# Joshua Tree National Park 2004 Visitor Study/Results

RESULTS
Visitor groups contacted
At Joshua Tree NP, 767 visitor groups were contacted and 700 of these groups (91%) accepted questionnaires. Questionnaires were completed and returned by 525 visitor groups, resulting in a 75% response rate for this study.
Table 2 compares age and group size information collected from the total sample of visitors, who participated, with age and group size of visitors who actually returned questionnaires. Based on the variables of respondent age and visitor group size, non-response bias was judged to be insignificant.
Table 2: Comparison of total sample and actual respondents :
| | Total sample | Total sample | Actual respondents | Actual respondents |
| Variable | N | Average | N | Average |
| Age of respondents | 689 | 44 | 513 | 46 |
| Group size | 673 | 4 | 516 | 4 |
Demographics
Figure 1 shows visitor group sizes, which ranged from one person to 54 people. Forty-five percent of visitor groups consisted of two people, while another 25% had three or four people.
Fifty-three percent of visitor groups were made up of family members and 24% were with friends (see Figure 2). “Other” group types included romantic interest partners, rock climbing groups, hiking clubs, motorcycle club (AMCA), botanical study groups, Boy Scouts, Desert Institute, and home schooling groups.
Forty-seven percent of the visitors were in the 26-50 age group and 19% were 15 years or younger (see Figure 3). Over one-half of visitors (52%) were male and 48% were female (see Figure 4). Forty-nine percent of visitors reported that this was their first time visiting Joshua Tree NP, 16% had visited the park between three and five times, 14% had visited twice, and 16% visited nine or more times in their lifetime (see Figure 5).
Eight percent of visitor groups were international, from Canada (29%), Germany (21%), England (19%), and 15 other countries (see Table 3).
​The largest proportions of United States visitors were from California (76%), Washington (4%), New York (2%), and Arizona (2%), as shown in Map 1 and Table 4. Smaller proportions of U.S. visitors came from another 29 states and Washington D.C.
Figure 1: Visitor group sizes
Figure 2: Visitor group types
Figure 3: Visitor ages
Figure 4: Visitor gender
Table 3: International visitors by country of residence percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. :
| Country | Number of individuals | Percent of international visitors N=126 individuals | Percent of total visitors N=1,571 individuals |
| Canada | 36 | 29 | 2 |
| Germany | 26 | 21 | 2 |
| England | 24 | 19 | 2 |
| Switzerland | 11 | 9 | 1 |
| Spain | 4 | 3 | <1 |
| Austria | 3 | 2 | <1 |
| Denmark | 3 | 2 | <1 |
| Sweden | 3 | 2 | <1 |
| Belgium | 2 | 2 | <1 |
| Bermuda | 2 | 2 | <1 |
| China | 2 | 2 | <1 |
| Czech | 2 | 2 | <1 |
| France | 2 | 2 | <1 |
| Philippines | 2 | 2 | <1 |
| Australia | 1 | 1 | <1 |
| Chile | 1 | 1 | <1 |
| Ireland | 1 | 1 | <1 |
| Russia | 1 | 1 | <1 |
Table 4: United States visitors by state of residence percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. :
| Country | Number of individuals | Percent of U.S. visitors N=1,445 individuals | Percent of total visitors N=1,571 individuals |
| California | 1100 | 76 | 70 |
| Washington | 61 | 4 | 4 |
| New York | 35 | 2 | 2 |
| Arizona | 22 | 1 | 1 |
| Florida | 19 | 1 | 1 |
| Michigan | 17 | 1 | 1 |
| Minnesota | 17 | 1 | 1 |
| New Jersey | 16 | 1 | 1 |
| Oregon | 14 | 1 | 1 |
| Pennsylvania | 12 | 1 | 1 |
| Texas | 12 | 1 | 1 |
| Colorado | 9 | 1 | 1 |
| Illinois | 9 | 1 | 1 |
| Wisconsin | 9 | 1 | 1 |
| Nevada | 8 | 1 | 1 |
| 18 other states and Washington, D.C | 85 | 6 | 5 |
Visitor awareness of Congressionally designated wilderness areas
Visitor groups were asked, “Prior to your visit, did you know that Joshua Tree NP has Congressionally designated wilderness areas?” Almost one-half of visitor groups (47%) knew about designated wilderness areas (see Figure 6). However, 46% did not know and 7% were “not sure.” When asked if they had visited the wilderness areas, 45% of visitor groups reported that they did not visit, while 24% visited and 31% were “not sure” (see Figure 7).
Figure 6: Visitor awareness of Congressionally designated wilderness areas in Joshua Tree NP
Sources of information
Most visitor groups (92%) obtained information about Joshua Tree NP prior to their visit to the park, while 8% did not receive any information (see Figure 8). As shown in Figure 9, the most common sources of information used by visitor groups included previous visits (52%), friends/relatives/word of mouth (43%), the Internet-NPS or Joshua Tree NP web site (39%), and travel guides/tour books (30%). Table 5 lists “other” sources of information that visitor groups used.
Visitor groups who obtained information about Joshua Tree NP prior to this visit were then asked whether they received needed information. Most visitor groups (90%) reported that they received the type of information about the park they needed (see Figure 10). However, 5% of visitor groups reported that they did not receive information they needed and 5% were “not sure.”
The type of information that visitor groups needed but were unable to obtain included details about campsites (location of each campground, new camping fees, reservations, handicapped accessibility, and group campsites), specific point of entry for park access, detailed maps of hiking trails, information about accommodations in the area, policies concerning pets on trails, and more information on flora, fauna, and historical features.
Figure 8: Visitors who received information about Joshua Tree NP prior to this visit
Table 5: “Other” sources of information used by visitors N=50 comments :
| Source | Number of time mentioned |
| Climbing guide books/magazine | 5 |
| Heard a song about it | 5 |
| Road maps | 5 |
| Live in the area | 5 |
| Brochure at hotels, motels, etc. | 4 |
| Once visited as a child | 3 |
| Hiking clubs/stores | 3 |
| NPS employees | 3 |
| NPS maps and guides | 3 |
| College classes | 3 |
| Previous visit to California | 2 |
| Scout outing | 2 |
| Books on desert | 2 |
| Friends/relatives | 2 |
| Stargazing map | 1 |
| Online wildflower information | 1 |
| Birding guides | 1 |
| AAA tour books | 1 |
Visitor awareness of issues facing Joshua Tree NP
Joshua Tree NP is facing a number of issues concerning natural and cultural resources. Visitor groups were asked if they were aware of such issues prior to this visit to the park. As shown in Figure 11, most visitor groups (73%) reported being aware of off-road vehicles damaging desert, 59% were aware of theft of natural resources, and 57% were aware of air pollution impacts. Less than one-half of visitor groups were aware of the other six issues.
