Visitor Economy Analysis

Visitor Portfolio
Risk Diagnostic

Growth and resilience are not the same thing.

Launch interactive diagnostic →
The reframe

Destinations routinely measure visitor arrivals, total expenditure and year-on-year growth. Those measures describe how demand has changed. They reveal much less about what that demand depends on.

Two destinations can grow at the same rate while becoming structurally very different. One may be building a balanced visitor portfolio. The other may be becoming more dependent on a narrow source of demand.

That distinction is the starting point for this diagnostic.

Growth tells you whether demand increased.
Portfolio structure tells you what that growth depends on.
The central finding
$3.2B
of domestic visitor expenditure sits in visitor purposes that are underrepresented relative to comparable destination types.

What the number means

A measure of portfolio imbalance under the benchmark assumptions.

What it does not mean

A forecast, a recoverable revenue estimate or a prediction of future demand.

The estimate compares each state's visitor-purpose mix with structurally similar destinations while holding total visitor expenditure constant.

It asks what the current portfolio would look like if each state's mix matched the benchmark for its destination type. It does not assume more visitors, higher yield or future growth.

Insight 01

High yield can coexist with an underweight share.

A segment may perform strongly when visitors arrive and still contribute less to the portfolio than comparable destinations achieve. The strategic question is therefore not only how much each visitor spends, but how much of the portfolio that segment carries.

Insight 02

Strength in one segment can conceal exposure elsewhere.

A high-performing purpose does not automatically create a balanced visitor economy. Tasmania's Holiday strength and Western Australia's Business strength illustrate why segment performance and portfolio resilience must be assessed separately.

Insight 03

Similar topline growth can rest on very different demand structures.

Two destinations can report comparable growth while carrying different levels of concentration, diversification and exposure. The same headline outcome can therefore imply very different strategic priorities.

The value of the model is not that it reports another number. It reveals the structure that standard growth measures leave hidden.
The evidence

The finding becomes useful only when the reader can test it.

The interactive diagnostic allows each state-purpose combination to be tested against its relevant peer benchmark.

Select a state and a visitor purpose to examine portfolio share, relative position, yield and the next question the pattern raises.

Explore the diagnostic Open separately ↗
The Northern Territory is handled separately. As the sole Remote destination in the dataset, it has no peer group against which to benchmark concentration. Its result is therefore interpreted as a yield, access and market-reach question rather than a concentration finding.
Behind the diagnostic

Four analytical choices shape how the benchmark should be interpreted.

Each choice improves the relevance of the comparison, while also defining the limits of what the result can support.

01 Why compare against comparable destinations?Why a national average is the wrong benchmark.
The question

Would a national comparison answer the same question?

The analytical decision

No. Visitor-purpose mix reflects structural characteristics as well as performance. Comparing Queensland with New South Wales blends fundamentally different destination economies. The diagnostic therefore compares each state with destinations facing broadly similar demand conditions.

Why it matters

A benchmark is only useful if it represents a realistic comparison. Peer groups reduce the risk of treating structural difference as underperformance.

02 Why measure expenditure rather than visitor numbers?Why economic contribution matters more than arrivals alone.
The question

If visitor numbers are increasing, is that enough?

The analytical decision

Not necessarily. Visitor numbers measure activity. Expenditure measures economic contribution. The diagnostic therefore compares how much each visitor purpose contributes to the visitor economy, not simply how many visitors arrive.

Why it matters

Growth in arrivals does not necessarily translate into a stronger or more resilient visitor portfolio.

03 Why use expenditure-weighted benchmarks?Why larger peer economies carry proportionate influence.
The question

Why not average every peer destination equally?

The analytical decision

Destination economies differ substantially in scale. Weighting each peer by total visitor expenditure produces a benchmark that reflects the relative economic significance of each destination within its group.

Why it matters

A benchmark should reflect the market being represented, rather than treat every destination as though it contributes equally.

04 When is a difference meaningful?Why small deviations are treated as broadly aligned.
The question

Does every observed difference deserve attention?

The analytical decision

No. Differences within ±0.5 percentage points are treated as broadly at benchmark. This reduces the likelihood that minor variation, rounding or annual movement is interpreted as structural imbalance.

Why it matters

The diagnostic is designed to identify differences that are more likely to matter strategically, not to amplify every small deviation.

The Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are treated as explicit special cases. The Northern Territory has no peer group by construction. For the Australian Capital Territory, Other-purpose expenditure is not separately publishable in the 2024 dataset, so no benchmark finding is reported.
Decision boundaries
The diagnostic identifies where structural differences exist. It does not establish why they exist.

A below-benchmark result does not mean a destination has failed to attract those visitors, or that a specific intervention would close the gap. It identifies where deeper investigation may create value.

What this diagnostic can support

  • Identifying visitor purposes that warrant further investigation
  • Recognising where concentration may create exposure
  • Comparing portfolios with structurally similar destinations
  • Prioritising where deeper strategic analysis should begin

What this diagnostic cannot support

  • Explaining why a benchmark difference exists
  • Predicting future visitor demand
  • Estimating recoverable revenue
  • Recommending interventions without further analysis
Tourism Research Australia introduced a revised National Visitor Survey methodology from 2025 onwards. How the diagnostic evolves under the new methodology remains an open analytical question.
The next analytical question

Identifying the pattern is the beginning of the decision, not the end.

Every destination has a different visitor portfolio. The question is what that portfolio reveals.

For some, the gap is concentrated in one purpose. For others, it spans several segments and points to a wider demand or enabling-system question. In other cases, the issue is not underrepresentation but the exposure created by concentration.

The same diagnostic question is relevant wherever demand is distributed across a portfolio of sources, including aviation, airports, infrastructure, major events and government prioritisation.

This diagnostic establishes where the structural differences sit.
The next question is why those differences emerge — and which changes would have the greatest commercial and strategic impact.
Growth can coexist with concentration. Portfolio structure makes that visible.

Source: Tourism Research Australia, National Visitor Survey, Year Ending December 2024. One year of data. Directional finding, not a definitive result.


This publication is provided for general informational and analytical purposes only. It should not be relied upon as the sole basis for commercial, investment, policy or operational decisions.


Analysis, diagnostic framework and interactive tool: Rahul Kohli · Email · LinkedIn · Portfolio


© 2026 Rahul Kohli. All rights reserved in relation to the original analytical framework, written content, visual presentation and source code.

The underlying National Visitor Survey data is publicly available and remains the property of Tourism Research Australia. No ownership of the source data is claimed.