❓ A WA parliamentary question seeks details about a report on the economic benefits of the Swan-Canning Riverpark, including its cost, methodology, and reasons for non-publication. The Minister's response provides information on the report's authors, cost, data collection methods, consultations, and justification for not releasing the report due to data limitations.
AnsweredQoN 310Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
SWAN–CANNING RIVERPARK — REPORT
I refer the minister to the report titled “Economic Benefits Associated with the Swan–Canning Riverpark Perth, Western Australia” and her answer to question without notice 252. (1) Who wrote the report; did the Swan River Trust or any other government agency pay for it; and if so, what was the cost? (2) Why is quantifying the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark a worthwhile exercise? (3) What methods were used by the report’s author or authors to obtain the necessary financial information? (4) Were other government or non-government agencies involved or consulted during the preparation of the report? (5) If the report is classed by the minister as a preliminary study, what further work is the minister commissioning or intending to commission to quantify the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark? (6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON
I refer the minister to the report titled “Economic Benefits Associated with the Swan–Canning Riverpark Perth, Western Australia” and her answer to question without notice 252. (1) Who wrote the report; did the Swan River Trust or any other government agency pay for it; and if so, what was the cost? (2) Why is quantifying the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark a worthwhile exercise? (3) What methods were used by the report’s author or authors to obtain the necessary financial information? (4) Were other government or non-government agencies involved or consulted during the preparation of the report? (5) If the report is classed by the minister as a preliminary study, what further work is the minister commissioning or intending to commission to quantify the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark? (6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(1) Who wrote the report; did the Swan River Trust or any other government agency pay for it; and if so, what was the cost? (2) Why is quantifying the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark a worthwhile exercise? (3) What methods were used by the report’s author or authors to obtain the necessary financial information? (4) Were other government or non-government agencies involved or consulted during the preparation of the report? (5) If the report is classed by the minister as a preliminary study, what further work is the minister commissioning or intending to commission to quantify the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark? (6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(2) Why is quantifying the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark a worthwhile exercise? (3) What methods were used by the report’s author or authors to obtain the necessary financial information? (4) Were other government or non-government agencies involved or consulted during the preparation of the report? (5) If the report is classed by the minister as a preliminary study, what further work is the minister commissioning or intending to commission to quantify the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark? (6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(3) What methods were used by the report’s author or authors to obtain the necessary financial information? (4) Were other government or non-government agencies involved or consulted during the preparation of the report? (5) If the report is classed by the minister as a preliminary study, what further work is the minister commissioning or intending to commission to quantify the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark? (6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(4) Were other government or non-government agencies involved or consulted during the preparation of the report? (5) If the report is classed by the minister as a preliminary study, what further work is the minister commissioning or intending to commission to quantify the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark? (6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(5) If the report is classed by the minister as a preliminary study, what further work is the minister commissioning or intending to commission to quantify the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark? (6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(1) Who wrote the report; did the Swan River Trust or any other government agency pay for it; and if so, what was the cost? (2) Why is quantifying the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark a worthwhile exercise? (3) What methods were used by the report’s author or authors to obtain the necessary financial information? (4) Were other government or non-government agencies involved or consulted during the preparation of the report? (5) If the report is classed by the minister as a preliminary study, what further work is the minister commissioning or intending to commission to quantify the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark? (6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(2) Why is quantifying the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark a worthwhile exercise? (3) What methods were used by the report’s author or authors to obtain the necessary financial information? (4) Were other government or non-government agencies involved or consulted during the preparation of the report? (5) If the report is classed by the minister as a preliminary study, what further work is the minister commissioning or intending to commission to quantify the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark? (6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(3) What methods were used by the report’s author or authors to obtain the necessary financial information? (4) Were other government or non-government agencies involved or consulted during the preparation of the report? (5) If the report is classed by the minister as a preliminary study, what further work is the minister commissioning or intending to commission to quantify the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark? (6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(4) Were other government or non-government agencies involved or consulted during the preparation of the report? (5) If the report is classed by the minister as a preliminary study, what further work is the minister commissioning or intending to commission to quantify the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark? (6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(5) If the report is classed by the minister as a preliminary study, what further work is the minister commissioning or intending to commission to quantify the economic benefits of the Swan–Canning Riverpark? (6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(6) Why does the fact that the objectives of the study proved to be beyond the scope of the study justify the minister not making the report public? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following advice to me — (1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(1) The report was written by the Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre. The Swan River Trust paid $30 000 for the study. (2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(2) Quantifying the economic value of the Swan–Canning Riverpark helps to raise the profile and community awareness of the value of the park and the need to look after it as a valuable state asset. It also demonstrates the importance of the asset to the state’s economy. (3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(3) Three approaches were used to obtain information. Revenue relating to direct use of the riverpark was collected from a range of commercial operators and government organisations; surrogate market valuations were used to estimate indicative indirect use value of the riverpark; and a stated preference technique was used based on a survey of Perth metropolitan residents to obtain information on non-market and non-use riverpark values. (4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(4) Yes, several government and non-government organisations were consulted to obtain financial information including the Department of Transport, Eventscorp, Transperth, ferry operators, local governments, commercial boat operators and volunteer groups. (5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(5) No further work is planned. (6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
(6) I am advised that, given time and data constraints, the preliminary study was unable to provide robust enough information to be used for public debate. It demonstrated the limitations of publicly available relevant information.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.