmentation that failed to give useful groupings. The seven segment solution intuitively appears robust and the post hoc analysis showed many further significant differences between the segments on independent variables to those included in the factors used in the K Clustering. In particular, many differences were found in the post hoc analysis of the categorical and multi-response variables which were excluded from the K Clustering for practical reasons. The many significant results from these independent variables are all shown in the detailed results section. This post hoc analysis can be viewed as a pragmatic “validation” of the segment solution found and serves to reinforce the validity of those segments.

Finally a comparison is made of differences between pier visitors as a whole (from the VSM surveys) and the Victorian community as whole using the Community Perception Monitor. This was done to further illustrate the distinctive characteristics of pier visitors. Very few variables were available to allow any comparison, with those also presented in the results. One caution with this type of analysis however is that many visitors are actually from interstate and international countries and therefore the community comparisons are not actually exactly the same population that visitors are drawn from and therefore not wholly representative. Given that most visitors were from Victoria this still makes this a useful and valid comparison.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 11

4.0

SUMMARY RESULTS

4.1

Piers Visitors versus Victorian Community

Only four variables were available for comparing pier visitors to the general community of Victoria, these were age, gender, ethnicity and education. They showed the following significant differences: ƒ 18 to 29 year olds are more highly represented as pier’s visitors (23.7%) than in the Victorian population (18.4%). ƒ 60+ year olds are less represented at piers (15.9%) than in the Victorian community (19.7%). ƒ Males are more represented at piers (62%) than in the Victorian community (48%), conversely females are less represented. ƒ People with non-English speaking background are more represented at piers (18%) than in the Victorian community (12%). ƒ People with primary or primary with some secondary education are less represented at piers (12%) than in the Victorian community.

4.2

Piers Visitors Segments

There were seven segments determined by this study. The names and proportion of visitors in each segment is shown in Table B and Figure 1. The largest segment was “sightseers” making up 32% of visitors and the smallest segment were “daily visitors” whom visited the pier on most days of the year but made up a small, 3%, but distinctive proportion of visitors. A short description of each segment follows but a more comprehensive comparison is contained in the detailed results section. Most segments were found to cluster around their main reason for visiting but the smaller segments had eclectic reasons for visiting. Table B – Segments and Proportion of Pier Visitors Segments Sightseers Walkers Anglers Passive/Water based (Miscellaneous) Recreators In Transit Non Recreators Daily Visitors Totals :

Number in segment

% Visitors

582 472 314 175

31.6% 25.6% 17.0% 9.5%

156 83 62 1,844

8.5% 4.5% 3.4% 100%

The data that created these segments provides interesting information as to how close the segments are to one another and how dispersed or heterogenous the members are within each segment. In summary the Daily Visitors were the most dispersed or heterogenous with Walkers next most dispersed; the other segments all had similar lower dispersion, and were therefore more homogeneous. The closest segments to one another were Sightseers, Walkers and Anglers whereas Non Recreators was the furthest; the other segments had distances in between these segments. For a fuller treatment of the dispersion the reader is referenced to Appendix A at the end of this report. It is excluded from the main body of observations as this level of detail is felt not particularly useful in understanding the distinctiveness of the individual segments.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 12

Figure 1 – Segment Membership

Daily Visitors 3% Non Recreators 5% In Transit 8%

Sightseers 32%

Miscellaneous Recreators 9%

Anglers 17% Walkers 26%

The seven segments found include: Sightseers Sightseers visited the pier mainly for sightseeing and make up 32% of the sample. A higher proportion of this group were tourists on holidays, i.e. from interstate or overseas. Sightseers enjoyed the scenery and had high service expectations for information on tourist features. They stayed at the pier for relatively short periods and did not visit as frequently as other segments. Many were first time visitors. There was only weak association between the satisfaction of Sightseers and the services provided, with lighting for night use having the most influence on satisfaction. Sightseers were more likely to have tertiary qualifications. There are more Sightseers at Gem Pier and St Kilda Pier than other piers in the survey. Walkers Walkers visited the pier for a walk and make up 26% of the sample. Many however visited piers for social purposes. Walkers, unsurprisingly, were more likely to enjoy the walk and to regard kiosk and cafes as positive aspects. They tended to have low service expectations and low performance ratings. The only large gap between expectations and performance was for directional markers and signs to identify landmarks. Walkers stayed at piers for less time than other segments and did not visit as frequently as some segments; however there were many repeat visitors. There was only a weak association between their satisfaction and services provided, with seating and benches having the most influence on satisfaction. Walkers were more likely to be Victorians, have tertiary qualifications and to be female. There are more walkers at St Kilda Pier than at other piers. Anglers Anglers were at the pier for fishing and make up 17% of the sample. Anglers enjoyed the fishing, stayed at the pier for much longer than other segments and visited slightly less frequently than others. Despite this many were repeat visitors. One interesting characteristic of Anglers is that their visits are more independent of weather conditions than other segments, with many more present as a proportion in rainy conditions. Anglers had slightly lower satisfaction than other segments but had a mix of high and low service expectations and performance ratings. They have several large gaps between expectation and performance which appear to be fishing Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 13

related. There was only weak association between their satisfaction levels and the services provided, with clean toilets having the most influence. Anglers were more likely to be Victorian, to have primary with some secondary education, to be young and middle family people, to be male and to be from a non English speaking background. There are more Anglers at Mornington and Queenscliff Piers than at other piers. Passive and Water Based (Miscellaneous) Recreators Passive & Water Based Recreators were at the pier for many reasons and make up 9% of the sample. This segment was actually a catch all group that undertook a diverse range of less common recreational activities. They arrived at the pier in larger groups and were more likely to enjoy the boats and ferries. Passive & Water Based Recreators were more likely to be young couples with no children. They had average scores for satisfaction, service expectations and performance ratings, with one large gap between expectation and performance, which was for boat mooring facilities. There were several strong associations between their satisfaction and services; with sufficient toilets, good maintenance of the pier and lighting for night use having the strongest influences. They are fairly evenly distributed across the piers surveyed. In Transits In Transits were usually visiting whilst travelling, touring or passing through and make up 8% of the sample. Their main reason for visiting is to catch a ferry or boat. They stayed at the pier for the less time than other segments, had less frequent visits and were the most common first time visitors. They were also more likely to be international visitors and less likely to be Victorians. They were more likely to be middle family people and to be from an English speaking background. In Transits were more likely to enjoy the boats and ferries and to have higher satisfaction. They had many high service expectations and gave high performance ratings and therefore had no large gaps in service ratings. There were few associations between their satisfaction and services, good maintenance of the pier having the most influence. Predictably, In Transits are well represented at Sorrento Pier particularly when conditions are fine; and are less well represented at all other piers except for Gem Pier. Non Recreators Non Recreators visit piers for work or other non-recreational purposes and make up 5% of the sample. They stayed longer than others, visited more frequently but were often alone. They were more likely to be mature family people. They had average satisfaction; but many high service expectations and low performance ratings, giving the most gaps in services. The availability of a low landing had the most influence on their satisfaction. They were more likely encounter problems. Contrary to these detractions they were most likely to strongly recommend visiting the pier to others (perhaps for business reasons). There is more of this segment at Gem Pier and much less at Mornington Pier. Daily Visitors Daily Visitors were at the pier for several reasons and make up 3% of the sample. They were not distinctive from an activity perspective. This segment was distinctive because they had highest frequency of visit, on average they visit nearly every day. They usually arrived at the pier by themselves, stayed longer than others and were more likely to be aged 70+. They were also more likely to be male and to have primary and some secondary education. This segment was the most likely of all to encounter problems, and had the lowest satisfaction. Daily Visitors had many high service expectations and a few high performance ratings, giving two large gaps being general maintenance of the structure and information on tourist features. Strong associations between the services provided and their satisfaction included adequate rubbish disposal facilities, boat mooring facilities, availability of a low landing and sea water depth. This segment visited all piers equally.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 14