When asked if they learned about these issues on this visit, 48% of visitor groups reported learning about problems with begging coyotes, 42% learned about threats to desert tortoise populations, and 39% learned about air pollution impacts (see Figure 12).
Figure 11: Visitor awareness of issues facing Joshua Tree NP
Visitor travel plans
Visitor groups were asked to indicate how Joshua Tree NP fit into their travel plans. As shown in Figure 13, Joshua Tree NP was their primary destination for most groups (59%). Thirty-two percent of visitor groups reported that the park was one of several destinations and 9% reported that Joshua Tree NP was not a planned destination on this visit.
Primary reason for visiting the area
The primary reason for visiting the Joshua Tree NP area, including Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and Twentynine Palms, was to visit the park for 85% of visitor groups, as shown in Figure 14. Seven percent of visitor groups came to visit friends/relatives, 4% for business or other reasons and another 4% came to visit other attractions in the area.
Length of visit/number of park entries/number of vehicles
On this visit, most visitor groups (54%) visited Joshua Tree NP on more than one day (24 hours) on this visit, while 46% spent less than one day (see Figure 15). Visitor groups were then asked to report the number of hours they spent at the park on the day they received the questionnaire. Note: because visitor groups were asked to report the number of hours on the day they received the questionnaire, some visitor groups included hours of their overnight stay. Therefore, the number of hours spent ranged from less than one hour to 24 hours. Thirty-two percent of visitor groups spent between three and four hours, 23% spent five to six hours, and 18% spent eleven hours or more (see Figure 16).
Visitor groups who spent more than one day were then asked the number of days they visited Joshua Tree NP on this visit. Less than one-half of visitor groups (44%) spent two days, 28% spent three days, and 24% spent four or more days.
One-half of visitor groups (50%) entered the park once, 26% entered twice, and 11% entered the park three times during this visit to Joshua Tree NP (see Figure 18).
On this visit, most groups (81%) arrived at Joshua Tree NP in one vehicle, 10% of visitor groups used two vehicles, and 9% arrived in three or more vehicles (see Figure 19).
Figure 15: Visitor groups who visited Joshua Tree NP on more than one day
Figure 16: Number of hours spent at Joshua Tree NP on the day the questionnaire was received
Figure 17: Number of days spent visiting Joshua Tree NP
Figure 18: Number of times entered Joshua Tree NP on this visit
Activities
The most common activities that visitor groups participated in during this visit to the Joshua Tree NP included sightseeing (83%), visiting visitor center(s) (58%), day hiking (56%), and walking self-guided nature trails (55%), as shown in Figure 20. The least common activity was backpacking overnight (2%). “Other” activities are listed in Table 6.
Table 6: “Other” activities visitor groups participated in during this visit N=83 visitor groups; some visitor groups made more than one comment. :
| Activity | Number of time mentioned |
| Photography | 30 |
| Wildflower viewing | 10 |
| Bird watching | 9 |
| Picnicking | 7 |
| Riding motorbike | 3 |
| Spending time with family/friends | 3 |
| Enjoying the beauty of this place | 3 |
| Driving through | 3 |
| Backcountry hiking | 2 |
| Wildlife watching | 2 |
| Cooking | 2 |
| Climbing/bouldering | 2 |
| Backcountry camping | 1 |
| Horseback riding | 1 |
| Picking up trash | 1 |
| Singing | 1 |
| Trail running | 1 |
Overnight accommodations/campsite reservations
Visitor groups were asked a series of questions concerning their overnight accommodations in Joshua Tree NP and the surrounding area (including Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and Twentynine Palms). First, visitor groups were asked if they stayed overnight away from home in the area. Among the respondents, 54% reported they stayed overnight away from home in the park area, while 46% said that they did not stay overnight (see Figure 21).
Visitor groups who stayed overnight away from home were then asked to report the number of nights they stayed inside Joshua Tree NP and number of nights they stayed in the surrounding area. Thirty-four percent of visitor groups stayed two nights, 28% stayed one night, and 38% stayed three or more nights inside the park, as shown in Figure 22. Of those who stayed overnight in the area, 41% stayed one night, 27% stayed two nights, and 31% stayed three or more nights (see Figure 23).
The most common type of lodging that visitor groups used to stay overnight inside Joshua Tree NP was tent camping in a developed campground (80%), followed by RV/trailer camping (13%), as shown in Figure 24. Outside the park, a lodge/motel/hotel/cabin (69%) and RV/trailer camping (12%) were the most common types of lodging (see Figure 25). “Other” types of lodging included private condo, in a van, and Oasis Lodge.
Most visitor groups (76%) did not attempt to make reservations for campsites in Joshua Tree NP for this trip (see Figure 26). Of those who tried to make reservations, 82% were able to reserve their campsites, while 18% were not able to make reservations for this trip (see Figure 27).
Figure 21: Visitor groups who stayed overnight away from home in the Joshua Tree NP area
Figure 22: Number of nights visitor groups stayed inside the park
Figure 23: Number of nights visitor groups stayed outside the park but in the area
Figure 24: Type of lodging visitor groups used inside the park
Figure 25: Type of lodging visitor groups used outside the park
Figure 26: Visitor groups who attempted to make reservations for campsites in Joshua Tree NP
Sites visited
Visitor groups were asked to list the order in which they visited sites in Joshua Tree NP on this visit, using Map 2. The most visited sites included Jumbo Rocks Area (56%), Hidden Valley (48%), and Oasis Visitor Center (40%), as shown in Figure 28. The least visited site was Geology Tour Road (8%). “Other” sites mentioned are listed in Table 7.
Visitor groups listed the sites where they stopped first on this visit with 22% of groups citing the Oasis Visitor Center (see Figure 29). Other sites that visitor groups visited first were Hidden Valley (15%), Black Rock Canyon (12%), and Indian Cove (12%).
