Final Report · 2018-03-07 · (Excel Topline report, data files, comprehensive final report in PPT and presentation of results) Quantitative Research CATI survey with n=1,500 local

Final Report

Project Number: DSDB0002 | Issue Date: 20th April 2016

2

Sch. 4(3)(3) - Prejudice protection of privacy, Sch. 4(4)(6) - Disclosing personal information

Sch. 4(3)(3) - Prejudice protection of privacy, Sch. 4(4)(6) - Disclosing personal information

3

Background & Objectives 04

Methodology 07

Executive Summary 16

Research Findings 20

6 Section 1: Gold Coast Liveability 21

6 Section 2: Broadwater 28

• Liveability 29

• Tourism 37

• Development 42

• Traffic and Transport 58

• Communication 64

Appendix: Sample Profile 68

4

Background & Objectives.

5

Research Background.

The Gold Coast Broadwater is a waterfront area that accommodates a broad range of users such as local residents,

businesses, recreational users, the boating community and holiday makers.

For a number of years development and infrastructure in this region has been a focal point with many high profile

developments proposed for the area. Subsequently there is a high level of interest from the community as well as

environmental and interest groups, with some concerns about future developments. Presently the Broadwater area is

controlled by multiple government departments, council and agencies, all of which the Department of State Development

(DSD) needs to work with and consult. There has also been a push by the local media for a coordinated planning

approach for the area.

The research undertaken by Colmar Brunton, as commissioned by the DSD, was multifaceted to provide richness,

clarity and confidence in the insights being reported. The research involved gathering data from local residents,

businesses and holiday makers with a combination of quantitative and qualitative measure run in parallel. The

quantitative measures focused on all three demographic profiles, whilst the qualitative measures focused on local

residents and businesses.

6

Research Objectives.

More specifically the research looked to understand:

• Local community, tourist and industry views and concerns regarding

future development across the Broadwater area from Sovereign

Island to Narrowneck Beach and surrounds on the Gold Coast;

• Issues surrounding potential development, protection of key

precincts and infrastructure needs;

• The need for coordinated planning across the Broadwater,

Southport Spit and surrounds (what boundaries should be

considered);

• Views regarding how any new infrastructure or development

requirements might be funded; and

• Expectations and desires of the key stakeholders and the local and

wider Gold Coast community about what future tourism

development might be appropriate in this area.

Primary aim:

To obtain representative

community views regarding

development and

infrastructure on the Gold

Coast Broadwater,

Southport Spit and

surrounds.

7

Methodology.

8

Summary of Project Approach.

Project Planning and Design

(Set Up meeting with CB, Department project team and stakeholders)

Questionnaire Refined & Set Up

(Questionnaire reviewed and refined, survey programming and briefing field teams)

Fieldwork

Analysis & Reporting

(Excel Topline report, data files, comprehensive final report in PPT and presentation of results)

Quantitative Research

CATI survey with n=1,500 local

residents and n=400 local

businesses

Quantitative Research

CAPI survey with n=409

holiday makers in the

Broadwater area.

Qualitative Research

5 deep dive focus groups with

local residents and businesses

1

9

Methodology in Brief.

Quantitative Insight

Local residents and businesses

Residents n=1500 Businesses n=400

CATI

• 15 minute questionnaire via telephone

• Soft quotas for residential participants of key demographic profiles – age, gender, household composition

• A mix of SMEs • Conducted to establish a robust

measure of residential and business views and sentiment in the 4215,4216 and 4217 postcode areas.

• 1.5 hour focus groups • Up to 8 people per group • In-depth conversations to enrich the

quantitative data that Is received back from the CATI phase

Qualitative Insight

Local residents and businesses

Residents n=3 Businesses n=2

Focus Groups

• 10 minute Intercept interviews using Computer Assisted Personal Interviews (CAPI)

• Minimum of n=100 international holiday makers (interviews conducted in English)

• Conducted to establish a robust measure of holiday makers views and sentiments

Quantitative Insight

Holiday makers

Holiday makers n=409

CAPI

The views of n=2,349 community members and visitors were captured within this study.

10

Detailed Methodology. All fieldwork was undertaken in parallel to maximise timing of works, and to in turn compliment each other in their perspective and insight.

Quantitative Measure

6 A Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) approach was utilised to gather the views and concerns of local residents and business. The CATI methodology

enabled the research to be targeted to the Broadwater area, in particular the postcodes 4215, 4216 and 4217. A robust overall sample size of n=1,500 interviews

were achieved with local residents between 5th February and 1st March 2016. A total sample size of n=400 interviews were achieved with businesses between 22nd

February 2016 and 4th March 2016. The interview ran for approximately 15 minutes. No hard quotas were placed on age and gender however the residential data

was post weighted to ensure there was a representative community view reflective of the true Broadwater population as reported by the Australian Bureau of

Statistics. No weighting has been applied to the business data. All respondents were aged 18 years or older.

6 A Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) approach was utilised to obtain insight and feedback from holiday makers in the area. A total of n=409 intercept

interviews (n=204 international and n=205 national tourists) were achieved with tourists out and about in the Broadwater area between 8th February 2016 and 25th

February 2016. The intercept surveys ran for approximately 10 minutes. No weighting has been applied to the tourist component of the research. All respondents

were aged 18 years or older.

Qualitative Measure

6 To further enrich the feedback achieved through the quantitative phase, 5 focus groups were conducted with local residents and business owners/managers

operating in the area.

6 The two business focus groups were similar in structure in that they ensured a mix of businesses types from various industries that are based in and working within

the postcode region of 4215, 4216, and 4217.

6 The three residential focus groups were split by age (18 – 30 Years; 31 – 49 Years; 50 years +) to provide a demographic perspective.

6 All focus groups were 90 minutes in duration, and we saw to accommodate 8 people per focus group.

11

Defining the development zones.

To ensure clarity in the feedback from the

community, participants were informed (and when

possible also shown an illustrative map) of the

State’s defined development zones in and around

The Spit. It was reiterated to them that no

development is allowed to the north of SeaWorld,

along the beachfront, and on Wavebreak and

Stradbroke Islands. Development can only occur

where it currently exists.

12

Result Interpretation

6 In some charts and tables figures may add up to more than 100%. This is either because of:

• Rounding effects; or

• A question allowing multiple responses rather than only a single response. This has been noted as MR or SR on each slide.

6 Average ratings (e.g. mean scores) are rounded to one decimal place.

6 Responses shown in most tables and charts are ordered from the highest mentioned response (%) to the lowest mentioned response (%).

6 Where scale questions are reported, results are ordered from the most positive responses on the left (e.g. highest % strongly agree) to the least positive responses on

the right (e.g. lowest % strongly agree) .

6 It is important to keep in mind when interpreting the results of this report that a slightly different questionnaire was used for the residential and business quantitative

component compared to the tourist component. This is mentioned in the report where relevant.

6 The commentary in this report may refer to demographic splits that is not charted or graphed, such as age or income. This data can be found in the Topline Report

issued with this report. The Topline Report highlights all results to every question conducted in the quantitative phase of work, split by key indicators (such as

demographics). All significant statistical differences are noted in the Topline Report, as well as the number of respondents answering each question.

Reliability

The margin of error associated with the residential component of this survey is +/-3.8%. This means that if 60% of our sample indicated they are satisfied with the

liveability of the Gold Coast, we can be 95% confident that the true result in the population of interest lies between 56.2% and 63.8%. The margin of error associated with

the business component of this survey is +/-3.2%.

As with all surveys, a small amount of non-sampling error may be at play in the results.

How to Interpret this Report.

13

Tests of Statistical Significance

Tests for statistical significance have been conducted on particular subgroups of interest in this survey, including:

Tests have been undertaken at a 95% confidence level. Where a statistically significant difference according to the above groups has been found, this is mentioned in the

report and highlighted using green and red arrows. Where there is no difference for the question being examined (or the difference is not noteworthy), this has not been

mentioned.

If there is a statistically significant difference between the result for a particular group and the result for the wider Broadwater population, we can be confident that this

difference has not occurred by chance, rather that it reflects a genuine difference among that group compared to the wider population.

The results for these tests are shown as tables and charts throughout this report. Coloured arrows indicate a statistically significant result whereby the following legend

applies.

Whether there is a statistical difference between two figures is dependent on a number of aspects, particularly sample size. This may explain why one figure is statistically

different to the total result, but a similar figure is not. Therefore a result of say 70% may show up as being statistically significant for a sub-group with a large sample size,

whilst the same result of 70% may not show up as being statistically significant for a sub-group with a lower sample size.

How to Interpret this Report (cont.).

Significantly higher than the Total Sample (statistically significant result)

Significantly lower than the Total Sample (statistically significant result)

6 Segment (Residents, Businesses, Tourists);

6 Age (18-34 years, 35-54 years, 55 years or older);

6 Gender (male and female);

6 Household structure (couple with children at home, couple without children

at home, single parent with children at home, household with one resident,

shared household of adults, adult child living at home with parents/couple,

other);

6 Home ownership status (a rental property or property owned/being paid

off);

6 Income level (Less than $50,000, between $50,000 and $80,000, between

$80,000 and $150,000, over $150,000 or prefer not to answer); and

6 Broadwater group affiliation (whether or not affiliated with key

Broadwater groups including Save our Spit Alliance Inc, Save our

Broadwater, Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council (GECKO) or

Main Beach Process Association

14

Weighting

Why is it required for this survey?