5.0

DETAIL RESULTS

The following analyses are the distinctive observations for each segment broken into variable groupings. Notes: ƒ The key distinctive observations, i.e. those which created the segment, are underlined. ƒ The observations are contrasts between the particular segment and visitors overall. ƒ These observations are significant at the 95% confidence level of probability. ƒ Some observations that are notable but not significant (eg because of insufficient data) are marked with an asterisk *. ƒ Percentages and averages quoted below (for each item) pertain to the segment itself (answered items) unless otherwise stated. ƒ Comparison percentages shown in brackets, eg {25%} pertain to the same statistic but for all segments combined, i.e. the whole sample.

With regard to service rating there were several observations that applied to all segments and are included here rather than repeated several times in the next section. These common observations are: ƒ All segments had high expectation rating for good general maintenance of the pier, adequate rubbish removal facilities, clean and sufficient toilets and good sea water quality. ƒ All segments had low performance ratings on rangers supervising visitors, sufficient drinking water, sufficient fresh water taps and appropriate fish cleaning facilities. ƒ All segments had large service gaps (performance minus expectation) on adequate rubbish disposal facilities, sufficient seating or benches, sufficient drinking water and sufficient fresh water taps. The detail observations in the next section relate to how each segment’s expectation, performance and service gap ratings vary from the overall, i.e. all segments combined, ratings. Similarly, the detail observations in the next section emphasize how each segment’s visitors vary compared to the other segments. Occasionally some specific descriptive observation is made in the next section which is helpful in understanding the segment’s preferences but does not significantly differentiate it from the other segments. For example: In Transits appreciated scenery most (27%) but their appreciation was statistically no different to other segments (23%) simply because there were relatively few visitors in that segment. Sightseers however statistically enjoyed the scenery significantly more (25%) than other segments because there were a lot more visitors in that segment. Readers interested in overall pier visitor preferences are referred to the Attachment cross tabulations and Total column where general data is available for the segments combined. As noted in the Methodology the Reason for Visiting variable was categorical and therefore grouping it into dichotomous variables was somewhat arbitrary. There are several cross tabulations in the Attachment that group the detailed Reason for Visiting in other ways. For example the cross tabulation Main Reason for Visiting in Activity Groups on page 8 attempts to group the Reason for Visiting by visitor activities. The Reason for Visiting data that was used for the segmentation process itself is on page 11 in the Attachment, Main Reason for Visiting Grouped for Segmentation cross tabulation, but converted to dichotomous variables. That data is shown in many underlined observations in the following sections. For example in the cross tabulation Sightseers had 100% in the Sightseeing/Touring category compared to 33% for the total. Confusion can occur if one of the other tables is reference to the underlined statements.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 15

PIERS SEGMENT No. 1 – SIGHTSEERS 32% OF TOTAL VISITORS Behaviour ƒ More likely to have main reason for visiting as sightseeing or touring type reasons 100% {33%}. ƒ Details of the main reason for visiting are sightseeing 71% {23%}, being in the environment or atmosphere 18% {6%} and appreciating or studying historical or cultural features 5% {2%}. ƒ They are more to likely to visit for sightseeing or spectating purposes 53% {25%} of all reasons for visiting. ƒ Their main reason for visiting in an activity group is sightseeing or spectating, 95% {32%}. ƒ Undertake slightly more “other activities” during their visit, 1.1 per person {1.0}; including a short walk 38% {24%} and having a meal or refreshment 21% {15%}. ƒ Victorians in this group travel slightly further than average 39km {35km}. ƒ Spend less time at the pier 1.6hrs {2.4hrs}. ƒ Have lower frequency of visits over 12 months, with 8.4 visits per annum {22.8pa} average. ƒ More first time visitors 36% {24%}. Experiences ƒ Slightly more likely to enjoy the scenery, 25% {23%} of aspects. ƒ Less likely to consider other facilities 0% {7%} or the need for more parking facilities 1% {6%} as a least positive aspect of the visit. ƒ Less likely to consider fishing 2% {6%} as a most positive aspect of the visit. ƒ Have slightly higher satisfaction with Parks Victoria’s Management, 4.4 {4.3} on a 6 point scale where 1 is Completely Dissatisfied and 6 is Fully Satisfied. ƒ Have slightly higher satisfaction index with their visit 57.4 {54.6} average on a 4 point scale where 0 is Dissatisfied, 25 Satisfied, 67 Very Satisfied and 100 is Fully Satisfied. ƒ Less likely to experience a problem during the visit 5% {10%}. Market Preferences ƒ More of the visitors to Gem Pier* 39% {32%} and St Kilda Pier* 38% {32%} are from this segment. ƒ More likely to visit Gem Pier* 26% {21%} and St Kilda Pier* 26% {21%}; ƒ More likely to be from interstate 7% {4%} or international 17% {10%} and therefore less likely to be Victorian 73% {84%}. ƒ More visits as part of a holiday 33% {23%}. ƒ More likely to have found out about the pier by seeing it whilst passing 27% {18%}. Service Preferences ƒ They have slightly higher than average expectation for service on information on natural cultural or historic features, 4.85 {4.71} on a 6 point scale where 1 is disagree and 6 is very strongly agree. ƒ They have slightly lower that average expectation for service on ranger supervision of visitors 3.69 {3.87} and appropriate fish cleaning facilities 3.32 {3.63}. ƒ They have slightly higher service performance rating on general maintenance of structure 4.34 {4.23}, appropriate boat mooring facilities 3.8 {3.67} and appropriate fish cleaning facilities 2.17 {2.02}. ƒ They have smaller gaps (performance minus expectation scale) in service on adequate rubbish disposal facilities -2.24 {-2.46}, ranger supervision of visitors -1.69 {-1.97} and appropriate fish cleaning facilities -1.2 {-1.76}. ƒ They had several service gaps that were weakly associated with satisfaction, the highest of which was with adequate lighting for night use, most however were association were with informational services. ƒ More have no suggestions or don’t know a suggestion regarding the pier 42% {36%}. ƒ The most common suggestions are for nothing* 34% {30%}, seating* 10% {10%}, kiosks* 10% {11%}, upgrading the pier* 9% {12%} and shaded areas* 7% {8%} which was