Map 2: Joshua Tree NP map
Figure 28: Sites visited in Joshua Tree NP
Table 7: “Other” sites visitor groups visited on this trip to Joshua Tree NP N=107 sites; some visitors listed more than one site. :
| Site | Number of times mentioned |
| Keys View | 20 |
| Ryan Mountain | 12 |
| Split Rock | 9 |
| Boy Scout trail | 5 |
| Ocotillo Patch | 5 |
| Driving through | 5 |
| Cap Rock | 5 |
| Rattle Snake Canyon | 4 |
| Arch Rock | 4 |
| Wonderland of Rock | 4 |
| White Tank | 4 |
| Desert Queen Mine | 4 |
| Cottonwood Visitor Center | 3 |
| Lost Palm Oasis | 3 |
| Live Oak | 3 |
| Belle Rock | 2 |
| Quail Springs | 2 |
| Ocotillo Garden | 2 |
| Stopping wherever wildflowers were abundant | 2 |
| Mastodon Peak | 2 |
| Old Dale Road | 2 |
| Pine City | 2 |
| Cohn Ranch | 1 |
| Ellesmere Island | 1 |
| Bajada Nature Trail | 1 |
Park entrance used
On this visit, 38% of visitor groups first entered the park through the West Entrance Station (see Figure 30). Other groups first entered at the North Entrance Station (28%), Indian Cove (12%), and Cottonwood Spring (12%). “Other” park entrances included Keys View, Wall Street Mine, Twentynine Palms, Oasis Visitor Center, Cottonwood Visitor Center, and Lost Palm.
Information services and facilities: use, importance, and quality
Visitors were asked to note the information services and facilities they used during this visit to Joshua Tree NP. The most used services and facilities included the park brochure/map (93%), park newspaper (63%), and visitor center exhibits (49%), as shown in Figure 31. The least used service was the orientation video (1%).
​Visitor groups rated the importance and quality of each of the information services and facilities they used. The following five-point scales were used in the questionnaire.
| IMPORTANCE 5=extremely important 4=very important 3=moderately important 2=somewhat important 1=not important | QUALITY 5=very good 4=good 3=average 2=poor 1=very poor |
The average importance and quality ratings for each information service and facility were determined based on ratings provided by visitors who used each service and facility. Figures 32 and 33 show the average importance and quality ratings for each of the park services and facilities. All services and facilities were rated above average in importance and quality. Note: travelers information radio station, orientation video, and Junior Ranger Program were not rated by enough visitors to provide reliable data.
Figures 34–48 show the visitor groups' importance ratings for each of the services/facilities. The services/facilities receiving the highest proportion of “extremely important” or “very important” ratings included park brochure/map (86%), self-guided trail brochures (83%), and assistance from visitor center staff (79%). The highest proportion of “not important” ratings were for assistance from entrance station staff (4%).
Figures 49–63 show the visitor groups' quality ratings for each of the services/facilities. The services/facilities receiving the highest proportion of “very good” or “good” ratings included assistance from visitor center staff (92%), ranger-led programs (89%), and assistance from roving rangers (88%). The services/facilities receiving the highest “very poor” rating by visitor groups were assistance from entrance station staff (3%) and ranger-led programs (3%).
Figure 64 combines the “very good” and “good” quality ratings and compares those ratings for all of the information services and facilities.
Figure 32: Average importance and quality ratings for information services and facilities
Figure 33: Detail of Figure 32
Figure 34: Importance of park brochure/map
Figure 35: Importance of park newspaper
Figure 36: Importance of bulletin boards
Figure 37: Importance of roadside exhibits
Figure 38: Importance of visitor center exhibits
Figure 39: Importance of assistance from visitor center staff
Figure 40: Importance of assistance from entrance station staff
Figure 41: Importance of assistance from roving rangers
Figure 42: Importance of self-guided trail brochures
Figure 43: Importance of visitor sales publications
Figure 44: Importance of ranger-led programs
Figure 45: Importance of travelers information radio station
Figure 46: Importance of web site use before or during visit
Figure 47: Importance of orientation video
Figure 48: Importance of Junior Ranger Program
Figure 49: Quality of park brochure/map
Figure 50: Quality of park newspaper
Figure 51: Quality of bulletin boards
Figure 52: Quality of roadside exhibits
Figure 53: Quality of visitor center exhibits
Figure 54: Quality of assistance from visitor center staff
Figure 55: Quality of assistance from entrance station staff
Figure 56: Quality of assistance from roving rangers
Figure 57: Quality of self-guided trail brochures
Figure 58: Quality of visitor center sales publications
Figure 59: Quality of ranger-led programs
Figure 60: Quality of travelers information radio station
Figure 61: Quality of web site use before or during visit
Figure 62: Quality of orientation video
Figure 63: Quality of Junior Ranger Program
Visitor services and facilities: use, importance, and quality
During this visit to Joshua Tree NP, the most used visitor services and facilities were directional road signs-inside the park (86%), restrooms (85%), and paved roads (81%), as shown in Figure 65. The least used service was access for disabled persons (1%).
| IMPORTANCE 5=extremely important 4=very important 3=moderately important 2=somewhat important 1=not important | QUALITY 5=very good 4=good 3=average 2=poor 1=very poor |
The average importance and quality ratings for each visitor service and facility were determined based on ratings provided by visitors who used each service and facility. Figures 66 and 67 show the average importance and quality ratings for each of the park services and facilities. All services and facilities were rated above average in importance and quality. Note: access for disabled persons was not rated by enough visitors to provide reliable data.
Figures 68-78 show the importance ratings that were provided by visitor groups for each of the services/facilities. The services/facilities receiving the highest proportion of “extremely important” or “very important” ratings included campgrounds (96%), trails (92%), and restrooms (91%). The highest proportion of “not important” ratings was for unpaved roads (3%).
Figures 79-89 show the quality ratings that were provided by visitor groups for each of the services/facilities. The services/facilities receiving the highest proportion of “very good” or “good” ratings included trails (87%), overlooks/pullouts (85%), and garbage disposal (84%). The facility receiving the highest “very poor” rating by visitor groups was unpaved roads (3%).
Figure 90 combines the “very good” and “good” quality ratings and compares those ratings for all of the visitor services and facilities.
