U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Satisfaction Survey Issued January 2005

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Satisfaction Survey

Issued January 2005

FWS Nat’l Wildlife Refuge, 1/05

Table of Contents

• Acknowledgements 4• Report Summary 5

– Project Objectives, Methodology, and History

– Summary of Key Findings

– Visitor Scorecard

– Specific Concerns from Visitors’ Comments

– Suggestions for Improving Accessibility

• Ways to Improve Service: Leverage 16

– Improvement Priorities for All Visitors

• Visitor Satisfaction Ratings 27

– Distribution of Overall Satisfaction among All Visitors

– Average Overall Satisfaction Ratings for Each Question

– Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup

– Satisfaction by Refuge

• Respondent Profiles 46– Purpose and/or Use– Fair Value– Knowledge of Refuge– Contact with Refuge

Table of Contents – 2


Table of Contents – continued

• Demographic Information 61• Response Rates 68• Appendices 73

– Appendix A: Leverage Explanation

– Appendix B: Survey Methodology and Administration, Sampling Procedures, and Weighting

– Appendix C: FWS National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Satisfaction Questionnaire

– Appendix D: Participating National Wildlife Refuges

– Appendix E: OMB Clearance Document

– Appendix F: Instructions for Refuge Surveyors

– Appendix G: Refuge Log Sheet

Table of Contents – 3


Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments – 4

• The information in this report was collected and analyzed under the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Visitor Services and Communications, in conjunction with Pacific Consulting Group.

• Direct questions or comments to:

Rebecca S. Halbe

Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Visitor Services and Communications

4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 635B

Arlington VA 22203

Phone: (703) 358-2365

FAX: (703) 358-2517

E-Mail: [email protected]

• Or to other Fish and Wildlife Service staff:

Connie Lanahan (703) 358-1968

Kevin Kilcullen (703) 358-2382

Sean Furniss (703) 358-2376

• Internet address: http://www.fws.gov

FWS Nat’l Wildlife Refuge, 1/05 Report Summary – 5

Report Summary

• Project Objectives, Methodology, and History

• Summary of Key Findings

• Visitor Scorecard

• Specific Concerns from Visitors’ Comments

• Suggestions for Improving Accessibility


Project Objectives

Report Summary – 6

• The objectives of this study are:– To continue evaluating FWS refuge performance within the context of its goal: “By 2005, 90%

of all National Wildlife Refuge visitors are satisfied with the quality of their recreational and/or educational experience”;

– To better understand the interests and perspectives of visitors, specifically regarding their recreational, educational, and informational experiences;

– To identify areas where improvements will have the greatest impact on visitors’ satisfaction;– To measure visitors’ satisfaction with the National Wildlife Refuge system;– To identify differences in satisfaction among visitor subgroups;– To create performance measures, including measures of customer service, through a

strategic planning process, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) passed and signed into law in August, 1993; and

– To provide data for the purpose of driving National Wildlife Refuge improvements in customer service.


Project Methodology


• This is the second administration of the FWS National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Satisfaction survey. The data represent statistically valid measurements of various elements of visitor satisfaction at a national level.

• Questionnaires were available in both English and Spanish for each of the fifty selected National Wildlife Refuges (see Appendix D for a complete listing of the participating Refuges).

• Surveyors approached 3,031 potential respondents during their visit to a fish and wildlife refuge, resulting in 2,456 completed questionnaires for a national response rate of 81%. (See page 69 for a more detailed discussion on response rates.)

• Survey results for this report were collected from September 8 through October 27, 2004. The survey period for each of the fifty individual Refuges was limited to selected days and time periods during a predetermined three week period within the overall survey time period.

• This time period was chosen because it corresponds with the hunting season and it represents a survey time period not covered by the previous 2002 survey administration. It was also chosen because most refuges experience high visitation during this time, most recreational opportunities are available, and refuges generally have sufficient staff and volunteers on hand to administer the survey.

• A more detailed discussion of the survey methodology and administration, sampling procedures, and weighting appears in Appendix B.


Project History


• The FWS Division of Visitor Services and Communications reviewed survey questions, results, and analyses from earlier visitor survey efforts – 2001 American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) report, Fee Demonstration Program survey results, and a 1996 report from a pilot survey contracted with the National Park Service (NPS) Visitor Services.

• FWS consulted with refuge managers (both at the field and regional levels), visitors services staff, and a migratory birds survey statistician to gain insight on what information is useful and how to gather it.

• FWS consulted with Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and National Park Service (NPS) representatives and their contractors to discuss the survey methodologies and survey instruments they use for their GPRA visitor satisfaction surveys.

• The first intercept survey was pre-tested in 2002 at one Refuge. Respondents found the survey of satisfactory length, with questions clearly worded and covering subjects that mattered to them. The survey was implemented in July through September 2002 to 50 Wildlife Refuges and results were reported in early 2003.

• In 2004, the 2002 questionnaire was reorganized and additional questions were added. An overall satisfaction rating question was also added to each of the six categories of customer experience, called arenas, in order to perform more advanced analysis using the contractor’s Net Impression® software. This software identifies, for each arena, where changes in service will produce the greatest improvements in overall satisfaction.


Summary of Key Findings


• Out of the 3,031 questionnaires distributed, 2,456 were completed and returned resulting in a response rate of 81%.

• The overall satisfaction rating is 4.48 on a 5-point scale.• The Adequate Activities and Opportunities arena is the top improvement priority. Visitors are

referring to how adequate the refuge is in providing them the opportunity to do what they came to the refuge to do.

– The top leverage item within this arena is Access Facilities in Order to Participate with Other Visitors.

• Visitor Centers and Contact Stations and Road and Transportation Systems are the second and third-highest improvement priorities, respectively.

• The majority (95%) of respondents are satisfied with the overall quality of their recreational/ educational experience at the wildlife refuge.

– Refuge visitors are most satisfied with the Employees or Volunteers arena. They are also pleased with Visitor Information.

– Visitors feel that the refuge workers were courteous and answered their questions. – In addition, respondents report that the signs were easy to understand and that information about the

refuge and maps were easy to locate.– The following subgroups give significantly higher overall satisfaction ratings than visitors as a whole:

respondents who are more educated; those who speak English; those who visited the refuge for non-physical purposes (see page 40); those who did not pay a fee; those who did not require special assistance; those who have more understanding of the refuge system; and those from regions two, four, and five.

• Only 2% of respondents report dissatisfaction with their overall experience at the wildlife refuge.– Respondents are least satisfied with the Adequate Activities and Opportunities and Road and

Transportation Systems arenas.– They are disappointed with access to some facilities and opportunities for hunting and fishing.– Respondents as a whole are less satisfied with the quality of roads and auto tours, as well as the number

of parking spaces. Visitors who used the tram service are disappointed with the tram schedule.


Summary of Key Findings – continued


• The majority of survey participants indicated that their main purpose for visiting this refuge was to observe and/or photograph wildlife.

• Of the visitors who paid a fee, most (83%) agreed that the fee was appropriate, whereas 9% felt that the fee was too low.

• The majority of respondents were aware that they were at a NWR managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before answering the questionnaire. Also, 79% of respondents were aware of the rules and regulations of the refuge.

• Visitors most commonly indicated that they learned of the refuge by word-of-mouth. Printed information and Web sites were the least common ways.

• Most (96%) of the respondents were U.S. citizens, and over half (61%) were men. – 26% were between the ages of 51 to 60 years old, and most (79%) have at least some college

experience.– The largest (86%) ethnic group was White.


Visitor Scorecard• The visitor’s view of the National Wildlife Refuge is organized into six arenas as shown below.

Overall SatisfactionOverall Satisfaction

Employees or Volunteers


Road and Transportation

Systems

Road and Transportation

Systems

General Perceptions

General Perceptions

• Employees or volunteers. . .