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 16

essentially no different to the total group; slightly less suggest more rubbish removal facilities 4% {6%}. Demographics ƒ More likely to have tertiary education 57% {51%}.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 17

5.2 PIERS SEGMENT No. 2 – WALKERS 26% OF TOTAL VISITORS Behaviour ƒ More likely to have main reason for visiting as walking and exercise 77% {21%} or socialising or having a meal 23% {6%} type reasons. ƒ Details of the main reason for visiting are short walk 67% {18%}, walking the dog 3% {1%}, socialising with friends and family 9% {3%}, meal or refreshment 8% {2%}, exercising or getting fit 5% {2%}, and outdoor activity with children 4% {1%}. ƒ They are more likely to visit for physical activity or sport 49% {34%}, eating or drinking 11% {7%} or socialising and children’s play 9% {4%} of all reasons for visiting. ƒ Their main reason for visiting in activity groups is physical activity or sport 77% {42%}, socialising and children’s play 14% {4%} and eating or drinking 9% {2%}. ƒ Undertake certain “other activities” more during their visit, including sightseeing 26% {17%} and being in the environment or atmosphere 9% {5%}. ƒ Spend less time at the pier 1.4hrs {2.4hrs}. ƒ They are at the pier in slightly smaller groups 2.4 people {2.7 people}. ƒ Have slightly lower frequency of visits over 12 months, with 16.9 visits per annum {22.8pa} average. ƒ More are repeat visitors 83% {76%}. Experiences ƒ Slightly more likely to enjoy the walk 10% {6%} of aspects. ƒ More likely to consider cafes and kiosks 4% {2%} of aspects as a most positive aspect of the visit. ƒ Less likely to consider fishing 2% {6%} of aspects as a most positive aspect of the visit. ƒ Have slightly higher satisfaction index with their visit, 57.6 {54.6} average on a 4 point scale where 0 is Dissatisfied, 25 Satisfied, 67 Very Satisfied and 100 is Fully Satisfied. ƒ Are less likely to report a problem* during the visit 8% {21%} of those that had a problem during their visit. Market Preferences ƒ More of visitors at St Kilda Pier 33% {26%} are from this segment. ƒ More likely to visit St Kilda Pier 27% {21%}. ƒ More likely to be to be Victorian, 91% {84%}. ƒ More likely to have found out about the pier by local knowledge 62% {49%}; less likely to know about the pier from other people or friends 13% {24%}. Service Preferences ƒ They have generally lower expectations and performance ratings for a large number of services. Perhaps this represents an indifference to most on pier services other than directional signage. ƒ They have lower than average expectation for adequate railing 4.59 {4.76}, availability of low landing 3.87 {4.23}, sea water depth 4.31 {4.53}, ranger supervision of visitors 3.68 {3.87}, sufficient shelter 4.29 {4.51}, sufficient drinking water 4.46 {4.63}, sufficient fresh water taps 4.37 {4.56} and information on regulations 4.53 {4.67} on a 6 point scale where 1 is disagree and 6 is very strongly agree. ƒ They have lower than average performance rating for appropriate boat mooring facilities 3.53 {3.67} toilets clean 2.84 {3.08}, ranger supervision of visitors 1.81 {1.92}, good sea water quality 3.79 {3.99}, sufficient fresh water taps 1.93 {2.06} and information on potential risk and dangers 2.75 {2.89} on a 6 point scale where 1 is disagree and 6 is very strongly agree. ƒ They have smaller gaps (performance minus expectation scale) in service on availability of low landing -0.85 {-1.07} and sufficient shelter -1.61 {-1.86}. ƒ They have a bigger gap (performance minus expectation scale) in service on directional signs and distance markers -2.44 {-2.23}.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 18

ƒ

They had several service gaps that were weakly associated with satisfaction, the highest of which was with sufficient seating and benches, most however were association were with informational services. Demographics ƒ More are female 48% {38%}. ƒ More likely to have tertiary education 59% {51%}.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 19