To ensure the survey results are representative of the Broadwater population they were adjusted, or weighted, using population information from the Australian Bureau of

Statistics 2011 Census of Population and Housing. Weighting is used in surveys because the sample data on its own may be biased. For example, typically, a greater

proportion of females participate in telephone surveys than males when compared to the proportion of females in the population. Weighting the data counteracts any

skews in the sample to ensure it accurately reflects the population being examined. Or in other words, weighting adjusts the proportions of these demographics in the

sample so they are the same as the proportions in the wider population.

General population surveys are usually weighted by age, gender and location – unless of course there are any other obvious demographic skews present in the data (for

this survey there were none).

What weights were used for this survey?

The residential component of the quantitative data has been weighted by age and gender of the population residing within the postcode areas of 4215, 4216 and 4217 as

reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The table on the following slide shows how weights for this survey were calculated and applied.

6 Column A shows the total male and female Queensland population in each age group in each region (based on the 2011 Census of Population and Housing).

6 Column B shows the proportion of the Queensland population represented by each cell.

6 Column C shows how many interviews were achieved among men and women in age group in each postcode area.

6 Column D shows the proportion of the total number of interviews represented by each cell.

6 Column E shows the needed weight factor to achieve the proportionate sample. This is calculated by taking the sample proportion (column D) of the population

proportion (column B) for each cell.

In total, 18 weighting factors were applied.

.


15

Derivation of Weights for Survey Data


Postcode Gender Age

A B C D E

Population n= Subgroup % of

total population

Survey sample

size n=

Subgroup % of

total sample size

Weight

applied

4215

Male

18-34 6,701 7% 42 3% 2.50713867

35-54 5,476 6% 65 4% 1.323847959

55+ 5,674 6% 95 6% 0.938542089

Female

18-34 6,910 7% 51 3% 2.129099209

35-54 5,624 6% 80 5% 1.104697452

55+ 7,043 7% 164 11% 0.674841633

4216

Male

18-34 2,978 3% 21 1% 2.228401418

35-54 4,126 4% 57 4% 1.137476401

55+ 5,989 6% 134 9% 0.702324053

Female

18-34 3,135 3% 23 2% 2.141892827

35-54 4,622 5% 81 5% 0.89667064

55+ 6,918 7% 176 12% 0.617669159

4217

Male

18-34 5,484 6% 30 2% 2.872527657

35-54 4,681 5% 53 4% 1.387876426

55+ 5,186 5% 137 9% 0.594839737

Female

18-34 5,110 5% 32 2% 2.509336762

35-54 4,401 5% 68 5% 1.017022318

55+ 5,398 6% 191 13% 0.44410692

16

Executive Summary.

17

The Broadwater and Spit area accommodates a broad range of users such as local residents, businesses, recreational users, the boating community and

holiday makers. For a number of years development and infrastructure in this region has been a focal point with many high profile developments proposed for

the area. Subsequently, there is a high level of interest from the community as well as environmental and interest groups, with some concerns about future

developments.

Colmar Brunton was commissioned by the Department of State Development (DSD) to obtain representative community views regarding development and

infrastructure on the Gold Coast Broadwater, Southport Spit and surrounds. This research involved gathering data from local residents, businesses and holiday

makers with a combination of quantitative and qualitative measure run in parallel to provide richness, clarity and confidence in the insights being reported. The

quantitative measures focused on all three audiences, whilst the qualitative measures focused on local residents and businesses. This comprehensive market

research report provides a full analysis of all the research phases, and a full suite of insights for the DSD to consider.

Executive Summary.

Objective 1. Understand views and concerns regarding future development across the Broadwater area for local residents, local businesses and

tourists.

6 There appears to be a divide in the initial opinion regarding development in the area. Overall nearly 4 in 10 people (36%) are not at all favourable toward

development in the Broadwater and Spit area. However 27% are extremely favourable. The other 37% are not as strong in their opinion. Businesses are

significantly more favourable of future development in the area. Older demographics (aged 55+) and females are more likely to be not at all favourable

towards development of the Broadwater and Spit area.

6 When asked more specific questions around development:

6 Increased employment opportunities are viewed as the biggest benefit of the proposed developments to the community (41%).

6 Overall 1 in 2 people (51%) believe that 7 or more stories is acceptable for developments in the Broadwater and Spit area. Approximately 1 in 5 people

(22%) believe 21 or more stories is acceptable.

6 Overall, 78% of people believe one or more taller buildings are acceptable for the area south of SeaWorld. In particular, nearly half of people (47%)

believe that 1-5 taller buildings are acceptable. Less than 1 in 5 people believe that there should be no tall buildings in the area (18%).

Key findings against the original objectives.

18

Objective 2. Understand issues surrounding potential development, protection of key precincts and infrastructure needs.

6 The two biggest concerns regarding proposed developments:

1. Potential impact on the natural environment

2. Subsequent increase in traffic, congestion and parking issues

6 Further, a total of 81% of businesses and 75% of residents indicated they are concerned about the current traffic flow and accessibility to the area –

regardless of future development.

6 Tourists appear to be the most concerned group in regards to seeing issue with proposed developments in the Broadwater and Spit area. Compared to

the total sample, tourists are significantly more likely to be concerned about ruining the natural environment, having traffic, congestion and parking

issues, overcrowding and ruining the relaxed feeling to the area.

6 According to the community if development was to progress, the top three supporting infrastructure elements that would be required for the area are;

1. Better roads and accessibility

2. Public transport

3. Traffic and congestion management

Objective 3. Understand the need for coordinated planning across the Broadwater, Southport Spit and surrounds (what boundaries should be

considered)

6 Approximately 1 in 4 people feel that concerns could be managed by more consultation with the community and more transparency in the proposal

stages of development. Many feel currently access to information is limited.

6 A key concern raised by local residents and businesses within the focus groups was that any new projects (whether it be new buildings or light rail etc.)

are often approved and built without consideration of the wider context and needs in mind. Any new development needs to have the supporting

infrastructure and accessibility considerations form part of that decision and action right from the beginning. This sort of wider consideration will only

come from greater collaboration and coordination with stakeholders.

Key Findings (cont.).

19

Objective 4. Understand views regarding how any new infrastructure or development requirements might be funded.

6 Nearly 1 in 3 people (31%) believe that all stakeholders/parties are responsible for funding and delivering the supporting infrastructure required for

development. Approximately 1 in 5 people (21%) believe it is the sole responsibility of the developers of the associated projects.

6 Beyond funding, the important consideration and expectation was that the supporting infrastructure was implemented at the same time as

development to ensure the support network was active in unison with the driving force for its need.

Objective 5. Understand expectations and desires of the community about what future tourism development might be appropriate in this area.

6 Tourists, residents and businesses alike perceive traffic and congestion to be the biggest deterrent to tourism in the Broadwater and Spit area.

6 To increase visitation to the Broadwater and Spit area, tourists believe that better accessibility, accommodation options, dining options, car parking,

public transport and walkways / bike paths are needed. One quarter of businesses (26%) state that a cruise ship terminal or other development of the

waterways would attract tourists to the area.

6 Around three quarters of residents, businesses and tourists believe that more festivals could be on offer during and after the Commonwealth Games.

More cultural venues, sporting attractions and environmental activities were also suggested by around two thirds of respondents.

6 Focus group discussions highlighted that the Broadwater and Spit area could better utilise the green spaces by accentuating, embracing and utilising

the natural area (e.g. manicured parks). This is opposed to leaving it in its natural state which does little to encourage its use.

Key Findings (cont.).

20

Research Findings.

21

Section 1: Gold Coast Liveability.

22

Summary of the Gold Coast’s Liveability.

• The majority of residents and businesses (87%) are satisfied with the liveability of the Gold Coast, with 3 in 5 stating

that they are extremely satisfied.

• The top three positives about living or working on the Gold Coast are the beaches (53%), the lifestyle (38%) and the

natural environment (34%), while the top three negatives are traffic and congestion (55%), crime and safety

concerns (18%) and it being busy / crowded (14%).

• The northern end of the Gold Coast (Broadwater, Southport and Spit area) is considered to be the most desirable of

the Gold Coast regions by those who live and work in that area. Two thirds of those living and working in this area

preferred it over the southern end or central strip.

• Tourists rate all three areas of the Gold Coast as more desirable than residents and businesses did.

23

The majority of residents and businesses (both 87%) are satisfied with the liveability of the Gold Coast.

3 in 5 residents (60%) and businesses (59%)

indicated that they are extremely satisfied.

Older respondents aged 55 years and over

are the most satisfied age group with living on

the Gold Coast (average score of 7.7), while

those aged 35-54 years are significantly less

satisfied (average score of 7.2). However the

result from the 35-54 years age group is still

positive.

Q2. On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is extremely dissatisfied and 10 is extremely satisfied, how satisfied are you with the overarching liveability on the

Gold Coast in general? (SR)

Base = Total Respondents [n=1,900]; Residents [n=1,500]; Businesses [n=400]. Note: This question was not asked of tourists. Data labels not shown

for results 3% or less.

