NPS VSC Data Reports FY14-16

National Park System
2014 Visitor Survey Card Data Report

Introduction

Understanding the Results

To assist the National Park Service in complying with the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), a
visitor survey was conducted in 335 units of the National
Park System in FY14. The survey was developed to
measure each park unit’s performance related to NPS
GPRA Goals IIa1 (visitor satisfaction) and IIb1 (visitor
understanding and appreciation).

Inside this report are graphs that present the combined
survey results for the National Park System. The report
contains three categories of data—park facilities, visitor
services, and recreational opportunities. Within these
categories are graphs for each indicator evaluated by park
visitors. For example, the park facilities category includes
indicators such as visitor center, exhibits, restrooms, and
so forth. In addition, responses for indicators within each
category are averaged into a combined graph for the
category (e.g., combined park facilities).

The results of the Visitor Survey Card (VSC) survey are
summarized in this data report. A description of the
research methods and limitations is on the back page.
Below (left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of
the “overall quality of facilities, services, and recreational
opportunities” in the system. This graph compares FY14
data (shown in black) with a nine-year baseline data
(FY05-13) shown in gray. The satisfaction measure
below this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and
"very good" responses. This is the primary performance
measure for Goal IIa1. (The satisfaction measure may not
equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due
to rounding.)
Below (right) is the FY14 GRPA reporting measure for
Goal IIa1. The percentage included in the box should be
used for reporting GPRA Goal IIa1 performance. The
systemwide response rate was 54% with 60,277 total
visitors responding to the survey.
Overall Quality of Facilities, Services
& Recreational Opportunities
FY14: 315 parks; 56,981 respondents

Very
Poor

Very
Good

1
2
3
4
5
 The higher the average evaluation score, the more
positive the visitor response.
 Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to
rounding.

78%
73%

Very Good
20%
24%

Good

Rating

 Each graph includes the following information:
o the number of parks and visitor responses for the
indicator;
o FY14 data (black) and baseline date (gray);
o the percentage of responses which were "very
good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very
poor;"
o a satisfaction measure that combines the
percentage of total responses which were "very
good" or "good;" and
o an average evaluation score (mean score) based
on the following values: very poor = 1, poor = 2,
average = 3, good = 4, very good = 5.

FY14 GPRA Reporting
Measure for Goal IIa1

2%
3%

Average

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

The higher the average evaluation score, the
more positive the visitor response.
Percentage
of park
overall
• graph
percentages
mayvisitors
not equalsatisfied
100% due
to
rounding.
with appropriate facilities, services, and
recreational opportunities:

FY14
Baseline (FY05-13)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

98%

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 98%
Average evaluation score: 4.8

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA14

Page 1

National Park System
Park Facilities
Visitor Center

Exhibits

FY14: 315 parks; 55,691 respondents

FY14: 315 parks; 55,792 respondents

80%
74%

Very Good
17%
22%

Good

Rating

Poor

0%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY05-13)

20%

40%

0%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%

80%

100%

0%

FY14
Baseline (FY05-13)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 97%
Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 96%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Restrooms

Walkways, Trails, and Roads

FY14: 315 parks; 49,368 respondents

FY14: 315 parks; 55,220 respondents

61%
57%

Poor

2%
2%

Very Poor

0%
1%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY05-13)

40%

60%

80%

4%
5%

Average

Poor

1%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%

FY14

20%

24%
27%

Good

9%
11%

Average

72%
67%

Very Good

28%
29%

Good

100%

0%

FY14
Baseline (FY05-13)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 89%
Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 96%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Campgrounds and/or
Picnic Areas

Combined Park
Facilities

FY14: 315 parks; 26,060 respondents

FY14: 56,188 respondents (based on 5 indicators)

65%
59%

Very Good

Poor

1%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY05-13)

40%

60%

80%

100%

2%
4%

Average

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%

FY14

20%

25%
30%

Good

6%
9%

Average

73%
66%

Very Good

27%
31%

Good

Rating

Poor

Proportion of respondents

Very Good

Rating

60%

4%
5%

Average

FY14

0%

23%
27%

Good

2%
4%

Average

73%
67%

Very Good

0%

FY14
Baseline (FY05-13)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 92%
Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 98%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA14