5.3 PIERS SEGMENT No. 3 – ANGLERS 17% OF TOTAL VISITORS Behaviour ƒ More likely to have main reason for visiting as fishing 98% {17%}. ƒ Details of the main reason for visiting are fishing 98% {17%} with very few other main reasons for visiting. ƒ They are more likely to visit for physical activity 62% {34%} and for non recreation 24% {14%} of all reasons for visiting. ƒ Their main reason for visiting in an activity group is physical activity or sport 99% {42%} which is very high and conversely they are unlikely to be there for other reasons 1% {58%}. ƒ Undertake much fewer “other activities” during their visit, 0.5 per person {1.0}; particularly short walks 10% {24%}, having a meal or refreshment 6% {15%} or enjoying the environment 1% {5%}; conversely they are much more likely to have a swim 5% {3%}. ƒ Victorians in this group travel slightly less than average 30km {35km}. ƒ Spend much longer period or time at the pier 5.1hrs {2.4hrs}. ƒ Have slightly lower frequency of visits over 12 months, with 17.2 visits per annum {22.8pa} average. ƒ Much more likely to be at the pier whilst it is raining 22% {6%} or cold 48% {27%}, much less likely to be at the pier when it is fine 11% {29%}. ƒ More are repeat visitors* 84% {76%}. Experiences ƒ Much more likely to enjoy fishing or watch other fishermen 27% {8%} of aspects and more likely to enjoy the open space 6% {4%} of aspects. ƒ Much more likely to consider fishing 28% {6%} of aspects and easy access 6% {3%} of aspects as the most positive aspect of the visit. ƒ Much less likely to enjoy scenery 12% {23%} of aspects, boats/ferries 3% {8%} of aspects or the walking track 2% {6%} of aspects. ƒ Less likely to consider scenery 14% {23%} of aspects or walking track 1% {6%} of aspects as a most positive aspect of the visit. ƒ More likely to consider parking facilities 16% {6%} of aspects as a least positive aspect of the visit. ƒ Have slightly lower satisfaction with Parks Victoria’s Management, 4.1 {4.3} on a 6 point scale where 1 is Completely Dissatisfied and 6 is Fully Satisfied. ƒ Have slightly lower satisfaction index with their visit, 48.9 {54.6} average on a 4 point scale where 0 is Dissatisfied, 25 Satisfied, 67 Very Satisfied and 100 is Fully Satisfied. ƒ More likely to experience a problem with other people averaging 6-8 poles that monopolise the pier 11% {3%}. Market Preferences ƒ Much more of the visitors to Mornington Pier 37% {17%} and Queenscliff Pier 34% {17%} are from this segment; much less visit Gem Pier 1% {17%} and St Kilda Pier 6% {17%}. ƒ Much more likely to visit Mornington Pier 44% {20%} and Queenscliff Pier 33% {16%}; much less are likely to visit Gem Pier 2% {21%} and St Kilda Pier 7% {21%}. ƒ More likely to be Victorian, 94% {84%} and less likely to be an international visitor 2% {10%}. ƒ More visits are a day trip from home 88% {77%}. ƒ More likely to have found out about the pier from friends and relatives 49% {24%} and less likely to found out by seeing it whilst passing 9% {18%} and from local knowledge 36% {49%}. Service Preferences ƒ They have greatest mix of significantly higher and lower expectations and performance ratings for many services. ƒ They have much higher than average expectation for service on appropriate sea water depth 4.82 {4.53} and appropriate fish cleaning facilities 4.5 {3.63}; slightly higher expectation on the availability of a low landing, 4.54 {4.23}, ranger supervision of visitors 4.21 {3.87} and

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 20

sufficient fresh water taps 4.73 {4.56} on a 6 point scale where 1 is disagree and 6 is very strongly agree. ƒ They have much lower that average expectation for service on appropriate boat mooring facilities 3.5 {4.13}; less expectation on information on natural/cultural features 4.28 {4.71} and slightly less expectations on good general maintenance of the pier 5.32 {5.43}, sufficient seating 4.75 {4.94} and direction marker and signs to identify landmarks 4.29 {4.61}. ƒ They have slightly higher service performance rating on adequate railing 3.91 {3.75}, appropriate sea water depth 4.15 {3.85} toilets clean 3.27 {3.08} and good sea water quality 4.26 {3.99}. ƒ They have slightly lower service performance rating on good general maintenance of the 3.94 {4.23}, adequate lighting for night use 3.19 {3.51}, appropriate boat mooring facilities 3.48 {3.67}, availability of a low landing 2.9 {3.26}, sufficient drinking water 1.83 {2.12}, appropriate fish cleaning facilities 1.79 {2.02} and information on natural/cultural features 2.48 {2.69}. ƒ They have much larger gaps (performance minus expectation scale) on adequate lighting for night use -1.81 {-1.32}, availability of a low landing -1.7 {-1.07}, ranger supervision of visitors -2.39 {-1.97}, sufficient drinking water -2.97 {-2.5}, sufficient fresh water taps -2.91 {-2.51} and appropriate fish cleaning facilities -2.94 {-1.76}. ƒ They have slightly smaller gaps (performance minus expectation scale) on appropriate boat mooring facilities -0.13 {-0.54} and good sea water quality -1.05 {-1.33}. ƒ They had a few service gaps that were weakly associated with satisfaction, the highest of which was with clean toilets. ƒ Fewer anglers have no suggestions whatsoever 22% {30%}; slightly more suggest more or better or cleaner toilet facilities 12% {7%}, better drinking taps 9% {3%}, safety suggestions 8% {4%}, better fishing facilities 8% {2%} or better car parking 8% {4%}. Conversely fewer wanted better café or kiosk facilities 7% {11%}. Demographics ƒ More likely to from a non-English speaking background* 31% {18%}. ƒ More likely to be born in Italy* 9% {3%} or more likely to speak Italian* 5% {1%} or Maltese* 3% {1%} at home. ƒ More are male 80% {62%}. ƒ More likely to have primary and some secondary education 24% {12%} and less likely to have tertiary education 32% {51%}. ƒ More are at young or middle family stage of life 31% {21%}.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 21

5.4 PIERS SEGMENT No. 4 – PASSIVE/WATER BASED (MISCELLANEOUS) RECREATORS 9% OF TOTAL VISITORS Behaviour ƒ More likely to have main reason for visiting as water based activities 37% {4%}, passive recreation 40% {4%} and miscellaneous other recreation 19% {2%} . ƒ Have several smaller main reasons for visiting which vary considerably but include passive and many water based activities. These include relaxing or resting 30% {3%}, yachting or sailing 16% {2%}, painting or drawing 4% (0%), snorkelling 8% {1%}, swimming 7% {1%}, because they live nearby 6% {1%}, visiting a market or shop nearby 5% {0%}, watch water sports 4% {0%}, motor boating 3% {0%}, attending a special function 3% {0%}, music concert 2% {0%}, surfing 1% {0%}, hobby boats 1% {0%}, sunbathing 1% {0%} and for recreation generally 1% {0%). ƒ They are more likely to visit for passive activities 19% {4%} and organised events or markets 8% {3%} although many visit for physical activity or sport* 33% {34%} of all reasons for visiting. ƒ Their main reason for visiting in activity groups is passive activities 33% {3%}, organised events or markets 10% {1%} and other activities 7% {3%}. ƒ Undertake slightly more other activities during their visit, 1.1 per person {1.0}. ƒ Victorians in this group travel slightly less than average 28km {35km}. ƒ Are at the pier in the largest groups, 4.7 people {2.7 people}. Experiences ƒ More likely to enjoy boats and ferries 12% {8%} of aspects, less likely to enjoy fishing 2% {6%} of aspects. Market Preferences ƒ Have the propensity to visit all piers equally 9% {9%}. ƒ More likely to have found out about the pier from radio 2% {1%} and internet 1% {0%}; although the dominant way they know is because they live nearby* 58% {49}, and from friends and relatives* 20% {24%}. Service Preferences ƒ They have only 2 differences, both of which are higher, with respect to service expectations and performance. ƒ They have higher than average expectation for appropriate boat mooring facilities 4.49 {4.13}. ƒ They have higher service performance rating on information on regulations 3.15 {2.82}. ƒ They have a larger gap (performance minus expectation scale} on appropriate boat mooring facilities -1.04 {-0.54}. ƒ They had the most service gaps associated with satisfaction in all service categories except recreational facilities. The highest association was with sufficient toilet although there were other high associations including good general maintenance of the pier and adequate lighting for night use. ƒ The most common suggestions are for nothing* 26% {30%}, seating* 14% {10%}, kiosks* 12% {12%}, upgrading the pier* 12% {12%} and shaded areas* 11% {8%} which was essentially no different to the total group. Demographics ƒ More are likely to young couples with no children 21% {12%}.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 22

