Key Findings of Tourism KwaZulu Natal's Event Impact Assessment Presented by: Richard Wyllie - Researcher Tourism KwaZulu-Natal

1. Tsogo Sun Amashova Durban Classic
Event Impact Assessment:
Top Line Summary Report
Richard Wyllie
Tourism KwaZulu-Natal
April 2017

2. Event Impact Assessments

3. Importance of EIAs
Why determine the impact of an event?
• Marketing
• Economic impact
• Forecasting and Projections
• Profile of Visitors/Participants

4. Importance of EIAs
What are the outcomes of an EIA?
• Economic Impact
• Travel Patterns (visitors vs local; transport; length of stay)
• Profile of Respondents (domestic vs foreign, participant vs
spectator)
• Demographics (gender, population group, income level…)
• General Feedback

5. Why are events important?
• Alleviate seasonality
• Assist in the branding/marketing of a destination
• Increase the competitiveness of a destination
• Increase tourism development and growth
• Create a number of economic spin-offs (such as jobs

6. The 2016 Amashova EIA

7. Positive Highlights
• In 2016, there was a total of ±207 international participants.
• 59% of the respondents were visitors, which was a 19% increase from 2015. Furthermore,
most of these visitors stayed for 2 nights or more.
• There was an increase in the number of entrants from Gauteng.
• 97% of the respondents were satisfied with the information provided by the organizers.
• 90% of the participant respondents said that they would attend the event again.
• 98% would recommend the event to family and friends.
• 90% of the respondents did not experience any problems at the event.
• The estimated economic impact of the event was between R56,8 and R93,2 million.

8. Methodology
Primary Data:
– 200 face-to-face interviews were conducted with respondents
randomly selected on the day of the race at the finishing point
(Suncoast Casino, Durban).
– The interviews were conducted using a structured questionnaire.
– The international best practice of representative sampling was used
(see the next slide).
Secondary Data:
– Provided by the organizers of the event.

9. Entrants
Event 2013 2014 2015 2016
106km 6 492 6 337 6 154 5 999
65km 1 383 1 610 1 731 1 891
35km 2 249 2 035 1 776 1 795
Total Participants 10 124 9 982 10 022 9 685
-1,4% 0,4%↑ -3,4%
Note: the total participants in 2016 for the 106km, 65km and 35km
is 9 685. This figure includes both domestic and international
participants.

10. Participants:
RSA vs International
The race continues to be dominated by South African participants.
1%
99%
1%
99%
1%
99%
1%
99%
1%
99%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
International RSA
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

11. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 22 38 21 21 8 53 78 77 64 207
International Entrants
The number of international entrants had increased in 2016. This is extremely positive in
terms of the global appeal and growth of the event.

12. Domestic Respondents
Local Residents vs Visitors
When comparing 2015 and 2016, there was a 19% increase in the number of respondents who were
visitors, and this occurred alongside a decline in the number of respondents who were local residents.
Once again, this finding should have a positive influence on the value of the event.
49% 51%
54%
46%
59%
41%40%
60%59%
41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Visitors Local Residents
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

13. Domestic Respondents (2016)
Local Residents vs Visitors (cont’d.)
In 2016, it was noted that 43% of the respondents were overnight visitors, while 16% were day
visitors. It is important to maintain a high number of overnight visitors as they tend to have a higher
average spend, and thus have a positive impact on the value of the event.
41%
16%
43%
Local Resident
Day Visitor
Overnight Visitor

14. Nature of Respondents: Breakdown
The table outlines the breakdown of the estimated numbers that attended the event. The
breakdown of the numbers is based on the proportion of local residents and visitors, which
has been obtained from the surveys.
*It is important to note that the total attendance in 2016 was estimated to be 12 685. This is
based on the total number of participants (9 685) in addition to the estimated number of
spectators being 3 000.
2016 Sample % Total Attendance*
Local Residents 82 41 5 201
Day Visitors 32 16 2 030
Overnight Visitors 86 43 5 454
TOTAL 200 100 12 685
2015 Sample % Total Attendance*
Local Residents 138 60 7 501
Day Visitors 32 14 1 750
Overnight Visitors 60 26 3 251
TOTAL 230 100 12 502

15. Average Group Size
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2.9 2.8 3.4 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.9
Note: A group refers to a respondent and his/her non-cyclist friends, spouse and children
attending the event. It does not include other cyclists.
When comparing 2015 and 2016 it was evident that there was slight increase in the average
group size. This could possibly be attributed to the fact that there was an increase in the
number of visitors that attended the event. It is quite common for visitors to travel with their
families or in a group of friends, whereas local residents are more likely to travel with one
family member or “supporter”.

