Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 1

INTRODUCTION

This report describes the results of a study of visitors at Mount

Rainier National Park (NP). The visitor study was conducted August 18-

27, 2000 by the National Park Service (NPS) Visitor Services Project

(VSP), part of the Cooperative Park Studies Unit at the University of Idaho.

The report is organized into four sections. The Methods section

discusses the procedures and limitations of the study. The Results

section provides summary information for each question in the

questionnaire and includes a summary of visitor comments. An

Additional Analysis section is included which will help managers

request additional analyses. The final section includes a copy of the

Questionnaire. A separate appendix includes comment summaries and

visitors' unedited comments.

Most of the graphs in this report resemble the example below.

The circled numbers refer to explanations following the graph.

SAMPLE ONLY

 

First visit

2-4 visits

5-9 visits

10 or more visits

0 75 150 225 300

Number of respondents

59%

20%

11%

10%

Number

of visits

N=691 individuals

1 Figure 4: Number of visits

2

3

4

5

1: The Figure title describes the graph's information.

2: Listed above the graph, the 'N' shows the number of visitors

responding and a description of the chart's information. Interpret

data with an 'N' of less than 30 with CAUTION! as the results may be

unreliable.

3: Vertical information describes categories.

4: Horizontal information shows the number or proportions in each category.

5: In most graphs, percentages provide additional information.
2 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

METHODS

Questionnaire

design and

administration

The questionnaire for this visitor study was designed using a

standard format that has been developed in previous VSP studies.

Some of the questions are comparable with VSP studies conducted at

other parks. Other questions are customized for Mount Rainier NP.

Interviews were conducted with, and questionnaires distributed

to, a sample of visitors who arrived at Mount Rainier NP during August

18 - 27, 2000. Visitors were sampled at six different entrances

throughout the park (see Table 1).

Table 1: Questionnaire distribution locations

 Location Questionnaires distributed

Nisqually Entrance 500

White River Entrance 199

Stevens Canyon Entrance 105

Carbon River Entrance 105

Mowich Entrance 105

Silver Creek Information Station (USFS) 29

TOTAL 1,043

Visitor groups were greeted, briefly introduced to the purpose

of the study, and asked to participate. If visitors agreed, an interview

lasting approximately two minutes was used to determine group size,

group type, and the age of the adult who would complete the

questionnaire. This individual was then given a questionnaire and

asked for his or her name, address, and telephone number in order to

mail a reminder/ thank you postcard. Visitor groups were asked to

complete the questionnaire during or after their visit, then return it by

mail.
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 3

Two weeks following the survey, a reminder/ thank you

postcard was mailed to all participants. Replacement questionnaires

were mailed to participants who had not returned their questionnaires

four weeks after the initial interview. Seven weeks after the survey a

second replacement questionnaire was mailed to visitors who still had

not returned their questionnaires.

Questionnaire

design and

administration

(continued)

Returned questionnaires were coded and the information

entered into a computer using a standard statistical software package.

Frequency distributions and cross-tabulations were calculated for the

coded data, and responses to open-ended questions were categorized

and summarized.

Data analysis

This study collected information on both visitor groups and

individual group members. Thus, the number of respondents (‘N’),

varies from figure to figure. For example, while Figure 1 shows

information for 783 visitor groups, Figure 4 presents data for 2,336

individuals. A note above each graph specifies the number of

respondents.

Occasionally, a respondent may not have answered all of the

questions, or may have answered some incorrectly. Unanswered

questions result in missing data and cause the number in the sample to

vary from figure to figure. For example, while 790 visitors to Mount

Rainier NP returned questionnaires, Figure 1 shows data for only 783

respondents.

Questions answered incorrectly due to carelessness,

misunderstanding directions, and so forth turn up in the data as reporting

errors. These create small data inconsistencies.

Sample size,

missing data

and reporting

errors
4 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Limitations Like all surveys, this study has limitations, which should be

considered when interpreting the results.

1. It is not possible to know whether visitor responses reflect actual

behavior. This applies to all such studies, but is reduced by having visitors

fill out the questionnaire soon after they visited the park.

2. The data reflect visitor use patterns of visitors to the selected sites

during the study period of August 18–27, 2000. The results do not

necessarily apply to visitors during other times of the year.

3. Caution is advised when interpreting any data with a sample size of

less than 30, as the results may be unreliable. Whenever the sample size

is less than 30, the word "CAUTION!" is included in the graph, figure or

table.

Special

Conditions

During the study week, weather conditions were fairly typical of

late August. The weather included some cool, overcast, rainy days and

some warm, sunny days.
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 5

RESULTS

A total of 1,076 visitor groups were contacted, and 1,043 of these

groups (97%) agreed to participate in the survey. Questionnaires were

completed and returned by 790 visitor groups, resulting in a 75.7%

response rate for this study.

Table 2 compares age and group size information collected from

both the total sample of visitors contacted and those 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 Actual

Respondents

Variable N Avg. N Avg.

Visitor groups

contacted

Age of respondents 1,043 40.9 770 43.4

Group size 1,043 3.4 783 3.4

Figure 1 shows visitor group sizes, which ranged from one

person to 77 people. Forty-two percent of visitor groups consisted of two

people, while another 32% were people visiting in groups of three or four.

Fifty-six percent of visitor groups were made up of family

members and 21% consisted of friends (see Figure 2). Groups listing

themselves as “other” group type included boyfriend, partner, Scouts,

church, and co-workers. One percent of visitors were in a guided tour

group (see Figure 3).

Fifty-seven percent of visitors were between the ages of 26 and

55 (see Figure 4). Eighteen percent of visitors were aged 15 years or

younger.

Over one-half of the visitors (51%) were male; 49% were female

(see Figure 5).

Visitors were asked to identify the level of education that each

group member had achieved. Thirty-two percent had bachelor’s degrees,

27% had some college and 26% had graduate degrees (see Figure 6).

Demographics
6 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Demographics

continued

Most visitors (98%) identified themselves as not Hispanic or

Latino in ethnic background (see Figure 7). Most visitors (94%) identified

their racial background as White (see Figure 8). Six percent of visitors

identified themselves as Asian and smaller percentages reported other

racial backgrounds.

Seventy percent of visitors were visiting Mount Rainier for the

first time during the past twelve months (see Figure 9). Over one-half of

the visitors (52%) had visited more than once during the past two to five

years (see Figure 10).

Visitor groups were asked to identify the primary language that

their group spoke. Most groups (90%) identified English as their primary

language (see Figure 11). There were 29 “other” primary languages

spoken, of which German, Japanese and Spanish were the most often

listed (see Table 3).