60%

60%

59%

61%

53%

64%

27%

27%

29%

28%

30%

23%

8%

8%

8%

8%

9%

8%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

Residents

Businesses

18-34 years

35-54 years

55 years andover

Satisfaction with the Liveability of the Gold Coast

Extremely satisfied (8-10) Satisfied (6-7)

Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied (5) Unsatisfied (3-4)

Not at all satisfied (0-2)

Mean (Score out of 10)

7.5

7.5

7.7

7.5

7.7

7.2



24

Q3. What would you say are the three things you love most about living and/or working on the Gold Coast? (MR)

Q4. What would you say are the three things you least like, or frustrate you, about the Gold Coast? (MR)

Base = Total Respondents [n=2,309]

Beaches 53%

The Lifestyle 38%

Natural Environment 34%

Top three positives about living or working on the Gold Coast

Top three negatives about living or working on the Gold Coast

Positives and negative perceptions of the Gold Coast.

Traffic and Congestion 55%

Crime and Safety Concerns 18%

Busy / Crowded 14%

Tourists are significantly more likely to consider the

abovementioned attributes as things they love most

about the Gold Coast, particularly the beaches

(78%).

Businesses are significantly less likely to consider

the lifestyle as one of the top things they love about

working on the Gold Coast (16%).

Tourists are significantly more negative about traffic

and congestion (62%) as well as the Gold Coast

being busy / crowded (44%).

Over-development was also mentioned as a key

negative or frustration, particularly by tourists (25%).

This was significantly less likely to be an issue for

businesses (5%).

25

32%

32%

58%

40%

34%

51%

44%

43%

66%

29%

32%

28%

22%

33%

31%

22%

35%

26%

10%

13%

7%

11%

16%

8%

6%

10%

4%

5%

10%

4%

4%

8%

5%

7%

7%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The southern end of the Gold Coast (e.g.south of Burleigh Heads)

The central strip of the Gold Coast (e.g.Surfers Paradise to Burleigh Heads)

The northern end of the Gold Coast(Broadwater, Southport, Spit area)







Liveability of the Gold Coast Regions

Extremely desirable (8-10) Desirable (6-7)

Neither desireable nor undesireable (5) Undesirable (3-4)

Not at all desirable (0-2)

The northern end of the Gold Coast is considered to be the most desirable by all local respondent groups.

Q5a. On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is extremely undesirable and 10 is extremely desirable, how would you rate the liveability of…? (SR)

Base = Total Respondents [n=2,309]; Residents [n=1,500]; Businesses [n=400]; Tourists [n=409]. Data labels not shown for results 3% or less.

Residents

Businesses

Tourists


6.9

6.3

7.5

7.2

6.5

7.3

7.7

7.1

7.9



Tourists rate all three areas of the Gold Coast as desirable, particularly the northern end (66% tourists consider it to be extremely desirable).

However, businesses are significantly less likely to rate the northern end as extremely desirable (51%). Residents are significantly less likely to give this rating to the southern end of the Gold Coast (32%).

26

Overall, two thirds of respondents favour the northern end of the Gold Coast (66%).

Tourists are significantly more likely

to prefer the central strip of the Gold

Coast overall than other groups

(22%) and have lower overall

preference for the northern end

(60%).

Q5b. Why do you find {INSERT REGION MOST FAVOURED FROM Q5a} somewhat more desirable than the other two regions of the Gold Coast? (OE)

Base = Most desirable region – Northern End [n=1,505]; Southern End [n=410]; Central Strip [n=365]

Northern End (66% preference)

66%

18%

16%

Northern End

Southern End

Central Strip

“It's easy to connect

to Brisbane and the

other population

centres and it's got

the majority of

infrastructure in it.”

“Not as many people,

more park lands and

green space, more

scenic and natural.”

“It has better access

and good facilities

along the Broadwater

for boating, walking

and general lifestyle

activities.”

27

Nearly 1 in 5 people (18%) prefer the Southern End of the Gold Coast, with a similar proportion preferring the Central Strip (16%).

Q5b. Why do you find {INSERT REGION MOST FAVOURED FROM Q5a} somewhat more desirable than the other two regions of the Gold Coast?

(OE)

Base = Most desirable region – Southern End [n=410]; Central Strip [n=365]

Central Strip (16% preference)

“It seems to be the

entertainment and

central area of the

coast.”

“Everything is really

close – it’s a quick

drive from one area

to another.”

Southern End (18% preference)

“It is different, and

more of a relaxed

environment, It’s not

over developed and it

has a village

atmosphere.”

“I just think its more

relaxed down that

end and the beaches

are really nice.”

“It’s quieter like the

Gold Coast used to

be. It looks nicer and

the beaches are nicer

too.”

“There is more

available here, such

as the hospital,

shopping, beach and

light rail.”

28

Section 2: Broadwater.

29

Liveability.

30

Summary of the Broadwater Area’s Liveability.

• Residents (37%), businesses (26%) and tourists (50%) all consider the natural qualities and environment to be their

favourite aspect of the Broadwater and Spit area, followed by the beaches (25%).

• In contrast, traffic and congestion is perceived to be the most frustrating aspect of the Broadwater and Spit area for

one third of residents (33%), businesses (36%) and tourists (35%).

• Approximately one in ten people (13%) believe that the Broadwater and Spit area does not require enhancement or

changes. Other respondents made the following suggestions to enhance or improve the area:

o Enhance positive traits: More / better activities, entertainment and attractions; improve traffic problems, public transport and accessibility; more / better facilities; and improve / increase parkland, community areas and open space.

o Address frustrations: Fix / build more infrastructure; improve public transport and transit routes; better / more parking; and more development / atmosphere.

• Feedback in the focus groups suggests that more could be done to enhance the region and opportunity this area

offers. It is important that well rounded and considered thought and planning is given to the peripheral elements that

surround, feed and support new growth and development.

31

37%

25%

17%

15%

15%

12%

11%

7%

7%

7%

5%

25%

37%

21%

15%

12%

15%

15%

8%

7%

8%

7%

1%

25%

26%

24%

7%

8%

15%

11%

7%

4%

8%

3%

2%

36%

50%

43%

34%

35%

13%

4%

29%

13%

2%

9%

22%

15%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Natural environment

Beaches

Untouched from major development

Parks

Access to boating and water activities

Accessibility / well connected

Marine facilities

Walkable community

Relaxed atmosphere / not crowded

Walking tracks

Theme parks

Other

Favourite Aspects of the Broadwater and Spit Area

Total Residents Businesses Tourists

Residents (37%), businesses (26%) and tourists (50%) consider the natural environment to be their favourite aspect of the area.

Beaches are the next most preferred aspect of the area

(25%).

Compared to the total sample, tourists are significantly

more likely to state that the natural environment (50%),

beach (43%), lack of major development (34%), parks

(35%), marine facilities (29%), walkability of the community

(13%) and theme parks (22%) are things that they love

about the area. Residents are significantly more likely to

prefer its accessibility and connectedness (15%).

‘Other’ aspects mentioned include the shopping and dining

options, that the area is family oriented, clean and open, as

well as the views and waterways.

Q9. Stepping back from tourism to talk more generally, what would you say you love the most about the Broadwater and Spit area of the Gold Coast? (MR)

Base = Total Respondents [n=2,309]; Residents [n=1,500]; Business [n=400]; Tourists [n=409]



32

34%

11%

10%

9%

8%

5%

5%

4%

3%

14%

18%

2%

33%

11%

9%

9%

7%

4%

6%

3%

3%

17%

21%

2%

36%

9%

7%

11%

6%

5%

4%

3%

4%

14%

17%

3%

35%

15%

16%

4%

15%

10%

5%

10%

0%

6%

11%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Traffic and congestion

Accessibility

Lack of amenities / facilities

Limited parking / parking costs

Busy / crowded

Crime and safety concerns

Over development

Pollution

Needs more development / updating

Other

Nothing

Don't know

Disliked Aspects of the Broadwater and Spit Area


Traffic and congestion is perceived to be the most frustrating aspect of the area for one third of residents (33%), businesses (36%) and tourists (35%).

Although tourists have many positive things to say about the

Broadwater and Spit area, they are also significantly more likely to

dislike certain factors compared to the total sample. In particular,

tourists note frustration with accessibly to the area (15%), a lack of

amenities (16%), overcrowding (15%), crime and safety (10%), and

pollution (10%).

Females are significantly more likely to dislike the parking costs

and limited parking available in the area (13% c.f. 9% of the total

sample).

Approximately 1 in 5 people (18%) state that they have no dislikes

or frustrations about the area, however tourists are significantly

less likely to feel this way (11%).

People who are frustrated with the ‘lack of amenities / facilities’ in

the area are mainly referring to the lack of public toilets and shower

blocks, parking, and restaurants and cafes.

Q11. What would you say you dislike or find frustrating about the Broadwater and Spit area of the Gold Coast? (MR)

Base = Total Respondents [n=2,309]; Residents [n=1,500]; Business [n=400]; Tourists [n=409]



33

Q10. How could this area be enhanced to build on such positive traits? Q12. How could this area be improved to address such concerns?