• Answered my questions about this National Wildlife Refuge

• Answered my questions about the National Wildlife Refuge System (e.g., location of other refuges, purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System)

• Answered my questions about fish, wildlife, plants, and/or their habitats

• Answered my questions about recreational opportunities of this National Wildlife Refuge

• Were courteous

• Printed information about this National Wildlife Refuge (e.g., maps, brochures) was easy to find

• Printed information about the National Wildlife Refuge System was easy to find

• Printed information about fish, wildlife, plants, and/or habitats was easy to find

• Signs were easy to understand

• Maps and/or signs made it easy for me to find the National Wildlife Refuge

• Roads and auto tour routes have well maintained surface conditions

• Parking areas and pullouts have well maintained surface conditions

• There is an adequate number of places for parking

• Driving conditions are safe

• Traffic flows smoothly within the National Wildlife Refuge

• Bridges are well maintained

• Trails are well maintained

• Boardwalks are well maintained

• Trams are timely

Visitor Information

Visitor Information

Visitor Centers and Contact

Stations

Visitor Centers and Contact

Stations

Adequate Activities and Opportunities

Adequate Activities and Opportunities

• Hours and days of operation are set at convenient times

• There is adequate staffing to efficiently handle visitors’ requests

• Facilities are easy to find

• Exhibits are in good condition

• Exhibits are easy to understand

• Exhibits are of educational value

• Structures such as kiosks, viewing decks, and blinds are useful enhancements to this refuge

• Restrooms are well maintained

• This National Wildlife Refuge does a good job of conserving fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats

• This National Wildlife Refuge provides a sufficient law enforcement presence to minimize crime

• It is easy for me to make an inquiry or complaint about this National Wildlife Refuge

• This National Wildlife Refuge meets my recreational demands

• This refuge provide adequate opportunities to. . .

• Observe and/or photograph fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats

• Obtain useful information about fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats (e.g., brochures, nature talks, exhibits)

• Use the trails• Hunt or fish• Access facilities in

order to participate with other visitors in all or part of the activities available



Specific Concerns from Visitors’ Comments

• The survey contains a question asking customers if they have any specific concerns about this National Wildlife Refuge.

• Of the 2,456 completed surveys, 27% of respondents answered this question. Specific concerns are categorized as shown in the chart below.


Topic Count PercentPositive Comments 219 33%Funding 50 8%Pro Hunting and Fishing 44 7%Wildlife Protection 42 6%Wildlife Maintenance 40 6%Lack of Facilities 35 5%Road Maintenance 29 4%Water Issues 26 4%Against Hunting and Fishing 25 4%Trail Accessibility and Maintenance 25 4%General Suggestions 22 3%Hours of Operation 21 3%Restroom Maintenance 17 3%Personnel Issues 14 2%Handling of Trash 12 2%Pet Issues 11 2%Provision of Information 9 1%Wildlife Education 6 1%Other 19 3%

Total Comments 666 100%

Topic Count PercentPositive Comments 219 33%Funding 50 8%Pro Hunting and Fishing 44 7%Wildlife Protection 42 6%Wildlife Maintenance 40 6%Lack of Facilities 35 5%Road Maintenance 29 4%Water Issues 26 4%Against Hunting and Fishing 25 4%Trail Accessibility and Maintenance 25 4%General Suggestions 22 3%Hours of Operation 21 3%Restroom Maintenance 17 3%Personnel Issues 14 2%Handling of Trash 12 2%Pet Issues 11 2%Provision of Information 9 1%Wildlife Education 6 1%Other 19 3%

Total Comments 666 100%


Specific Concerns from Visitors’ Comments – continued


• General Positive Comments (33%): – “We have been visiting over the past several years and find the refuge both informative and enjoyable.”– “I am very happy that this land was preserved for public use. I have learned a lot from the interpretive

exhibit signs.”– “Keep the refuge as it is with emphasis on educating the public about the importance of wildlife

preservation, especially habitat preservation.”– “The refuge is very well designed and well managed. I had an enjoyable visit and photography session.”– “Please continue to be friendly, helpful, and educational. We love coming here, and we tell many other

people to come here too.”– “This is heaven on earth! Thumbs up!”

• Funding Concerns (8%):– “The entire refuge system needs more funding for more staffing and maintenance of infrastructures.

There needs to be a greater emphasis on funding for wildlife protection.”– “I hope the refuge continues to get enough funding to run educational programs and maintain the

exhibits. The government should fully fund all our parks and refuges.”– “This refuge is seriously under funded and could use two or three more full-time personnel.”– “Funding is needed to fix NWR camp area restrooms. They are in bad shape!”

• Pro Hunting and Fishing Comments (7%):– “I love to hunt here, but we need a place to hang and clean deer on a skinning rack.”– “Raise the daily limit for goose hunting to two geese per day and allow hunting only every other day.”– “I would like to see a trapping season to increase recreational opportunities and to remove predators that

kill ground nesting birds. This would also keep the animal population stable and healthy.”– “I would appreciate it if the hunting zone was posted at the front entry and there was more upkeep of the

hunting blinds.”

FWS Nat’l Wildlife Refuge, 1/05 Report Summary – 14

• Wildlife Protection Concerns (6%):– “I do not feel that trapping and hunting should be allowed anywhere on the refuge. A refuge should

be a safe haven for all native species, and most people come to observe this wildlife.”– “I believe that a refuge should not allow hunting on its premises. I believe it’s contrary to the

purpose a refuge should pursue, and it’s dangerous to the visitors here.”– “Hunting should be outlawed on the refuge. We need to save our endangered species.”– “I would like to see a protective fence for the tortoises that roam the area. They are so well

camouflaged that they could easily be run over.”– “I am concerned that proposed fishing and hunting plans will be a detriment to the refuge.”

• General Suggestions (3%):– “Please do not allow vehicles on the beach.”– “Information in languages other than English would be nice.”– “If you are going to establish rules, enforce them!”– “I would appreciate a ‘season pass’ user fee.”– “There is too much timber cutting.”

• Restroom Maintenance Suggestions (3%):– “The restrooms close too early in the season.”– “It would be nice if the visitor center was open on weekends.”– “Restrooms could use a ‘sprucing up.’ ”– “Additional restrooms are needed near the bay to meet the needs of visitors. Also, provide more

restrooms at trailheads. The trails are used instead and are filthy!”– “I understand that this is a new refuge, but it needs better roads, restrooms, meeting rooms, and

education buildings.”

Specific Concerns from Visitors’ Comments – continued


Suggestions for Improving Accessibility

• 2.6% of the Visitors Required Special Assistance or Mobility Aids to Access Any Part of the National Wildlife Refuge

• The following are visitors’ suggestions for ways in which FWS can improve the accessibility of the facilities and exhibits.

– “I enjoyed this refuge for six years before I was handicapped. Now I need a boat motor to hunt, but the refuge won’t allow that.”

– “Weeds on the trails during the summer make the trails difficult to use for some visitors.”– “You should revert back to allowing motors on Red Rock Lake to comply with the disabilities act. You

have shut out many good hunters.”– “We need to be able to access the refuge better; FWS needs to make better trails.”



• Improvement Priorities for All Visitors

Ways to Improve Service: Leverage

Leverage – 16


Understanding the Improvement Opportunities Section

Leverage – 17

• This section explains how to improve customer satisfaction by using leverage analysis.

• Leverage analysis combines both satisfaction and importance into a single measure in order to prioritize those items that will have the greatest impact on customer satisfaction. Items, from the customers’ point of view, that have the highest importance and lowest satisfaction have the greatest leverage, or potential, to improve satisfaction ratings.

• For a more in-depth explanation of leverage, see Appendix A.


Summary of Improvement Priorities for All Visitors

Leverage – 18

• These improvement priorities are illustrated in the charts on the following pages.• Adequate Activities and Opportunities is the top improvement priority for all refuge visitors. Visitors

feel that FWS needs to provide more recreational opportunities. (“Adequate” includes accessibility for persons with disabilities or special conditions.)

– The top item within this arena is Access Facilities in Order to Participate with Other Visitors. The majority of respondents to this question did not require special assistance. These respondents expressed a desire for more access to the refuge in general, as well as improved accessibility to all that the refuge has to offer.