Page 2

National Park System
Visitor Services
Assistance from
Park Employees

Park Map or Brochure

FY14: 315 parks; 56,689 respondents

FY14: 315 parks; 51,845 respondents

87%
83%

Very Good
12%
14%

Good

Rating

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY05-13)

40%

60%

80%

0%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

FY14
Baseline (FY05-13)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 98%
Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 96%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Commercial Services
in the Park

FY14: 315 parks; 33,426 respondents

FY14: 144 parks; 15,512 respondents

80%
76%

Very Good

Poor

0%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

31%
34%

Good

3%
4%

Average

51%
43%

Very Good

17%
20%

Good

Rating

14%
17%

Average
3%
4%

Poor
FY14

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY14

1%
1%

Very Poor

Baseline (FY05-13)

0%

Baseline (FY05-13)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 97%
Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 82%
Average evaluation score: 4.3

Value for Entrance Fee Paid

Combined Visitor
Services

FY14: 122 parks; 22,092 respondents

FY14: 41,981 respondents (based on 5 indicators)

79%
74%

Very Good

Poor

0%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY05-13)

40%

60%

80%

100%

2%
2%

Average

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%

FY14

20%

18%
22%

Good

4%
6%

Average

80%
75%

Very Good

16%
19%

Good

Rating

Poor

100%

Ranger Programs

Rating

3%
4%

Average

FY14

20%

20%
23%

Good

2%
2%

Average

77%
72%

Very Good

0%

FY14
Baseline (FY05-13)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 95%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 98%
Average evaluation score: 4.8

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA14

Page 3

National Park System
Recreational Opportunities
Learning about Nature,
History, or Culture

Outdoor Recreation

FY14: 315 parks; 51,258 respondents

FY14: 315 parks; 38,117 respondents

76%
73%

Very Good
20%
22%

Good

Rating

Poor

0%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

Poor

0%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%

FY14
Baseline (FY05-13)

40%

60%

80%

4%
5%

Average

Rating

20%

22%
24%

Good

3%
4%

Average

73%
69%

Very Good

100%

0%

FY14
Baseline (FY05-13)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 97%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 95%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Combined Recreational
Opportunities
FY14: 54,222 respondents (based on 2 indicators)
80%
77%

Very Good
18%
20%

Good

Rating

2%
3%

Average

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

FY14
Baseline (FY05-13)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

FY14: Satisfaction measure: 98%
Average evaluation score: 4.8

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA14

Page 4

Visitor
Services
National
Park System
Visitor Gender and Age Group
Visitor Gender

Visitor Age Group

FY14: 315 parks; 56,079 respondents

FY14: 315 parks; 57,869 respondents
8%
9%

71 and over

55%
Female

23%
24%

61 - 70

55%

21%
22%

51 - 60

FY14

Gender

Baseline (FY13)

Age Group

19%
19%

41 - 50

45%

Male

31 - 40

45%

20%

40%

60%

80% 100%

5%
4%

18 - 21

Proportion of respondents

Baseline (FY13)

9%
9%

22 - 30
0%

FY14

14%
13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

.Research

Survey cards were distributed to a random sample of
visitors in 335 units in the system during the periods from
February 1 – August 31, 2014. At each park, visitors were
sampled at selected locations representative of the general
visitor population.
Returned cards were electronically scanned and the data
analyzed. Responses from individual parks in the system
were combined into one dataset. Data from parks with less
than 30 returned cards, or from parks with discrepancies in
the data collection methods, were omitted from this report.
Frequency distributions were calculated for each indicator
and category.
Results reported for the survey questions: “Value for
Entrance Fee Paid” and “Commercial Services in the Park”
consist of only parks that charge an entrance fee or offer
commercial services. For this reason the number of parks
and number of respondents with the lower in these charts
than in others in this report.
All percentage calculations were rounded to the nearest
percent. Therefore, individual percentages in each table
may not add to 100 percent. The response rate was
calculated by dividing the total number of returned survey
cards by the total number of survey cards distributed. The
sample size (“N”) varies from figure to figure, depending
on the number of responses.

