A concerning issue with Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) is that many EIAs give results for one year, without being explicit about how long impacts are expected to last. New tourism attractions should not be assumed to provide continuing positive impacts into the future. For instance, the Giant Pandas at Adelaide Zoo generated a positive economic impact in their first year of residence (22% of a sample of tourists visited Adelaide "due to pandas," additional tourism expenditure in the region was $27.7 million, with $2.3 to $4.6 million captured by the zoo); however, increased numbers visiting to see the pandas lasted only two years. Investment decision makers expected larger, longer-term economic benefits than eventuated, and the zoo experienced financial difficulties. This study provides advice for predictive EIA of new tourism attractions and prompts a call for tourism EIA studies to be explicit about the time period for which results are relevant.