Figure 66: Average importance and quality ratings for visitor services and facilities
Figure 67: Detail of Figure 66
Figure 68: Importance of directional road signs – outside park
Figure 69: Importance of directional road signs – inside park
Figure 70: Importance of campgrounds
Figure 71: Importance of picnic areas
Figure 72: Importance of paved roads
Figure 73: Importance of unpaved roads
Figure 74: Importance of overlooks/pullouts
Figure 75: Importance of trails
Figure 76: Importance of access for disabled persons
Figure 77: Importance of restrooms
Figure 78: Importance of garbage disposal
Figure 79: Quality of directional road signs – outside park
Figure 80: Quality of directional road signs – inside park
Figure 81: Quality of campgrounds
Figure 82: Quality of picnic areas
Figure 83: Quality of paved roads
Figure 84: Quality of unpaved roads
Figure 85: Quality overlooks/pullouts
Figure 86: Quality of trails
Figure 87: Quality of access for disabled persons
Figure 88: Quality of restrooms
Figure 89: Quality of garbage disposal
Importance of selected park features/qualities
Visitor groups were asked to rate the importance of selected Joshua Tree NP’s features/qualities. Table 8 summarizes visitor group ratings for each feature/quality and Figure 91 show the combined “very important” and “extremely important” ratings.
Features/qualities that received the highest “extremely important” and “very important” ratings included clean air (94%) and natural quiet/sounds of nature (93%). The features/qualities that received the highest “not important” rating were access to historical/cultural sites (7%) and access to rock formations (6%).
Table 8: Importance ratings for selected park features/qualities N=number of visitor groups who rated each feature/quality; percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. :
| Feature/quality | N | Rating (%) | Rating (%) | Rating (%) | Rating (%) | Rating (%) | Rating (%) |
| Feature/quality | N | Extremely important | Very important | Moderately important | Somewhat important | Not important | Don’t know |
| Views without development | 512 | 64 | 23 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Natural quiet/ sounds of nature | 515 | 70 | 23 | 5 | 1 | 1 | <1 |
| Solitude | 510 | 55 | 25 | 15 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Clean air | 511 | 46 | 23 | 19 | 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Access to historical/ cultural sites | 508 | 32 | 28 | 22 | 10 | 7 | 2 |
Figure 91: Combined “very important” and “extremely important” ratings for selected park features/qualities
Importance of selected services to visitor enjoyment
Visitor groups were asked to rate the importance of selected services to their enjoyment of Joshua Tree NP on this visit. Table 9 summarizes ratings for each service while Figure 92 shows the combined “extremely important” and “very important” ratings. Services that received the highest “extremely important” and “very important” ratings were availability of water (65%), recycling receptacles (64%), and availability of wildland firefighting (61%). Internet portals at visitor center (64%) and availability of phones (41%), were the services that received the highest “not important” rating.
Table 9: Importance ratings for selected services N=number of visitor groups who rated each feature/quality; percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. :
| Service | N | Rating (%) | Rating (%) | Rating (%) | Rating (%) | Rating (%) | Rating (%) |
| Service | N | Extremely important | Very important | Moderately important | Somewhat important | Not important | Don’t know |
| Availability of phones | 517 | 3 | 12 | 21 | 19 | 41 | 4 |
| Law enforcement presence | 516 | 8 | 21 | 35 | 23 | 11 | 2 |
| Availability of emergency medical services | 521 | 22 | 37 | 25 | 12 | 3 | 1 |
| Availability of search and rescue | 519 | 24 | 32 | 24 | 12 | 6 | 2 |
| Availability of wildland firefighting | 515 | 28 | 33 | 22 | 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Availability of water | 519 | 34 | 31 | 18 | 8 | 8 | 1 |
| Recycling receptacles | 516 | 29 | 35 | 20 | 9 | 6 | 1 |
| Internet portals at visitor center | 516 | 2 | 5 | 8 | 15 | 64 | 7 |
Figure 92: Combined “extremely important” and “very important” ratings for selected services
Total expenditures
Visitor groups were asked to list the amount of money they spent on their visit to Joshua Tree NP and the surrounding area (Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and Twentynine Palms). Expenditures were requested for the following: lodging; camping fees; guide fees; restaurants and bars; groceries and take-out food; gas and oil; other transportation expenses; admissions, recreation, and entertainment fees; all other purchases; and donations.
For total expenditures in and around the park, 40% of visitor groups spent between $1 and $100 during their visit (see Figure 93). Twenty-one percent of visitors spent $101-200 and 9% spent between $201 and $300. The greatest proportion of expenditures (25%) was for hotels, motels, cabins, etc., as shown in Figure 94.
The average visitor group< expenditure during the visit was $254. The median visitor group expenditure (50% of groups spent more and 50% of groups spent less) was $115. The average per capita expenditure was $78.
Visitor groups were asked to list how many adults (18 years or older) and children (under 18 years) were covered by their expenditures. Fifty-eight percent of visitor groups had two adults, while 12% had one adult and 12% had three adults (see Figure 95). Figure 96 shows that 42% of groups had one or two children and 20% had three or more children. Thirty-seven percent of groups did not visit with children.
Figure 93: Total expenditures in and out of Joshua Tree NP
Figure 94: Proportions of expenditures in and out of Joshua Tree NP
Figure 95: Number of adults covered by expenditures
Expenditures inside the park
Total expenditures inside the park: Forty-four percent of visitor groups spent $1-25 and 16% spent no money (see Figure 97).
“All other purchases” accounted for 37% of expenditures in the park (see Figure 98). Another 35% was comprised of camping fees and charges.
The average visitor group expenditure in the park during this visit was $40. The median visitor group expenditure (50% of groups spent more and 50% of groups spent less) was $20. The average per capita expenditure was $18.
Camping fees and charges: Forty-seven percent of visitor groups spent no money in the park and 45% of visitors spent up to $50 (see Figure 99).
Guide fees and charges: Most visitor groups (93%) spent no money and 6% spent up to $25 (see Figure 100).
Transportation expenses inside the park: Most visitor groups (98%) spent no money (see Figure 101).
Admission, recreation, and entertainment fees inside the park: More than half of visitor groups (54%) spent $1-25 and 39% spent no money (see Figure 102).
All other purchases: Fifty-four percent of groups spent no money and 25% spent between $1 and $25 (see Figure 103).
Donations: Most groups (88%) did not donate any money and 12% donated up to $25 (see Figure 104).
