Joy Shang*, Program on the Environment, University of Washington

Site Supervisor: John Floberg, Washington State Parks Foundation

Faculty Advisor: Clare Ryan, School of Environmental and Forest Sciences

Host Organization: Washington State Parks Foundation

Project Title: Equitable Access to Washington State Parks: Identifying Underrepresented

Populations and Barriers to Visitation

Abstract

Parks may be one of the greatest public resources available for Americans to enjoy, providing

numerous physical, emotional, and cultural benefits to visitors. However, we are seeing that

privileged individuals appear to be visiting parks at higher rates than others, meaning that not

only are these benefits not shared equitably but only certain individuals will appreciate the value

of natural areas. The purpose of this study was to identify discrepancies between campers at

Washington state parks and the general population in order to identify less represented

populations among park visitors. I also aimed to determine what barriers are discouraging people

from visiting parks. In order to compare these two populations, I analyzed survey and census

data to determine differing characteristics. Through my internship with the Washington State

Parks Foundation, I also conducted interviews and a literature review to identify the most

prominent barriers to visiting public lands. I found that campers at Washington state parks are

generally older, have a higher household income, and are more likely to be white than the

general population. I also determined that major barriers to outdoor recreation are cost, lack of

information, and weak cultural connection. This knowledge enables us to develop more effective

programs that empower disenfranchised populations to visit parks. This will not only welcome a
more diverse array of visitors to enjoy public parks, but will also ensure that a broader

population has experienced the value of natural spaces and will want to see them protected for

future generations.

Background

“I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our

land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations

that come after us.” – Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt acted out his passion for nature by conserving vast swaths of public

land during his presidency, many of which are still enjoyed by American citizens today.

However, while visitation at national and state parks across the country has been increasing in

the last decade, the majority of this growth comes from people who look much like Roosevelt

himself – white and financially well-off (Nelson 2015). On the other hand, people of colour and

other disenfranchised populations are noticeably absent from our public lands, despite the fact

that they were created for the use of all Americans.

As it stands, significant portions of our population are missing out on experiencing

America’s beautiful and diverse wilderness areas. Furthermore, they do not get to enjoy the

physical and mental health benefits associated with spending time outdoors, such as decreased

stress and lowered blood pressure (Briceno & Mojica 2016). Experiences in nature also

encourage a curiosity about environmental sciences and inspire us through the beauty of the

outdoors. All around, having the opportunity to experience nature can enrich almost every aspect

of one’s life and such a beneficial force should be available to as many people as possible.
 At the same time, parks also need to expand their base of advocates to combat increasing

pressure from state and national governments to cut funding to natural resources. As the

percentage of white constituents continues to shrink relative to other races and ethnicities (Frey

2018), protection for parks will suffer if a more diverse group of people is not given the

opportunity to experience and develop an appreciation for outdoor spaces. After all, it is unlikely

that someone who has never experienced the benefits of a public resource would see the purpose

of maintaining or even expanding it.

This national concern is reflected in Washington’s state parks, which had been struggling

from drastic budget cuts after the economic recession (“State Parks Funding”). As an emergency

measure to keep parks open, the Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission instituted the

Discover Pass, an annual parking pass of $30 or daily pass of $10, as well as increased other user

fees. While Washington State Parks have successfully remained operational thanks to the

public’s willingness to pay for access to parks, the creation of a parking pass raises concerns that

members of the population with lower incomes are now unable to visit. As such, the population

gap between those who are and are not visiting state parks may have widened in recent years,

instead of narrowed.

Given national visitation trends to parks as well as these recent funding shifts in

Washington State Parks, I thought it was imperative to determine whether this perceived lack of

diversity in park visitors was supported by data. If there are indeed discrepancies, it would also

be valuable to identify which populations are being over- and underrepresented, as well as

examine what barriers may be preventing underrepresented populations from recreating

outdoors. Ultimately, this knowledge could be used to develop better equity programs to
encourage underrepresented groups to visit outdoor areas at higher rates and allow a broader

portion of citizens to develop a meaningful connection with our parks.

Research Questions

1. Which communities are visiting state parks at lower rates than we would expect, given

Washington's increasingly diverse population?