5.5 PIERS SEGMENT No. 5 – IN TRANSIT 8% OF TOTAL VISITORS Behaviour ƒ More likely to have main reason for visiting as catching a ferry or travelling through 100% {9%}. ƒ Details of the main reason for visiting are riding or waiting to ride a ferry 85% {7%} and passing through 15% {1%} with very few other main reasons for visiting. ƒ They are more likely to visit to be on a journey or tour 52% {6%} of all reasons for visiting. ƒ Their main reason for visiting in an activity group is journey or touring 100% {10%} is highest and they did not participate in any other activity group 0% {90%}. ƒ Undertake sightseeing 38% {17%} as the main other activity whilst visiting. ƒ Spend much less time at the pier 1.4hrs {2.4hrs}. ƒ Have the lowest frequency of visits over 12 months, with only 4.6 visits per annum {22.8pa} average. ƒ Much more likely to be at the pier whilst it is fine 50% {29%} with no wind* 25% {10%}. ƒ More are first time visitors 40% {24%}. Experiences ƒ More likely to enjoy boats and ferries 13% {8%} of aspects and clean environment 5% {3%} of aspects; less likely to enjoy fishing 2% {6%} of aspects or walking tracks 3% {6%} of aspects; most enjoy the scenery* 27% {23%} of aspects. ƒ Less likely to consider other specific facilities 9% {2%} of aspects as a most positive aspect of the visit. ƒ Much more likely to consider costs of ferries 42% {5%} of aspects as a least positive aspect of the visit. ƒ Have slightly higher satisfaction with Parks Victoria’s Management, 4.4 {4.3} on a 6 point scale where 1 is Completely Dissatisfied and 6 is Fully Satisfied. ƒ Have the highest satisfaction index with their visit, 59.7 {54.6} average on a 4 point scale where 0 is Dissatisfied, 25 Satisfied, 67 Very Satisfied and 100 is Fully Satisfied. Market Preferences ƒ Much more of the visitors to Sorrento Pier 27% {8%} are from this segment; much less visit Mornington 0% {8%}, Queenscliff Pier 2% {8%} and St Kilda Pier 3% {8%}. ƒ Much more likely to visit Sorrento Pier 66% {21%}; much less are likely to visit Mornington 1% {20%}, Queenscliff Pier 3% {17%} and St Kilda Pier 8% {21%}. ƒ Less likely to be Victorian 72% {84%}; more likely to be international visitor* 17% {10%}. ƒ More likely to have found out about the pier by brochures 9% {3%} and other motoring guides 2% {0%}; many however know about the pier from local knowledge* 43% {49%}, friends and relatives* 21% {24%} and by passing by* 15% {18%}. Service Preferences ƒ They tend to rate more expectations and performances higher than other groups. Perhaps the positive response bias reflects the general optimism of the group. ƒ They have slightly higher than average expectation for several services including adequate railing 5.05 {4.76}, adequate rubbish disposal facilities 5.61 {5.41}, good sea water quality 5.43 {5.23}, sufficient seating 5.21 {4.94}; sufficient shelter 4.88 {4.51}, information on potential risks and dangers 5.05 {4.84} and directional markers or signs 4.84 {4.61} on a 6 point scale where 1 is disagree and 6 is very strongly agree. ƒ They have slightly higher service performance rating on good general maintenance on the pier 4.69 {4.23}, appropriate boat mooring facilities 4 {3.67}, availability of low landing 3.84 {3.26}, good sea water quality 4.39 {3.99}, sufficient toilets 3.66 {3.34}, sufficient drinking water 2.51 {2.12}, sufficient fresh water taps 2.43 {2.06}, information on potential risks and dangers 3.39 {2.89} and information on regulations 3.12 {2.82}. ƒ Consequently they have no larger gaps in service but have several smaller gaps (performance minus expectation scale} including good general maintenance on the pier -

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 23

0.79 {1.20}, availability of a low landing -0.23 {-1.07}, information on potential risks and dangers -1.67 {-2.09} and information on regulations -1.70 {-2.24}. ƒ They had few service gaps that were weakly associated with satisfaction, the highest of which was with good general maintenance of the pier; all associations were with accessibility services. ƒ In transits have less suggestion on average 1.26 {1.44} per person and therefore more in transits have no suggestions whatsoever 40% {30%}; however slightly more suggest more or better kiosk facilities 16% {11%} and shaded areas 13% {8%}. Demographics ƒ More likely to be from an English speaking background* 96% {82%}. ƒ Less likely to be in the middle family stage* 6% {12%}.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 24