Ninety-two percent of the visitors said no group members had

disabilities or impairments (see Figure 12). Of those with disabilities, 6%

identified mobility problems and 2% had hearing problems. "Other"

disabilities included heart problems, asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

Of those who listed disabilities or impairments, 5% encountered access/

service problems because of their disability or impairment (see Figure 13).

The problems included the ramp at Sunrise, lack of handicapped parking,

and smoke from fire at Paradise that impaired ability to breathe.

International visitors to Mount Rainier NP comprised 6% of the

total visitation (see Table 4). The countries most often represented

(besides the United States) were Japan (20%), Germany (15%), and

Holland (8%).

The largest proportions of United States visitors were from

Washington (64%), California (6%), and Oregon (3%), as shown in Map

1 and Table 5. Smaller proportions of U.S. visitors came from 43 other

states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico.
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 7

1

2

3

4

5

6-10

11 or more

0 100 200 300 400

Number of respondents

2%

8%

8%

14%

18%

42%

8%

Group

size

N=783 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Figure 1: Visitor group sizes

 

Other

Alone

Family & friends

Friends

Family

0 100 200 300 400 500

Number of respondents

56%

21%

12%

8%

3%

N=779 visitor groups

Group

type
8 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Figure 2: Visitor group types

No

Yes

0 200 400 600 800

Number of respondents

1%

99%

 With

guided

 tour?

N=783 visitor groups

Figure 3: Visitors as part of a guided tour group

10 and younger

11-15

16-20

21-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

46-50

51-55

56-60

61-65

66-70

71-75

76 and older

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Number of respondents

11%

7%

5%

6%

10%

9%

10%

10%

10%

8%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

N=2,336 individuals;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Age groups

 (years)

Figure 4: Visitor ages
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 9

 

Female

Male

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Number of respondents

51%

49%

Gender

N=2,313 individuals

Figure 5: Visitor gender

Some high school

High school graduate

Some college

Bachelor's degree

Graduate degree

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Number of respondents

26%

32%

27%

13%

2%

N=1,912 individuals

Education

Figure 6: Visitor level of education
10 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Not Hispanic or Latino

Hispanic or Latino

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Number of respondents

2%

98%

Ethnicity

N=670 individuals

Figure 7: Visitor ethnicity

Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

American Indian

Asian

White

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Number of respondents

N=745 individuals;

percentages do not equal 100 because individuals

could be of more then one race.

Race

1%

2%

94%

6%

1%

1%

Figure 8: Visitor race
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 11

1

2-4

5-9

10 or more

0 400 800 1200 1600

Number of respondents

3%

5%

23%

70%

N=2,149 individuals;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Number of

visits-past

12 months

Figure 9: Number of visits in past 12 months

0

1

2-4

5-9

10 or more

0 100 200 300 400 500

Number of respondents

14%

11%

27%

23%

25%

N=1,813 individuals

Number of

visits-past

2 to 5 years

Figure 10: Number of visits in past 2 to 5 years
12 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

No

Yes

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Number of respondents

90%

10%

English

primary

language?

N=761 visitor groups

Figure 11: English as primary language

Table 3: Other languages spoken

N=71 languages

Number of

Language times mentioned

German 9

Japanese 8

Spanish 8

Chinese 5

French 5

Dutch 4

Korean 3

Urdu 3

Finnish 2

Hindu 2

Italian 2

Swedish 2

Taiwanese 2

Turkish 2

Other 14
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 13

 

Other

Mental

Visual

Hearing

Mobility

No group members have disabilities

0 200 400 600 800

Number of respondents

N=763 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Disability

1%

1%

92%

1%

2%

6%

Figure 12: Visitor disabilities or impairments

 

No

Yes

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Number of respondents

5%

95%

Encounter

problems?

N=63 visitor groups

Figure 13: Visitor access/ service problems in park for

visitors with disabilities or impairments
14 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Table 4: International visitors by country of residence

N=132 individuals;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Number of Percent of Percent of

Country individuals international total visitors

visitors

Japan 27 20 1

Germany 20 15 1

Holland 11 8 1

Canada 10 8 <1

England 9 7 <1

France 6 5 <1

Taiwan 6 5 <1

Pakistan 5 4 <1

Switzerland 4 3 <1

Venezuela 4 3 <1

Colombia 3 2 <1

Ecuador 3 2 <1

Australia 2 2 <1

Czechoslovakia 2 2 <1

Finland 2 2 <1

India 2 2 <1

Ireland 2 2 <1

Israel 2 2 <1

Romania 2 2 <1

Russia 2 2 <1

South Africa 2 2 <1

6 other countries 6 5 <1
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 15

N=2,052 individuals

10% or more

4% to 9%

2% to 3%

less than 2%

Mount Rainier National Park

Map 1: Proportion of United States visitors by state of residence

Table 5: United States visitors by state of residence

N=2,052 individuals;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Number of Percent of Percent of

State individuals U.S. visitors total visitors

Washington 1,316 64 60

California 116 6 5

Oregon 64 3 3

Texas 48 2 2

Pennsylvania 43 2 2

Florida 40 2 2

Minnesota 39 4 2

Illinois 37 4 2

Ohio 34 2 2

Massachusetts 28 1 1

New Jersey 19 1 1

New York 19 1 1

Virginia 17 1 1

Connecticut 15 1 1

Maryland 15 1 1

Wisconsin 15 1 1

Michigan 14 1 1

Georgia 13 1 1

Colorado 12 1 1

North Carolina 12 1 1

Arizona 11 1 1

25 other states, Puerto Rico 125 15 14

and Washington D.C.
16 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Length of visit Visitor groups were asked how much time they spent at Mount

Rainier National Park. Sixty-nine percent of visitors spent less than 24

hours (less than one day) at the park, as shown in Figure 14. Twelve

percent spent two days, and 7% spent three days at the park. Of the

groups that spent less than 24 hours at the park, 82% spent four hours or

more (see Figure 15).

<1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 or more

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of respondents

2%

1%

1%

4%

7%

12%

4%

69%

Days

N=782 visitor groups

Figure 14: Days spent at Mount Rainier NP
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 or more

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Number of respondents

9%

14%

6%

21%

14%

18%

10%

6%

2%

Hours

N=533 visitor groups

Figure 15: Hours spent at Mount Rainier NP by visitors who

spent less than 24 hours
18 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Sources of

information

Visitor groups were asked to indicate the sources they used to

obtain information about Mount Rainier NP prior to their visit. Figure 16

shows the proportions of visitor groups who used each method of

obtaining information prior to their visit to Mount Rainier NP. The most

common sources of information were previous visits (57%), travel guide/

tour book (34%), and friends/ relatives (33%). Ten percent of visitors

received no information prior to their visit. Nine percent of visitors

obtained information from “other” sources. “Other” sources of

information included hiking books, local residents, Washington state

maps and American Automobile Association books.