2. What are potential barriers to visiting state parks for these underrepresented groups?

Internship & Methods

Throughout my process of developing and addressing these research questions, I interned

with the Washington State Parks Foundation (WSPF), a nonprofit that supports state parks

through advocacy, outreach, and project funding (“Our Parks”). As part of my work as a policy

intern I undertook many tasks that allowed me to explore diversity in state parks from a variety

of perspectives. These tasks included completing a survey to all state park agencies and

foundations across the country; analyzing data from the National Association of State Parks

Director’s Annual Information Exchange (AIX), including creating interactive dashboards using

Tableau software; as well as designing a series of infographics that tell the story of Washington’s

state parks in order to support efforts of education, fundraising, and generating support from

government officials. A full list of deliverable products that I created for my internship are

available in Appendix A.

Fortunately, WSPF has an established relationship with the Washington State Parks &

Recreation Commission that allowed me to gain access to their unpublished research. One set of

data that proved immensely helpful in answering my first research question was a set of survey
responses from campers at state parks, which included demographic characteristics of the

respondents. By comparing the demographics of campers with that of Washington state overall, I

hoped to approximate which populations are underrepresented. Of course, there are more

activities available to visitors of state parks than just camping and visitors of different ages or

ethnic and racial backgrounds have been shown to prefer different types of activities (Gibson et

al. 2018 pp.6-7). However, at the time of my research, demographics data on all visitors was not

available. Furthermore, given that approximately 20% of visitors to Washington State Parks are

from out of state, either comparison would not provide a perfect picture of where these

discrepancies exist (Muhly 2018a.). However, lacking a method to differentiate between in-state

and out-of-state visitors, this preliminary analysis provides a starting point to compare these two

populations using the best available information.

In order to address my second research question, I utilized a combination of personal

observations, in-depth interviews of staff members at different state parks agencies, and a

literature review of existing research. Although no studies have been conducted on visitors of

Washington State Parks, I drew from research conducted in similar outdoor recreation areas,

such as the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington, California State Parks, and

the National Parks Service (Covelli et al. 2007; Gibson et al. 2018; Taylor 2011). One

complication is that there is no standardized set of questions or barriers between studies, so I had

to pull out core concepts by combining related descriptions of barriers.

The interviews I conducted were with representatives from state park agencies that I had

identified to exemplify key phases of state park operations across the country. These included

North Carolina which is free to enter and relies primarily on state funding; Minnesota which is

experiencing gradual but significant cuts to funding, forcing it to increasingly rely on earned
revenue; and California which receives high numbers of visitation while also charging some of

the highest entrance and activity fees in the country (Leung et al. 2018 pp. 32). I asked these

representatives whether they thought visitors to their state parks were representative of their

state’s overall population and what, if any, actions their agency was taking to address these

inequalities. These interviews gave me a better understanding of how these issues are being

addressed across the country, as well as how different philosophies of operating parks impact

their funding model and diversity efforts.

Results

DEMOGRAPHICS OF STATE PARKS VISITORS

Through my analysis of survey results from the Washington State Parks & Recreation

Commission, I was able to determine demographics information on state parks campers over the

summer of 2018. By comparing this data to the latest census estimates from Washington’s Office

of Financial Management, I identified key categories where these populations differ.

Age was the first differing characteristic, with 39% of Washington state residents

between the ages of 25 and 44 years old while only 26% of campers are in this age range, with

the majority being above 45 years old and very few being below 24 years old, as shown in Figure

1 (Muhly 2018b.; WA OFM). Based on these distributions we can see that campers at state parks

are overall older than Washington residents. In particular, campers are absent among young

adults in their 20s.

Race and ethnicity was the second characteristic, with 93% of campers at state parks

being non-Hispanic White compared to 73% of Washington’s population (Muhly 2018b.; WA

OFM). Across the board we also see that there is a smaller population of racial and ethnic
minorities among campers, with the greatest difference being 4% of campers being Hispanic

compared to 11% of Washington state (Fig. 2). The exception to this pattern is for Pacific

Islanders and Native Americans who are slightly more prevalent among campers.