Base = Total Respondents [n=2,309]; Residents [n=1,500]; Businesses [n=400]; Tourists [n=409]

Leave as it is / doesn't need enhancements More / better activities, entertainment, attractions, shops, theme parks Improve traffic problems / better public transport / accessibility More / better facilities, e.g. BBQ, swimming, toilets, cover, play areas Improve and have more parkland, community areas, open spaces

Top five suggestions to build on positive traits of the area

Leave as it is / no more development Fix / more infrastructure (wider roads, add roundabouts etc.) Improve public transport / transit routes to the Spit / introduce ferries

Better / more parking

More development / atmosphere, e.g. restaurants, shops, activities

Top five suggestions to address frustrations about the area

Suggested improvements to the Broadwater and Spit area.

“I don’t really think it can

be enhanced – it’s good

as it is.”

“It could be improved by

having a wider choice of

activities and more café

and dining options.”

“There needs to be more

public transport where

it's limited now which will

enable families and older

people to get around.”

“The road infrastructure

needs improvement;

such as upgrading

roads, widening lanes or

better traffic light timing.”

34

Q10. How could this area be enhanced to build on such positive traits?


How could this area be enhanced to build on

such positive traits?

Total

Sample Residents Businesses Tourists

n= 2,309 1,500 400 409

Leave as it is / doesn't need enhancements 13% 15% 13% 6%

More / better activities, entertainment,

attractions, shops, theme parks 11% 9% 11% 18%

Improve traffic problems / better public transport

/ accessibility 10% 11% 11% 6%

More / better facilities, e.g. BBQ, swimming,

toilets, cover, play areas 8% 7% 8% 13%

Improve and have more parkland, community

areas, open spaces 7% 8% 6% 3%

Better preservation of the landscapes and

beaches / keep it natural 6% 6% 3% 6%

Keep the area clean / maintain it / pollution

management 5% 5% 5% 7%

No more or less developments / protect from

over development e.g. casino 5% 6% 5% 4%

More / better food and drink options, restaurants,

cafes, surf clubs, pubs 5% 5% 5% 5%

More development / high rise buildings /

Wavebreak Island 4% 4% 8% 3%

Better / more / cheaper parking 4% 4% 6% 3%

Cruise ship terminal / boat terminals / marina 3% 3% 7% 0%

Keep it family, community and user friendly 3% 3% 5% 1%

Improve access to the water / boating facilities /

fishing facilities 3% 3% 4% 3%

Give the area a tidy / refurbish and revitalise the

area / modernise 3% 3% 3% 1%

Other 15% 15% 15% 12%

Don't know / Not applicable 19% 19% 17% 20%

Only one in ten people (13%) believe that the Broadwater and Spit area does not require enhancement. The rest see a range of solutions to enhance the region’s positive traits.

Tourists are significantly more likely to state that

the area could be enhanced by the addition of

more activities, entertainment and attractions

compared to the total sample (18% c.f. 11%), as

well as better facilities such as BBQs (13% c.f.

8%).

In contrast, businesses are significantly more

likely to believe that a cruise ship terminal (7%)

and more development / high rises (8%) would

build on the positive traits of the area.

Compared to the total sample, those aged 18-34

years are more open to adding more activities,

entertainment and attractions (17% c.f. 11%),

while those aged 55 years or older feel that the

area should be left as it is and doesn’t need

enhancement (18% c.f. 13%).



35

A range of solutions have been highlighted to address concerns for the region.

Businesses are significantly more likely to suggest

improving infrastructure (21%) and dredging the canals

(6%) to address concerns in the Broadwater and Spit

area compared to the total sample (16% and 3%

respectively).

Tourists however, are more likely to suggest the need to

add more facilities such as toilets and play areas (11%),

increase the safety of the area through more policing

and security (10%), and keep the area clean and

maintained (8%).

People aged between 18-34 years are significantly more

likely to suggest adding more development and

atmosphere to the area such as restaurants, shops and

activities (12% compared to 7% total).

Tourists (12%) and those aged 55 years or older (25%)

are significantly less likely to suggest leaving the area as

it is / stopping development compared to the total

sample (18%).

Q12. How could this area be improved to address such concerns?


How could this area be improved to address

such concerns?

Total

Sample Residents Businesses Tourists

n= 2,309 1,500 400 409

Leave as it is / no more development 18% 21% 15% 12%

Fix / more infrastructure (wider roads, add

roundabouts etc.) 16% 14% 21% 18%

Improve public transport / transit routes to

the spit / introduce ferries 11% 11% 14% 12%

Better / more parking 11% 11% 11% 10%

More development / atmosphere, e.g.

restaurants, shops, activities 7% 8% 4% 6%

Keep the area safe / more policing and

security 6% 5% 5% 10%

Build a bridge / overpass / bypass 4% 5% 5% 2%

More facilities / toilets / cover / play areas 4% 3% 2% 11%

Keep the area clean / maintain it / more bins 4% 3% 3% 8%

Dredging of canals 3% 3% 6% 0%

Preserve natural environment / more green

spaces 3% 2% 4% 2%

Improve / provide additional parks /

parklands / boardwalks etc. 2% 2% 1% 4%

Regulation and monitoring of jet skis / boats 2% 2% 3% 0%

Other 8% 10% 7% 5%

Don't know 13% 14% 16% 8%



36

Much of the discussion within the focus groups focused on the under utilized opportunity the Spit area has to offer.

This did not necessarily equate to a discussion of over

development of the area and the demise of the natural

environment and reserve areas. It was conversation reflective of

the under utilised area given its unkempt and unused potential.

Many felt the area is tired. The areas of current development

need a facelift and revitalisation if it is to attract and build on its

opportunity and popularity. Also, the wider green area is currently

more of a natural bushland setting that negated the use or

attraction of visitors. This limiting attraction is further accentuated

by accessibility issues.

Reflection on how the natural environment surrounding more

traditional development sites can be capitalised on, highlighted

examples such as the Broadwater Parklands as a way to

accentuate the local area and green spaces, while still making it

attractive, usable and safe for visitors.

37

Tourism.

38

Summary of the Broadwater Area’s Tourism.

• Traffic and congestion is perceived to be the biggest deterrent to tourism in the Broadwater and Spit area (19%).

o This was rated highest by tourists, who are also significantly more likely to perceive accessibility, limited car parking, accommodation options, public transport and dining options as deterrents to the area.

o For those living and working in the area, traffic and congestion along with access to and from the area are considered to be the biggest deterrents for tourists and visitors to the region.

• To increase visitation to the Broadwater and Spit area, tourists believe that better accessibility, accommodation

options, dining options, car parking, public transport and walkways / bike paths are needed.

• Around three quarters of residents, business and tourists believe that more festivals could be on offer during and

after the Commonwealth Games. More cultural venues, sporting attractions and environmental activities were also

suggested by around two thirds of respondents.

39

Traffic and congestion is perceived to be the biggest deterrent to tourism in the Broadwater and Spit area (19%).

Tourists are significantly more likely to perceive traffic and congestion

as a deterrent (24%) compared to the total sample (19%).

Tourists are also significantly more likely to perceive accessibility

(18%), limited car parking (14%), accommodation options (14%),

public transport (11%) and dining options (11%) as deterrents to the

area compared to the total sample. Despite this, 1 in 5 tourists believe

there are no deterrents to the Broadwater and Spit area (20%).

For those living and working in the area, traffic and congestion along

with access to and from the area are considered to be the biggest

deterrents for tourists and visitors.

‘Other’ deterrents mentioned include the lack of wider choice of theme

parks, the area being too expensive or too overcrowded, and the lack

of promotion of the Broadwater area to tourists.

Q6. When it comes to tourism in and around the Broadwater and Spit area, what do you believe currently deters tourists and visitors to this region? (MR)




19%

12%

10%

9%

8%

7%

7%

5%

5%

19%

5%

28%

18%

11%

9%

11%

9%

6%

8%

4%

4%

19%

1%

32%

19%

11%

8%

11%

9%

7%

8%

3%

2%

20%

2%

28%

24%

18%

14%

3%

2%

11%

1%

14%

11%

17%

20%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Traffic and congestion

Access to and from the area

Limited car parking

Limited tourist facilities and attractions

Crime and safety concerns

Limited public transport

Is not appealing / bad reputation and needsdevelopment

Limited variety of accommodation options

Lack of dining options

Other

Nothing / no deterents

Don't know

Deterrents to Tourist Visitation


40

16%

14%

13%

11%

11%

10%

9%

7%

6%

4%

3%

15%

17%

18%

15%

11%

13%

10%

13%

7%

3%

4%

3%

4%

15%

16%

26%

18%

11%

13%

11%

9%

4%

3%

4%

1%

3%

15%

17%

1%

5%

23%

5%

15%

3%

18%

22%

16%

7%

1%

12%

18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Developed waterways / cruise ship terminal

More development / attractions

Better access to and from the area

Improve / preserve the beaches and parks

Improved public transport

Stop development / leave as is

A wider choice of dining options

A wider variety of accommodation options

More car parking

Improved walkways and bike paths

Upgrades to existing amenities and facilities

Other

Don't know

How to Increase Tourist Visitation


Attractions and accessibility solutions are what many see as needed to improve visitation form tourists.