Other

Written inquiry to park

Local businesses

Chamber of Commerce/ visitor bureau

Television/ radio program

Internet-tourism home page

Telephone inquiry to park

Outdoor rec. info from REI Seattle store

Rec'd no prior information

Newspaper/ magazine articles

Internet-Mt. Rainier NP home page

Friends/ relatives

Travel guide/ tour book

Previous visit(s)

0 100 200 300 400 500

Number of respondents

N=780 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because visitor

groups could use more than one source.

Source

57%

34%

33%

24%

12%

10%

7%

6%

3%

1%

<1%

9%

7%

2%

Figure 16: Sources of information
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 19

Visitor groups were asked to indicate their primary reason

for visiting the Mount Rainier NP area. As shown in Figure 17, 79%

of visitor groups indicated that visiting Mount Rainier NP was their

primary reason for visiting the area. Nine percent were visiting

friends/ relatives in the area, and 8% were visiting other attractions.

Primary reason

for visiting the

area

Business/ other reasons

Visit other attractions

Visit friends/ relatives

Visit Mt Rainier NP

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of respondents

79%

9%

8%

5%

N=750 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Reason

Figure 17: Primary reason for visiting the area
20 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Transportation

used

Visitors were asked to identify the modes of transportation they

used to reach Mount Rainier NP on this visit. Seventy-nine percent of

visitor groups used a private vehicle (see Figure 18). Another 20% of

visitor groups used a rental vehicle and 13% of visitor groups used

commercial airlines to Seattle-Tacoma airport.

 

Cruise ship to Seattle

Commercial bus

Bicycle

Rental RV

Private RV

Foot

Commercial airline

Rental vehicle

Private vehicle

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Number of respondents

N=781 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could

use more then one form of transportation.

Form of

transportation 2%

79%

<1%

0%

3%

20%

1%

13%

1%

Figure 18: Form of transportation used to arrive at Mount

Rainier NP
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 21

Visitors were asked to identify the park entrances where they

entered the park on this trip. Figure 19 shows that 54% of the visitors

entered at Nisqually, while 26% entered at White River.

Visitors were also asked which roads they used to exit the park

on this trip. Almost one-half of the visitors (49%) used Highway 706 to

Ashford (see Figure 20). About one-third of the visitors (33%) used

Highway 410 to Enumclaw.

Visitor groups were asked the number of times they entered the

park during this trip. Figure 21 shows that 68% entered once, while

32% entered more than once.

Park entrances

used/ number of

entries

 

Mowich

Carbon River

Stevens Canyon

White River

Nisqually 

0 100 200 300 400 500

Number of respondents

N=780 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because

visitors could use more then one entrance.

Park

entrance

16%

54%

13%

26%

13%

Figure 19: Park entrance used to enter Mount Rainier NP
22 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Highway 123 to Packwood

Carbon River entrance

Mowich entrance

Highway 410 to Enumclaw

Highway 706 to Ashford

0 100 200 300 400

Number of respondents

N=775 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because visitors

could leave through more then one route.

Park exit 13%

13%

33%

49%

13%

Figure 20: Roads used to exit Mount Rainier NP

1

2

3

4

5

6 or more

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of respondents

N=778 visitor groups

Number

of entries

68%

2%

2%

20%

6%

1%2%

Figure 21: Number of entries into Mount Rainier NP on this

trip
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 23

Visitor groups were asked to list the order in which they visited

selected sites in Mount Rainier NP. The most visited locations were

Paradise (62%), Longmire (38%) and Sunrise (27%), as shown in Map

2. The least visited site was the Westside Road (5%), which is open for

three miles from the intersection with the Nisqually to Longmire Road.

The sites most often visited first at Mount Rainier NP were

Paradise (23%), Longmire (12%), White River Ranger Station (10%),

Carbon River (10%) and Mowich Lake/ Trailheads (10%), as shown in

Map 3. The least visited sites were Tipsoo Lake and Ipsut Creek

Campground/ Trailhead/ Picnic Area (each 1%).

Park sites

visited/ order

visited

N=560 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could visit more than one site.

Map 2: Sites visited
24 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

N= 525 visitor groups

Map 3: Sites visited first at Mount Rainier NP
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 25

Visitor groups were asked the number of times they visited

sites near Mount Rainier NP in the last 12 months. As indicated in

Table 6, Olympic NP was the most visited site (66%), followed by Mt.

St. Helens NVM (58%) and Mt. Baker/ Snoqualime NF (58%). The

least visited site was White Pass Ski Area (23%).

Other sites

visited during

the past 12

months

Table 6: Number of visits to nearby sites—past 12 months

N=667 visitor groups who visited at least one site;

percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could visit more than one site.

Nearby site Number of visits Total # and % of

groups who visited

site

1 2 3 4 5 or

more number %

Olympic NP

N=391

150 57 19 10 22 258 66

Mt. Baker/ Snoqualmie NF

N=354

93 38 25 10 46 212 60

Mt. St. Helens NVM

N=394

183 37 3 4 1 228 58

North Cascade NP

N=340

114 43 15 5 7 184 54

Crystal Mtn. Ski Resort

N=313

67 24 14 7 23 135 43

Chinook Pass

N=296

73 31 11 8 6 129 44

Gifford Pinchot NF

N=298

63 39 11 2 11 126 42

Stevens Pass Ski Resort

N=288

51 26 8 10 20 115 40

White Pass Ski Area

N=260

30 14 3 3 11 61 23
26 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Activities Visitor groups were asked what activities they participated in

during this visit to Mount Rainier NP. The most common activities

included dayhiking (73%), viewing wildflowers (65%), driving to view

scenery (63%), photography (56%), and visiting visitor centers (53%),

as shown in Figure 22. The least common activity was bicycling (1%).

"Other" activities included being inspired, view waterfalls, eat lunch,

climb to Camp Muir, and snowboard.

 Other

Bicycling

Fishing

Climbing to summit of Mt Rainier

Wilderness camping

Attending naturalist program

Camping in developed campground

Picnicking

Visiting lodge or inn

Viewing wildlife

Visiting visitor centers

 Photography

Driving to view scenery

Viewing wildflowers

Dayhiking

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of respondents

N=781 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because visitors

could participate in more then one activity.