– “I enjoyed this refuge for six years before I was handicapped. Now I need a boat motor in order to hunt, but the refuge won’t allow that.”

– “Please increase the accessibility to savanna areas and manage your wetlands. The current areas open for public use are difficult to access.”

– “Many refuges I’ve been to have not had enough access to birds.”– “Too many people park here to access the beach across the highway, thus preventing wildlife observers from accessing

the refuge.”

• The Visitor Centers and Contact Stations arena is the second-highest improvement priority for refuge visitors.

– Within this arena, There Is Adequate Staffing to Efficiently Handle Visitor’s Requests is the top improvement priority item. Visitors recognize that volunteers are not readily available and that it is difficult to pay a large staff, but improving the number of refuge workers would enhance the visitors’ experiences.

– “This refuge could use more staff in order to handle the many requests they get.”– “The refuges I’ve visited need more paid, permanent employees. Volunteers are great, but a lot of refuges have closed due

to a lack of paid staff.”

– Also, Facilities Are Easy to Find and Hours and Days of Operation Are Convenient are both high improvement items within the Visitor Centers and Contact Stations arena. FWS should attempt to build facilities in more central locations and make visitor center hours more consistent across refuges.

– “I would appreciate it if the visitor center was open on weekends.”– “Every refuge we’ve been to has a visitor center, but they all have different hours. It would be nice if the hours were

consistent across refuges.”– “The restrooms are hidden unless you have a map; FWS should have a central location for these facilities.”


Summary of Improvement Priorities for All Visitors

Leverage – 19

• The third-highest improvement priority for refuge visitors is the Road and Transportation Systems arena.

– Within this arena, Trams are Timely is the top improvement priority for visitors who rode the tram (28% of survey respondents).

– “We waited for the tram, but it did not arrive at it’s scheduled time.”– “The tram schedule should be a permanent, structured schedule. Some people depend on it as their only way to get to and

from the refuge.”

– For all survey respondents, Trails Are Well Maintained, Bridges Are Well Maintained, and Boardwalks Are Well Maintained are high improvement priorities in this arena.

– “The trails are not named or marked. This makes it very difficult to find the area you want to see.”– “The bridge across Sour Springs is dangerous.”– “The refuge needs to open more boardwalks.”– “We need more paved trails with interpretive signs around the other side of the lake.”

• Respondents who paid a fee and those whose primary purpose was either hunting, fishing, or hiking have the same improvement priorities as all refuge visitors as a whole; therefore no individual subgroup leverage charts are shown.

• However, when we performed leverage analysis on the Alaska region (Region 7) (because it has the lowest overall satisfaction rating), there were some notable differences when compared to respondents as a whole.

– Roads and Transportation Systems is the top-improvement priority for survey respondents in Alaska. – Within this arena, visitors are concerned with the quality of boardwalks, roads and auto tours, as well as bridges.

Boardwalks Are Well Maintained, Roads and Auto Tour Routes Have Well Maintained Surface Conditions, and Bridges Are Well Maintained are the highest improvement priorities for Alaska respondents


Improvement Priorities for All Visitors*

10.00

7.27

6.52

4.52

1.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Employees orVolunteers

VisitorInformation

Road andTransportation

Systems

Visitor Centersand Contact

Stations

AdequateActivities andOpportunities

LeverageLow Impact High Impact

Focus Improvement Efforts Here

Leverage – 20

*The General Perceptions arena was not included in this leverage analysis because the questions prompt the respondent to think about their overall experience with the refuge (based on multiple visits) rather than about their immediate visit.

*The General Perceptions arena was not included in this leverage analysis because the questions prompt the respondent to think about their overall experience with the refuge (based on multiple visits) rather than about their immediate visit.


Improvement Priorities for Adequate Activities and Opportunities


10.00

4.88

3.37

2.09

1.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Observe/PhotographFish, Wildlife, Plants,and Their Habitats

Use the Trails

Hunt or Fish

Obtain UsefulInformation about

Fish, Wildlife, Plants,and Their Habitats

Access Facilities inOrder to Participatewith Other Visitors


This Refuge Provides Adequate* Opportunity to. . .

Leverage – 21

*“Adequate” includes accessibility for persons with disabilities and special conditions.

*“Adequate” includes accessibility for persons with disabilities and special conditions.

“This refuge needs more access to fishing banks.”

“I enjoyed this refuge for six years before I was handicapped. Now I need a boat motor to hunt, but the refuge won’t allow that.”

“Weeds on the trails during the summer make the trails difficult to use for some visitors.”

“The refuge needs more roads to access the wildlife-viewing areas.”


10.00

6.93

6.79

6.20

6.10

5.50

4.53

1.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Structures Such as Kiosks, Viewing Decks, andBlinds Are Useful Enhancements to This Refuge

Exhibits Are of Educational Value

Restrooms Are Well Maintained

Exhibits Are Easy to Understand

Exhibits Are in Good Condition

Hours and Days of Operation Are Convenient

Facilities Are Easy to Find

There Is Adequate Staffing to Efficiently HandleVisitor’s Requests

Leverage

Improvement Priorities for Visitor Centers and Contact Stations


Low Impact High Impact

Leverage – 22

“The refuge does not seem to have an adequate number of rangers.”

“There is insufficient manpower to maintain this refuge.”

“This refuge needs more facilities, such as a visitor center and restrooms.”

“The visitor center is rarely open; it should be open on the weekends.”

“I arrived this evening and have not yet encountered any employees.”


10.00

3.61

3.39

3.26

2.00

1.90

1.57

1.56

1.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

There Is an Adequate Number of Places for Parking

Driving Conditions Are Safe

Traffic Flows Smoothly within the National WildlifeRefuge

Roads and Auto Tour Routes Have Well MaintainedSurface Conditions

Parking Areas and Pullouts Have Well MaintainedSurface Conditions

Boardwalks Are Well Maintained

Bridges Are Well Maintained

Trails Are Well Maintained

Trams Are Timely*

Leverage

Improvement Priorities for Road and Transportation Systems


Low Impact High Impact

Leverage – 23

*Only 28% of the respondents answered this question.

*Only 28% of the respondents answered this question.

“The walking trails are inadequate.”

“Please open the boardwalks. Isn’t that why they are there?”

“Timber needs to be cleared away from the bridge.”

“I wish there were buses running between the nearest town and the refuge. I had to take a taxi.”


Improvement Priorities for Visitor Information


10.00

9.45

7.82

5.19

1.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Printed Informationabout This NationalWildlife Refuge Was

Easy to Find

Signs Were Easy toUnderstand

Maps and/or SignsMade It Easy to

Find the NationalWildlife Refuge

Printed Informationabout the National

Wildlife RefugeSystem Was Easy

to Find

Printed Informationabout Fish, Wildlife,

Plants, and/orHabitats Was Easy

to Find


Leverage – 24

“There should be a way to notify visitors when certain bird species are here only part of the year.”

“We had trouble locating pamphlets and brochures.”

“There is not enough tourist information.”

“The literature box leaks, so all of the pamphlets were wet and ruined.”


Improvement Priorities for Employees or Volunteers


10.00

9.45

8.48

5.95

1.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Were Courteous

Answered My Questions about This NationalWildlife Refuge

Answered My Questions about Fish, Wildlife,Plants, and/or Their Habitats

Answered My Questions about the NationalWildlife Refuge System

Answered My Questions about RecreationalOpportunities of This National Wildlife Refuge


Only 15% of the respondents talked with employees or volunteers very briefly, and 34% talked with employees or volunteers for several minutes or more.


Employees or Volunteers. . .

Leverage – 25

“No one could tell me the reasons and objectives of the refuge and how they related to the system’s overall mission.”

“The ‘outdoor recreation planner’ does not seem to know much about the refuge system as a whole.”