Figure 97: Total expenditures in Joshua Tree NP
Figure 98: Proportions of expenditures in Joshua Tree NP
Figure 99: Expenditures for camping fees and charges inside the park
Figure 100: Expenditures for guide fees and charges inside the park
Figure 101: Expenditures for other transportation expenses inside the park
Figure 102: Expenditures for admission, recreation, and entertainment fees inside the park
Figure 103: Expenditures for all other purchases inside the park
Expenditures outside the park
Total expenditures outside the park: Forty-two percent of visitor groups spent $1-100, while 27% spent between $101 and $300 in the surrounding area outside Joshua Tree NP including Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and Twentynine Palms (see Figure 105).
The largest proportions of expenditures outside of the park were for hotels, motels, etc. (29%), restaurants and bars (20%), and groceries and take-out food (17%), as shown in Figure 106.
The average visitor group expenditure outside of the park during this visit was $230. The median visitor group expenditure (50% of groups spent more and 50% of groups spent less) was $100. The average per capita expenditure was $89.
Hotels, motels, cabins, B&B, etc. outside the park: Sixty-six percent of visitor groups spent no money and 13% spent up to $100 (see Figure 107).
Camping fees and charges outside the park: Most groups (92%) spent no money and 6% spent up to $50 (see Figure 108).
Guide fees and charges outside the park: Most groups (98%) spent no money and 2% spent up to $50 (see Figure 109).
Restaurants and bars outside the park: Forty-one percent of groups spent no money and 33% spent up to $50 (see Figure 110).
Groceries and take-out food outside the park: Over one-half of visitor groups (52%) spent up to $50 and 27% spent no money (see Figure 111).
Gas and oil outside the park: Sixty-four percent of groups spent up to $50 and 19% spent no money (see Figure 112).
Other transportation expenses outside the park: Most visitor groups (85%) spent no money and 8% spent $151 or more (see Figure 113).
Admission, recreation, and entertainment fees outside the park: Most groups (81%) spent no money and 16% spent up to $50 (see Figure 114).
All other purchases outside the park: Sixty percent of visitor groups spent no money and 27% spent up to $50 (see Figure 115).
Donations outside the park: Most groups (95%) did not donate any money and 5% donated up to $50 (see Figure 116).
Figure 105: Total expenditures outside Joshua Tree NP
Figure 106: Proportions of expenditures outside Joshua Tree NP
Figure 107: Expenditures for hotels, motels, cabins, B&B, etc. outside the park
Figure 108: Expenditures for camping fees and charges outside the park
Figure 109: Expenditures for guide fees and charges outside the park
Figure 110: Expenditures for restaurants and bars outside the park
Figure 111: Expenditures for groceries and take-out food outside the park
Figure 112: Expenditures for gas and oil outside the park
Figure 113: Expenditures for other transportation expenses outside the park
Figure 114: Expenditures for admissions, recreation, and entertainment fees outside the park
Figure 115: Expenditures for all other purchases outside the park
Visitor opinions about fees
Currently, Joshua Tree NP collects entrance fees from visitors with most of these fees remaining at the park. Visitor groups were asked if they were aware of this policy prior to this visit to the park. Fifty-seven percent of visitor groups were not aware of this policy, 28% were aware but uncertain about the details, 10% were aware of the policy in detail, and 5% were “not sure,” as shown in Figure 117
Visitor groups were then asked how they would like to see the funds from entrance fees used at Joshua Tree NP. Most visitor groups wanted to use the funds for natural/cultural resource management (64%), backlogged maintenance/infrastructure (56%) and visitor services staff (51%). “Other” projects that visitor groups wanted to use the funds for are listed in Table 10.
Figure 117: Visitor groups who were aware of the fee policy
Table 10: “Other” preferences for using fee funding N=76 comments :
| Comment | Number of times mentioned |
| Preservation of park resources for future generations | 10 |
| Whatever the National Park Service believes is important | 8 |
| More campgrounds | 7 |
| Keep development out of the park | 6 |
| Biking trails | 5 |
| Better signage in park | 5 |
| More access for horseback riding | 4 |
| Larger campsites | 3 |
| Road maintenance | 3 |
| Improve visitor center | 3 |
| Provide environmental education for visitors | 3 |
| Remove trash | 3 |
| More self-guided materials for hiking trails | 2 |
| More hiking trails | 2 |
| Keep it as is | 2 |
| Add showers in campgrounds | 2 |
| More secured devices for climbing | 2 |
| More programs for children | 1 |
| Increase ranger’s salary | 1 |
| More parking | 1 |
| Remove paved roads | 1 |
| Provide geology tours | 1 |
| Air quality improvement | 1 |
Visitor opinions about safety in the park
During this visit to Joshua Tree NP, most visitor groups (63%) felt that their personal property was “very safe” from crime in the park (see Figure 119). Thirty-two percent of visitor groups felt their personal property was “somewhat safe” and less than 3% felt it was “somewhat unsafe” or “very unsafe.” Visitor groups were then asked how safe they felt from crime against their persons during this visit. As shown in Figure 120, most visitor groups (75%) felt “very safe” and 20% felt “somewhat safe.” Less than 2% of visitor groups felt “somewhat unsafe” or “very unsafe.” in regard to personal safety from accidents in the park, 51% of visitor groups reported feeling “very safe” (see Figure 121). Another 37% felt “somewhat safe” and less than 5% felt “somewhat unsafe” or “very unsafe” from accidents against their persons during this visit to Joshua Tree NP.
Visitor groups who reported feeling “somewhat unsafe” or “very unsafe” were asked to explain why. The reasons that visitors felt unsafe in Joshua Tree NP included cars driving at high speeds, lack of marked bicycle lane, narrow and poor visibility on Lost Horse Mine dirt road, pull-off stops too small, drunk camping neighbors, being nervous of the rock boulders, and generally cautious feeling when sharing the campsites with strangers.
Visitor groups were also asked, “In preparing for this trip, what safety measures did you and your group take?” Most visitor groups (59%, N=308 groups) responded to this question. The safety measures reported by visitor groups are listed in Table 11.