Activity

1%

9%

26%

73%

2%

3%

15%

6%

53%

32%

45%

56%

63%

65%

6%

Figure 22: Visitor activities
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 27

Visitors were asked several questions related to hiking. Most

visitors to Mount Rainier NP (79%) hiked on this trip (see Figure 23).

Of those who hiked, the majority (89%) hiked on trails in

developed areas (see Figure 24). Thirty-two percent hiked in a designated

wilderness area and 8% hiked above Panorama Point on the Muir

Snowfield.

The lengths of hikes visitors took varied. Forty-four percent took

hikes between two and four hours long, while 41% took hikes less than two

hours long (see Figure 25). Thirty percent took hikes more than four hours

long.

Hiking

 

No

Yes

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Number of respondents

79%

21%

Hike?

N=780 visitor groups

Figure 23: Visitors who hiked at Mount Rainier NP
28 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

 

Above Panorama Point on Muir Snowfield

In a designated wilderness area

On trails in developed areas

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of respondents

N=608 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could

hike in more then one area.

Hike

8%

89%

32%

Figure 24: Types of trails hiked

 

More than 4 hours long

Between 2 and 4 hours long

Shorter than 2 hours long

0 100 200 300

Number of respondents

N=610 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because groups could

take more than one hike.

Hike

30%

44%

41%

Figure 25: Length of hikes taken
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 29

Visitors were asked if they stayed overnight within 30 miles of

Mount Rainier NP. Most visitor groups (66%) did not stay overnight in

this area (see Figure 26). Thirty-four percent of visitors stayed

overnight within 30 miles of Mount Rainier NP.

Visitors who stayed overnight were then asked the number of

nights they stayed in and outside the park. In the park, 57% stayed one

or two nights (see Figure 27). Eighteen percent did not stay in the park.

Outside the park, 62% of visitors stayed one or two nights (see Figure

28). Fifteen percent did not stay outside the park.

Finally, visitors who stayed overnight were asked to identify the

types of lodging where they stayed either in or outside Mount Rainier

NP. In the park, the most used types of lodging included campground/

trailer park (52%), lodge/ motel/ cabin, etc. (33%) and wilderness camps

(20%), as shown in Figure 29. Outside the park, lodges/ cabins/ motels,

etc. were the most used type of lodging (64%), followed by campground/

trailer parks (19%), as shown in Figure 30. "Other" lodging included

staying in car on side of road and in RV in parking lot.

Overnight stays

 

No

Yes

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of respondents

34%

66%

Stay

overnight?

N=777 visitor groups

Figure 26: Overnight stays within 30 miles of Mount Rainier

NP
30 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

 

<1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

More than 7

0 20 40 60

Number of respondents

N=176 visitor groups;

Nights

18%

2%

4%

31%

26%

13%

2%

1%

3%

Figure 27: Number of nights in park

 

<1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

More than 7

0 25 50 75

Number of respondents

N=186 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Days

33%

15%

2%

4%

29%

12%

2%

1%

1%

Figure 28: Number of nights outside park
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 31

 

Other

Seasonal residence

Friends house

Wilderness camp

Motel/ cabin

Campground

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of respondents

N=168 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could

use in more then one type of lodging.

Lodging

1%

52%

3%

3%

20%

33%

Figure 29: Types of lodging used in park

 

Other

Seasonal residence

Wilderness camp

Friends house

Campground

Motel/ cabin

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of respondents

N=126 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could

use in more then one type of lodging.

Lodging

2%

64%

7%

4%

7%

19%

Figure 30: Types of lodging used outside park
32 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Total

expenditures

Visitors were asked to list the amount of money they spent in

Mount Rainier NP and in the surrounding area (within 30 miles of the

park). Groups were asked to indicate the amounts they spent for

lodging; camping fees; restaurants and bars; groceries and take-out

food; gas and oil; other transportation expenses; admissions, recreation,

and entertainment fees; and all other purchases. NOTE: "gas and oil"

should have been omitted from the questionnaire under "inside park"

since none is available inside the park.

Total expenditures (inside and outside of park): Forty-three

percent of the visitor groups spent from $1 to $50, and another 18%

spent from $51 to $100 (see Figure 31). Twelve percent of the visitor

groups spent $351 or more, and 6% spent no money. Of the total

expenditures by groups, 27% was for lodging, 19% was for restaurants

and bars, and 16% was for "other" purchases (see Figure 32).

The average visitor group expenditure during this visit was $205.

The average per capita expenditure was $69. The median visitor group

expenditure (50% of groups spent more; 50% spent less) was $53.

In addition, visitors were asked to indicated how many adults (18 years

and older) and children (under 18 years) were covered by their

expenditures. Figure 33 shows that of these visitors, 60% of the visitors

groups had two adults. Figure 34 shows that 56% of the visitor groups

had one or two children, while 25% had no children.
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 33

 

No money spent

$1-50

$51-100

$101-150

$151-200

$201-250

$251-300

$301-350

$351 or more

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Number of respondents

12%

2%

3%

3%

4%

8%

18%

43%

6%

Amount

spent

N=734 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Figure 31: Total expenditures in Mount Rainier NP and

surrounding area

 (27%)

Camping fees (5%)

Restaurants and bars (19%)

 (6%)

Gas and oil (7%)

 (13%)

 (7%)

All other purchases (16%)

N=734 visitor groups

Hotels, motels,

cabins, B&B, etc.

Other

transportation

expenses

Admissions, recreation,

entertainment fees

Groceries and take-out food

Figure 32: Proportions of expenditures in Mount Rainier NP and

surrounding area
34 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

 

1

2

3

4

5 or more

0 100 200 300 400 500

Number of respondents

6%

9%

13%

60%

12%

Adults

N=677 visitor groups

Figure 33: Number of adults covered by the expenses

 

0

1

2

3

4 or more

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of respondents

10%

9%

26%

30%

25%

Children

N=303 visitor groups

Figure 34: Number of children covered by the expenses
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 35

Total expenditures in the park: Fifty-eight percent of visitors

spent between $1 and $50 in the park on this trip (see Figure 35).

Proportion of expenditures (inside park): Of the total

expenditures by visitor groups inside Mount Rainier NP, 26% was for

"other" purchases, 23% was for lodging, and 23% was for restaurants and

bars (see Figure 36).