Improvement Priorities for General Perceptions


10.00

7.95

7.88

1.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

This National WildlifeRefuge Does a GoodJob Conserving Fish,Wildlife, Plants, and

Their Habitats

This National WildlifeRefuge Meets My

Recreational Demands

This National WildlifeRefuge Provides a

Sufficient LawEnforcement Presence

to Minimize Crime

It Is Easy To Make anInquiry or Complaintabout This National

Wildlife Refuge


Leverage – 26

“It would be nice if the visitor center was open on weekends so that if we have a problem, there’s someone to go to.”

This arena was left out of the overall leverage chart on page 20 because the questions prompt the respondent to think about their overall experience with the refuge (based on multiple visits) rather than about their immediate visit.

This arena was left out of the overall leverage chart on page 20 because the questions prompt the respondent to think about their overall experience with the refuge (based on multiple visits) rather than about their immediate visit.

FWS Nat’l Wildlife Refuge, 1/05 Satisfaction Ratings – 27

Visitor Satisfaction Ratings

• Distribution of Overall Satisfaction among All Visitors

• Average Overall Satisfaction Ratings for Each Question

• Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup

• Satisfaction by Refuge


Overall Satisfaction among Visitors

Satisfaction Ratings – 28

• These satisfaction items are illustrated in the charts on the following pages.• The average overall satisfaction rating for all visitors is 4.48 on a 5-point scale.• Visitors as a whole are most satisfied with the Employees or Volunteers arena, which has an

average satisfaction rating of 4.70.– Employees or Volunteers Were Courteous received the highest satisfaction rating (4.75) in this

arena.

• The Visitor Information arena received the second-highest rating of 4.52.– Within this arena, visitors appreciate that Signs Were Easy to Understand (4.44) and Printed

Information about This National Wildlife Refuge Was Easy to Find (4.43).

• Refuge visitors are least satisfied with the Adequate Activities and Opportunities arena, which has a relatively low average satisfaction rating of 4.39.

• Satisfaction by refuge can be found on pages 43-44.


Overall Satisfaction among All Visitors

41%

1% 1%3%

54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

Average Overall Satisfaction Rating = 4.48Average Overall Satisfaction Rating = 4.48

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree



4.39

4.42

4.44

4.44

4.48

4.52

4.70

1 2 3 4 5

Adequate Activities andOpportunities

Road and TransportationSystems

Visitor Centers and ContactStations

General Perceptions

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITHRECREATIONAL/EDUCATIONAL

EXPERIENCE

Visitor Information


Average Overall Satisfaction Ratings for Each Arena

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree


Between any two items, a

difference of .03 or greater in

average ratings is statistically

significant.




significant.


4.47

4.48

4.51

4.58

4.75

1 2 3 4 5

Answered My Questions about theNational Wildlife Refuge System

Answered My Questions aboutRecreational Opportunities of This

National Wildlife Refuge

Answered My Questions about Fish,Wildlife, Plants, and/or Their Habitats

Answered My Questions about ThisNational Wildlife Refuge

Were Courteous


Average Overall Satisfaction Ratings for the Employees or Volunteers Arena

Employees or Volunteers. . .







significant.




significant.


4.32

4.36

4.38

4.43

4.44

1 2 3 4 5

Printed Information about Fish, Wildlife,Plants, and/or Habitats Was Easy to Find

Printed Information about the NationalWildlife Refuge System Was Easy to Find

Maps and/or Signs Made It Easy to Findthe National Wildlife Refuge

Printed Information about This NationalWildlife Refuge Was Easy to Find

Signs Were Easy to Understand

Average Satisfaction Ratings for the Visitor Information Arena






significant.




significant.


4.04

4.14

4.35

4.39

1 2 3 4 5

This National Wildlife Refuge Provides aSufficient Law Enforcement Presence to

Minimize Crime

It Is Easy To Make an Inquiry or Complaintabout This National Wildlife Refuge

This National Wildlife Refuge Meets MyRecreational Demands

This National Wildlife Refuge Does a GoodJob Conserving Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and

Their Habitats

Average Satisfaction Ratings for the General Perceptions Arena

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree





significant.




significant.


4.16

4.18

4.29

4.35

4.36

4.38

4.39

4.40

1 2 3 4 5

Hours and Days of Operation Are Convenient

There Is Adequate Staffing to Efficiently HandleVisitor's Requests

Restrooms Are Well Maintained

Facilities Are Easy to Find

Exhibits Are in Good Condition

Exhibits Are Easy to Understand

Exhibits Are of Educational Value

Structures Such as Kiosks, Viewing Decks, andBlinds Are Useful Enhancements to This Refuge


Average Satisfaction Ratings for the Visitor Centers and Contact Stations Arena





significant.




significant.


Average Satisfaction Ratings for the Road and Transportation Systems Arena

4.11

4.26

4.28

4.30

4.31

4.32

4.33

4.37

4.39

1 2 3 4 5

Trams Are Timely

Roads and Auto Tour Routes Have WellMaintained Surface Conditions

There Is an Adequate Number of Places forParking

Parking Areas and Pullouts Have WellMaintained Surface Conditions

Trails Are Well Maintained

Boardwalks Are Well Maintained

Bridges Are Well Maintained

Driving Conditions Are Safe

Traffic Flows Smoothly within the NationalWildlife Refuge






significant.




significant.


4.20

4.21

4.30

4.39

4.41

1 2 3 4 5

Access Facilities InOrder to Participatewith Other Visitors

Hunt or Fish

Obtain UsefulInformation about

Fish, Wildlife, Plants,and Their Habitats

Use the Trails

Observe/PhotographFish, Wildlife, Plants,and Their Habitats


Average Satisfaction Ratings for the Adequate Activities and Opportunities Arena

This Refuge Provides Adequate Opportunity to. . .





significant.




significant.


• Because visitors may evaluate their experience differently depending on their particular needs and experiences, we analyzed variations in the overall satisfaction ratings grouped as profile or demographic variables.

– The following profile variables are included in the analysis: Primary Purpose, Paid a Fee, Knowledge of Refuge Management, Aware of Rules and Regulations, Distance Traveled, First-Time Visitor, Visited Refuge Center, Talked with a Volunteer, Region, and Size of Group.

– The following demographic variables are included in the analysis: Age, Education, if the respondent was Latino/Latina or Hispanic, Language Spoken at Home, Gender, and U.S. Citizenship.

• The charts on the following pages can be interpreted as such: subgroups to the right of the adjusted mean (4.03) are more satisfied than customers as a whole (the difference is shown in the bar). Subgroups to the left of the adjusted mean are less satisfied.

– Note that the adjusted mean of 4.03 shown on the following pages is different from the 4.48 overall satisfaction rating reported earlier. The following analyses is based on the responses from those who answered all of the profile and demographic questions, as well as the overall satisfaction question. This is a smaller group of respondents than those who answered just the overall satisfaction question.

– The 4.48 rating should be relied upon as the best measure possible of overall visitor satisfaction; the analyses on the following pages provides insight into which groups give higher or lower ratings.

• As indicated in the charts on the following pages, the following visitor subgroups give higher overall satisfaction ratings than customers as a whole: those who are more educated; those who speak English; those who have more understanding of the refuge system; those who visited the refuge for non-physical reasons; those who did not pay a fee; those who did not require special assistance; and those from regions two, four, and five.

• The following visitor subgroups give lower overall satisfaction ratings than customers as a whole: those who are less educated; those who speak a language other than English; those who do not have an understanding of the refuge system; those who visited the refuge for physical or incidental reasons; those who paid a fee; those who require special assistance; and those from regions one, three, six, and seven.

• None of the other visitor subgroups give ratings that differ significantly from those given by the total population.

Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup



Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup: Education and Language Spoken at Home

-0.16

-0.14

0.02

0.11

-0.03

0.05

0.14

-0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

+

+

+

ADJUSTED MEAN = 4.03


Less Than High School Education

Language Other Than English

Attended Some College or Have Associates Degree

High School Graduate+

+

+

+ College Graduate

Earned Post-Graduate Degree

Speak The English Language

See page 37 for chart explanation.See page 37 for chart explanation.