Figure 119: Visitor opinions about safety of personal property from crime in park
Figure 120: Visitor opinions about personal safety from crime in park
Table 11: Safety measures N=584 comments; some visitor groups made more than one comment. :
| Comment | Number of times mentioned |
| Carry enough water | 126 |
| Bring first aid kit | 67 |
| Lock the vehicle | 42 |
| Bring enough food | 42 |
| Bring sunscreen | 41 |
| Wear layers of clothes | 31 |
| Wear proper footwear | 23 |
| Bring a cell phone | 21 |
| Nothing special, just common sense | 16 |
| Wear a hat | 13 |
| Store all valuables out of sight | 13 |
| Bring proper maps | 11 |
| Notify people where we are going | 10 |
| Bring enough gas | 10 |
| Learn about the area before the trip | 10 |
| Bring appropriate climbing gear | 9 |
| Check the vehicle and tools | 9 |
| Carry cash and valuables on the person | 8 |
| Stay together in groups | 8 |
| Go over safety rules with children | 8 |
| Being thorough with climbing techniques | 7 |
| Bring snake bite kit | 6 |
| Bring compass | 5 |
| Bring flashlights | 5 |
| Know our limits of physical exertion | 5 |
| Bring survival kit | 4 |
| Stay on the trail/path | 4 |
| Bring proper camping equipment | 4 |
| Leave all valuables at home; carry only minimum | 4 |
| Bring proper climbing equipment | 2 |
| Check weather reports | 2 |
| Drive carefully | 2 |
| Bring fire extinguisher | 2 |
| Other measures | 14 |
Visitor opinions about safety in the town/city closest to home
Visitor groups were asked a series of questions concerning safety issues in the town/city closest to their homes. First, visitor groups were asked how they felt about safety of personal property from crime. Slightly over one-half (51%) of respondents reported they felt “somewhat safe,” 29% felt “very safe,” and 14% felt “somewhat unsafe,” as shown in Figure 122.
When asked about personal safety from crime in the town/city nearest to home, 52% visitor groups reported feeling “somewhat safe,” 33% felt “very safe,” and 11% felt “somewhat unsafe” (see Figure 123). No visitor groups reported that they felt “very unsafe.” Fifty-one percent of visitor groups felt “somewhat safe” from accidents against their persons in the town/city closest to home, while 25% of visitor groups felt “very safe” and 12% felt “somewhat unsafe, ” as shown in Figure 124.
Figure 122: Visitor opinions about personal property safety from crime in the town/city closest to home
Figure 123: Visitor opinions about personal safety from crime in the town/city closest to home
Visitor opinions about wildlife in the park
Wildlife is one of the natural resources that Joshua Tree NP manages. Visitor groups were asked for their opinions with respect to several aspects of wildlife management in the park. First, visitor groups were asked if they observed wildlife approaching visitors and begging for food during this visit to Joshua Tree NP. As shown in Figure 125, most visitor groups (78%) did not observe wildlife approaching visitors and begging for food. However, 21% observed this incident and 2% was “not sure.”
Visitor groups were then asked, “Do you think it is appropriate to feed wild animals in a national park?” Most visitor groups (98%) answered “no,” 2% were “not sure,” and less than 1% said “yes,” as shown in Figure 126.
Finally, visitor groups were asked whether they received any information (written or verbal) regarding the policies of feeding wildlife in national parks during this visit. Fiftyseven percent of visitor groups received information regarding the policies of feeding wildlife, 30% did not receive, and 13% were “not sure” (see Figure 127).
Figure 125: Visitor groups who observed wildlife approaching visitors and begging for food
Figure 126: Do you think it is appropriate to feed wild animals in a national park?
Visitor support of a trash-fee environment in the park
Joshua Tree NP is considering the concept of a trash-free environment to reduce waste collection time and costs. Visitor groups were asked whether or not they support this concept. As shown in Figure 128, most visitor groups (72%) supported the concept of a trash-free park. However, 15% did not support it and 13% were “not sure.”
Within the concept of a trash-free park, visitor groups were also asked if they would be willing to haul out their own trash on a future visit to Joshua Tree NP. Most visitor groups (79%) reported that they would be willing to haul out their own trash (see Figure 129). However, 13% were not willing and 8% were “not sure.”
Table 12 shows visitor groups’ additional comments on the concept of a trashfree environment. Among those, many visitor groups (N=81 groups) were concerned that Joshua Tree NP would have more litter problems because most visitors are not responsible enough to haul out their own trash.
Figure 128: Visitor groups who supported the concept of a trash-free park
Table 12: Visitor opinions about a trash-free park environment N=257 visitor groups :
| Comment | Number of times mentioned |
| Haul-out-your-own-trash policy will increase litter—people often are not responsible enough | 81 |
| Have trash collection/drop-off at some park locations | 28 |
| Not practical for campers to haul out trash | 28 |
| Good idea—everyone should clean up after themselves | 15 |
| Already intended to haul out our own trash | 14 |
| Will haul out our own trash but other people will not | 14 |
| Trash bins/dumpsters should be available everywhere | 11 |
| Will work only with strict enforcement | 10 |
| Helps protect environment and wildlife | 9 |
| Will comply but prefer receptacle available | 9 |
| Distribute trash bags at entrance | 8 |
| Keep recycling bins | 8 |
| Will require intensive public education | 5 |
| Local communities will have to deal with trash problem | 2 |
| Other comments | 15 |
| x ||
Future preference for camping
Visitor groups were asked, “On a future visit, would you and your group be willing to stay in a campground with showers that is not located in the park, but within 10 miles of park boundaries?” Forty-one percent of visitor groups were not willing to camp in a campground with showers outside the park, 33% were willing, and 26% were “not sure,” as shown in Figure 130.
Figure 130: Preference for camping on a future visit
Overall quality
Visitor groups were asked to rate the overall quality of the visitor services provided at Joshua Tree NP during this visit. Most visitor groups (93%) rated the overall quality as “very good” or “good,” as shown in Figure 131. However, 1% of visitor groups rated the overall quality as “poor” and less than 1% rated the overall quality as “very poor.”
Figure 131: Overall quality of visitor services
What visitors liked most
Ninety-five percent of visitor groups (N=497) provided comments about what they liked most about this visit to Joshua Tree NP. Table 13 lists their comments and complete copies of visitor responses are in the appendix.