5.6 PIERS SEGMENT No. 6 – NON RECREATORS 5% OF TOTAL VISITORS Behaviour ƒ More likely to have main reason for visiting as other or non recreation 100% {5%}. ƒ Details of the main reason for visiting are working 45% {2%}, other 52% {2%} and undertaking research 1% {0%} with very few other main reasons for visiting. ƒ They are more likely to visit for non recreation 47% {14%} and other reasons 34% {2%} of all reasons for visiting. ƒ Their main reason for visiting in activity groups is non recreation 47% {2%}, other reasons 52% {3%} and education 1% {0%}, other than these they do not visit for any other activity group 0% {95%}. ƒ Undertake much fewer “other activities” during their visit, 0.6 per person {1.0}; they mostly undertake short walks* 24% {24%}. ƒ Spend longer period or time at the pier 3.7hrs {2.4hrs}, often alone 52% {27%}. ƒ Have much higher frequency of visits over 12 months, with 60.5 visits per annum {22.8pa} average. ƒ Much more likely to be at the pier whilst it is hot* 43% {11%}. Experiences ƒ More likely to have “other aspects” of the visit 8% {4%} of aspects as the most enjoyed. ƒ More likely to consider the social contacts with people 14% {3%} of aspects as a most positive aspect of the visit. ƒ More likely to consider safety issues (eg with cyclists) 20% {4%} of aspects as a least positive aspect of the visit. ƒ More likely to have more problems 1.5 {0.8} per person and more likely to have a problem* 17% {10%}; also much more likely to report the problem 54% {21%} of those that had a problem. ƒ Most likely to get their problem resolved* 25% {16%}. ƒ Much more likely to strongly recommend others visiting the pier 64% {47%} perhaps for business reasons. Market Preferences ƒ Much more of the visitors to Gem Pier 11% {5%}; much less visit Mornington Pier 1% {5%}. ƒ Much more likely to visit Gem Pier 54% {21%}; much less are likely to visit Mornington Pier 5% {20%}. Service Preferences ƒ They generally have higher expectations and lower performance ratings for many services than any other group. ƒ They have slightly higher than average expectation for service on good general maintenance of the structure 5.63 {5.43}; adequate lighting for night use 5.18 {4.86}, appropriate boat mooring facilities 4.78 {4.13}, availability of a low landing 4.59 {4.23}, appropriate sea water depth 4.95 {4.53}, good sea water quality 5.43 {5.23}, sufficient seating or benches 5.24 {4.94}, sufficient shelter 4.95 {4.51}, information on potential risks and dangers 5.20 {4.84}, information on natural or cultural features 5.00 {4.71}, directional markers and signs to identify landmarks 5.22 {4.61} and information on regulations 5.12 {4.67} on a 6 point scale where 1 is disagree and 6 is very strongly agree. ƒ They had lower that average expectation for only one service appropriate fish cleaning facilities 3.22 {3.63}. ƒ They have slightly lower service performance rating on adequate railing 3.01 {3.75}, appropriate sea water depth 3.32 {3.85}, adequate rubbish disposal facilities 2.46 {2.88}, good sea water quality 3.41 {3.99}, sufficient fresh water taps 1.78 {2.06}, information on potential risks and dangers 2.35 {2.89}, information regulations 2.19 {2.82}. ƒ They therefore have much larger gaps (performance minus expectation scale} on a number of services; these include adequate railing -1.62 {-1.05}, adequate lighting for night use -1.88 {-1.32}, appropriate boat mooring facilities -1.11 {-0.54}, appropriate sea water depth -1.74 {0.67}, adequate rubbish disposal facilities -3.3 {-2.46}, good sea water quality -2.11 {1.33}, Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 25

sufficient seating or benches -2.8 {-2.31}, sufficient shelter -2.58 {-1.86}, information on potential risks and dangers -2.89 {-2.09}, directional markers and signs to identify landmarks -2.77 {-2.23} and information on regulations -3 {-2.24}. ƒ They had only two service gaps that were associated with satisfaction; these were availability of low landing and good general maintenance of the pier, both associations were with accessibility services. ƒ Slightly more suggest better signage and distance markers 6% {2%} and better facilities for mooring boats 5% {1%}. Demographics ƒ More are at mature family stage of life* 27% {16%}.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 26

5.7 PIERS SEGMENT No. 7 – DAILY VISITORS 3% OF TOTAL VISITORS Behaviour ƒ More likely to have main reason for visiting as walking or exercise* 36% {21%}, sightseeing or touring type reasons* 34% {33%} or fishing* 13% {17%}. ƒ Details of the main reason for visiting are short walk* 23% {18%}, sightseeing* 23% {23%}, being in the environment or atmosphere* 10% {6%} and more likely to exercising for fitness 8% {2%}. ƒ They are likely to visit for physical activity or sport* 44% {34%} sightseeing or spectating purposes* 27% {25%} of all reasons for visiting; they are also more likely to visit for socialising and children’s play 8% {4%}. ƒ Their main reason for visiting in an activity group is physical activity or sport* 55% {42%} and sightseeing or spectating* 34% {32%}. ƒ Regarding “other activities” they more likely to undertake socialising with family/friends 17% {4%} and fishing 10% {3%} although they also undertake sightseeing* 14% {17%}, short walks* 12% {24%} and relaxing* 7% {4%} as other activities. ƒ Spend more time at the pier 3.4hrs {2.4hrs}. ƒ They are at the pier in much smaller groups 1.6 people {2.7 people}; the majority, 70% {27%}, are alone. ƒ Have highest frequency of visits over 12 months, with 241 visits per annum {22.8pa} average. ƒ Much more are repeat visitors 98% {76%}. ƒ Less likely to be at the pier whilst it is fine* 14% {60%}; more likely to be at the pier when it is cold* 57% {27%} or hot* 29% {11%}. Experiences ƒ More likely to have “other aspects” of the visit 11% {4%} of aspects as the most enjoyed. ƒ Have less positive aspects 1.4 {2.0} per person; consider the scenery* 30% {23%} of aspects and fishing* 20% {6%} of aspects as the most positive aspects of the visit. ƒ More likely to consider path in need of repair 33% {7%} of aspects as a least positive aspect of the visit. ƒ Have the lowest satisfaction with Parks Victoria’s Management, 3.39 {4.3} on a 6 point scale where 1 is Completely Dissatisfied and 6 is Fully Satisfied. ƒ Have the lowest satisfaction index with their visit 29.5 {54.6} average on a 4 point scale where 0 is Dissatisfied, 25 Satisfied, 67 Very Satisfied and 100 is Fully Satisfied. ƒ Most likely to experience a problem during the visit 35% {10%}. ƒ Most likely to report a problem 68% {21%} if they had one; more likely however not to report a problem because they don’t believe it can be resolved 50% {10%}. ƒ More likely to get their problem resolved* 23% {16%}. Market Preferences ƒ Have the propensity to visit all piers equally 3% {3%}. ƒ More likely to be Victorian* 98% {84%} and therefore less likely to be from interstate* 2% {4%} or international* 0% {10%}. ƒ Most visits are a day trip from home 97% {77%}. ƒ Most likely to have found out about the pier by local knowledge 79% {49%}. Service Preferences ƒ Similar to the In Transit group they tend to rate more expectations higher than any other group however they rate only a few services with higher performance. ƒ They have much higher than average expectation for service on availability of low landing 5.20 {4.23}, rangers supervising visitors 4.69 {3.87}, and appropriate sea water depth 5.25 {4.53}; they have slightly higher expectations for sufficient fresh water taps 5.13 {4.56}, appropriate boat mooring facilities 4.67 {4.13}, adequate lighting for night use 5.36 {4.86}, sufficient toilets 5.72 {5.24}, sufficient drinking water 5.11 {4.63}, sufficient shelter 4.91 {4.51}, information on regulations 5.06 {4.67}, good sea water quality 5.56 {5.23} and good Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 27