One quarter of businesses (26%) state that a cruise ship

terminal or other development of the waterways would attract

tourists to the area. This is significantly higher than the total

sample (16%). Tourists are significantly less likely to state this

as a method to increase visitation (1%), however this may be

due to a lack of awareness of the potential for a cruise ship

terminal in the Broadwater and Spit area amongst tourists.

Those aged between 18-34 years are significantly more likely

to state that more development and attractions will bring

tourists to the area (17% c.f. 14% of the total sample).

‘Other’ ideas mentioned include a wider choice of theme

parks, improving roads / traffic, dredging the Broadwater or

adding more family friendly attractions.

Q7. What do you believe is needed in this Broadwater and Spit area to attract more tourists and ensure it remains relevant and attracts visitation? (MR)




41

75%

71%

66%

66%

60%

56%

28%

11%

3%

73%

71%

66%

69%

59%

56%

26%

12%

2%

79%

77%

71%

70%

66%

66%

31%

13%

2%

78%

65%

58%

47%

54%

48%

29%

3%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

More festivals

More cultural venues

More sporting attractions

More environmental activities

More boating and water activities

More resort and entertainment options

More theme parks

Other

Don't know

Commonwealth Games Attraction Types


The community predominately agree that a wide range of attractions could further enhance and build off the Commonwealth Games activity.

Residents of the Broadwater and Spit area are

significantly more likely to believe that more

environmental activities could be on offer during the

Commonwealth Games (69%), however tourists are

significantly less likely to select this as a tourist

attraction (47% c.f. 66% of the total sample).

Businesses tend to be more open to additional events

and attractions during the Games compared to the

total, while tourists tend to be less open to additional

attractions.

Q8. Of the following, what types of tourist attractions do you believe could be on offer for during and after the Commonwealth Games? (MR)




42

Development.

43

Summary of Development Findings.

• People who live locally have the highest awareness of proposed developments in the Broadwater and Spit area, with 4 in 10 stating

they are extremely aware (38%).

o Awareness is significantly higher amongst those aged 55 years or older (average score of 6.6), and significantly lower amongst those 18-34 years (average score of 4.3) and tourists (average score of 2.3).

o The cruise ship terminal is the most highly recalled proposed development for the Broadwater and Spit area, with 7 in 10 people aware of it (72%).

• Overall close to 4 in 10 people (36%) are not at all favourable towards development in the Broadwater and Spit area. However, 27%

are extremely favourable (with the others dispersed through the middle).

o Businesses are significantly more likely to be extremely favourable (39%), while those aged 55 years or older are significantly more likely to be not at all favourable (42%).

• Nearly 1 in 5 people (17%) believe they will benefit from an increase in entertainment options associated with proposed developments

in the area.

o Tourists are significantly more likely to consider increased entertainment to be a benefit (39%), as well as increased dining options (29%), tourism (25%) and usable facilities (21%).

o Businesses are significantly more likely to perceive proposed developments as beneficial due to increased tourism to the area (33%).

44

Summary of Development Findings (cont.).

• Increased employment opportunities are viewed as the biggest benefit of the proposed developments to the community (41%).

o Businesses are significantly more likely to consider increased tourism (35%) and spend in the area ( 35%) as key benefits to the community.

• Overall 1 in 3 people (33%) feel that proposed developments will potentially impact on the natural environment or cause pollution in the

area if not properly managed. Approximately 1 in 4 people (28%) are concerned about the traffic, congestion and parking issues

associated with proposed developments.

o Businesses are significantly more likely to have no concerns or problems with proposed development (33%), while tourists appear to be the most concerned group.

• Overall 1 in 2 people (51%) believe that 7 or more stories is acceptable for developments in the Broadwater and Spit area. Approximately

1 in 5 people (22%) believe 21 or more stories is acceptable. Overall, 78% of people believe one or more taller buildings are acceptable

for the area south of SeaWorld. Less than 1 in 5 people believe that there should be no tall buildings in the area (18%).

• Overall 4 in 10 people feel that better roads and accessibility would be needed if development was to progress in the Broadwater and Spit

area (40%), and 1 in 3 people feel that public transport would be needed (35%).

• Nearly 1 in 3 people (31%) believe that all stakeholders share responsibility for funding and delivering the supporting infrastructure

required for development. Approximately 1 in 5 people (21%) believe it is the sole responsibility of the developers of the associated

projects.

45

32%

38%

36%

6%

21%

24%

24%

9%

16%

17%

18%

12%

10%

10%

9%

11%

21%

12%

13%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

Residents

Businesses

Tourists

Awareness of Proposed Developments

Extremely aware (8-10) Aware (6-7) Neutral (5)

Unaware (3-4) Not at all aware (0-2)

As to be expected, people who live and work locally have the highest awareness of proposed developments in the Broadwater and Spit area (nearly 4 in 10 extremely aware).

Tourists are significantly more likely to say that

they are not at all aware of proposed

developments in the area (62% c.f. 21% of the

total sample). This is primarily driven by

international tourists, with nearly 9 in 10 unaware

of potential developments in the Broadwater and

Spit area (88% c.f. 21% of the total sample).

Those aged 55 years or older are significantly

more likely to be extremely aware of the

development proposals (46% c.f. 32% of the total

sample), while those aged between 18-34 years

are significantly more likely to be not at all aware

of them (33% c.f. 21% of the total sample).

Q13. Over the years there have been a number of developments proposed for in and around the Broadwater and Spit area. On a scale of 0 to 10

where 0 is not at all aware and 10 is extremely aware, how aware are you of development proposals for the area? (SR)





5.5

6.3

6.2

2.3

46

72%

41%

24%

7%

4%

4%

4%

2%

1%

26%

5%

72%

40%

26%

7%

3%

5%

3%

1%

2%

27%

4%

76%

42%

16%

6%

5%

5%

4%

2%

1%

29%

2%

65%

47%

25%

4%

12%

0%

15%

11%

1%

6%

16%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Cruise terminal projects

Hotel and casino projects

Residential high rises

Sunland projects

Commonwealth Games facilities

Wavebreak Island

SeaWorld extensions

Another theme park

ASF projects

Other

None of the above

Recall of Proposed Developments


The most highly recalled development proposal in the Broadwater and Spit area is for the cruise terminal, with 7 in 10 people aware of the project (72%).

While overall awareness of proposed developments is lower for tourists (average awareness of 2.3 compared to 5.5 for the total sample), tourists are significantly more likely to recall proposals such as the Commonwealth Games facilities (12% c.f. 4% of the total sample), SeaWorld extensions (15% c.f. 4% of the total sample) and the addition of another theme park (11% c.f. 2% of the total sample).

Those aged between 35-54 years are significantly more likely to recall hotel and casino projects (48% c.f. 41% of the total sample). Further, those aged 55 years or older are significantly more likely to recall proposed development of residential high rises (31% c.f. 24% of the total sample).

Compared to the total sample, high income earners (annual income of over $150,000) are significantly more likely to recall hotel and casino projects (48% c.f. 41%), Sunland projects (17% c.f. 7%) and Wavebreak Island developments (9% c.f. 4%).

‘Other’ developments recalled include Parkland, Mariner’s Cove, light rail extension, ferry service and a bridge to Wavebreak Island.

Q14. What development proposals for the Broadwater and Spit area can you recall hearing about? (MR) Unprompted.

Base = Respondents who gave an awareness score of 4-10 at Q13. Total Respondents [n=1,774]; Residents [n=1,288]; Businesses [n=330]; Tourists

[n=156]



47

27%

28%

39%

10%

15%

13%

13%

21%

13%

12%

11%

20%

10%

8%

5%

20%

36%

38%

33%

30%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

Residents

Businesses

Tourists

Favourability Towards Development

Extremely favourable (8-10) Favourable (6-7) Neutral (5)

Unfavourable (3-4) Not at all favourable (0-2)

Favourability towards development (in a general sense) is met with mixed views from the community – with around a third very favourable, a third unfavourable, and a third less defined in their views.

Businesses are significantly more likely to be

extremely favourable of more development (39%)

compared to the total sample (27%). Males (31%)

and higher income earners (annual income of over

$150,000 – 46%) are also significantly more likely

to be extremely favourable.

In contrast, those aged 55 years or older (42%)

and females (42%) are significantly more likely to

be not at all favourable towards development

compared to the total sample (36%).

Q15. Keeping in mind that no development is allowed to the north of SeaWorld along the Spit, in general, on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all

favourable and 10 is extremely favourable, how favourable are you to development in and on the remaining Broadwater and Spit area?



4.5

4.5

5.2

4.0



48

Q16a&b. How might proposed developments for the area benefit... (a) you personally? (b) the local community and area? (MR)


There are no personal benefits

Top five personal benefits Top five community benefits

Summary of perceived benefits of proposed developments.

More entertainment options

More tourism

More useable facilities

More spend in local area

More jobs

More tourism

More spend in local area

More useable facilities

More entertainment options

49

Nearly 1 in 5 people (17%) believe they will benefit from an increase in entertainment options associated with proposed developments in the area.