-0.06

-0.06

0.06

-0.05

0.06

0.05

-0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup: Talked to Volunteer, Aware of Rules and Regulations, and Knowledge of Refuge Management

+

+

+


Was Not Aware of Rules and Regulations

Did Not Talk to A Volunteer

Did Not Have Knowledge of Refuge Management

Had Knowledge of Refuge Management+

+

+ Was Aware of Rules and Regulations

Talked to A Volunteer




Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup: Primary Purpose in Visiting the Wildlife Refuge

-0.07

-0.06

0.06

-0.01

0.07

-0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

+

+

+


Hunting and/or Fishing

Hiking

Drive through/Incidental and/or Other

+

+Wildlife/Nature Observation and Photography

Vacation/Relaxation and/or Environmental Education



Non-physical Purposes

Physical Purposes


Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup: Paid a Fee and Required Special Assistance

-0.14

-0.08

0.07

0.14

-0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

+

+

+


Required Special Assistance

Paid A Fee

+

+ Did Not Pay A Fee

Did Not Require Special Assistance




Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup: Region

-0.19

-0.03

-0.01

0.08

-0.02

0.06

0.10

-0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

+

+

+


Region Seven

Region Six

Region Three

Region One

+

+

+ Region Five

Region Four

Region Two




Satisfaction by Refuge*• Satisfaction rates for individual refuges range from a low of 85% to a high of 100%.


Region National Wildlife RefugePercent Satisfied

Completed Questionnaires

Turnbull NWR (RFD) 97% 38Don Edwards SF Bay NWR 94% 102McNary NWR (RFD) 96% 28Minidoka NWR 90% 54Tule Lake NWR (RFD) 88% 22Stone Lakes NWR 92% 27Malheur NWR 100% 46

REGION 1 SUBTOTAL 94% 317Tishomingo NWR 98% 45Laguna Atascosa NWR (RFD) 100% 60Anahuac NWR (RFD) 100% 70Aransas/Matagorda Island NWR 98% 108Sequoyah NWR (RFD) 100% 7Balcones Canyonlands NWR 95% 45

REGION 2 SUBTOTAL 98% 335llinois River NWR Complex 97% 104Sherburne NWR 93% 94Necedah NWR 89% 41Big Stone NWR 97% 39Shiawassee NWR (RFD) 90% 53Union Slough NWR (RFD) 100% 10Trempealeau NWR 97% 147

REGION 3 SUBTOTAL 95% 488Noxubee NWR (RFD) 100% 30Pocosin Lakes NWR (RFD) 96% 24ACE Basin NWR 97% 40Wheeler NWR 96% 55Pea Island NWR 99% 84Felsenthal NWR (RFD) 87% 49Piedmont NWR (RFD) 100% 18Harris Neck NWR 95% 73

REGION 4 SUBTOTAL 96% 373

1

2

3

4



Turnbull NWR (RFD) 97% 38Don Edwards SF Bay NWR 94% 102McNary NWR (RFD) 96% 28Minidoka NWR 90% 54Tule Lake NWR (RFD) 88% 22Stone Lakes NWR 92% 27Malheur NWR 100% 46

REGION 1 SUBTOTAL 94% 317Tishomingo NWR 98% 45Laguna Atascosa NWR (RFD) 100% 60Anahuac NWR (RFD) 100% 70Aransas/Matagorda Island NWR 98% 108Sequoyah NWR (RFD) 100% 7Balcones Canyonlands NWR 95% 45

REGION 2 SUBTOTAL 98% 335llinois River NWR Complex 97% 104Sherburne NWR 93% 94Necedah NWR 89% 41Big Stone NWR 97% 39Shiawassee NWR (RFD) 90% 53Union Slough NWR (RFD) 100% 10Trempealeau NWR 97% 147

REGION 3 SUBTOTAL 95% 488Noxubee NWR (RFD) 100% 30Pocosin Lakes NWR (RFD) 96% 24ACE Basin NWR 97% 40Wheeler NWR 96% 55Pea Island NWR 99% 84Felsenthal NWR (RFD) 87% 49Piedmont NWR (RFD) 100% 18Harris Neck NWR 95% 73


1

2

3

4*Satisfied visitors are those who rated their overall satisfaction with the National Wildlife Refuge a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.

*Satisfied visitors are those who rated their overall satisfaction with the National Wildlife Refuge a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.

Use caution when reviewing data for those individual refuges whose number of completed questionnaires is less than thirty.

Use caution when reviewing data for those individual refuges whose number of completed questionnaires is less than thirty.


Satisfaction by Refuge* – continued




Cape May NWR 95% 48Occoquan Bay NWR (RFD) 100% 34Bombay Hook NWR (RFD) 100% 72Chincoteague NWR (RFD) 98% 135Iroquois NWR (RFD) 95% 149Wallkill River NWR (RFD) 100% 58

REGION 5 SUBTOTAL 98% 496Boyer Chute NWR 94% 147Arapaho NWR 94% 19Ouray NWR 100% 12Browns Park NWR 100% 6Valentine NWR 89% 31Red Rock Lakes NWR 85% 20Audubon NWR 100% 33Lee Metcalf NWR 89% 36

REGION 6 SUBTOTAL 93% 304Koyukuk NWR-Nowitna NWR 96% 31Alaska Peninsula NWR-Becharof 85% 41Izembek NWR 92% 25Kenai NWR 100% 14Yukon Delta NWR 86% 32


95% 2,456ALL 7 REGIONS TOTAL

5

6

7



Cape May NWR 95% 48Occoquan Bay NWR (RFD) 100% 34Bombay Hook NWR (RFD) 100% 72Chincoteague NWR (RFD) 98% 135Iroquois NWR (RFD) 95% 149Wallkill River NWR (RFD) 100% 58

REGION 5 SUBTOTAL 98% 496Boyer Chute NWR 94% 147Arapaho NWR 94% 19Ouray NWR 100% 12Browns Park NWR 100% 6Valentine NWR 89% 31Red Rock Lakes NWR 85% 20Audubon NWR 100% 33Lee Metcalf NWR 89% 36

REGION 6 SUBTOTAL 93% 304Koyukuk NWR-Nowitna NWR 96% 31Alaska Peninsula NWR-Becharof 85% 41Izembek NWR 92% 25Kenai NWR 100% 14Yukon Delta NWR 86% 32


95% 2,456ALL 7 REGIONS TOTAL

5

6

7



Use Caution when reviewing data for those individual refuges whose number of completed questionnaires is less than thirty.

Use Caution when reviewing data for those individual refuges whose number of completed questionnaires is less than thirty.


12

27

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

85%-89% 90%-95% 96%-100%

Percent Satisfied (Agree & Strongly Agree)

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

fug

es

Overall Satisfaction by Refuge – continued

• Of the forty-seven refuges that participated in the survey, thirty-nine received overall satisfaction ratings that exceed 90%, while only eight refuges received overall satisfaction ratings below 90%.



Respondent Profiles

Respondent Profiles – 46

• Purpose and/or Use

• Fair Value

• Knowledge of Refuge

• Contact with Refuge


Summary of Respondent Profiles• Participants were most likely to indicate that their purpose in visiting a refuge was to observe/photograph

wildlife/nature (32%). Hunting (16%) and vacation/relaxation (14%) were also highly mentioned.• Visitors were most likely to indicate that they participated in wildlife observation, an auto tour, and/or hiking.

The range of refuge facilities used or activities pursued by refuge visitors is substantially broad. While refuge visitors may well pursue their primary purpose in visiting a refuge, they will likely also engage in additional, perhaps related, activities.

• Almost regardless of their primary purpose of visiting refuges, visitors indicated that they used the visitor center more than any other facility or recreational/educational opportunity during their refuge visits. Respondents who visited primarily to hunt, fish, or hike are the exception to this finding. Visitors usually engaged in a range of activities and used refuge facilities that extended beyond the explicit and immediate purpose of their visit.

• Overall, visitors are positive about the fees charged. Of those who paid a fee, 9% indicated that it was too low, while 8% indicated that it was too high.