Lodging (inside park): Eighty-nine percent of visitor groups spent

no money for lodging in Mount Rainier NP (see Figure 37). Six percent of

visitor groups spent $151 or more for lodging.

Camping fees (inside park): Sixty-six percent of visitor groups

spent no money for camping fees in Mount Rainier NP (see Figure 38).

Twenty-one percent of visitor groups spent from $1 to $25 for camping

fees.

Restaurants and bars (inside park): Almost one-half of visitor

groups (48%) spent no money at restaurants and bar in Mount Rainier NP

(see Figure 39). Thirty percent of visitor groups spent from $1 to $25 at

restaurants and bars.

Groceries and take-out food (inside park): Most visitor groups

(79%) spent no money for grocery and take-out food (see Figure 40).

Other transportation expenses (inside park): Ninety-eight

percent of visitor groups spent no money for other transportation expenses

in Mount Rainier NP (see Figure 41).

Admissions, recreation, entertainment fees (inside park): Sixtyeight percent of visitor groups spent from $1 to $25 for admissions,

recreation, and entertainment fees in Mount Rainier NP (see Figure 42).

Twenty-eight percent of visitor groups spent no money for admission,

recreation, and entertainment fees.

All other purchases (inside park): Forty-two percent of visitor

groups spent no money for other purchases in Mount Rainier NP (see

Figure 43). Forty-six percent of visitor groups spent from $1 to $50 for

other purchases.

Expenditures

inside park
36 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

 

No money spent

$1-50

$51-100

$101-150

$151-200

$201-250

$251-300

$301-350

$351 or more

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Number of respondents

4%

1%

1%

1%

3%

4%

15%

58%

13%

Amount

spent

N=671 visitor groups

Figure 35: Total expenditures inside park

Hotels, motels, etc. (23%)

Camping (9%)

Groceries (3%) Restaurants and bars (23%)

Other transportation (1%)

Admissions, recreation, etc. (14%)

Other purchases (26%)

N=671 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Figure 36: Proportions of expenditures in Mount Rainier NP
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 37

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Number of respondents

89%

0%

0%

0%

2%

1%

1%

6%

Amount

spent

N=386 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

<1%

Figure 37: Expenditures for hotels, motels, cabins, B & B, etc.

inside park

 

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 100 200 300

Number of respondents

66%

21%

9%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

Amount

spent

N=432 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

<1%

<1%

Figure 38: Expenditures for camping fees and charges inside

park
38 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 50 100 150 200 250

Number of respondents

48%

30%

11%

4%

3%

1%

1%

2%

Amount

spent

N=493 visitor groups

Figure 39: Expenditures for restaurants and bars inside park

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Number of respondents

79%

18%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Amount

spent

N=384 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

<1%

<1%

Figure 40: Expenditures for groceries and take out food inside

park
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 39

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Number of respondents

98%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Amount

spent

N=334 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

<1%

Figure 41: Expenditures for other transportation expenses

inside park

 

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Number of respondents

28%

68%

3%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Amount

spent

N=499 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

<1%

Figure 42: Expenditures for admissions, recreation,

entertainment fees inside park
40 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

 

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 50 100 150 200 250

Number of respondents

42%

28%

18%

6%

2%

1%

1%

2%

Amount

spent

N=497 visitor groups

Figure 43: Expenditures for all other purchases inside park
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 41

Total expenditures outside park (within 30 miles): Forty-four

percent of the groups spent between $1 and $50 as their total

expenditure outside Mount Rainier NP (within 30 miles) on this trip (see

Figure 44).

Proportion of expenditures outside park: Of the total

expenditures by visitor groups outside the park, 29% was for lodging,

20% was for other transportation expenses, and 16% was for

restaurants and bars (see Figure 45).

Lodging outside park: Seventy-three percent of visitor groups

spent no money for lodging outside of Mount Rainier NP (see Figure

46).

Camping fees outside park: Most visitor groups (90%) spent

no money for camping fees outside of Mount Rainier NP on this trip (see

Figure 47).

Restaurants and bars outside park: Over one-half of the

groups (51%) spent no money outside the park at restaurants and bars

on this trip (see Figure 48). Thirty-three percent spent from $1 to 50.

Groceries and take-out outside park: Fifty percent of the

visitors spent no money for groceries and take-out food outside the park

on this trip (see Figure 49). Thirty-five percent spent between $1 and

$25.

Gas and oil outside park: Almost two-thirds of the visitor

groups (65%) spent between $1 and $50 for gas and oil outside the park

on this trip (see Figure 50). Thirty-two percent spent no money.

Other transportation expenses outside park: Eighty-seven

percent of the visitors spent no money for other transportation outside of

the park on this visit (see Figure 51).

Admissions, recreation, and entertainment fees outside

park: Most visitors (86%) spent no money outside of the park for

admissions, recreation and entertainment fees on this visit (see Figure

52).

All other purchases outside park: Seventy-three percent of

the visitors spent no money for other purchases outside of the park on

this visit (see Figure 53).

Expenditures

outside park

(within 30 miles)
42 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

 

No money spent

$1-50

$51-100

$101-150

$151-200

$201-250

$251-300

$301-350

$351 or more

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Number of respondents

9%

1%

2%

2%

3%

6%

14%

44%

19%

Amount

spent

N=589 visitor groups

Figure 44: Total expenditures outside park (within 30 miles)

 (29%)

Camping fees (3%)

Restaurants and bars (16%)

Groceries and take-out food (9%)

Gas and oil (11%)

 (20%)

 (3%)

All other purchases (9%)

N=589 visitor groups

Admissions, recreation,

entertainment fees

Hotels, motels, cabins,

B&B, etc.

