National Park Surveys Reveal Happy Campers

The good news, campers and hikers, is that Moscow is getting detailed and regular reports on what we Americans do in and think of our national parks.

The lodges, the eating, the parking, the searching for public restrooms--it’s all there. Occasionally it even prompts a call to Washington.

Now, lest you imagine a phalanx of big, black helicopters bearing down on Old Faithful, be advised that the Moscow in question is Moscow, Idaho. That’s where Gary Machlis, the chief social scientist for the National Park Service, is professor of forest resources and sociology at the University of Idaho.

With the help of graduate students and local volunteers, Machlis crunches thousands of numbers each year to try to quantify how we feel about our national parks and the rangers who run them. This is no small job: The national park system involves about 20,000 permanent and seasonal employees and has an annual budget of about $2 billion.

The surveys were designed to help managers measure satisfaction levels. With the peak season for park visits approaching, the findings of Machlis and company also offer some perspective for travelers heading to one of these federally protected slices of the great outdoors.

One lesson: If you get out of your car and stay a while, the crowds will thin out.

Park service veterans say this is true in almost any park. In a 1997 survey of Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah, researchers found that 80% of visitors toured by automobile, leaving their vehicles only for short walks to viewpoints. About 59% spent less than a day in the park, and of those, 47% spent four hours or less.

Surveying Mojave National Preserve the same year, researchers found 61% of visitors stayed less than a day, and of those, 49% were gone in three hours or less.

Another tidbit: Your chances of being satisfied with the public restrooms are good, according to this data. Among 4,438 visitors surveyed in 15 parks in 1998 and 1999, 67% found restroom conditions good or very good, and 23% found them average. Just 10% found them poor or very poor.

Each year, Machlis and company analyze detailed visitor surveys from a different set of 10 to 15 parks, and they separately tally broader visitor questionnaires from more than 300 parks throughout the 379-park system.

Nationwide, park officials counted 286.7 million visitors in 1998. They forecast 291.3 million visitors for this year, about one visit for every U.S. citizen, although repeat visitors are counted more than once. In California, the most-visited parks in 1998 were Yosemite (3.7 million visitors), Joshua Tree (1.4 million) and Death Valley (1.2 million). Throughout the park system, July is traditionally the busiest month, followed by August and June.

In “Serving the Visitor 1999,” a 40-page “report card” booklet sent by top park service officials to superintendents and rangers about three weeks ago, survey responses suggest that visitors are fairly happy campers:

* Of 2,954 visitors surveyed in 14 parks in 1998 and 1999 (the survey rotates parks annually, always including a regional mix), 88% rated service by park personnel as “good” or “very good”--a finding that essentially matches previous surveys from 1993-97. (Three percent rated the service below average.)

* Similarly, of 1,964 visitors surveyed in 10 parks about their visitor center experience, 80% said “good” or “very good,” while 3% rated the experience below average. Picnic and overnight camping areas drew similar ratings.

* Praise for food service wasn’t as widespread. Of 586 respondents at five parks, 73% found food service above average, 34% found it average, and 9% found it poor or very poor. Food operations are generally run by private concessionaires under contract with the government, not park service workers, which gives rangers less control over results.

These results don’t vary widely from previous surveys. In a separate tally of 307 parks that completed visitor satisfaction surveys in 1999 (27,267 visitors were surveyed in all), the system’s overall visitor satisfaction rate was 94%.

Frequently, Machlis and other park officials say, the findings prompt changes in park operations. Among the more noteworthy moves, the park service has adopted a five-year plan to face its most critical deferred-maintenance needs. Rangers also are reevaluating transportation systems within parks, prompting reforms aimed at reconciling visitors’ needs with the automobile’s effect on natural resources.

But sometimes discoveries are smaller and more specific. Machlis recalls that in 1990, a survey of White House tour takers disclosed that 30% were children.

“Everyone was stunned,” Machlis says, “because they didn’t really have content on the tour, or materials at the bookstore, appropriate for children. They thought it was an adult tour. . . . Once they realized the mix of their visitors, they altered the tours.”

There is, however, a dark side to our parks. In a survey separate from those run by Machlis, the National Partnership for Reinventing Government and the Office of Personnel Management asked a sampling of park service employees about their job satisfaction and found widespread discontent.

Of the 306 respondents (who represented 41% of those who received questionnaires), less than a third thought the park service rewards creativity and innovation, and 34% thought employees receive training and guidance in providing high-quality customer service. About half thought their immediate supervisor was doing a good job.

That last figure, researchers within the reinvention office report, is 4 points lower than comparable numbers for federal workers overall and 20 points lower than was found in private industry.

*

Christopher Reynolds welcomes comments and suggestions, but cannot respond individually to letters and calls. Write Travel Insider, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053, or send e-mail to chris.reynolds@latimes.com.