The third characteristic was income, where campers at state parks have a much higher

household income than Washington residents, with most campers making $100,000-149,000 per

year and most Washingtonians only making $25,000-49,000 per year, as shown in Figure 3

(Muhly 2018b.; Washington OFM). This discrepancy is particular noticeable in the lower income

brackets, with only 4% of campers making less than $25,000 per year.

BARRIERS TO VISITING STATE PARKS

Through consolidating my interview transcripts, personal observations, and conducting

an extensive literature review, I identified the most common barriers to recreating in rural

outdoor areas, which comprise most of Washington’s state parks. While none of these studies

were conducted at Washington State Parks themselves, we can assume that similar barriers are

facing potential visitors as in other rural outdoor areas. The key barriers that I identified were

cost, lack of information, and weak cultural connection.

There can be costs simply to get into parks through entrance or parking fees, which are

required at 37 of the 50 state parks systems across the country (Stenovec et al. 2017 pp. 31).

However, recreating in parks is accompanied by a slew of other potential costs, such as the price

of gas for transportation, equipment and rentals, lodging, and dining. For reference, a survey

conducted by the National Parks Service found that 46% of respondents who do not visit

National Parks cited the cost of hotel and food as a reason for not visiting and 28% cited that

entrance fees are too high (Taylor 2011 pp. 13). As one could intuit, people at lower income

levels found cost to be a greater barrier to recreating outdoors (Gibson et al. 2018 pp. 5; Zanon et
al. 2013 pp. 484). However, cost is also found to be a major constraint for people who are racial

or ethnic minorities, younger in age, and have lower education levels (Zanon et al. 2013 pp. 481-

485). That being said, these other populations may identify cost as a greater barrier because they

also have a lower income and not necessarily because of other demographic factors.

If people are not informed about parks, they naturally will not feel comfortable visiting or

will not be aware of activities that are available at them in the first place. Washington has also

been criticized for the overly complicated collection of over 20 passes and permits for accessing

different public lands (Stenovec et al. 2017 pp. 6). At the same time, a survey of visitors to

Washington state parks revealed that almost half of visitors learned about the park from a friend

or family member, whereas the state parks website made up just over a fifth (Muhly 2018a.).

These findings may indicate that if you do not know someone who already visits state parks, it is

unlikely that you will become familiar with the process of visiting. Furthermore, citizens who do

not speak English as a first language face an even greater barrier, since most materials for state

parks are not available in multiple languages. These monolingual materials include online

informational material as well as interpretive signage in parks. Unsurprisingly, research has

found that people of colour find a lack of information to be a major barrier to recreating

outdoors, as well as people who are younger and have a lower-income (Covelli et al. 2007 pp.

425-426; Gibson et al. 2018 pp. 5; Zanon et al. 2013 pp. 482-485).

A weak cultural connection may be a less intuitive barrier, since it stems from a social

limitation, as opposed to a functional one. While vacationing outdoors may be a long-held

tradition for many white families, people of other races and ethnicities are less likely to have

grown up regularly visiting rural parks. Furthermore, parks are often seen by people of colour as

a “white space” where they may be unwelcome or unsafe, perhaps influenced by a history of
segregation in public outdoor areas (Nelson 2015). In a survey conducted by the National Parks

Service, 23% of Hispanic respondents and 25% of Native American respondents said that they

felt parks were an unpleasant place to be, as opposed to only 5% of white respondents (Taylor et

al. 2011 pp. 11). Given that parks are seen as a space for white people, the parks in turn have

been designed to favour the recreation preferences associated with white culture, whether

intentionally or unintentionally. Due to this, even when people of colour have the resources to

visit state parks, they may prefer not to if they are uninterested in the activities provided there

(Covelli et al. 2007 pp. 425; Gibson et al. 2018 pp. 7). A study conducted in Oregon State Parks

further parsed how different racial and ethnic minorities value different characteristics when

determining whether they would visit a park. For instance, Asian Americans were more

concerned with safety, Latinos were concerned with bilingual signage and adequate

transportation, and African Americans were concerned with cleanliness, among other

considerations (Burns et al. 2008 pp. 128).

Figure 4 compares a selection of the barriers to visiting National Parks between people of

different races and ethnicities. Notably, white respondents are less likely to feel impeded by

almost all of the barriers. This graph also highlights how the significance of barriers varies

between different racial and ethnic minority groups, indicating that different solutions are needed

for different populations.