Other transportation

expenses

Figure 45: Proportion of expenditures outside Mount Rainier NP

(within 30 miles)
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 43

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 100 200 300

Number of respondents

73%

1%

2%

4%

5%

1%

2%

13%

Amount

spent

N=391 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Figure 46: Expenditures for hotels, motels, cabins, B & B,

etc. outside park (within 30 miles)

 

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 100 200 300

Number of respondents

90%

5%

2%

1%

1%

0%

0%

1%

Amount

spent

N=328 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

<1%

Figure 47: Expenditures for camping fees and charges

outside park (within 30 miles)
44 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

 

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 50 100 150 200 250

Number of respondents

51%

21%

12%

6%

5%

0%

2%

2%

Amount

spent

N=433 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

<1%

Figure 48: Expenditures for restaurants and bars outside park

(within 30 miles)

 

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 50 100 150 200 250

Number of respondents

50%

35%

9%

1%

4%

0%

0%

1%

Amount

spent

N=418 visitor groups

Figure 49: Expenditures for groceries and take out food

outside park (within 30 miles)
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 45

 

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 50 100 150 200 250

Number of respondents

32%

48%

17%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

Amount

spent

N=486 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

<1%

Figure 50: Expenditures for gas and oil outside park (within

30 miles)

 

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 100 200 300

Number of respondents

87%

2%

3%

1%

0%

0%

1%

6%

Amount

spent

N=323 visitor groups

Figure 51: Expenditures for other transportation expenses

outside park (within 30 miles)
46 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

 

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 100 200 300

Number of respondents

86%

10%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

Amount

spent

N=323 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

<1%

<1%

<1%

Figure 52: Expenditures for admissions, recreation,

entertainment fees outside park (within 30 miles)

 

Spent no money

$1-25

$26-50

$51-75

$76-100

$101-125

$126-150

$151 or more

0 100 200 300

Number of respondents

73%

14%

7%

1%

2%

0%

1%

3%

Amount

spent

N=361 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Figure 53: Expenditures for all other purchases outside park

(within 30 miles)
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 47

Visitor groups were asked, "For each of the following

attributes of Mount Rainier National Park, please rate its

importance (from 1 to 5, or DK for 'don't know') in planning for the

preservation of the park for future generations." Visitors were

asked to rate the following attributes: native plants, wildlife,

clean air/ water, historic buildings/ archeological sites,

designated wilderness backcountry, developed recreational

facilities, natural quiet/ sounds of nature, and educational

programs.

As shown in Figures 54-61, the attributes that received

the highest "extremely important" and "very important" ratings

were: clean air/ water (96%), natural quiet/ sounds of nature

(92%), wildlife (92%) and native plants (90%). The highest "not

important" rating was for historic buildings/ archeological sites

(4%).

Importance of park

attributes for future

preservation of the

park

Don't know

Not important

Somewhat important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of respondents

74%

16%

6%

2%

1%

1%

Rating

N=771 visitor groups

Figure 54: Importance of native plants
48 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

 

Don't know

Not important

Somewhat important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Number of respondents

79%

13%

6%

1%

1%

1%

Rating

N=770 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Figure 55: Importance of wildlife

 

Don't know

Not important

Somewhat important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Number of respondents

85%

11%

3%

1%

1%

1%

Rating

N=768 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Figure 56: Importance of clean air/ water
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 49

Don't know

Not important

Somewhat important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

0 50 100 150 200 250

Number of respondents

30%

28%

28%

8%

4%

3%

Rating

N=765 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Figure 57: Importance of historic buildings/ archeological

sites

Don't know

Not important

Somewhat important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

0 100 200 300 400 500

Number of respondents

59%

22%

10%

3%

1%

5%

Rating

N=759 visitor groups

Figure 58: Importance of designated wilderness backcountry
50 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

 

Don't know

Not important

Somewhat important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Number of respondents

35%

30%

25%

5%

2%

1%

Rating

N=765 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Figure 59: Importance of developed recreational facilities

 

Don't know

Not important

Somewhat important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of respondents

73%

19%

6%

1%

1%

0%

Rating

N=766 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

<1%

Figure 60: Importance of natural quiet/ sounds of nature
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 51

Don't know

Not important

Somewhat important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

0 50 100 150 200 250

Number of respondents

28%

31%

29%

8%

3%

1%

Rating

N=763 visitor groups

Figure 61: Importance of educational programs
52 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Entrance fee use

preferences

Visitor groups were asked how they would like to see Mount

Rainier NP entrance fees used in the future. The uses most often

chosen included educating visitors about ecology (61%), wilderness

management (60%) and protecting park resources (57%), as shown in

Figure 62. The least preferred answer choice was management of

historic buildings/ archeological sites (38%). "Other" uses for fees are

included in Table 7.

 

Other

Management of historic buildings

Education and interpretation

Building and facility maintenance

Protection of park resources

Wilderness management

To educate visitor about ecology

0 100 200 300 400 500

Number of respondents

N=755 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could

choose more then one use.

Use

40%

49%

60%

61%

57%

12%

38%

Figure 62: Entrance fee use preferences
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 53

Table 7: Preferences for use of fees

N=99 comments;

some visitors made more than one comment.

Number of

Comment times mentioned

Maintain/ improve trails 18

Improve roads 16

Preserve/ protect resources 8

NPS should make decision/ doing a good job 5

Provide for visitor enjoyment 4

Improve interpretive services 4

Provide more trails 3

Provide restroom maintenance 3

Maintain buildings/ facilities 3

Manage wilderness 3

Educate visitors 3

Improve parking 2

Improve Westside Road 2

Better enforce trail rules 2

Provide more campgrounds 2

Provide a shuttle bus 2

Leave park alone 2

Lower fees 2

More restaurants/ food services 2

Improve camp services 2

Volunteer/ Summit guide program 2

Other comments 9
54 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Subjects of interest

for future visits/

preferred methods

of learning

Visitor groups were asked what subjects they would be

interested in learning about on a future visit. Among the

respondents interested in learning, the subjects of the most interest

included volcanoes/ geology (78%), natural history (58%),

wilderness management (47%), and history (47%), as shown in

Figure 63. Twelve percent of visitors were not interested in learning

about the park. “Other” subjects of interest included wildlife, plant

identification, hiking trails and backcountry skills.

Visitor groups were asked how they would prefer to learn

about Mount Rainier NP on a future trip. Four percent of the visitors

were not interested in learning. Of those who wanted to learn, the

methods they preferred included visitor center exhibits (70%), printed

materials (62%), trailside exhibits (57%), and visitor center personnel

(52%), as shown in Figure 64. "Other" methods of learning included

providing more information, films and/ or books at visitor centers and

information at ranger stations.

Other

National Park System

Alpine climbing history

Native Americans

History

Wilderness management

Natural history

Volcanoes/ geology

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of respondents

N=757 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because visitors

could be interested in more than one subject.

Subjects

5%

24%

35%

78%

47%

47%

32%

58%

Figure 63: Future subjects of interest to visitors
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 55

Other

Historical re-inactments

Interactive computer

Audiovisual methods

Rangers on trails

Ranger-led walks

Internet/ website

Roadside exhibits

Visitor center personnel

Trailside exhibits

Printed materials

Visitor center exhibits

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of respondents

N=742 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 because

visitors could prefer more then one method.