general maintenance of the pier 5.64 {5.43} on a 6 point scale where 1 is disagree and 6 is very strongly agree. ƒ They have much higher service performance rating on sufficient fresh water taps 2.68 {2.06}; and slightly higher performance rating on sufficient drinking water 2.60 {2.12}, good sea water quality 4.41 {3.99} and information on natural, cultural or historical features 3.10 {2.69}. ƒ They have larger gaps (performance minus expectation scale) in service good general maintenance of the pier -1.8 {-1.2} and ranger supervision of visitors -2.6 {-1.97}. ƒ They have smaller gaps (performance minus expectation scale) on adequate railing -0.5 {1.05}, information on potential risks and dangers -1.3 {-2.09} and information on natural, cultural or historical features -1.5 {2.19}. ƒ They had four service gaps that were strongly associated with satisfaction, the highest was with adequate rubbish disposal facilities, others were appropriate boat mooring facilities, availability of a low landing and appropriate sea water depth, three of the four associations were with accessibility services. ƒ Make more suggestions per person 2.15 {1.44} on average and therefore less had no suggestion 13% {30%}; more are likely to suggest upgrading or extending the pier 27% {12%}, need better rubbish removal 23% {6%}, safety issues 11% {4}, better control over pier visitors 16% {3%} or need more rangers 8% {2%}. Demographics ƒ Much more likely to have peopled aged 70+ years 20% {5%}. ƒ Much more likely to be male 89% {62%}. ƒ More likely to have primary and some secondary education 31% {12%}. ƒ Much more likely to be a mature single 40% {11%}.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 28

6.0

GRAPHIC RESULTS

Figure 2 – Pier Market Segments

Gem Pier

Mornington Pier

Queenscliff Pier

Sorrento Pier

St Kilda Pier

0%

10%

Sightseers 32%

Walkers 26%

20%

30%

Anglers 17%

40%

50%

Misc Recreators 9%

60%

In Transit 8%

70%

80%

90%

Non Recreators 5%

100%

Daily Visitors 3%

Figure 3 – Segment’s Satisfaction with Visit Sightseers 32%

Walkers 26%

Anglers 17%

Misc Recreators 9%

In Transit 8%

Non Recreators 5%

Daily Visitors 3%

0%

10%

20%

Completely dissatisfied

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

30%

40%

Very dissatisfied

50%

Dissatisfied

60%

Satisfied

70%

80%

Very satisfied

90%

100%

Fully satisfied

Page 29

Figure 4 – Segment’s Satisfaction with Parks Victoria Management Sightseers 32%

Walkers 26%

Anglers 17%

Misc Recreators 9%

In Transit 8%

Non Recreators 5%

Daily Visitors 3%

0%

10%

20%

Complety dissatisfied

30%

40%

Very dissatisfied

50%

Dissatisfied

60%

Satisfied

70%

80%

90%

Very satisfied

100%

Fully satisfied

Figure 5 – Segment’s Distance from Home (Victorians only) Sightseers 32%

Walkers 26%

Anglers 17%

Misc Recreators 9%

In Transit 8%

Non Recreators 5%

Daily Visitors 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

0 to 10 kms

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

40%

11 to 20 kms

50%

21 to 40 kms

60%

70%

41 to 80 kms

80%

90%

81+ kms

Page 30

100%

Figure 7 – Segment’s Time Spent at Pier Sightseers 32%

Walkers 26%

Anglers 17%

Misc Recreators 9%

In Transit 8%

Non Recreators 5%

Daily Visitors 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

1 hr

40%

2 hrs

50%

3 to 5 hrs

60%

6 to 8 hrs

70%

80%

90%

100%

80%

90%

100%

9+ hrs

Figure 8 – Segment’s Party Size Sightseers 32%

Walkers 26%

Anglers 17%

Misc Recreators 9%

In Transit 8%

Non Recreators 5%

Daily Visitors 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

1 person

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

40%

2 people

50%

3 to 5 people

60%

70%

6 to 8 people

9+ people

Page 31

Figure 9 – Segment’s Frequency of Visiting Sightseers 32%

Walkers 26%

Anglers 17%

Misc Recreators 9%

In Transit 8%

Non Recreators 5%

Daily Visitors 3%

0%

10%

1 to 10 times/year

20%

30%

11 to 50 times/year

40%

50%

51 to 100 times/year

60%

70%

101 to 250 times/year

80%

90%

100%

251+ times/year

Figure 10 – Segment’s Home Origin and Victorian’s Trip Type Sightseers 32%

Walkers 26%

Anglers 17%

Misc Recreators 9%

In Transit 8%

Non Recreators 5%

Daily Visitors 3%

0%

20%

Victorian Day Trip

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

40%

Victorian Holiday Trip

60%

Interstate

80%

100%

International

Page 32

7.0

PIER MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The pier management implications that result from this study include: •

Future pier design and construction particularly for pier services can be tailored to the particular market segments that the pier provides service.



Sightseers and Walkers appear as dominant group at almost all piers.



Each Pier has dominant market segment(s) that the pier services -

Gem Pier’s main market is Sightseers with many Walkers and Non Recreators as well.

-

Mornington & Queenscliff Piers’ main market is Anglers with many Sightseers and Walkers as well.

-

Sorrento Pier’s main markets are Sightseers and In Transit with many Walkers as well.

-

St Kilda Pier’s main markets are Sightseers and Walkers with many Passive/Water based (Miscellaneous) Recreators as well.



The Daily Visitors segment although small is distinctive as it is the most sensitive and critical group making up by far the largest number of not satisfied visitors (21%). Therefore they should only be ignored at one’s peril.



The highest economic contribution to Victoria would come from International and Interstate visitors and these are more prevalent in the Sightseer and In Transit segments.

ATTACHMENT – CROSS TABULATIONS & MEANS Refer to separate document.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 33

APPENDIX A – Distance Measures between and within Segments Segmentation is essentially a method of determining how close or distant particular groupings of visitors are from one another using Euclidean distances. Theses distances are computed from the raw data transformed in this case to the factor data used in the K Clustering technique. Of particular interest is how homogeneous or heterogenous are the clusters; that is how “close” the segments are to one another and how dispersed the members are within the segment. Nearness of the members to their cluster centre relative to a wide spread of cluster centres indicates homogeneous cluster membership and heterogeneous clusters. A fuller treatment of the dispersion both within and between segments is provided in this section. Table C shows the Segment Centres using the ten factor dimensions used for the K Cluster segmentation. These centres are based on standardised scores of the contributing variables and a unit (1) represents one standard deviation on the individual factors.