Other barriers that I identified in my literature review included that parks were too far

away or took too long to travel to, were too crowded, lacked accessibility for disabled people,

were not accessible by public transportation, and that respondents had no companions to recreate

with (Burns et al. 2008 pp. 128; Covelli et al. 2007 pp. 424; Gibson et al. 2018 pp. 7; Taylor et

al. 2011 pp. 11; Zanon et al. 2013 pp. 480).

Significance

Despite the increasing diversity of Washington residents, we can see that visitors to our

state parks have largely remained financially well-off, older, and more likely to be white than the

rest of the state. Meanwhile, racial and ethnic minorities, young people, and those with lower

incomes are facing a greater barrage of barriers that make it more difficult to enjoy our public

parks. Across the country we are witnessing a similar phenomenon where disenfranchised

populations are notably absent from our rural outdoor spaces. This not only raises concerns over

how equitable our parks are, but also poses a threat to parks themselves as an ever-growing

percentage of our population may not be visiting parks and developing a lifelong appreciation for

nature. As public lands face increasing scrutiny and cuts to funding, a lack of a broad support

base may prove detrimental for the continued conservation of natural areas, including state parks.

That being said, as is showcased by recent initiatives across the country to research the

barriers to recreating outdoors, more resources are being devoted to identifying these inequities.

However, there is a need in Washington state to conduct more research on equitable visitation.

The better we are able to pinpoint where these gaps exist and describe the causes for those gaps,

the better we can empower disenfranchised communities to visit parks by developing programs

that directly address their needs. Having this reliable data is also crucial in showcasing the extent

of the disparity and generating support from the public as well as policy makers. For instance,

the Florida State Parks Foundation has conducted extensive data collection to showcase the

benefit of parks to local businesses which has led to billions of dollars in funding from their state

legislature (personal communication, 9 Oct. 2018). Integrating the data that I analyzed in this

report could be similarly used by the Washington State Parks Foundation in their efforts to

advocate for state parks, rather than relying on anecdotes and personal hypotheses.
 Even before this data analysis, in the last decade we have seen an increasing number of

initiatives aimed to help disenfranchised populations visit Washington State Parks. One example

is Check Out Washington, a program that is currently being developed collaboratively between

the Washington State Parks Foundation and Washing State Parks & Recreation Commission.

Check Out Washington is set to debut in 2019 and would equip libraries across the state with

backpacks containing Discover Passes and field guides that can be checked out for free. Not only

would this program address the cost of paying to enter state parks, but may also help increase

familiarity with the recreation opportunities available and foster a spirit of curiosity about nature.

That being said, while Check Out Washington will be valuable resource for low-income

people hoping to visit state parks, we are still seeing a lack of programs that work directly with

leaders and organizations that are already a trusted resource within their communities.

Washington should explore investing in these local groups since it was found to be one of the

most successful methods in increasing visitation among communities of colour in California

(Gibson et al. 2018 pp. 14). Often the most effective solution to address inequity is to empower

those who are being left out and allow them to pursue the solutions that appeal to them directly.

We are at a point in time where research has indicated a clear lack of diversity in who is

visiting rural outdoor spaces, as well as given us an idea of what barriers are preventing

disenfranchised individuals from accessing them. Given the universal importance of protecting

natural areas, we can no longer ignore these inequities but must invest resources into outdoor

recreation programs that ask communities how we can be serving them better and make our

parks a more inclusive space for people of all socioeconomic groups. In turn, parks will enjoy

support from a broad group of constituents who will have experienced the value of nature first-

hand and will advocate to protect it for future generations to enjoy.

References

Briceno T, Mojica J. 2016. A Model for Measuring the Benefits of State Parks. Tacoma (WA):

Earth Economics.

Burns RC, Covelli E, Grafe AR. 2008. Outdoor recreation and non-traditional users: results of

focus group interviews with racial and ethnic minorities. In: Chavez DJ, Winter PL,

Absher JD, editors. Recreation visitor research: studies of diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Research Station. p. 123-137.

Covelli EA, Burns RC, Graefe A. 2007. Perceived constraints by non-traditional users on the Mt.