Methods
For most indicators, the survey data are expected to be
accurate within ±.3% with 95% confidence. This means
that if the different samples had been drawn, the results
would have been similar (±.3%) 95 out of 100 times.
The results do not necessarily apply to visitors during other
times of the year, to park visitors who did not visit the
survey locations, or to park units in the system that did not
participate in the survey.
The combined indicators are an average of several
individual indicators. The average is based on the
indicators within the grouping that have responses. For
those combined indicators based on five indicators, the
average for each respondent is only calculated if at least
three of the indicators have responses. For the combined
question based on two indicators, the average is only
calculated if at least one of the indicators has a response.
These respondent averages are then transformed into the
same 5 point scale where 5 is Very Good and 1 is Poor,
based on a logical classification of the rating scale.
Low survey response rates increase the probability of nonresponse bias. Non-response bias occurs when those who
choose to participate in a survey differ substantially and
systematically from those who choose not to participate. If
these differences are related to GPRA measures, the results
may be unreliable.

For more information contact Beruria Novich at Pacific Consulting Group
bnovich@pcgfirm.com – (650) 327-8108
Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA14

Page 5

National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior

The Visitor Survey Card Project

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

The Visitor Survey Card Project
Pacific Consulting Group

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA14

Page 6

National Park System
2015 Visitor Survey Card Data Report

Introduction

Understanding the Results

To assist the National Park Service in complying with the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), a
visitor survey was conducted in 335 units of the National
Park System in FY15. The survey was developed to
measure each park unit’s performance related to NPS
GPRA Goals IIa1 (visitor satisfaction) and IIb1 (visitor
understanding and appreciation).

Inside this report are graphs that present the combined
survey results for the National Park System. The report
contains three categories of data—park facilities, visitor
services, and recreational opportunities. Within these
categories are graphs for each indicator evaluated by park
visitors. For example, the park facilities category includes
indicators such as visitor center, exhibits, restrooms, and
so forth. In addition, responses for indicators within each
category are averaged into a combined graph for the
category (e.g., combined park facilities).

The results of the Visitor Survey Card (VSC) survey are
summarized in this data report. A description of the
research methods and limitations is on the back page.
Below (left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of
the “overall quality of facilities, services, and recreational
opportunities” in the system. This graph compares FY15
data (shown in black) with a ten-year baseline data
(FY05-14) shown in gray. The satisfaction measure
below this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and
"very good" responses. This is the primary performance
measure for Goal IIa1. (The satisfaction measure may not
equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due
to rounding.)
Below (right) is the FY15 GRPA reporting measure for
Goal IIa1. The percentage included in the box should be
used for reporting GPRA Goal IIa1 performance. The
systemwide response rate was 53% with 59,539 total
visitors responding to the survey.
Overall Quality of Facilities, Services
& Recreational Opportunities
FY15: 327 parks; 56,416 respondents

Very
Poor

Very
Good

1
2
3
4
5
 The higher the average evaluation score, the more
positive the visitor response.
 Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to
rounding.

78%
74%

Very Good
20%
23%

Good

Rating

 Each graph includes the following information:
o the number of parks and visitor responses for the
indicator;
o FY15 data (black) and baseline data (gray);
o the percentage of responses which were "very
good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very
poor;"
o a satisfaction measure that combines the
percentage of total responses which were "very
good" or "good;" and
o an average evaluation score (mean score) based
on the following values: very poor = 1, poor = 2,
average = 3, good = 4, very good = 5.

FY15 GPRA Reporting
Measure for Goal IIa1

2%
3%

Average

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

The higher the average evaluation score, the
more positive the visitor response.
Percentage
of park
overall
• graph
percentages
mayvisitors
not equalsatisfied
100% due
to
rounding.
with appropriate facilities, services, and
recreational opportunities:

FY15
Baseline (FY05-14)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

98%

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 98%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA15

Page 1

National Park System
Park Facilities
Visitor Center

Exhibits

FY15: 327 parks; 54,909 respondents

FY15: 327 parks; 55,288 respondents

80%
75%

Very Good
17%
21%

Good

Rating

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY05-14)

20%

40%

0%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%

80%

100%

0%

FY15
Baseline (FY05-14)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 97%
Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 96%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Restrooms

Walkways, Trails, and Roads

FY15: 327 parks; 49,652 respondents

FY15: 327 parks; 54,864 respondents

62%
58%

Poor

2%
2%

Very Poor

1%
1%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY05-14)