In Transit 8%

Non Recreators 5%

Daily Visitors 3%

-0.10 -0.10 -0.44 0.10 -0.01 1.22 -0.26 -0.29 -0.37 0.61

Misc Recreators 9%

-0.02 0.02 -0.52 0.09 -0.11 -1.08 -0.29 -0.48 -0.33 -0.29

Anglers 17%

Exp Factor Perf Factor Fishing Factor Satis Factor Age Factor Walking Factor Non Rec Factor Transit Factor Misc Rec Factor Social Factor

Walkers 26%

Segment Centres

Sightseers 32%

Table C – Segments Centres

-0.02 -0.05 1.92 -0.04 -0.16 0.12 -0.33 -0.09 -0.19 -0.12

-0.08 0.05 -0.20 -0.08 0.19 0.07 0.12 0.03 2.84 -0.18

0.13 0.23 -0.38 0.01 -0.14 0.02 -0.01 3.00 -0.24 -0.10

0.27 -0.55 0.14 0.48 -0.21 -0.22 3.92 0.12 -0.23 -0.08

0.56 0.90 -0.11 -1.88 1.99 0.27 0.80 -0.60 -0.31 -0.53

Apart from the extreme positions highlighted in the Table C the data is not easy to interpret. For example, the Daily Visitors segment centre is high on the Age factor and low on the Satisfaction factor. These centres can however be used to compute Euclidean distances, i.e. the closeness of a segment to all other segments. Those Euclidean distances are shown in Table D and still use standardised scores. The average distance between all segments was 3.95.

2.49 2.76 3.46 3.68 4.46 3.56

2.73 3.55 3.61 4.59 3.59

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

3.74 3.88 4.69 3.89

3.46 3.55 3.74 4.30 5.01 4.31

3.68 3.61 3.88 4.30 4.98 4.76

4.46 4.59 4.69 5.01 4.98 4.83

Daily Visitors 3%

2.76 2.73

Non Recreators 5%

2.49

In Transit 8%

Anglers 17%

Sightseers 32% Walkers 26% Anglers 17% Misc Recreators 9% In Transit 8% Non Recreators 5% Daily Visitors 3%

Walkers 26%

Sightseers 32%

Segment

Misc Recreators 9%

Table D – Segments Distances from Each Other

3.56 3.59 3.89 4.31 4.76 4.83

Closest Closer Average Further Furthest Page 34

As can be seen from the table the lowest distances or closest segments are Sightseers, Walkers and Anglers. Non Recreators has the largest distances to all other segments, i.e. they are most different to all other segments. Miscellaneous Recreators, In Transits and Daily Visitors have average distances to other segments but these distances increase respectively. The closest two segments are Sightseers and Walkers and the furthest are Non Recreators and Miscellaneous Recreators. Figure 11 attempts to display these distances more visually in two dimensions. Rendering 10 dimensions into 2 dimensions using straight lines is impossible; therefore the curved line lengths shown in the figure are proportionate to the distances in Table D. Figure 11 – Segments Distances from Each Other

Table E shows which derived factors contributed most to the distances between segments. For example the Fishing factor accounted for most (78%) of the squared Euclidean distance between the Anglers and Sightseers segments. The table reveals that most of the contributions to the inter-segment distances were based on the “Main Reason for Visiting” factors. The only exception to this was the Daily Visitor segment which had Age and Satisfaction factors as the main contribution between them and the Walker and Angler segments. Whilst other questionnaire items contributed to the Main Reason for Visiting factors (refer Table A), it means that this seven segmentation solution was heavily reliant on one main behavioural variable, Main Reason for Visiting. Despite that major reliance it does not mean that the segmentation is invalid; it simply means that the reader should be aware of this heavy reliance. It was the decision to include that Main Reason for Visiting as a key variable which probably caused the reliance on that variable. The segmentation did find however that there were many significant differences between segments on a substantial number of variables. These are all shown in the Detailed Results section of the report.

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 35

Walkers 26%

Walking 86% Fishing 78% Misc Rec 83% Transit 89% Non Rec 89% Age 35%

Anglers 17% Misc Recreators 9% In Transit 8% Non Recreators 5% Daily Visitors 3%

Fishing 75% Misc Rec 81% Transit 83% Non Rec 83% Satis 31% Age 31%

Misc Rec 65% Transit 63% Non Rec 82% Age 30%

Misc Rec 83% Misc Rec 81% Misc Rec 65%

Misc Rec 51% Non Rec 58% Misc Rec 53%

Transit 89% Transit 83% Transit 63% Misc Rec 51%

Non Rec 62% Transit 57%

Daily Visitors 3%

Non Recreators 5%

Fishing 78% Fishing 75%

In Transit 8%

Walking 86%

Misc Recreators 9%

Anglers 17%

Sightseers 32%

Walkers 26%

Main Contributing Factor to Distances and Squared Contribution Percentages

Sightseers 32%

Table E – Factors that Contribute most to Inter-Segment Distances

Non Rec 89% Transit 83% Non Rec 82% Non Rec 58% Non Rec 62%

Age 35% Satis 31% Age 31% Age 30% Misc Rec 53% Transit 57% Non Rec 42%

Non Rec 42%

Finally Figure 12 shows the mean dispersion for the individual member cases around their cluster centres. The figure indicates that Daily Visitors had the greatest amount of dispersion of members around its cluster centre, i.e. it has the most spread or heterogeneity. The segment with the next greatest dispersion was Walkers. The histogram (Figure 13) of Walkers also revealed a bi-modal distribution of distances which reflects the likelihood that socialisers were subsumed within the segment. The mean dispersion of all segments was approximately 60% of the average cluster centre distances showing that there was quite an amount of scatter across the factor dimensions. In other words segment membership distributions were not highly concentrated or homogenous. The clusters centres were of course more heterogeneous. Figure 12 – Segment’s Case Dispersion Sightseers 32%

Walkers 26%

Anglers 17%

Average Distance between Cluster Centres = 3.95

Misc Recreators 9%

In Transit 8%

Non Recreators 5%

Daily Visitors 3%

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Standardised Distances (x Std Dev)

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 36

4

Figure 13 – Dispersion Histogram of Walkers

50

Frequency

40

30

20

10

0 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Distance of Case from its Cluster Centre

Mean = 2.5058143 6.0 Std. Dev. = 0.92292276 N = 472

Segments: Walkers 26%

Piers Visitor Market Segmentation - October 2004

Page 37