16. Domestic Respondents:
Province of Origin (All)
It is evident that people from KZN still dominate the event. However, when compared to previous years,
the number of respondents from KZN decreased by 18%, while the respondents from Gauteng had
increased by 12% and those from the W Cape had increased by 4%. The remaining provinces were
poorly represented.
KZN Gauteng WC EC FS NW Lim Mpum NC
2012 68% 24% 3% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0%
2013 66% 26% 3% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0%
2014 62% 28% 4% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3% 0%
2015 76% 20% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2016 58% 32% 5% 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

17. Total Average Spend
Year **Low Estimate *Middle Estimate ***High Estimate
2008 R1 315 R1 554 R1 794
2009 R770 R968 R1 167
2010 R1 350 R1 685 R2 019
2011 R1 324 R1 729 R2 133
2012 R1 627 R2 071 R2 515
2013 R1 490 R1 858 R2 226
2014 R2 101 R2 729 R3 357
2015 R2 410 R3 467 R4 524
2016 R2 501 R3 108 R3 715
* No margin of error of
mean
**Low estimate of
margin of error of
mean at 95%
confidence level
***High estimate of
margin of error of
mean at 95%
confidence level
The average mean spend of the respondents was higher in
2015 than in 2016. However, the difference is quite small in
the larger scheme of things. The slight decline could be
attributed to the decreased spend due to a depressed local
economy. There is never an absolute reason for the
decrease in spend.

18. Breakdown of Non-Resident Spend
Item 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Accommodation R1 911 R2 645 R2 102 R2 898 R2 570 R2 454
Transport R1 055 R1 358 R1 115 R2 062 R1 351 R1 613
Food and Beverages R729 R942 R777 R1 060 R730 R1 185
Entertainment R595 R745 R870 R715 R700 R138
Souvenirs/Other R756 R900 R594 R866 R558 R153
When comparing 2015 and 2016, it was noted that the average spend by non-residents decreased
across the categories accommodation (slight), entertainment, and souvenirs/other spend. Yet there
were increases in the categories transport and food and beverages. The data shows that the
respondents spent money only on crucial elements of the trip such as food and accommodation – this
is evident from the decrease in entertainment and other spend. The increase in the transport and food
spend can be attributed to the rise in petrol prices and food prices (drought). The slight decrease in the
accommodation spend is not significant.

19. Estimated Total Economic Impact:
Non-Residents
Participants and Spectators
2014 2015 2016
*Direct
Spend
Between R15 200 060
and R27 268 938
Between R15 622 125
and R31 297 741
BetweenR28 440 506
and R46 633 914
Total
Spend
**Between R30 400 121
and R54 537 877
**Between R31 324 250
and R62 595 482
**Between R56 881 011
and R93 267 828
Note: The direct spend was calculated by using the non-resident spend only. Only 75% of the
organizers’ spend was considered to be spent in KZN. This accounts for spend that leaves the
province, such as prize money and time keeping equipment. The number of participants had
decreased but because the spend had no significant changes, the economic value of the event
is thus estimated to have increased in 2016. Another reason behind the increase in the
economic impact of the event is due to the increase in the number of visitors. As the economic
impact is calculated by using the visitor’s spend, it is therefore expected that the increase of
visitors would increase the economic value of the event.
** Multiplier of 2

20. Length of Stay:
Overnight Visitors
The general trend in 2016 was that the majority of the respondents stayed for the weekend of the
event – i.e. 46% stayed for 3 nights and 25% stayed for 2 nights. There was a 15% increase in
the number of people who stayed for 3 nights as well as those who stayed for 4 nights. It is
positive to see that the length of stay is increasing as this could influence the value of the event in a
positive manner.
1 Night 2 Nights 3 Nights 4 Nights >4 Nights
2013 21% 29% 38% 8% 5%
2014 24% 29% 31% 12% 5%
2015 18% 31% 31% 11% 10%
2016 13% 25% 46% 16% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

21. Accommodation
Overnight Visitors
It was noted that 49% of the respondents stayed in either a Luxury Hotel (28%) or in a Family
Hotel (21%). When comparing 2015 and 2016, there was an increase in the numbers who
stayed in Luxury Hotels, Family Hotels, Self-Catering Units, and with Friends/Family.
Luxury Hotel Family Hotel
B&B/Guest
House
Holiday Flat Self-Catering
Holiday
Home
Friends/Fam
ily
Other
2012 20% 19% 13% 9% 7% 1% 25% 6%
2013 15% 18% 18% 3% 12% 1% 29% 4%
2014 21% 22% 11% 4% 11% 4% 25% 2%
2015 19% 19% 16% 13% 11% 3% 14% 5%
2016 28% 21% 11% 6% 15% 4% 15% 0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%

22. Primary Reason for Visit
All of the respondents at the event were in Durban as a result of the event, due to the fact that 100%
of the respondents indicated that they were either a participant or a spectator. This indicated that the
event does attract visitors to Durban. However, there were no significant changes when comparing
2015 and 2016.
Participant Spectator Business VFR Holiday Other
2012 60% 36% 2% 2% 1% 0%
2013 66% 22% 1% 3% 1% 8%
2014 56% 43% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2015 76% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2016 73% 27% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