• Survey respondents were also positive about the value of the recreation opportunities and services provided by refuges. Of those who paid a fee, 84% agreed or strongly agreed that the value of the recreation opportunities and services received was as least equal to the fee paid.

• The majority of respondents (85%) were aware, before the survey was administered to them, that they were at a NWR managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

• Visitors indicated that the most frequent ways of learning about the NWR that they were visiting included word-of-mouth and highway signs. Less frequent ways of learning about the NWR included FWS printed information, the FWS Web site, and other Web sites. These findings highlight the importance of highway signage, not only to improve access through the provision of directions, but also as a means of attracting visitors. This makes the placement and maintenance of good highway signage even more important.

• The majority of respondents (79%) indicated that they were aware of rules pertaining to the refuge.• Visitors indicated that printed information and signs were their primary source of information about refuge

rules and regulations. A smaller portion of respondents noted that they learned about rules and regulation by talking with a refuge employee or volunteer and, very few respondents, by using the Internet.



Summary of Respondent Profiles – continued• There was substantial variation in the distances traveled by visitors to get to the NWR they were visiting. Due

to the small number of responses of high value, the mean skews the picture of the “average” distance traveled. The median gives a better sense of the typical distance traveled. Knowing that most visitors are “local” may help refuge managers to address language or cultural requirements.

• Respondents reported on average seven visits over the previous year. The median number of visits is two and represents a less biased measure of tendency.

• A large number of respondents were first time visitors to the refuge they were visiting (44%). Refuge visitors are most likely to indicate that they had visited between one and three other refuges last year. More than a third of respondents had not visited any other refuge during the previous twelve months. When considered in conjunction with the number of times visiting, this indicates that a substantial number of respondents visit only a singe refuge (e.g., perhaps if a refuge is located close to a respondent’s home).

• 87% indicated that they were likely to visit a refuge again within the next two years.• 34% of respondents indicated that they spent more than half-an-hour at the visitor center, while 26% reported

that they did not go the the visitor center at all.• For those refuges that did not have the facilities listed below, visitors responded that an interpretive trail and

a viewing/observation deck would enhance their experience more than any of the other possible facility enhancements.

–Interpretive Trail–Viewing/Observation Deck/Platform–Information/Orientation Kiosk–Photography Blind–Hunting Blind–Other



8% 7%3%

9%10%

32%

14%16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Wildlife/NatureObservation &Photography

Hunting Vacation/Relaxation

EnvironmentalEducation/

Interpretation

Hiking Fishing Drive through/Incidental

Other

N* = 2,267N* = 2,267

Primary Purpose for Visiting the National Wildlife Refuge

*N = Number of Respondents*N = Number of Respondents


Due to rounding, percentages do not add to 100%.Due to rounding, percentages do not add to 100%.


6%

8%

8%

15%

15%

20%

31%

35%

38%

43%

33%

5%

7%

5%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Canoe/Kayak

Boat Launch

Biking Trail

Picnic Area

Guided Tour/Interpretive Trail

Fishing Area

Hunting Area

Environmental Education

Photography

Restroom Facilities

Hiking Trail

Auto Tour

Visitor Center

Wildlife ObservationN = 2,456N = 2,456

Visitors could indicate more than one option, therefore percentages add to more than 100%.Visitors could indicate more than one option, therefore percentages add to more than 100%.

Visitors Used or Did the following during Today’s Visit to This National Wildlife Refuge:



Relationship between Primary Purpose and Use


Activity/Facility 1Percent

UsedActivity/Facility 2

Percent Used

Wildlife/Nature Observation & Photography

Wildlife Observation 70% Auto Tour 60%

Hunting Hunting Area 86% Wildlife Observation 17%

Vacation/Relaxation Visitor Center 62% Auto Tour 52%

Environmental Education/Interpretation

Environmental Education 60% Wildlife Observation 43%

Hiking Hiking Trail 87% Restroom Facilities 33%

Fishing Fishing Area 72% Boat Launch 38%

Drive through/Incidental Auto Tour 49% Visitor Center 49%

Other Visitor Center 32% Hiking Trail 29%

Primary Purpose of Visit:Two Most Frequent Activities or Facilities Used:

Activity/Facility 1Percent

UsedActivity/Facility 2

Percent Used

Wildlife/Nature Observation & Photography

Wildlife Observation 70% Auto Tour 60%

Hunting Hunting Area 86% Wildlife Observation 17%

Vacation/Relaxation Visitor Center 62% Auto Tour 52%

Environmental Education/Interpretation

Environmental Education 60% Wildlife Observation 43%

Hiking Hiking Trail 87% Restroom Facilities 33%

Fishing Fishing Area 72% Boat Launch 38%

Drive through/Incidental Auto Tour 49% Visitor Center 49%

Other Visitor Center 32% Hiking Trail 29%

Primary Purpose of Visit:Two Most Frequent Activities or Facilities Used:

Visitors were asked to indicate two options, therefore percentages add to more than 100%.Visitors were asked to indicate two options, therefore percentages add to more than 100%.


7%

83%

2%6%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Far TooLow

Too Low AboutRight

Too High Far TooHigh

Fair Value*


Appropriateness of FeeValue of the Recreation

Opportunities and Services Was Equal to the Fee

N = 611N = 611

2%

11%

40%44%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

StronglyDisagree

Disagree NeitherAgree norDisagree

Agree StronglyAgree

N = 760N = 760

*Only visitors who paid a fee were asked to answer these questions.*Only visitors who paid a fee were asked to answer these questions.



19%

42%

9%

18%

11%

1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No Onein

Group

Groupof 1

Groupof 2

Groupof 3

Groupof 4

Groupof 5 orMore

Number of People in Your Personal Group

N = 2,297N = 2,297

Demographic Information – 53


Did You Know This National Wildlife Refuge is Managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service?

15%

85%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

N = 2,240N = 2,240



Method of Learning about This National Wildlife Refuge

Visitors could indicate more than one option, therefore percentages add to more than 100%.Visitors could indicate more than one option, therefore percentages add to more than 100%.


16%11%

7% 7%3%

25%

8%

48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Word-of-Mouth Highway Sign Map MediaCommunication

FWS PrintedInformation

U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service

Web Site

Other Web Site Other*

N = 2,456N = 2,456

*Other methods of learning about the refuge consist mainly of various travel books, professor/teacher suggestions, hiking and nature club suggestions, school trips, and volunteer programs.

*Other methods of learning about the refuge consist mainly of various travel books, professor/teacher suggestions, hiking and nature club suggestions, school trips, and volunteer programs.


Awareness of Rules


21%

79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

Are You Aware of the Rules and Regulations of This

National Wildlife Refuge?

How Did You Learn about the Rules and Regulations?*

N = 2,251N = 2,251

40%

26%

7%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PrintedMaterial

Signs Employee/Volunteer

Web Site

N = 1,785N = 1,785

*Visitors could indicate more than one option, therefore percentages add to more than 100%.

*Visitors could indicate more than one option, therefore percentages add to more than 100%.


36%

29%35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 to 25 Miles 25 to 150 Miles More than 150Miles

21%

35%

44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1st Time Visitor 2 or ThreeTimes

4 or More Times

Contact with This Refuge

Mean = 290 MilesMedian* = 50 MilesRange= 0 to 16,000 Miles

Mean = 290 MilesMedian* = 50 MilesRange= 0 to 16,000 Miles

Mean = 7.60 TimesMedian* = 2.00 TimesRange= 0 to 365 Times

Mean = 7.60 TimesMedian* = 2.00 TimesRange= 0 to 365 Times


Distance Traveled to Get to the National Wildlife Refuge on

This Trip

Including Today, Number of Times Visited This National Wildlife Refuge within Past 12 Months

N = 2,270N = 2,270 N = 2,314N = 2,314

*Median is the value above and below which half the cases fall; it is a measure of central tendency not sensitive to outlying values, unlike the mean, which can be affected by a few extremely high or low values.