Method

1%

30%

70%

45%

12%

11%

62%

43%

46%

57%

45%

52%

Figure 64: Preferred methods of learning about Mount Rainier

NP
56 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Opinions about

use restrictions

Visitors were asked their opinions about whether or not they

would support use restrictions at Mount Rainier NP. They were asked

to rate two types of restrictions: required reservations and temporary

closures of popular areas (during peak periods such as summer

weekends).

The largest proportion of visitors were unlikely to support

required reservations (46%), as shown in Figure 65. Thirty-five percent

of visitors would likely support required reservations and 19% were

"not sure."

Regarding temporary closures, 42% of visitors said their

support would be unlikely (see Figure 66). Thirty-five percent said they

would likely support temporary closures and 23% were "not sure."

 

Not sure

No

Yes

0 100 200 300 400

Number of respondents

35%

46%

19%

Required

reservations

N=767 visitor groups

Figure 65: Opinions about required reservations
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 57

 

Not sure

No

Yes

0 100 200 300 400

Number of respondents

35%

42%

23%

Temporary

closures

N=754 visitor groups

Figure 66: Opinions about temporary closures of popular

areas
58 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Willingness to

ride transport

bus

Visitors were asked to respond to the following information and

question, "On a future trip, if the number of vehicles in Mount Rainier

National Park needs to be limited at some times of the year, would you

and your group be willing to park your vehicle and ride a free transport

bus to visit major park attractions?" Seventy percent of visitors said they

would probably ride a free transport bus (see Figure 67). Twenty percent

said they would not be willing and 9% were "not sure."

Visitors were also asked their willingness to pay up to $10 to ride

a transport bus to major park attractions. Figure 68 shows that 53% of

the visitors were unlikely to pay to ride a transport bus. Twenty-nine

percent were willing to pay up to $10 to ride a transport bus and 18%

were "not sure."

 

Not sure

No

Yes

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of respondents

70%

20%

9%

Ride

shuttle bus

N=775 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Figure 67: Willingness to ride free transport bus to major

park attractions
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 59

 

Not sure

No, unlikely

Yes, likely

0 100 200 300 400 500

Number of respondents

29%

53%

18%

Pay fee for

transport

bus?

N=775 visitor groups

Figure 68: Willingness to pay up to $10 to ride a transport bus

to major park attractions
60 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Public

transportation

and Mount

Rainier NP air

quality

Visitors were asked several questions related to whether they

were Puget Sound residents and if they were, whether significant

deterioration of Mount Rainier NP's air quality would affect their use of

public transportation and their driving habits.

Over one-half of the respondents (53%) were residents of Puget

Sound (see Figure 69). These respondents were then asked, "Would you

consider significant deterioration of the air quality at Mount Rainer

National Park as a major factor in deciding to use public transportation in

your daily commute to work?" Forty-five percent of the visitors said they

would likely consider significant deterioration of Mount Rainier NP's air

quality as a major factor (see Figure 70). Over one-third (39%) said they

would not consider Mount Rainier's air quality a major factor and 17%

were "not sure."

Visitors were also asked, "Would you consider significant

deterioration of the air quality at Mount Rainier National Park as a major

factor in making a decision to alter your driving habits (e.g. carpooling)?"

Sixty-one percent of Puget Sound residents said they would consider

Mount Rainier's air quality deterioration as a major factor in deciding to

change their driving habits (see Figure 71). Twenty-six percent said it was

unlikely they would consider Mount Rainier's air quality deterioration as a

major factor and 18% were "not sure."

 

No

Yes

0 100 200 300 400 500

Number of respondents

53%

47%

Resident

of Puget

Sound?

N=781 visitor groups

Figure 69: Resident of Puget Sound metropolitan area
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 61

 

Not sure

No, unlikely

Yes, likely

0 50 100 150 200

Number of respondents

45%

39%

17%

MORA air

quality

factor in use

of public

transport?

N=391 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Figure 70: Significant deterioration of Mount Rainier NP's air

quality a major factor in deciding to ride public transport to

work?

 

Not sure

No, unlikely

Yes, likely

0 50 100 150 200

Number of respondents

61%

26%

13%

MORA air

quality major

factor in

changing

driving habits?

N=296 visitor groups;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Figure 71: Significant deterioration of Mount Rainier NP's air

quality a major factor in deciding to change driving habits

(e.g. carpool)?
62 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Overall quality of

visitor services

Visitor groups were asked to rate the overall quality of the

visitor services provided at the Mount Rainier National Park during this

visit. Most visitor groups (90%) rated services as “very good” or “good”

(see Figure 72). No visitor groups rated the services as "very poor."

 

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0 100 200 300 400

Number of respondents

50%

40%

9%

1%

0%

Rating

N=775 visitor groups

Figure 72: Overall quality of services
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 63

Visitor groups were asked, "In your opinion, what is the

National Park Service's mission at Mount Rainier National Park?"

Eighty-eight percent of visitor groups responded to this question (410

groups). A summary of their responses is listed in Table 8.

National Park

Service mission

at Mount Rainier

NP

Table 8: NPS Mission at Mount Rainier NP

N=914 comments;

many visitors made more than one comment.

Number of

Comment times mentioned

Preserve, protect, maintain park resources 366

Keep public access 142

Educate visitors 120

Maintain park for future generations 58

Provide visitor services/ visitor enjoyment 35

Maintain buildings/ facilities 27

Preserve beauty of park/ mountain 26

Keep visitors safe 25

Maintain park for current and future generations 20

Manage visitation 20

Protect from development 15

Protect wilderness 12

Keep park clean 11

Keep doing same good job 7

Maintain trails 4

Develop trails 3

Keep park safe from politics 3

Allow use of all areas of park 2

Maintain roads 2

Keep park affordable for all people 2

Harass visitors/ campers 2

Other comments 12
64 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Planning for

the future

Visitor groups were asked, "If you were a park manager

planning for the future of the Mount Rainier National Park what

would you propose?" Fifty-six percent of visitor groups responded

to this question (445 groups). A summary of their responses is

listed in Table 9 and complete copies of visitor responses are

contained in the appendix.

Table 9: Planning for the future

N=500 comments;

many visitors made more than one comment.