Baker-Snoqualmie national forest. In: Burns R, Robinson K, comps. Proceedings of the

2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-14.

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern

Research Station. p. 422-429.

Frey, William H. 2018. US white population declines and Generation ‘Z-Plus’ is minority white,

census shows. Brookings [cited 10 Dec. 2018]. Available from

www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/06/21/us-white-population-declines-and-

generation-z-plus-is-minority-white-census-shows/ .

Gibson S, Loukaitou-Sideris A, Mukhija V. 2018. Ensuring park equity: a California case study.

Journal of Urban Design. p. 1-21.

Leung Y., Walden-Schreiner C., Miller A., Smith J. 2018. Statistical Report of State Park

Operations: 2016-17, Annual Information Exchange. National Association of State Park

Directors. 38.
Muhly D. 2018. In Park Visitor Survey. Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission;

[cited 30 June 2018]. Available from

https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiMjNiY2QzMzEtNGUwNS00YTZhLTk1ZWIt

YmMwM2JlODUzMGJmIiwidCI6IjExZDBlMjE3LTI2NGUtNDAwYS04YmEwLTU3Z

GNjMTI3ZDcyZCJ9 .

-- 2018. Web-Based Customer Survey Results. Washington State Parks Foundation. Retrieved

between 17 May 2018 to 30 Aug. 2018.

Nelson G. 2015. Why are our parks so white? The New York Times [cited 12 Sept. 2018].

Available from www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/opinion/sunday/diversify-our-national-

parks.html .

Our Parks [Internet]. Washington State Parks Foundation; [cited 12 Aug 2018]. Available from

https://waparks.org/about-us/ .

State Parks Funding. Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission; [cited 2018 June 8].

Available from https://parks.state.wa.us:80/177/Funding .

Stenovec M, Kern M, Page C, Carnohan S, Schreier A, Hoard S. 2017. Recreation fees in

Washington state: Options and recommendations. The William D. Ruckelshaus Center

[Internet]. [cited 12 June 2018]. Available from:

https://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu/projects/current-projects/recreation-fees-in-

washington/

Taylor PA, Grandjean BD, Gramann JH. 2011. National Park Service Comprehensive Survey of

the American Public: Racial and Ethnic Diversity of National Park System Visitors and

Non-visitors. Laramie (WY): Wyoming Survey & Analysis Center. Available from

www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/docs/CompSurvey2008_2009RaceEthnicity.pdf .
Theodore Roosevelt Quotes [Internet]. National Park Service; [cited 24 Oct. 2018]. Available

from www.nps.gov/thro/learn/historyculture/theodore-roosevelt-quotes.htm .

Washington Office of Financial Management. 2017. Estimates of April 1 population by age, sex,

race and Hispanic Origin: State: 2010-2017 [Internet]. Olympia (WA) [cited 12 Aug

2018]. Available from www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-

demographics/population-estimates/estimates-april-1-population-age-sex-race-and-

hispanic-origin .

Zanon D, Doucouliagos C, Hall J, Lockstone-Binney L. 2013. Constraints to park visitation: A

meta-analysis of North American studies. Leisure Sciences. 35: 475-493.

Visuals

Distribution of Ages
45%
40%
Percentage of Population

WA State Parks Campers

35%
WA State Residents
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
18-24 25-44 45-64 65+
Age

Figure 1. This graph shows the age of campers in Washington State Parks from approximately

9,000 survey responses that were collected by the Washington State Parks & Recreation

Commission between May 17th 2018 and August 30th 2018, which includes peak camping season

(Muhly 2018b.). The data on campers is compared with the estimated age of Washington
residents in the year of 2017 from the Office of Financial Management (WA OFM). From this

graph, Washington State Park campers are underrepresented in the age categories of 18-44 years

and overrepresented for the ages of 45 years and older.