Tourists are significantly more likely to consider increased entertainment to be a personal benefit of potential developments (39% c.f. 17% of the total sample). Tourists are also significantly more likely to perceive increased dining options (29%), tourism (25%) and usable facilities (21%) as benefits of the proposed developments.

Businesses are significantly more likely to perceive proposed developments as beneficial due to increased tourism to the area (33% c.f. 14% of the total sample).

Residents are significantly more likely to feel that they will not personally benefit from proposed developments (61% c.f. 50% of the total sample). Similarly, those aged 55 years or older (73%), females (55%) and lower income earners (72%) are significantly more likely to perceive that the developments will not benefit them compared to the total sample (50%).

Q16a. How might proposed developments for the area benefit... [RESIDENTS] you personally? [TOURISTS] … Holiday makers such as yourself? (MR)


Personal benefits of proposed developments

Total

Sample Residents Business Tourists

n= 2,309 1,500 400 409

More entertainment options 17% 13% 6% 39%

More tourism 14% 6% 33% 25%

More useable facilities 11% 10% 5% 21%

More spend in local area 10% 5% 28% 12%

More jobs 9% 10% 8% 8%

More dining opportunities 8% 4% 1% 29%

Revitalise and refresh the area 5% 4% 2% 14%

More buzz 4% 3% 2% 11%

Positive impact on the property market and

prices 3% 4% 1% 0%

Compete more strongly with the other parts

of the Gold Coast 1% 1% 1% 4%

Other 3% 3% 3% 3%

No benefits 50% 61% 45% 19% Significantly higher than the Total Sample (statistically significant result)


50

Overall, an increase in employment opportunities is viewed as the biggest benefit of the proposed developments to the community (41%).

However, 1 in 4 people (25%) believe that

developments do not benefit the local community

and area.

Businesses are significantly more likely to state

increased tourism (35% c.f. 27% of the total

sample) and spend in the area (35% c.f. 25% of

the total sample) are key benefits to the

community.

Residents are significantly more likely to believe

that the proposed developments will not benefit the

wider community (30% c.f. 25% of the total

sample). Similarly, those aged 55 years or older

are significantly more likely to see no benefit to the

community from these developments (40%).

Tourists are significantly more likely to see more

jobs as a benefit of developments to the

community (70% c.f. 41% of the total sample).

Q16b. How might proposed developments for the area benefit… the local community and area? (MR)


Benefits of proposed developments to the

community and area

Total

Sample Residents Business Tourists

n= 2,309 1,500 400 409

More jobs 41% 35% 32% 70%

More tourism 27% 26% 35% 23%

More spend in local area 25% 23% 35% 24%

More useable facilities 9% 9% 9% 10%

More entertainment options 9% 8% 7% 13%

More dining opportunities 6% 4% 5% 14%

Revitalise and refresh the area 6% 4% 4% 14%

More buzz 3% 3% 2% 5%

Compete more strongly with the other parts

of the Gold Coast 2% 1% 1% 7%

Positive impact on property market and

prices 2% 2% 2% 0%

Other 4% 3% 6% 1%

No benefits 25% 30% 18% 12% Significantly higher than the Total Sample (statistically significant result)


51

33%

28%

17%

13%

12%

9%

8%

4%

2%

9%

25%

34%

27%

14%

8%

9%

6%

6%

1%

3%

10%

28%

23%

27%

8%

5%

9%

3%

5%

1%

3%

13%

33%

41%

35%

34%

41%

25%

27%

17%

15%

0%

3%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Will encroach on or ruin the naturalenvironment / pollution

Traffic and congestion / parking issues

Will become overcrowded and busy

Ruin the relaxed feeling to the area

Create a concrete jungle and remove greenspace

High rises will ruin the skyline / aesthetics

Will make accessibility around the area hard orharder

Shadows on the beach from high rises

Too much development / no moredevelopment

Other

Dont see any problem or concern

Concerns About Proposed Developments


One in 3 people (33%) feel that proposed developments could impact on the natural environment or cause pollution; and around 1 in 4 people (28%) are concerned about the impact on traffic, congestion and parking.

Businesses are significantly more likely to have no concerns with proposed development (33% c.f. 25% of the total sample). Similarly, lower income earners (annual income of less than $50,000) are significantly more likely to have no concerns (35%).

Tourists appear to be the most concerned group in regards to problems with proposed developments in the Broadwater and Spit area. Compared to the total sample, tourists are significantly more likely to be concerned about ruining the natural environment (41% c.f. 33%), traffic, congestion and parking issues (35% c.f. 28%), the area becoming overcrowded (34% c.f. 17%) and ruining the relaxed feeling to the area (41% c.f. 13%). Tourists are also significantly more concerned about creating a concrete jungle (25% c.f. 12%), ruining the skyline or aesthetics (27% c.f. 9%), increased accessibility issues (17% c.f. 8%) and shadows on the beach from high rises (15% c.f. 4%).

Younger people (aged 18-34 years) are significantly more concerned about ruining the natural environment (41% c.f. 33% of the total sample). The older demographic (aged 55+ years) are significantly more concerned about traffic, congestion and parking issues (35% c.f. 28% of the total sample) or have no concerns at all (29% c.f. 25% of the total sample).

Q17a. What, if any, anticipated concerns or problems do you have with proposed developments for the area? (MR)




52

Approximately 1 in 4 people (26%) feel that concerns could be managed by consulting the community and being more transparent in proposal stages of development. Just over 1 in 10 people (14%) believe that addressing and

managing traffic, accessibility and public transport issues in the

proposal stage of development would address their concerns. A

similar proportion (11%) feel that more consideration of the

environment needs to occur at this stage, such as conducting

thorough environmental impact assessments.

Businesses are significantly less likely to believe that limiting

development or having restrictions in place would address concerns

(1% c.f. 4% of the total sample). However those aged 55 years or

older are significantly more likely to believe that development

restrictions are necessary (8% c.f. 4% of the total sample).

Q17b. How should such concerns be managed in the proposed stages of such projects? (OE)

Base = Respondents who have development concerns Q17a = 1-9. Total Respondents [n=1,331]; Residents [n=1,064]; Businesses [n=267]

Note: This question was not asked of tourists.



Consult the community / be transparent

Suggestions on how to manage development concerns in the proposal stage of such projects

Manage traffic and accessibility / improve public transport

Consider the environment / conduct impact assessments

Limit development / have restrictions in place

Thorough / better planning and research

Manage / build necessary infrastructure

Other

Don't know

Do not develop

26%

14%

11%

4%

3%

2%

20%

19%

8%

… “There should be open

dialogue with the

community, such as

local forums and

conversations.”

“The developer would

need to work with the

council to contribute

towards improving

transport infrastructure.”

53

38%

18%

12%

22%

11%

39%

18%

11%

23%

9%

32%

13% 12%

30%

12%

43%

19%

13% 10%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 - 6 7 - 12 13 - 20 21+ Don't know

Acceptable Number of Stories

Total Residents Business Tourists

Overall 1 in 2 people (51%) believe that 7 or more stories is acceptable for developments in the Broadwater and Spit area. Approximately 1 in 5 people (22%) believe 21 or more stories is acceptable.

Q18a. In regards to building heights, how many stories do you think are acceptable for the Broadwater and Spit area south of SeaWorld where

development opportunities are allowed? (SR)


Businesses are significantly more likely to state that 21 or

more stories are acceptable (30% c.f. 22% of the total

sample). Tourists are significantly more likely to be unsure

about acceptable building heights in the area (15% c.f. 11%

of the total sample.



54

18%

47%

18%

6% 7% 4%

23%

39%

20%

7% 8% 5%

17%

35%

21%

10% 12%

5% 0%

87%

12%

1% 0% 0% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

None 1-5 6-10 11-20 More than 20 Don't know

Acceptable Number of Taller Buildings

Total Residents Business Tourists

Overall, 78% of people believe one or more taller buildings are acceptable for the area south of SeaWorld. Nearly half (47%) believe that 1-5 taller buildings are acceptable, and less than 1 in 5 people believe that there should be no tall buildings (18%).

Q18b. How many of these taller buildings do you believe would be acceptable for this area south of SeaWorld? (SR)


Approximately 9 in 10 tourists believe that 1-5 taller buildings

is acceptable (87%). Approximately 1 in 10 businesses believe

that more than 20 taller buildings is acceptable (12% c.f. 7% of

the total sample). Further, males are also significantly more

likely to believe that more than 20 taller buildings is acceptable

(11%) while females are significantly more likely to state that

1-5 taller buildings is acceptable (51% c.f. 47% of the total

sample).



55

40%

35%

25%

15%

14%

4%

3%

3%

1%

7%

18%

5%

40%

31%

25%

11%

14%

3%

2%

3%

1%

8%

20%

2%

45%

44%

22%

12%

12%

2%

2%

2%

1%

8%

15%

1%

34%

39%

27%

32%

17%

11%

8%

1%

0%

2%

17%

20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Better roads and accessibility

Public transport

Traffic and congestion management

Parking

General amenities such as grocery,healthcare, etc

Bridge / Tunnel

Better footpaths and bikeways

Water / Waste services

Parks / Open spaces

Other

Don't know

None

Supporting Infrastructure


Overall 4 in 10 people (40%) feel that better roads and accessibility would be needed if development was to progress in the Broadwater and Spit area. Businesses are significantly more likely to consider this to be an infrastructure requirement (45%).