40%

60%

80%

4%
5%

Average

Poor

1%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%

FY15

20%

23%
27%

Good

9%
10%

Average

72%
67%

Very Good

27%
29%

Good

100%

0%

FY15
Baseline (FY05-14)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 89%
Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 95%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Campgrounds and/or
Picnic Areas

Combined Park
Facilities

FY15: 327 parks; 26,315 respondents

FY15: 55,938 respondents (based on 5 indicators)

66%
60%

Very Good

Poor

1%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY05-14)

40%

60%

80%

100%

3%
3%

Average

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%

FY15

20%

25%
29%

Good

7%
8%

Average

73%
67%

Very Good

27%
30%

Good

Rating

Poor

Proportion of respondents

Very Good

Rating

60%

4%
5%

Average

FY15

0%

22%
26%

Good

2%
4%

Average

74%
68%

Very Good

0%

FY15
Baseline (FY05-14)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 92%
Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 97%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA15

Page 2

National Park System
Visitor Services
Assistance from
Park Employees

Park Map or Brochure

FY15: 327 parks; 55,962 respondents

FY15: 327 parks; 51,688 respondents

87%
84%

Very Good
11%
14%

Good

Rating

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY05-14)

40%

60%

80%

0%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

FY15
Baseline (FY05-14)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 98%
Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 96%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Commercial Services
in the Park

FY15: 327 parks; 33,214 respondents

FY15: 154 parks; 15,411 respondents

81%
77%

Very Good

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

32%
34%

Good

3%
3%

Average

50%
45%

Very Good

16%
19%

Good

Rating

14%
16%

Average
3%
4%

Poor
FY15

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY15

1%
1%

Very Poor

Baseline (FY05-14)

0%

Baseline (FY05-14)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 97%
Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 82%
Average evaluation score: 4.3

Value for Entrance Fee Paid

Combined Visitor
Services

FY15: 128 parks; 22,561 respondents

FY15: 41,973 respondents (based on 5 indicators)

77%
75%

Very Good

Poor

1%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY05-14)

40%

60%

80%

100%

2%
2%

Average

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%

FY15

20%

18%
21%

Good

5%
6%

Average

80%
76%

Very Good

17%
19%

Good

Rating

Poor

100%

Ranger Programs

Rating

3%
4%

Average

FY15

20%

19%
23%

Good

2%
2%

Average

77%
73%

Very Good

0%

FY15
Baseline (FY05-14)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 94%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 98%
Average evaluation score: 4.8

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA15

Page 3

National Park System
Recreational Opportunities
Learning about Nature,
History, or Culture

Outdoor Recreation

FY15: 327 parks; 51,121 respondents

FY15: 327 parks; 38,117 respondents

77%
73%

Very Good
20%
22%

Good

Rating

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

Poor

1%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%

FY15
Baseline (FY05-14)

40%

60%

80%

4%
5%

Average

Rating

20%

22%
24%

Good

3%
4%

Average

74%
70%

Very Good

100%

0%

FY15
Baseline (FY05-14)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 96%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 95%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Combined Recreational
Opportunities
FY15: 53,927 respondents (based on 2 indicators)
81%
77%

Very Good
17%
20%

Good

Rating

2%
3%

Average

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

FY15
Baseline (FY05-14)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

FY15: Satisfaction measure: 98%
Average evaluation score: 4.8

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA15

Page 4

Visitor
Services
National
Park System
Visitor Gender and Age Group
Visitor Gender

Visitor Age Group

FY15: 327 parks; 55,443 respondents

FY15: 327 parks; 57,145 respondents
9%
8%

71 and over

55%
Female

24%
23%

61 - 70

55%
FY15

Gender

51 - 60

20%
21%

41 - 50

19%
19%

Baseline (FY14)

Age Group

45%

Male

31 - 40

45%

20%

40%

60%

80% 100%

5%
5%

18 - 21

Proportion of respondents

Baseline (FY14)

10%
9%

22 - 30
0%

FY15

14%
14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

.Research

Methods

Survey cards were distributed to a random sample of
visitors in 335 units in the system during the periods from
February 1 – August 31, 2015. At each park, visitors were
sampled at selected locations representative of the general
visitor population.
Returned cards were electronically scanned and the data
analyzed. Responses from individual parks in the system
were combined into one dataset. Data from parks with less
than 30 returned cards, or from parks with discrepancies in
the data collection methods, were omitted from this report.
Frequency distributions were calculated for each indicator
and category.
Results reported for the survey questions: “Value for
Entrance Fee Paid” and “Commercial Services in the Park”
consist of only parks that charge an entrance fee or offer
commercial services. For this reason the number of parks
and number of respondents with the lower in these charts
than in others in this report.
All percentage calculations were rounded to the nearest
percent. Therefore, individual percentages in each table
may not add to 100 percent. The response rate was
calculated by dividing the total number of returned survey
cards by the total number of survey cards distributed. The
sample size (“N”) varies from figure to figure, depending
on the number of responses.

