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

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

2. 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 Table of Contents –2

3. 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 – continued Table of Contents –3

4. Acknowledgments • 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: rebecca_halbe@fws.gov • 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 Acknowledgments –4

5. Report Summary • Project Objectives, Methodology, and History • Summary of Key Findings • Visitor Scorecard • Specific Concerns from Visitors’ Comments • Suggestions for Improving Accessibility Report Summary –5

6. Project Objectives • 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. Report Summary –6

7. 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. Report Summary –7

8. 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. Report Summary –8

9. 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. Report Summary –9

10. 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. Report Summary –10

11. Overall Satisfaction Visitor Information Visitor Centers and Contact Stations Adequate Activities and Opportunities Employees or Volunteers Road and Transportation Systems General Perceptions • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 Visitor Scorecard • The visitor’s view of the National Wildlife Refuge is organized into six arenas as shown below. Report Summary –11

12. 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. Report Summary –12

13. 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.” Specific Concerns from Visitors’ Comments – continued Report Summary –13

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 Report Summary –14

15. 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.” Report Summary –15

16. Ways to Improve Service: Leverage • Improvement Priorities for All Visitors Leverage –16

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. Understanding the Improvement Opportunities Section Leverage –17

18. Summary of Improvement Priorities for All Visitors • 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 thisarenais 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 isthe 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.” Leverage –18

19. Summary of Improvement Priorities for All Visitors • 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 Leverage –19

20. Improvement Priorities for All Visitors* Focus Improvement Efforts Here *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. Low Impact High Impact Leverage –20

21. Improvement Priorities for Adequate Activities and Opportunities This Refuge Provides Adequate* Opportunity to. . . Focus Improvement Efforts Here “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.” *“Adequate” includes accessibility for persons with disabilities and special conditions. Low Impact High Impact Leverage –21

22. Improvement Priorities for Visitor Centers and Contact Stations Focus Improvement Efforts Here “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.” Low Impact High Impact Leverage –22

23. Improvement Priorities for Road and Transportation Systems Focus Improvement Efforts Here “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.” *Only 28% of the respondents answered this question. Low Impact High Impact Leverage –23

24. Improvement Priorities for Visitor Information Focus Improvement Efforts Here “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.” Low Impact High Impact Leverage –24

25. Improvement Priorities for Employees or Volunteers Employees or Volunteers. . . Focus Improvement Efforts Here “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.” Only 15% of the respondents talked with employees or volunteers very briefly, and 34% talked with employees or volunteers for several minutes or more. Low Impact High Impact Leverage –25

26. Improvement Priorities for General Perceptions Focus Improvement Efforts Here “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. Low Impact High Impact Leverage –26

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 Satisfaction Ratings –27

28. Overall Satisfaction among Visitors • 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. Satisfaction Ratings –28

29. Overall Satisfaction among All Visitors Average Overall Satisfaction Rating = 4.48 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Satisfaction Ratings –29

30. Average Overall Satisfaction Ratings for Each Arena Between any two items, a difference of .03 or greater in average ratings is statistically significant. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Satisfaction Ratings –30

31. Average Overall Satisfaction Ratings for the Employees or Volunteers Arena Employees or Volunteers. . . Between any two items, a difference of .08 or greater in average ratings is statistically significant. Only 15% of the respondents talked with employees or volunteers very briefly, and 34% talked with employees or volunteers for several minutes or more. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Satisfaction Ratings –31

32. Average Satisfaction Ratings for the Visitor Information Arena Between any two items, a difference of .04 or greater in average ratings is statistically significant. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Satisfaction Ratings –32

33. Average Satisfaction Ratings for the General Perceptions Arena Between any two items, a difference of .04 or greater in average ratings is statistically significant. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Satisfaction Ratings –33

34. Average Satisfaction Ratings for the Visitor Centers and Contact Stations Arena Between any two items, a difference of .02 or greater in average ratings is statistically significant. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Satisfaction Ratings –34

35. Average Satisfaction Ratings for the Road and Transportation Systems Arena Between any two items, a difference of .03 or greater in average ratings is statistically significant. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Satisfaction Ratings –35

36. Average Satisfaction Ratings for the Adequate Activities and Opportunities Arena This Refuge Provides Adequate Opportunity to. . . Between any two items, a difference of .03 or greater in average ratings is statistically significant. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Satisfaction Ratings –36

37. Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup • 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. Satisfaction Ratings –37

38. Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup: Education and Language Spoken at Home + Speak The English Language + Earned Post-Graduate Degree + College Graduate + + High School Graduate Attended Some College or Have Associates Degree + Language Other Than English + Less Than High School Education ADJUSTED MEAN = 4.03 See page 37 for chart explanation. Satisfaction Ratings –38

39. Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup: Talked to Volunteer, Aware of Rules and Regulations, and Knowledge of Refuge Management Talked to A Volunteer + Was Aware of Rules and Regulations + + + Had Knowledge of Refuge Management Did Not Have Knowledge of Refuge Management + Did Not Talk to A Volunteer + Was Not Aware of Rules and Regulations ADJUSTED MEAN = 4.03 See page 37 for chart explanation. Satisfaction Ratings –39

40. Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup: Primary Purpose in Visiting the Wildlife Refuge Vacation/Relaxation and/or Environmental Education + Non-physical Purposes Wildlife/Nature Observation and Photography + + Drive through/Incidental and/or Other + Hiking Physical Purposes + Hunting and/or Fishing ADJUSTED MEAN = 4.03 See page 37 for chart explanation. Satisfaction Ratings –40

41. Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup: Paid a Fee and Required Special Assistance Did Not Require Special Assistance + + Did Not Pay A Fee + Paid A Fee + Required Special Assistance + ADJUSTED MEAN = 4.03 See page 37 for chart explanation. Satisfaction Ratings –41

42. Comparing Satisfaction Ratings by Subgroup: Region Region Two + Region Four + + Region Five + Region One Region Three + Region Six + Region Seven ADJUSTED MEAN = 4.03 See page 37 for chart explanation. Satisfaction Ratings –42

43. Satisfaction by Refuge* • Satisfaction rates for individual refuges range from a low of 85% to a high of 100%. Use caution when reviewing data for those individual refuges whose number of completed questionnaires is less than thirty. *Satisfied visitors are those who rated their overall satisfaction with the National Wildlife Refuge a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Satisfaction Ratings –43

44. Satisfaction by Refuge* – continued Use Caution when reviewing data for those individual refuges whose number of completed questionnaires is less than thirty. *Satisfied visitors are those who rated their overall satisfaction with the National Wildlife Refuge a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Satisfaction Ratings –44

45. 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%. Satisfaction Ratings –45

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

47. 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. Respondent Profiles –47

48. 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 Respondent Profiles –48

49. Primary Purpose for Visiting the National Wildlife Refuge N* = 2,267 *N = Number of Respondents Due to rounding, percentages do not add to 100%. Respondent Profiles –49

50. Visitors Used or Did the following during Today’s Visit to This National Wildlife Refuge: N = 2,456 Visitors could indicate more than one option, therefore percentages add to more than 100%. Respondent Profiles –50