Businesses are also significantly more likely to state the need for public

transport in the area (44% c.f. 35% of the total sample).

Tourists however, are significantly more likely to believe that more

parking would be needed if development was to progress in the area

(32% c.f. 15% of the total sample). Tourists are also significantly more

likely to state the need for a bridge or tunnel (11%) and better footways

and bikeways (8%).

While younger people (aged 18-34 years) are significantly more likely

to be unsure about the supporting infrastructure required for future

development (28% c.f. 18% of the total sample), older demographics

(aged 55+ years) are significantly more likely to state the need for

better roads and accessibility (45% c.f. 40% of the total sample).

Compared to the total, males and those aged between 35-55 years feel

that public transport would be required if development was to progress

in the area (38% and 40% respectively).

High income earners (annual income over $150,000) are significantly

more likely to state that traffic and congestion management would be

required (34% c.f. 25% of the total sample), as well as public transport

(40% c.f. 35% of the total sample) if development were to progress.

Q19a. What sort of supporting infrastructure would be needed if development in this area was to progress? (MR)




56

31%

21%

17%

15%

3%

3%

5%

6%

28%

21%

17%

15%

3%

3%

6%

6%

41%

20%

15%

13%

3%

2%

2%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

A combination of all

The developers of the associated projects

Local council

Queensland Government

Federal Government

The rate payers

Other

Don't know

Organisations Responsible for Supporting Infrastructure

Total Residents Businesses

Nearly one third of people (31%) believe that all stakeholders are responsible for funding and delivering the supporting infrastructure required for development.

Approximately 1 in 5 people (21%) believe it is the sole responsibility of the developers of the associated projects.

Businesses are significantly more likely to state that all parties are responsible for funding and delivering the required infrastructure (41% c.f. 31% of the total sample).

The younger demographic (aged 18-34 years) are significantly more likely to believe it is the responsibility of the Queensland Government to deliver the necessary supporting infrastructure for proposed developments (22% c.f. 15% of the total sample). However, those aged 55 years or older are significantly less likely to believe that it is the Queensland Government’s responsibility (10%).

Q19b. Which organisation or group do you believe is responsible for funding and delivering such supporting infrastructure if wider developments were to

progress in the area? (SR)

Base = Respondents who believe there needs to be supporting infrastructure Q19a = 1-8 [n=1,868 ]; Residents [n=1,472]; Businesses [n=396]. Note:

This question was not asked of tourists.



57

Focus group discussions provided some greater clarity around how locals perceived development within the area.

The idea of development was unto itself not necessarily a major concern for people. Most

agreed that development was essential in moving with the times and ensuring the vitality of any

region.

It became evident though that it was the impact new development has on the wider environment

and supporting infrastructure that concerned people.

There was much discussion and reflection on other examples on the Gold Coast where

development had progressed forward, but it was felt these examples were in isolation of their

peripheral needs and impacts. The prime example was the light rail systems. Most agree this is

a great addition to the Coast, but its use is drastically hindered by the fact that the supporting

infrastructure (e.g. parking) to utilise these services is severely lacking. This stood true for

growth projects across the Gold Coast. Buildings are being developed without apparent

consideration to adequately provide for parking and traffic impediments that come with greater

population presence.

It also became apparent that many were worried that the allowance of one or some development

projects in this Spit area would equate to the area being completely built out in time. There was

very limited awareness that development opportunities were confined to pre-existing

development sites. Many assumed development meant the removal of the natural green spaces

to be replaced by high rises and concrete.

Development itself was not really the concern. It was how that development was managed in its

creation, and how supporting infrastructure must be delivered at the same time to accommodate

the changing impacts it will bring.

It was also about how you accentuate and utilise the green spaces and environment to better

support the adjoining developments, and provide a greater balance of green useable space,

seamless accessibility, and vibrant social infrastructure.

“I’m not against development

per se. But it needs to be

managed and kept within

reason. We can’t have the

whole area littered with

skyscrapers.”

“The introduction of a few very

smartly designed towers with

useable lifestyle precincts for

all visitors would be great. You

just need to balance the

building, environment and

green spaces. And access is

paramount.”

“The Spit area is currently

under utilised. It is unkempt,

dirty and unsafe. Why can’t we

have beautiful parklands and

great precincts? It could all

meld quite well together.”

58

Traffic and Transport.

59

Summary of Traffic & Transport Findings.

• Traffic flow and accessibility in and around the Broadwater and Spit is an issue of significant concern, particularly for

residents and businesses living and working in the area.

o 81% of businesses and 75% of residents indicated that they are concerned about this issue. Although not as high for tourists, 49% still indicated they are concerned about the area’s traffic flow and accessibility.

• More than one third of respondents believe that the traffic issues in the area could be remedied by wider roads and

more lanes (35%), along with better public transport (19%).

o Tourists are significantly more likely to believe that these changes would improve the traffic flow in and around the Broadwater and Spit area (42% for wider roads / more lanes and 32% for better public transport) compared to residents and businesses living and working in the area.

• Around three quarters of respondents would pay to use a water taxi or ferry (73%) or a light rail or rail extension

(75%). However only 1 in 5 (19%) would pay for a congestion levy or toll to drive in the area. These public transport

initiatives are likely to get far greater usage and thus have more impact on reducing traffic congestion.

• 3 in 5 respondents (61%) believe that a bridge linking Southport to the Spit directly would be suitable infrastructure

for the area.

60

51%

58%

61%

18%

20%

17%

20%

32%

12%

11%

10%

17%

8%

6%

4%

17%

9%

8%

6%

16%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

Residents

Businesses

Tourists

Concern with Traffic Flow and Accessibility

Extremely concerned (8-10) Concerned (6-7)

Neither concerned nor unconcerned (5) Unconcerned (3-4)

Not at all concerned (0-2)

Around 3 in 5 residents (58%) and businesses (61%) are extremely concerned about traffic flow and accessibility.

Businesses expressed an even greater concern than residents, with 81% giving a rating of 6 to 10 out of 10 (c.f. 75% of residents). This indicates that traffic flow and accessibility is a significant issue to those living and working in and around the Broadwater and Spit. This issue should be well considered during future planning.

Tourists are significantly less concerned with traffic flow and accessibility overall, however 49% still have some concern about traffic flow and accessibility in the area.

Older respondents aged 55 years and above are significantly more concerned than younger respondents aged 18-34 years (average score of 7.3 c.f. 6.2).

Q20. On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all concerned and 10 is extremely concerned, how concerned are you with the traffic flow and

accessibility in and around the Broadwater and Spit? (SR)

Base = Total Respondents [n=2,309]; Residents [n=1,500], Businesses [n=400]; Tourists [n=409]




6.9

7.2

7.6

5.2

61

35%

19%

15%

12%

12%

7%

5%

3%

1%

9%

23%

33%

15%

15%

13%

10%

6%

3%

2%

1%

10%

26%

36%

19%

15%

9%

14%

8%

4%

2%

0%

10%

22%

42%

32%

13%

11%

15%

12%

15%

9%

2%

2%

16%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Wider roads / more lanes

Better public transport

Bridge or tunnel access to Spit

Improved traffic management (e.g. lights androundabouts)

Light rail extension

Water taxi and ferry services

More parking

Improved pedestrian and bike paths

Congestion levy to drive in area

Other

Don't know

Ways of Addressing Traffic Issues


Having wider roads / more lanes is considered to be the best way of addressing traffic issues in the area. Tourists are significantly more likely to believe that having wider

roads / more lanes would be a remedy for the traffic problems (42%

c.f. 35% of the total sample).

Tourists are also significantly more likely to think that better public

transport would improve traffic issues (32% c.f. 19% of the total

sample), while businesses are significantly less likely to believe that

this would help (15%).

Although not as highly rated, tourists are also significantly more

likely to believe that water taxi and ferry services (12%), more

parking (15%) and improved pedestrian and bike paths (9%) would

address the traffic issues. Businesses rated these options

significantly lower.

Results vary far less amongst the different age groups, however

older respondents aged 55 years or more are significantly less likely

to believe that wider roads / more lanes (31%) and better public

transport (16%) would be a solution.

Q21. How do you believe traffic issues in and around the Broadwater and Spit could be remedied? (MR)




62

Around three quarters of respondents would pay to use a water taxi or ferry (73%) or a light rail / rail extension (75%).

Tourists are significantly more likely to use a water taxi / ferry (79%), however the intended usage by residents and businesses in the area is still high for both public transport options (above 70% would pay to use them).

Less than 1 in 5 (19%) would pay for a congestion levy or toll to drive in the area. Younger respondents are significantly less likely to be willing to pay for this (15%) compared to those aged 55 years or more (23%). However, younger respondents are significantly more likely to pay to use a light rail / rail extension (81%).