*Median is the value above and below which half the cases fall; it is a measure of central tendency not sensitive to outlying values, unlike the mean, which can be affected by a few extremely high or low values.


Frequency of Contact


42%

11%

1% 2% 2%3%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

None 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 9 10 to12

Morethan 12

Don’tKnow

Number of Other National Wildlife Refuges Visited within

the Past 12 Months

Plans to Visit This or Another National Wildlife Refuge within the

Next 2 Years

N = 2,315N = 2,315

3%

10%

87%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, Likely No, Unlikely Don’t Know

N = 2,220N = 2,220



12%

28%

17%17%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Did NotVisit

Lessthan 15Minutes

15 to 30Minutes

31 to 60Minutes

Morethan One

Hour

N = 2,154N = 2,154


How Much Time Did You Spend at the Refuge Visitor Center (Contact Station)?


Facilities That May Enhance Visitor Experience


58%

58%

55%

42%

54%

36%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Hunting Blind

Photography Blind

Information/OrientationKiosk

Viewing/ObservationDeck/Platform

Interpretive Trail

Percent of Visitors Who Indicated That Their Experience Would Have Been Enhanced Had This Facility Been Available


Demographic Information



Summary of Demographic Information

• Refuge visitors tend to visit refuges as members of smaller groups. About 19% of visitors come to refuges by themselves. (It is important to remember that this data refers to high visitation refuges during the fall months.)

• Most visitors are between the ages of 41 and 60.• The level of education of survey respondents, taken as a whole, was very high. 79% of

the respondents have at least attended some college ( 28% of those have earned a college degree, and 24% have earned a post-graduate degree). Though these data may vary from season to season, it is clear that fall refuge visitors are educated.

• Blacks/African Americans and Hispanics or Latinos/Latinas are underrepresented as refuge visitors. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that in 2000, Blacks/African Americans and Hispanics or Latinos/Latinas made up 12.3% and 12.5%, respectively, of the U.S. Population.

• The majority (97%) of respondents reported that English is the primary language spoken in their home.

• The ratio of male respondents to female respondents is 61:39.• The vast majority (96%) of visitors are U.S. citizens.



8%

15%

26%

18%

7%

21%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

18 to21

22 to30

31 to40

41 to50

51 to60

61 to70

71 orover

Respondent’s Age

N = 2,329N = 2,329



19%

27%24%

28%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Less than HighSchool

High SchoolGraduate

Some College orAssociate Degree

College Graduate Post-GraduateDegree

N = 2,317N = 2,317

Highest Level of Education Completed



3% 1% 3% 1%3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AmericanIndian/Alaska

Native

Asian Black/AfricanAmerican

White Hispanic orLatino/Latina

NativeHawaiian/

Pacific Islander

Profile by Race


86%

(N = 2,279)(N = 2,456)

(N = 2,456)(N = 2,456)

(N = 2,456)

(N = 2,456)


1%1% 1%

97%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

English Chinese Spanish Other

N = 2,330N = 2,330

Primary Language Spoken at Home



4%

96%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

39%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Male Female

Gender and Citizenship

Gender United States Citizen

N = 2,289N = 2,289 N = 2,338N = 2,338



Response Rates

Response Rates – 68


Survey Response Rates

• Of the 3,031 individuals whom the Refuge Surveyors approached, 2,456 agreed to complete the questionnaire, for an overall response rate of 81%. This rate exceeds the OMB 70% threshold and is unusually high for such a survey.

• The number of completed surveys for individual refuges range from 6 to 149 and response rates range from 40% to 100%.

• Fifty refuges were identified to participate in the visitor satisfaction survey. Forty-seven of the fifty refuges were included in the analysis.

• Five refuges (Havasu, Moosehorn, San Bernard, Tetlin, and Togiak) dropped out.• Two new refuges (Kenai and Yukon Delta) were added.• Five refuges (Alaska Peninsula, Balcones Canyonlands, Don Edwards, Izembek, and

Sequoyah) returned either incomplete log sheets or no log sheets at all. For these refuges, the assumption was made that the number of people approached is equal to the number of questionnaires completed.

• For the national sample of 2,456, the actual maximum sampling error is + 2.0% at the 95% confidence level and + 1.7% at the 90% confidence level.

• Use caution when reviewing data and analyses from individual refuges with either a low number of completed surveys (fewer than 30) or response rates below the OMB-defined target threshold of 70%.



Survey Response Rates

Region National Wildlife RefugeVisitors

ApproachedCompleted

QuestionnairesResponse

Rate

Don Edwards SF Bay 102 102 100%Malheur 47 46 98%McNary 70 28 40%Minidoka 62 54 87%Stone Lakes 30 27 90%Tule Lake 35 22 63%Turnbull 50 38 76%

REGION 1 SUBTOTAL 396 317 80%Anahuac 100 70 70%Aransas/Matagorda Island 115 108 94%Balcones Canyonlands 45 45 100%Laguna Atascosa 66 60 91%Sequoyah 7 7 100%Tishomingo 45 45 100%

REGION 2 SUBTOTAL 378 335 89%Big Stone 44 39 89%Illinois River 115 104 90%Necedah 48 41 85%Sherburne 117 94 80%Shiawassee 54 53 98%Trempealeau 156 147 94%Union Slough 13 10 77%

REGION 3 SUBTOTAL 547 488 89%ACE Basin 45 40 89%Felsenthal 88 49 56%Harris Neck 73 73 100%Noxubee 45 30 67%Pea Island 120 84 70%Piedmont 25 18 72%Pocosin Lakes 48 24 50%Wheeler 69 55 80%

REGION 4 SUBTOTAL 513 373 73%

1

2

3

4


ApproachedCompleted


Rate

Don Edwards SF Bay 102 102 100%Malheur 47 46 98%McNary 70 28 40%Minidoka 62 54 87%Stone Lakes 30 27 90%Tule Lake 35 22 63%Turnbull 50 38 76%

REGION 1 SUBTOTAL 396 317 80%Anahuac 100 70 70%Aransas/Matagorda Island 115 108 94%Balcones Canyonlands 45 45 100%Laguna Atascosa 66 60 91%Sequoyah 7 7 100%Tishomingo 45 45 100%

REGION 2 SUBTOTAL 378 335 89%Big Stone 44 39 89%Illinois River 115 104 90%Necedah 48 41 85%Sherburne 117 94 80%Shiawassee 54 53 98%Trempealeau 156 147 94%Union Slough 13 10 77%

REGION 3 SUBTOTAL 547 488 89%ACE Basin 45 40 89%Felsenthal 88 49 56%Harris Neck 73 73 100%Noxubee 45 30 67%Pea Island 120 84 70%Piedmont 25 18 72%Pocosin Lakes 48 24 50%Wheeler 69 55 80%


1

2

3

4



Survey Response Rates* – continued

*The figures shown in the Visitors Approached column are drawn from refuge log sheets, while the figures shown in the Completed Questionnaires reflect the actual number of completed questionnaires received and is not in all cases exactly consistent with log sheets.

*The figures shown in the Visitors Approached column are drawn from refuge log sheets, while the figures shown in the Completed Questionnaires reflect the actual number of completed questionnaires received and is not in all cases exactly consistent with log sheets.