Table 13: What visitors liked most N=943 comments; some visitor groups made more than one comment. :
| Comment | Comment | Number of times mentioned |
| PERSONNEL | PERSONNEL | |
| | Helpful and friendly rangers | 9 |
| INTERPRETIVE SERVICES | INTERPRETIVE SERVICES | |
| | Ranger talks | 7 |
| | Visitor center exhibits | 4 |
| | Other comments | 4 |
| FACILITIES/MAINTENANCE | FACILITIES/MAINTENANCE | |
| | Undeveloped campgrounds preserving pristineness of park | 25 |
| | Ease of access to park locations | 9 |
| | Park very well maintained | 7 |
| | Clean bathrooms | 5 |
| RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | |
| | Unspoiled natural beauty | 116 |
| | Wildflowers in spring | 85 |
| | Rock formations | 74 |
| | Beautiful botany/plant life/vegetation | 37 |
| | Wildlife | 34 |
| | The Joshua trees | 23 |
| | The desert environment | 22 |
| | Clean air | 17 |
| | Cactus gardens | 13 |
| | Diversity of terrain | 12 |
| | Not crowded | 10 |
| | Feeling of open space | 10 |
| | Absence of man-made development | 10 ​ |
| GENERAL COMMENTS | GENERAL COMMENTS | |
| | Peaceful/quiet/solitude | 104 |
| | Unique landscape/scenery/view | 97 |
| | Hiking in nature | 66 |
| | Rock climbing/bouldering experience | 46 |
| | Stargazing | 18 |
| | Perfect weather | 17 |
| | Like everything | 9 |
| | Being outdoors with family/friends | 8 |
| | Scenic drive through the park | 8 |
| | Geology | 7 |
| | Birdwatching experien | 7 |
| | The rain | 4 |
| | Nice people in the park | 4 |
| | Other comments | 17 |
What visitors liked least
Seventy-six percent of visitor groups (N=398 visitor groups) responded to the question, “What did you like least about your visit to Joshua Tree NP?” Their comments are listed in Table 14 and complete copies of visitor responses are in the appendix.
Table 14: What visitors liked least N=426 comments; some visitor groups made more than one comment. :
| Comment | Comment | Number of times mentioned |
| PERSONNEL | PERSONNEL | |
| | Unhelpful park staff | 6 |
| | Other comments | 2 |
| INTERPRETIVE SERVICES | INTERPRETIVE SERVICES | |
| | Poor park map | 8 |
| | Other comments | 3 |
| FACILITIES/MAINTENANCE | FACILITIES/MAINTENANCE | |
| | No campsite available | 22 |
| | Dirty and smelly bathrooms | 19 |
| | Unclear road signs/signage | 15 |
| | Delay due to road construction | 11 |
| | Campsites too small | 11 |
| | Not enough trail markings | 11 |
| | Lack of showers | 10 |
| | Too much trash | 10 |
| | New paved roads and curb disrupt ecosystem | 9 |
| | Too crowded at campsites | 8 |
| | No water | 8 |
| | Rough roads | 8 |
| | Signs of vandalism in park | 5 |
| | Not enough pullouts/overlooks | 5 |
| | Not enough shade | 4 |
| | No safe lanes for bicycle | 2 |
| | Other comments | 14 |
| POLICIES/MANAGEMENT | POLICIES/MANAGEMENT | |
| | Noisy camping neighbors | 31 |
| | Other cars going too fast | 15 |
| | The fees | 6 |
| | Should not allow RV’s in park | 3 |
| | Not being able to go on the trail with pets | 2 |
| | Add concessions to park | 2 |
| | Other comments | 5 ​ |
| RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | |
| | Too crowded | 24 |
| | Outside development approaching park | 9 |
| | Poor air quality | 8 |
| | Smog blocking the view | 7 |
| | Not enough wildlife to observe | 5 |
| | Seeing visitors feeding coyotes | 2 |
| | Other comment | 1 |
| GENERAL COMMENTS | GENERAL COMMENTS | |
| | Nothing to dislike | 41 |
| | Trip was too short | 18 |
| | Cold and windy weather | 13 |
| | The rain | 12 |
| | Long drive to the park | 10 |
| | Too hot | 4 |
| | Other comments | 17 |
Visitor opinions about national significance of the park
Eighty-four percent of visitor groups (N=441 groups) provided comments about the national significance of Joshua Tree NP. Their comments are listed in Table 15 and complete copies of visitor responses are in the appendix.
Table 15: Visitor opinions about national significance of Joshua Tree NP N=577 comments; some visitor groups made more than one comment. :
| Site | Number of times mentioned |
| Preserving the diversity of high desert wildlife habitats | 54 |
| Protect the pristineness of the area from industrialized development | 43 |
| Place to preserve and protect Joshua trees | 41 |
| Special rock formations | 40 |
| Preservation of an unique natural environment and ecosystem | 39 |
| Special high desert environment that needs to be protected | 38 |
| Natural beauty | 33 |
| Unique landscape | 29 |
| Preservation of natural beauty for public enjoyment | 25 |
| Special geological formations | 25 |
| Preservation for future generations | 20 |
| Geologically historical treasure | 17 |
| Beautiful and rare environment, no place like this | 17 |
| A tranquil and peaceful place to be away from urban lifestyle | 17 |
| Good place to educate public about value of natural resources and how much we have destroyed them | 13 |
| A wonderful specimen of two merging desert environments | 11 |
| Preserve remnants of Native American culture | 11 |
| Very high | 10 |
| Place that shows the greatness of our nation | 10 |
| An unique site for rock climbing | 8 |
| Protection of natural resources | 8 |
| A national heritage | 8 |
| As significant as other national parks | 8 |
| An unique wilderness area at close proximity to large urban area | 7 |
| The historical appearance of the west | 6 |
| Don't know/unsure | 5 |
| Spiritual values | 5 |
| Great site for geological study | 2 |
| Other comments | 27 |
Planning for the future
Visitor groups were asked, “If you were a manager planning for the future of Joshua Tree NP, what would you propose?” Seventy percent of visitor groups (N=366 groups) responded to this question. A summary of their responses is listed below in Table 16 and complete copies of visitor responses are in the appendix.