Distribution of Race & Ethnicity

100%
90%
WA State Parks Campers WA State Residents
80%
Percentage of Population

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
White Asian Hispanic Black Pacific Islander Native American
Race/Ethnicity

Figure 2. This graph shows the race and ethnicity of Washington state park campers parks from

approximately 9,000 survey responses that were collected by the Washington State Parks &

Recreation Commission between May 17th 2018 and August 30th 2018 (Muhly 2018b.). This data

is compared with the race and ethnicity of all Washington residents, as estimated by the Office of

Financial Management for 2017 (WA OFM). This data shows that Washington State Park

campers are overrepresented among white populations and underrepresented among Asian,

Hispanic, and Black populations. While Pacific Islanders and Native Americans are both

overrepresented among campers as well, these differences are so small that further research may

be needed in order to come to a conclusive finding.

 Distribution of Household Income
30%
WA State Parks Campers
25%
WA State Residents
20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Less than $25,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000 - $150,000 - $200,000 or
$25,000 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 more
Annual Household Income

Figure 3. This graph shows the annual household income of Washington state park campers

from approximately 9,000 survey responses that were collected by the Washington State Parks &

Recreation Commission between May 17th 2018 and August 30th 2018 1 (Muhly 2018b.). This

data is compared with the annual household income of all Washington residents, as estimated by

the Office of Financial Management for 2017 (WA OFM). Comparing these data sets shows that

Washington State Park campers are underrepresented among populations making less than

$50,000 in annual household income and are overrepresented in populations making over

$50,000, with those under $25,000 being the most underrepresented and those making $100,000-

149,999 being the most overrepresented.

 Selection of Barriers to Visiting National Parks by Non-Visitors

Native American Asian

Unpleasant place African American Hispanic
White

Unsure what activities are

available

Entrance fees too high

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 4. This graph showcases the percentage of respondents in different racial and ethnic

groups who described experiencing a barrier to visiting National Parks. These barriers are a

selection of the 13 that were included in the phone survey to 4,103 respondents from across the

United States who said they do not visit National Parks (Taylor et al. 2011 pp. 13). Results show

that while the percentage individuals in different racial and ethnic groups experience barriers at

different rates, generally white respondents experienced the barriers less than other populations.

Appendices

APPENDIX A.

Table 1. Tangible products and other materials that were completed during Summer 2018 as part

of the Program on the Environment’s capstone experience and for my host organization, the

Washington State Parks Foundation (WSPF).

Deliverable Title Recipient(s) Description

Capstone Journal P. Sean McDonald A journal containing a log of hours worked with
(Capstone Instructor) host organization, task accomplished, research
notes etc.
Progress P. Sean McDonald Two memos describing questions, challenges,
Memoranda (Capstone Instructor) and successes of my internship and research
experience. The second memo included a self-
evaluation of the quarter.
Capstone Blog P. Sean McDonald One blogpost describing my internship
Post (Capstone Instructor) experience, including images, to be viewed by
my peers in the capstone.
WSPF Blog Post John Floberg (Site One blog post for the WSPF newsletter and
Supervisor) website describing my background and the goals
of the internship.
Twitter P. Sean McDonald Compilation of a minimum of 2 Tweets and 2
Collection (Capstone Instructor) replies sent during the quarter to fulfill weekly
prompts.
Annotated P. Sean McDonald A formal annotated bibliography containing at
Bibliography (Capstone Instructor), least ten academic sources that serve to answer
Clare Ryan (Faculty my research questions.
Advisor)
One-Page John Floberg (Site Four infographics that effectively communicate
Infographics Supervisor), the consequences of insufficient or significant
P. Sean McDonald shifts in state park funding as well as potential
(Capstone Instructor), solutions – particularly those involving the role
Clare Ryan (Faculty of nonprofits and advocacy organizations. These
Advisor) documents will be tailored for specific
audiences, including the general public, media
outlets, WSPF donors, and public officials for
the purposes of education and a clear call to
action.
Tableau Data John Floberg (Site A living collection of over 10 interactive data
Dashboards Supervisor) visualizations that compare key variables at state
parks across the country as well as data within
Washington state on visitor demographics, land
acquisition history, and funding. These
dashboards were shown to elected officials to
advocate for the needs of parks and an increased
budget.
Survey Report John Floberg (Site 2 preliminary reports and 2 final reports that
Supervisor) summarize the findings from a survey begun by
a former capstone student to all 50 state park
agencies and over 30 foundations that I
completed. The report identifies significant
findings and trends that can be shared with other
states to highlight differences and similarities.