ApproachedCompleted


Rate

Bombay Hook 90 72 80%Cape May 61 48 79%Chincoteague 160 135 84%Iroquois 149 149 100%Occoquan Bay 36 34 94%Wallkill River 73 58 79%

REGION 5 SUBTOTAL 569 496 87%Arapaho 19 19 100%Audubon 41 33 80%Boyer Chute 235 147 63%Browns Park 10 6 60%Lee Metcalf 43 36 84%Ouray 15 12 80%Red Rocks Lakes 40 20 50%Valentine 35 31 89%

REGION 6 SUBTOTAL 438 304 69%Alaska Peninsula-Becharof 41 41 100%Izembek 25 25 100%Kenai 35 14 40%Koyukuk 57 31 54%Yukon Delta 32 32 100%


3,031 2,456 81%ALL 7 REGIONS TOTAL

5

6


ApproachedCompleted


Rate

Bombay Hook 90 72 80%Cape May 61 48 79%Chincoteague 160 135 84%Iroquois 149 149 100%Occoquan Bay 36 34 94%Wallkill River 73 58 79%

REGION 5 SUBTOTAL 569 496 87%Arapaho 19 19 100%Audubon 41 33 80%Boyer Chute 235 147 63%Browns Park 10 6 60%Lee Metcalf 43 36 84%Ouray 15 12 80%Red Rocks Lakes 40 20 50%Valentine 35 31 89%

REGION 6 SUBTOTAL 438 304 69%Alaska Peninsula-Becharof 41 41 100%Izembek 25 25 100%Kenai 35 14 40%Koyukuk 57 31 54%Yukon Delta 32 32 100%


3,031 2,456 81%ALL 7 REGIONS TOTAL

5

6



Number of Refuges by Response Rates

• Only 10 of the 47 Refuges represented in the aggregate analysis had a response rate below 70%, while 16 Refuges’ response rates exceeded 90%.

12

9

16

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

< 70% 70% - 80% 80% - 90% > 90%

Response Rate

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

fug

es



Appendix A

Leverage Explanation

Leverage Explanation


• What is the leverage ranking and what does it mean?– Leverage is a measure of relative improvement potential. It tells service providers

where to concentrate efforts in order to have the greatest chance of improving customer satisfaction. A ranking of “10” on the leverage index means high improvement potential and a “1” means low improvement potential.

– A high leverage area is one in which visitors are relatively dissatisfied and/or the item is very important to them. Think of the leverage ranking as a “bang for the buck” type of measure. Making improvements to high leverage areas will improve overall visitor satisfaction more so than if improvements are made to low leverage areas.

• Why not just work on the items with which visitors are least satisfied?– Satisfaction ratings do not illustrate the importance factor. Visitors may be

relatively dissatisfied with an item, but not consider the item very important. Therefore, improving in such an area would not increase visitors’ overall satisfaction with the service that much.

– The leverage ranking combines satisfaction and importance into one simple summary measure. Addressing a high leverage area not only means that the area with which the visitor is relatively dissatisfied is being addressed, it also ensures that it is one that will significantly contribute to the overall satisfaction with the service.

Leverage Analysis

Appendix A – 1


Appendix B

Survey Procedures

Survey Methodology and Administration, Sampling Procedures,

and Weighting


Survey Methodology and Administration

• Methodology– An intercept survey assessed visitor satisfaction with their experience on a National Wildlife

Refuge.

– This report covers survey results from individuals who visited one of the fifty participating National Wildlife Refuges during September 8 – October 27, 2004.

– The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) designed and prepared the original questionnaire in 2002. In 2004, FWS, in conjunction with Pacific Consulting Group (PCG), refuge managers, and visitors’ services staff, added questions and reorganized the questionnaire.

• Administration– Each of the 50 refuges assigned 2 employees or volunteers to administer the survey (Refuge

Surveyors). The Refuge Surveyors were given detailed instructions (shown in Appendix F) to help ensure consistent survey administration across the participating refuges.

– Survey administration was conducted as follows:– For refuges expecting more than 50 visitors during the selected 4-hour survey timeframe,

Refuge Surveyors approached every third individual/group returning from the refuge usage area or leaving the visitor center.

– For refuges expecting fewer than 50 visitors during the selected 4-hour survey timeframe, Refuge Surveyors approached each individual/every group.

– Questionnaires were available in both English and Spanish. Each refuge received 150 English surveys and 50 Spanish surveys.

– Upon completion, respondents placed the questionnaire in a sealed, locked collection box.– At the end of the survey administration, Refuge Surveyors gathered the completed

questionnaires from the collection boxes and sent them to PCG via Federal Express.– PCG continuously processed all of the questionnaires as they were received.

Appendix B – 1


Sampling Procedures

• Selecting the Fifty National Wildlife Refuges– To be considered for inclusion in the survey, refuges had to have the following:

– visitor centers,– environmental education programs,– annual visitation of more than 75,000 people, and– full-time staff or volunteers (to distribute and supervise the survey).

– Out of the refuges that met these requirements, FWS selected the 50 that had the highest visitation.

• Selecting the Individual Respondents– The 50 refuges were randomly assigned a 3-week period in which to administer the survey.

Refuge Surveyors then picked a minimum of 4 days/hours in which to make the 35 or 36 contacts. During the scheduled days/hours, the Refuge Surveyor approached potential respondents and kept a record of all contacts (including refusals) in a log sheet (see Appendix G).

– The goal of this sampling approach was for each refuge to make contact with a total of 143 possible survey respondents, resulting in 100 completed questionnaires per refuge.

– The target respondent for the survey was adults 18 years of age or older. By necessity, this sampling excludes those who visited any refuge in a clandestine manner, those who entered and/or exited through non-monitored or uncounted access points, and those who visited any participating refuge outside the survey timeframe.

Appendix B – 2


• We investigated applying weights to the district samples we received in order to make the results more representative of the total population of visitors to refuges during the calendar year. Due to a wide range of visitor volumes among the refuges, the weights that would have had to be applied to specific refuge samples ranged from 12 to .03. Applying such extreme weights would have resulted in grossly over representing some refuges while under representing others and in introducing significant variability into the statistics generated. For these reasons, no refuge weights were applied in reporting survey results.

Weighting

Appendix B – 3


Appendix C

Questionnaire

FWS National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Satisfaction Questionnaire


FWS National Wildlife Refuge Questionnaire – Page 1

Appendix C – 1

FWS Nat’l Wildlife Refuge, 1/05 Appendix C – 2







Appendix D

Participating NWRs

Participating National Wildlife Refuges


NWRs That Participated in Survey

Appendix D – 1

•Region 1:Don Edwards SF Bay NWR Malheur NWR McNary NWR (RFD) Minidoka NWR Stone Lakes NWR Tule Lake NWR (RFD) Turnbull NWR (RFD)

•Region 2:Anahuac NWR (RFD)Aransas/Matagorda Island NWR (RFD)Balcones Canyonlands NWR (RFD)Laguna Atascosa NWR (RFD)Sequoyah NWR (RFD) Tishomingo NWR

•Region 3:Big Stone NWR Illinois River NWR Complex Necedah NWR Sherburne NWR Shiawassee NWR (RFD) Trempealeau NWR Union Slough NWR (RFD)

•Region 7:Alaska Peninsula-Becharof NWRIzembek NWR Kenai NWR Koyukuk NWR-Nowitna NWR Yukon Delta

•Refuges That Dropped Out:Havasu Moosehorn San Bernard Tetlin Togiak

•Region 4:ACE Basin NWR Felsenthal NWR (RFD)Harris Neck NWR Noxubee NWR (RFD) Pea Island NWR Piedmont NWR (RFD)Pocosin Lakes NWR (RFD)Wheeler NWR

•Region 5:Bombay Hook NWR (RFD)Cape May NWRChincoteague NWR (RFD)Iroquois NWR (RFD)Occoquan Bay NWR (RFD)Wallkill River NWR (RFD)

•Region 6:Arapaho NWR Audubon NWR Boyer Chute NWR Browns Park NWR Lee Metcalf NWR Ouray NWR Red Rock Lakes NWRValentine NWR


Appendix E

OMB Clearance Document

OMB Clearance Document


OMB Clearance Document – Page 1

Appendix E – 1



Appendix E – 2



Appendix E – 3



Appendix E – 4



Appendix E – 5



Appendix E – 6



Appendix E – 7



Appendix E – 8



Appendix E – 9


Appendix F

Refuge Surveyors Instructions

Instructions for Refuge Surveyors


Instructions for Refuge Surveyors – Page 1

Appendix F – 1



Appendix F – 2



Appendix F – 3



Appendix F – 4


Appendix G

Refuge Log Sheet

Refuge Log Sheet


Refuge Log Sheet

Appendix G– 1

Documents

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Satisfaction Survey Issued January 2005