Table 16: Planning for the future N=541 comments; some visitor groups made more than one comment. :
| Comment | Comment | Number of times mentioned |
| PERSONNEL |||
| | More ranger presence | 7 |
| | Raise rangers’ salaries | 3 |
| | Other comments | 2 |
| INTERPRETIVE SERVICES | INTERPRETIVE SERVICES | |
| | Continue environmental education for public | 24 |
| | More ranger-led walk/talk programs | 21 |
| | Need better trail markings/signage | 12 |
| | More interpretive signs in park | 11 |
| | More publicity for the park | 8 |
| | Better directional road signs/signage | 8 |
| | Need better park map | 7 |
| | More exhibits at visitor centers | 5 |
| | Organize climbing classes | 2 |
| | Put more warning signs to slow down traffic | 3 |
| | Other comments | 4 |
| FACILITIES/MAINTENANCE | FACILITIES/MAINTENANCE | |
| | No more development to keep park as natural as possible | 54 |
| | More hiking trails | 24 |
| | More campsites | 21 |
| | Add pay showers | 17 |
| | More water stations/fountains | 13 |
| | Upgrade unpaved roads | 9 |
| | Keep rustic quality of campgrounds | 7 |
| | Improve bathroom facilities | 6 |
| | Add safety lane for bicycles | 5 |
| | Add a lodge/hotel in park | 3 |
| | Take off all the curbs | 3 |
| | Separate RV and tent camping | 3 |
| | Have some horseback riding trails | 3 |
| | Add some concession services in park | 3 |
| | Other comments | 16 ​ |
| POLICIES/MANAGEMENT | POLICIES/MANAGEMENT | |
| | Limit motor vehicle traffic in park | 20 |
| | Limit number of visitors | 12 |
| | Enforce park rules | 12 |
| | Keep it accessible to public | 10 |
| | Increase fees | 10 |
| | Do not allow RV’s in park | 7 |
| | Do not allow off-road vehicles/SUV | 7 |
| | Aggressive fund-raising activities for the park | 6 |
| | Allow more reservation for campsite | 5 |
| | Allow replacement of old bolts | 5 |
| | Encourage pack-in/pack-out trash policy | 5 |
| | Do not follow haul-out-your-own-trash policy | 4 |
| | Allow pets on trails | 3 |
| | Have separate lanes for already-paid visitors to reduce waiting time | 2 |
| | Other comments | 12 |
| RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | |
| | Acquire more land to expand park’s boundary | 20 |
| | Focus on preserving natural resources | 13 |
| | Limit climbing to protect resources | 7 |
| | Prevent surrounding development from approaching park | 5 |
| | Do something to reduce air pollution | 4 |
| | Remove nonnative species | 2 |
| | Other comments | 3 |
| GENERAL COMMENTS | GENERAL COMMENTS | |
| | Good work, keep it as is | 27 |
| | Don't know/ not qualified to answer | 18 |
| | Conduct more scientific research of the park’s ecosystem | 9 |
| | Do not privatize services in park | 3 |
| | Other comments | 6 |
Additional comments
Forty-nine percent of visitor groups (N=259 groups) wrote additional comments, which are included in the separate appendix of this report. Their comments about Joshua Tree NP are summarized below (see Table 17). Complete copies of visitor comments are in the appendix.
Table 17: Additional comments N=595 comments; some visitor groups made more than one comment. :
| Comment | Comment | Number of times mentioned |
| PERSONNEL |||
| | Friendly/courteous staff/rangers | 22 |
| | Helpful staff/rangers | 17 |
| | Informative staff/rangers | 5 |
| | Personnel poorly informed | 4 |
| | Personnel unfriendly | 2 |
| | Other comments | 1 |
| INTERPRETIVE SERVICES | INTERPRETIVE SERVICES | |
| | Inadequate park guide/map | 8 |
| | Park guide/map were helpful | 5 |
| | Add ranger programs | 5 |
| | Excellent park guide/map | 4 |
| | Enjoyed nature trails | 3 |
| | Enjoyed ranger programs | 3 |
| | Enjoyed visitor center | 3 |
| | Improve reservation system | 3 |
| | Enjoyed nature trails | 2 |
| | Educational visit | 2 |
| | Enjoyed driving tours | 2 |
| | Provide additional information | 2 |
| | Improve website | 2 |
| | Other comments | 7 ​ |
| FACILITIES/MAINTENANCE | FACILITIES/MAINTENANCE | |
| | Beautiful campgrounds | 7 |
| | Inadequate trail signs | 6 |
| | Great/nice restrooms | 4 |
| | Increase campsites | 3 |
| | Unclean restrooms | 3 |
| | Well maintained facilities | 3 |
| | Well maintained park | 3 |
| | Campgrounds well signed | 2 |
| | Dislike road curbs | 2 |
| | Improve restroom maintenance | 2 |
| | Improve road directional signs | 2 |
| | Increase recycling containers | 2 |
| | Add shower facilities | 2 |
| | Remove litter | 2 |
| | Well maintained roads | 2 |
| | Well maintained trails | 2 |
| | Other comments | 9 |
| POLICIES/MANAGEMENT | POLICIES/MANAGEMENT | |
| | Keep up the good work | 13 |
| | Restrict improvement/modernization | 7 |
| | People too noisy | 5 |
| | Need more ranger presence/patrols | 4 |
| | Need to enforce quiet hours | 3 |
| | Allow climbing | 2 |
| | Change reservation policy | 2 |
| | Don't over commercialize park | 2 |
| | Limit activities | 2 |
| | Pet regulations too restrictive | 2 |
| | Other comments | 22 |
| RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | |
| | Preserve/protect park | 15 |
| | Enjoyed geology | 9 |
| | Enjoyed plants/flowers/trees | 8 |
| | Park is valuable resource/treasure | 8 |
| | Enjoyed nature | 5 |
| | Too many people | 4 |
| | Other comments | 6 ​ |
| GENERAL COMMENTS | GENERAL COMMENTS | |
| | Enjoyed visit | 86 |
| | Will return | 36 |
| | Loved the park | 28 |
| | Park is beautiful | 25 |
| | Thank you | 21 |
| | Repeat visit | 20 |
| | Very nice/amazing park | 15 |
| | Enjoyed climbing/scrambling | 7 |
| | Peaceful/serene/tranquil | 6 |
| | Enjoyed camping | 5 |
| | Visit too short | 5 |
| | Appreciate ease of access | 4 |
| | Enjoyed exploring | 4 |
| | Enjoyed hiking | 4 |
| | Enjoyed the drive | 3 |
| | Not sure what to expect | 3 |
| | Close proximity to home | 2 |
| | Exceeded expectations | 2 |
| | First time visit | 2 |
| | Increase federal funding | 2 |
| | Inspiring experience | 2 |
| | Stayed longer than planned | 2 |
| | Unplanned visit | 2 |
| | Very impressed with park | 2 |
| | Went hiking | 2 |
| | Will recommend to visitors | 2 |
| | Other comments | 23 |