Q22. If they were to operate in the Broadwater and Spit area, would you pay to use any of the following traffic congestion solutions? (SR)

Base = Total Respondents [n=2,309]

73%

24%

2%

Water Taxi or Ferry

Yes No Don’t know

75%

23%

2% Light Rail or Rail Extension

Yes No Don’t know

19%

76%

4%

A Congestion Levy or Toll to Drive in the Area

Yes No Don’t know

63

3 in 5 respondents (61%) believe that a bridge linking Southport to the Spit directly would be suitable infrastructure.

More than 2 in 5 believe that this infrastructure

would be extremely suitable (44%).

There are no significant differences in opinions

between residents and businesses.

Older residents aged 55 years or more are

significantly less likely to believe a bridge would be

suitable for the Spit and surrounding area (average

score of 5.9 c.f. 6.2 for the total sample).

Renters are significantly more likely to believe it is

a suitable idea (average score of 6.6), while

owners are significantly less positive towards this

infrastructure (average score of 5.9)

Q23.Several decades ago there was previously a bridge linking Southport to the Spit directly. This was replaced by the Sundale Bridge. On a scale of 0 to

10 where 0 is not at all suitable and 10 is extremely suitable, how suitable would such infrastructure be for the Spit and surrounding area these days? (SR)

Base = Total Respondents [n=1,900]; Residents [n=1,500]; Businesses [n=400]. Note: This question was not asked of tourists.

44%

44%

44%

17%

17%

18%

13%

13%

16%

7%

7%

5%

19%

19%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

Residents

Businesses

Suitability of a Bridge for the Spit and Surrounding Area

Extremely suitable (8-10) Suitable (6-7)

Neither suitable nor unsuitable (5) Unsuitable (3-4)

Not at all suitable (0-2)


6.2

6.2

6.2

64

Communication.

65

Summary of Communication Findings.

• Only 1 in 5 residents and businesses believe that information about proposed developments and infrastructure

plans are easily accessible currently.

o This indicates an opportunity to improve how easy it is for those living and working in the area to access information about future development plans.

• Overall the most preferred channels for receiving information about proposed developments are newsletter mail

drops (24%) and social media (21%).

o Businesses are significantly less likely to most prefer receiving information via newsletter mail drops (16%), instead preferring social media (23%), news clips in local media (18%) and newsletter emails (17%).

66

Only 1 in 5 residents (21%) and businesses (22%) believe that information about proposed developments and infrastructure plans is extremely accessible.

Nearly one third (31%) also said they consider this

information to be inaccessible.

This indicates that there is an opportunity to

improve how easy it is to access information for

residents and businesses living and working in the

Broadwater and Spit area to help them remain

informed about future development and

infrastructure plans.

Q24. On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is not at all accessible and 10 is extremely accessible, how easy is it to access information about proposed

developments and infrastructure plans for the Broadwater and Spit area if you seek it? (SR)


21%

21%

22%

21%

20%

22%

27%

28%

27%

15%

15%

16%

16%

16%

15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

Residents

Businesses

Accessibility of Information about Proposed Developments and Infrastructure Plans

Extremely accessible (8-10) Accessible (6-7)

Neither accessible nor inaccessible (5) Inaccessible (3-4)

Not at all acessible (0-2)


5.3

5.2

5.3

67

Overall, newsletter mail drops and social media are the most preferred methods for receiving information about proposed developments.

Businesses are significantly less likely to prefer receiving

information via newsletter mail drops (16% c.f. 26% of

residents). However, they are slightly more likely to prefer being

informed via social media and newsletter emails than residents.

News clips in local media are also the preferred channel for

nearly 1 in 5 residents and businesses (both 18%).

Websites are not favoured as strongly overall, however

businesses are significantly more likely to prefer this method of

communication (12% c.f. 7% of residents).

Q25. When it comes to receiving information about proposed developments, what is your preferred method of communication? (SR)


24%

21%

18%

13%

11%

8%

3%

2%

0%

26%

20%

18%

12%

12%

7%

3%

2%

0%

16%

23%

18%

17%

10%

12%

4%

1%

0%

0% 20% 40%

Newsletter (mail drop)

Social media - Facebook / Twitter

News clips in local media

Newsletter (email)

Advertising (e.g. TV ads, billboards)

Website

Displays

In person (e.g. forums)

YouTube

Preferred Method of Communication

Total Residents BusinessesSignificantly higher than the Total Sample (statistically significant result)


68

Appendix: Sample Profile.

69

Residential Sample Profile. % of Total Sample

(n=1500)

Respondent Age

18-34 years 13%

35-55 years 27%

55 years or older 60%

Gender

Male 42%

Female 58%

Postcode

4215 33%

4216 33%

4217 33%

% of Total Sample

(n=1500)

Suburb

Postcode 4215

Labrador 12%

Southport 21%

Postcode 4216

Biggera Waters 6%

Coombabah 9%

Hollywell 3%

Paradise Point 6%

Runaway Bay 10%

South Stradbroke 0.1%

Postcode 4217

Bundall 5%

Chevron Island 2%

Isle of Capri 1%

Benowa 8%

Main Beach 4%

Surfers Paradise 13%

Other 2%

S1 Gender. S2 Which one of the following age groups do you fall into? S3 Just to confirm, what is the postcode of where you reside?

S4 And what specific suburb do you reside in?

Base = Residents [n=1,500]

70

Residential Sample Profile (cont.).

% of Total Sample

(n=1500)

Household Structure

A couple with children at home 17%

A couple without children at home 37%

A single parent with children at home 5%

Household with one resident 26%

A shared household of adults 8%

Adult child living at home with parents / couple 6%

Other 3%

Home Ownership Status

A property that you rent 25%

A property that you own or are paying off 75%

Household Income

Zero 0.6%

Less than $50,000 31%

Between $50,000 and $150,000 32%

Over $150,00 12%

Don’t know 6%

Prefer not to answer 17%

% of Total Sample

(n1=1500)

Employment Status

Employed working full time (30+ hrs week) 23%

Employed working part time (8-29 hrs / week) 11%

Employed working casually (<8 hrs / week) 4%

Retired 46%

Home duties 3%

Unemployed 3%

Student attending formal education 2%

Self Employed 7%

Other 2%

Prefer not to answer 1%

Affiliations

Affiliated with Save our Spit Alliance Inc, Save

our Broadwater, Gold Coast and Hinterland

Environment Council (GECKO) or Main Beach

Process Association.

1.5%

S5 Which of the following best describes your household? Q26 Is the home that you permanently reside in…? Q27 What is your combined HOUSEHOLD income before tax? Q28 What is your current employment status? Q29 Are you a member of or affiliated with any particular special interest groups?

Base = Residents [n=1,500] Note: ‘Don’t know and prefer not to answer not included

71

Business Sample Profile. % of Total Sample

(n=400)

Gender

Male 53%

Female 47%

Postcode

4215 41%

4216 25%

4217 35%

Business Size

Sole contractor / Independent contractor 14%

2 – 5 employees 39%




More than 100 employees 2%

Affiliations

Affiliated with Save our Spit Alliance Inc, Save

our Broadwater, Gold Coast and Hinterland

Environment Council (GECKO) or Main Beach

Process Association.

0.5%

% of Total Sample

(n=400)

Suburb

Postcode 4215

Labrador 8%

Southport 31%

Postcode 4216

Biggera Waters 8%

Coombabah 2%

Hollywell 1%

Paradise Point 4%

Runaway Bay 9%

Postcode 4217

Bundall 9%

Chevron Island 0.8%

Isle of Capri 0.3%

Benowa 3%

Main Beach 5%

Surfers Paradise 16%

OTHER 3%

S1 Gender. S3 Just to confirm, what is the postcode of where your business is based? S4 And what specific suburb is the business site based? Q30 How

many employees does your business specifically employee? Q31 Are you personally a member of or affiliated with any particular special interest groups?

Base = Businesses [n=400]

72

Tourist Sample Profile.

% of Total Sample

(n=409)

Respondent Age

18 to 34 years 40%

35 to 55 years 41%

55 years or older 19%

Gender

Male 61%

Female 39%

Visitor Type

International holiday maker 48%

Interstate holiday maker 22%

Intrastate holiday maker 14%

Day tripper 13%

Interstate business trip 2%

International business trip 2%

S2 And which of the following best describes your visit to the Gold Coast? S4 Gender. S5 Which one of the following age groups do you fall into?

Base = Tourists) [n=409]

73

Two thirds of respondents have lived or operated on the Gold Coast for more than 10 years.

Q1. How long have you lived / operated on the Gold Coast? (SR)

Base = Total Respondents [n=1,900]; Residents [n=1,500]; Businesses [n=400]

14%

14%

13%

20%

19%

25%

28%

27%

31%

30%

31%

26%

9%

9%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

Residents

Businesses

Length of Time Living / Operating on the Gold Coast

Less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-20 years 21-40 years 40+ years

More than 10 years = 66%

2 in 5 (39%) have also lived or operated on

the Gold Coast for more than 20 years.

Given that the majority of residents and

businesses included in this research have

lived on the Gold Coast for a very long time,

they are likely to have been exposed to

considerable development and infrastructure

plans over the years. This makes them well

informed to respond to the topics in the

survey.

74

Documents

Final Report · 2018-03-07 · (Excel Topline report, data files, comprehensive final report in PPT and presentation of results) Quantitative Research CATI survey with n=1,500 local