23. Transport to Event:
Visitors Only
The main form of transport that the respondents continued to use was their private vehicles, with
88% of the respondents stating so. There was a slight increase in those who used their private
vehicle as well as those who arrived flew into Durban. There was a decrease in the number who
made use of a rental vehicle. This underlines the difficulty of transporting bicycles on transport other
than private vehicles with bike racks.
Private vehicle Airplane Rental vehicle Mini-Bus taxi Bus Train Other
2012 83% 11% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0%
2013 89% 5% 1% 0% 1% 3% 1%
2014 88% 3% 3% 2% 0% 1% 3%
2015 81% 3% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2016 88% 9% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

24. Media Influence
It was noted that 88% of the respondents were influenced by non-traditional media – i.e. word-of-
mouth and attended previously continued to be the main influences to attend the event. There
were no significant changes when comparing 2015 and 2016.
Word-of-
Mouth
TV Ad
Newspaper/
Magazine
Posters/Ban
ners/Flyers
Attended
Before
Radio Other
Wesbite/Inte
rnet
2013 27% 2% 0% 0% 60% 2% 8% 0%
2014 39% 0% 0% 2% 51% 0% 7% 2%
2015 32% 1% 0% 1% 50% 3% 10% 2%
2016 31% 1% 1% 1% 57% 7% 1% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

25. Previous Attendance
Once again, most of the respondents indicated that they had attended the event in previous years. It
was noted that there was an increase of 11% in those who had attended before. 27% of the
respondents had indicated that they had attended for the first time. Both of these findings are
positive for the overall growth of the event, as it shows that the event attracts new-comers as well as
those who have been before.
63%
37%
74%
26%
68%
32%
62%
38%
73%
27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes No
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

26. Future Attendance
90% of all the respondents indicated that they would attend the event again. This further supports the
indication that the event is popular. However, there was a decrease in the number of respondents who
said they would attend again, as well as those who were not sure, when comparing 2015 and 2016.
88%
3%
9%
91%
1%
7%
91%
2%
6%
93%
0%
7%
90%
1%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes No Don't Know
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

27. Experience Rating
It was positive to note that 96% of the respondents had either a good (50%) or excellent (46%)
experience at the event. It is evident, when comparing 2015 and 2016, that there was a slight
decline in those who had an excellent experience while there was an increase in those who had a
good experience.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
2012 44% 51% 5% 1%
2013 55% 41% 3% 0%
2014 41% 50% 7% 2%
2015 58% 39% 2% 0%
2016 46% 50% 4% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

28. Recommend the Event
to Family & Friends?
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDING THE EVENT
•Fun and exciting event
•Family event
•Well organised
•Caters for all levels of cyclists
•Healthy and enjoyable event
99%
1%
98%
2%
98%
2%
99%
1%
98%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes No
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

29. Recommend KZN
When asked if they would recommend KZN as a tourism destination, the majority of the respondents
said that they would. Even though the number of those who answered ‘Yes’ decreased by 3% in
2016, it is still very positive to see the confidence that people have with the province as a tourism
destination.
98%
2%
99%
1%
96%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes No
2014
2015
2016
Some the reasons for
recommending KZN
were:
 Warm weather
 Lots of things to do
 Beaches
 Nice people
 Beautiful scenery

30. Plans to visit KZN
It was positive to note that the majority of the respondents had still indicated that they had plans to
visit KZN again for a holiday. Furthermore, there was a 6% increase in the number who said that
they would be visiting KZN again, when comparing 2015 and 2016.
81%
19%
77%
23%
75%
25%
71%
29%
77%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes No
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

31. Demographic Data:
Gender
There was an almost even split in terms of the number of male and female respondents in
2016. Over the past three years, there have been more male respondents than female
respondents with only 2015 showing a significant difference.
50%
58%
51%50%
42%
49%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2015 2016
Male
Female

32. Demographic Data:
Population Group
The event continues to be dominated by the ‘White’ population group, and his followed by the
‘Black’ population group. There has also been a steady rise in the attendance of ‘Black’ people
(increased by 4% and 5% between 2014 and 2016).
12%
74%
7% 7%
16%
61%
7%
17%
21%
64%
6%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Black White Coloured Indian/Asian
2014
2015
2016

33. Demographic Data:
Age Group
Approximately 52% of the respondents were considered to be part of the middle-age group – i.e.
30-39 (27%) and 40-49 (25%). These groups were then followed by the age groups of 18-29
(20%) and then 50-59 (19%). There was a 7% increase in the 60+ age group in 2016.
18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
2014 20% 24% 28% 18% 10%
2015 21% 30% 28% 17% 3%
2016 20% 27% 25% 19% 10%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%

34. Demographic Data:
Income Level
It is evident that most of the respondents are in the middle to high income brackets, with the
majority in 2016 earning over R30 000 per month. There was a 17% increase in this income
group between 2015 and 2016. This shows that the event attracts people with the capability of a
high spend.
<R1000
R1000-
R5000
R5001-R10
000
R10 001-
R20 000
R20 001-
R30 000
R30 000+ Other
2014 1% 2% 9% 16% 29% 34% 10%
2015 3% 4% 8% 27% 40% 15% 4%
2016 6% 4% 12% 24% 23% 32% 0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Income

35. Thank you
Richard Wyllie
Researcher
Tourism KwaZulu-Natal
richard@zulu.org.za
031 366 7528