For most indicators, the survey data are expected to be
accurate within ±.3% with 95% confidence. This means
that if the different samples had been drawn, the results
would have been similar (±.3%) 95 out of 100 times.
The results do not necessarily apply to visitors during other
times of the year, to park visitors who did not visit the
survey locations, or to park units in the system that did not
participate in the survey.
The combined indicators are an average of several
individual indicators. The average is based on the
indicators within the grouping that have responses. For
those combined indicators based on five indicators, the
average for each respondent is only calculated if at least
three of the indicators have responses. For the combined
question based on two indicators, the average is only
calculated if at least one of the indicators has a response.
These respondent averages are then transformed into the
same 5 point scale where 5 is Very Good and 1 is Poor,
based on a logical classification of the rating scale.
Low survey response rates increase the probability of nonresponse bias. Non-response bias occurs when those who
choose to participate in a survey differ substantially and
systematically from those who choose not to participate. If
these differences are related to GPRA measures, the results
may be unreliable.

For more information contact Beruria Novich at Pacific Consulting Group
bnovich@pcgfirm.com – (650) 327-8108
Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA15

Page 5

National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior

The Visitor Survey Card Project

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

The Visitor Survey Card Project
Pacific Consulting Group

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA15

Page 6

National Park System
2016 Visitor Survey Card Data Report

Introduction

Understanding the Results

To assist the National Park Service in complying with the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), a
visitor survey was conducted in 335 units of the National
Park System in FY16. The survey was developed to
measure each park unit’s performance related to NPS
GPRA Goals IIa1 (visitor satisfaction) and IIb1 (visitor
understanding and appreciation).

Inside this report are graphs that present the combined
survey results for the National Park System. The report
contains three categories of data—park facilities, visitor
services, and recreational opportunities. Within these
categories are graphs for each indicator evaluated by park
visitors. For example, the park facilities category includes
indicators such as visitor center, exhibits, restrooms, and
so forth. In addition, responses for indicators within each
category are averaged into a combined graph for the
category (e.g., combined park facilities).

The results of the Visitor Survey Card (VSC) survey are
summarized in this data report. A description of the
research methods and limitations is on the back page.
Below (left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of
the ―overall quality of facilities, services, and recreational
opportunities‖ in the system. This graph compares FY16
data (shown in black) with a ten-year baseline data
(FY06-15) shown in gray. The satisfaction measure
below this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and
"very good" responses. This is the primary performance
measure for Goal IIa1. (The satisfaction measure may not
equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due
to rounding.)
Below (right) is the FY16 GRPA reporting measure for
Goal IIa1. The percentage included in the box should be
used for reporting GPRA Goal IIa1 performance. The
systemwide response rate was 55% with 60,698 total
visitors responding to the survey.

 Each graph includes the following information:
o the number of parks and visitor responses for the
indicator;
o FY16 data (black) and baseline data (gray);
o the percentage of responses which were "very
good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very
poor;"
o a satisfaction measure that combines the
percentage of total responses which were "very
good" or "good;" and
o an average evaluation score (mean score) based
on the following values: very poor = 1, poor = 2,
average = 3, good = 4, very good = 5.
Very
Poor

Very
Good

1
2
3
4
5
 The higher the average evaluation score, the more
positive the visitor response.
 Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to
rounding.

FY16 GPRA Reporting
Measure for Goal IIa1
Percentage of park visitors satisfied overall
with appropriate facilities, services, and
recreational opportunities:

98%
Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA16

Page 1

National Park System
Park Facilities
Visitor Center

Exhibits

FY16: 320 parks; 56,624 respondents

FY16: 320 parks; 56,584 respondents

81%
76%

Very Good
16%
20%

Good

Rating

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY06-15)

20%

40%

60%

80%

0%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%

100%

0%

FY16
Baseline (FY06-15)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

FY16: Satisfaction measure: 98%
Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY16: Satisfaction measure: 96%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Restrooms

Walkways, Trails, and Roads
FY16: 320 parks; 55,978 respondents

62%
59%

Very Good

Poor

2%
2%

Very Poor

1%
1%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY06-15)

40%

60%

80%

4%
5%

Average

Poor

0%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%

FY16

20%

22%
26%

Good

9%
10%

Average

73%
68%

Very Good

27%
29%

Good

100%

0%

FY16
Baseline (FY06-15)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY16: Satisfaction measure: 89%
Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY16: Satisfaction measure: 96%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Campgrounds and/or
Picnic Areas

Combined Park
Facilities

FY16: 320 parks; 26,794 respondents

FY16: 57,154 respondents (based on 5 indicators)

67%
61%

Very Good

Poor

1%
1%

Very Poor

0%
0%
0%

Rating

Baseline (FY06-15)

40%

60%

80%

100%

2%
3%

Average

Poor

0%
0%

Very Poor

0%
0%

FY16

20%

24%
28%

Good

6%
8%

Average

74%
69%

Very Good

26%
29%

Good

Rating

Poor

Proportion of respondents

FY16: 320 parks; 50,332 respondents

Rating

3%
5%

Average

FY16

0%

22%
25%

Good

2%
3%

Average

74%
69%

Very Good

0%

FY16
Baseline (FY06-15)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of respondents

Proportion of respondents

FY16: Satisfaction measure: 93%
Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY16: Satisfaction measure: 98%
Average evaluation score: 4.7

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA16

Page 2

National Park System
Visitor Services

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA16

Page 3

National Park System
Recreational Opportunities

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA16

Page 4

Visitor
Services
National
Park System
Visitor Gender and Age Group

.Research

Survey cards were distributed to a random sample of
visitors in 335 units in the system during the periods from
February 1 – August 31, 2016. At each park, visitors were
sampled at selected locations representative of the general
visitor population.
Returned cards were electronically scanned and the data
analyzed. Responses from individual parks in the system
were combined into one dataset. Data from parks with less
than 30 returned cards, or from parks with discrepancies in
the data collection methods, were omitted from this report.
Frequency distributions were calculated for each indicator
and category.
Results reported for the survey questions: ―Value for
Entrance Fee Paid‖ and ―Commercial Services in the Park‖
consist of only parks that charge an entrance fee or offer
commercial services. For this reason the number of parks
and number of respondents with the lower in these charts
than in others in this report.
All percentage calculations were rounded to the nearest
percent. Therefore, individual percentages in each table
may not add to 100 percent. The response rate was
calculated by dividing the total number of returned survey
cards by the total number of survey cards distributed. The
sample size (―N‖) varies from figure to figure, depending
on the number of responses.

Methods
For most indicators, the survey data are expected to be
accurate within ±.3% with 95% confidence. This means
that if the different samples had been drawn, the results
would have been similar (±.3%) 95 out of 100 times.
The results do not necessarily apply to visitors during other
times of the year, to park visitors who did not visit the
survey locations, or to park units in the system that did not
participate in the survey.

The combined indicators are an average of several
individual indicators. The average is based on the
indicators within the grouping that have responses. For
those combined indicators based on five indicators, the
average for each respondent is only calculated if at least
three of the indicators have responses. For the combined
question based on two indicators, the average is only
calculated if at least one of the indicators has a response.
These respondent averages are then transformed into the
same 5 point scale where 5 is Very Good and 1 is Poor,
based on a logical classification of the rating scale.
Low survey response rates increase the probability of nonresponse bias. Non-response bias occurs when those who
choose to participate in a survey differ substantially and
systematically from those who choose not to participate. If
these differences are related to GPRA measures, the results
may be unreliable.

For more information contact Beruria Novich at Pacific Consulting Group
bnovich@pcgfirm.com – (650) 327-8108
Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA16

Page 5

National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior

The Visitor Survey Card Project

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

The Visitor Survey Card Project
Pacific Consulting Group

Pacific Consulting Group | National Park Service

vsc.NAPA16

Page 6