Number of

Comment times mentioned

PERSONNEL

More staff needed 12

More rangers on trails 6

More knowledgeable rangers 2

Rangers need to be more friendly 2

INTERPRETIVE SERVICES

More environmental stewardship education 19

More educational signs along trail 10

More educational programs 7

Appreciate informational signs 3

More guided tours 3

Provide more weather information on web site 3

Improve visitor center 2

Other comments 7

FACILITIES/ MAINTENANCE

Build more hiking trails 6

Maintain roads 6

More parking 6

Maintain infrastructure 5

More eco-friendly toilets 4

Improve trails 3

More backcountry campsites 3

Mowich Lake road in bad shape 3

Improve facilities for water supply 2

More campsites in sunny areas 2

Remove non-natural structures 2

Showers at campgrounds 2

Trails in good shape 2

Other comments 13
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 65

Number of

Comment times mentioned

POLICIES

Provide shuttle system 85

Limit cars in park 36

Implement reservation system 25

Keep development limited 22

Limit number of visitors 13

Increase fees 12

Keep people on trails 11

Limit access 7

Alternative fuel shuttles 6

Keep fees low 6

Plan for increased use 5

Acquire more funding 4

Less rules 4

Year-round access 4

Charge more for private vehicles 3

Longer hours at visitor center 3

No motorized vehicles in park 3

Reduced fees for bicyclist and hikers 3

Shuttle system must be well run 3

Cheaper fee for carpoolers 2

Encourage volunteerism 2

Land acquisition 2

Other comments 21

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Strict resource protection 33

Keep natural 15

Reduce clear-cutting 2

Close areas for recovery 2

Other comments 8

CONCESSIONS

More choices for food and clothes 6

Different types of lodging 2

More camping outside park 2

More money to park from concessions 2

Other comments 4

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS

Keep up the good work 7
66 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Additional

comments

summary

Visitor groups wrote additional comments, which are included in

the separate appendix of this report . Their comments about Mount

Rainier National Park are summarized below (see Table 10). Some

comments offer specific suggestions on how to improve the park; others

describe what visitors enjoyed or did not enjoy about their visit.

Table 10: Additional comments

N=376 comments;

many visitors made more than one comment.

Number of

Comment times mentioned

PERSONNEL

Helpful, knowledgeable employees/ volunteers 29

Park staff should be friendly 2

More rangers on trails 2

Other comment 1

INTERPRETIVE SERVICES

More exhibit signs/ improve signs 4

Programs good 3

More information on human history 3

Provide more information about day hikes 2

Provide more planning information 2

Provide exhibits about wildlife habitat 2

Other comments 8

FACILITIES/ MAINTENANCE

Well maintained park and roads 11

Improve roads 8

Trails well maintained 7

Mowich Lake Road needs improvement 5

Grove of Patriarchs boardwalk not an improvement 2

Improve road sign clarity 2

Park clean 2

Clean restrooms more frequently 2

Improve trail signs 2

Provide more showers 2

Provide more parking 2

Provide more camping 2

Other comments 9
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 67

Number of

Comment times mentioned

POLICIES

Lower U.S. resident fee 4

Implement shuttle bus 4

Prohibit RVs 3

Improve reservation system 3

Set maximum visitation 2

Do not use reservation system 2

Other comments 11

CONCESSIONS

Provide more options for obtaining food in park 4

Food poor quality 3

Lodge needs improvement 3

Paradise food quality poor 2

Reduce prices 2

Provide more lodging near park 2

Other comments 7

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Keep park natural 10

Too crowded 2

Other comments 5

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS

Park beautiful 72

Enjoyed visit 65

Will return 20

Appreciate NPS' hard work 20

Could not see mountain 7

Too much rain 4

Saw the mountain 3

Other comments 2
68 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 69

Mount Rainier National Park

Additional Analysis

VSP Report 124

The Visitor Services Project (VSP) offers the opportunity to learn more from VSP visitor study

data.

Additional Analysis

Additional analysis can be done using the park's VSP visitor study data that was collected and

entered into the computer. Two-way and three-way cross tabulations can be made of any of the

characteristics listed below. Be as specific as possible--you may select a single program/

service/ facility instead of all that were listed in the questionnaire. Include your name, address,

and phone number in the request.

• Sources of information • Disabilities/ impairments • Total expenditures outside park

• Forms of transportation • Access problems because of

disability?

• Lodging expenditures outside park

• Nearby sites visited - past 12 mo. • English primary language • Camping expenditures outside park

• Length of stay - hours • Gender • Restaurant expenditures outside

park

• Length of stay - days • Age • Groceries expenditures outside park

• Primary reason for visiting park • U.S. Zip code or residence • Gas and oil expenditures outside

park

• Activities • Country of residence • Other transport expenditures outside

park

• Hiking • Number of visits - 12 months • Admissions/ recreation expenditures

outside park

• Type of hike • Number of visits - 2 to 5 years * Other purchases expenditures

outside park

• Length of hike • Level of education • Number of adults covered by

expenses

• Importance of attributes • Ethnicity • Number of children covered by

expenses

• Overnight stay within 30 mi. of

park

• Race • Subjects of interest for future

• Number of nights in park • Preference for spending

entrance fees

• Preferred future methods of learning

• Number of nights outside park • Total expenditures - in/ outside

park

• Support future required reservations

to use park?

• Type of lodging in park • Total expenditures in park • Support future temporary closures to

use park?

• Type of lodging outside park • Lodging expenditures in park • Willing to ride future free transport

bus?
70 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Additional Analysis (continued)

• Entrance used to enter park • Camping expenditures in park • Willing to pay to ride future transport

bus?

• Number of park entries • Restaurant expenditures in

park

• Puget Sound resident

• Order of sites visited in park • Groceries expenditures in park • MORA air quality deterioration as

major factor in using public transport

• Roads used to exit park • Gas and oil expenditures in

park

• MORA air quality deterioration as

major factor in changing driving

habits?

• Group type • Other transport expenditures in

park

• Overall quality of services in park

• Group size • Admissions/ recreation

expenditures in park

• Guided tour group * Other purchases expenditures

in park

Phone/send requests to:

Visitor Services Project, CPSU Phone: 208-885-7863

College of Natural Resources FAX: 208-885-4261

P.O. Box 441133

University of Idaho

Moscow, Idaho 83844-1133
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 71

QUESTIONNAIRE
72 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 73

Visitor Services Project Publications

Reports 1-6 (pilot studies) are available from the University of Idaho Cooperative Park Studies

Unit. All other VSP reports listed are available from the parks where the studies were conducted

or from the UI CPSU. All studies were conducted in summer unless otherwise noted.

1982

 1. Mapping interpretive services: A pilot study at

Grand Teton National Park.

1983

 2. Mapping interpretive services: Identifying barriers

to adoption and diffusion of the method.

 3. Mapping interpretive services: A follow-up study

at Yellowstone National Park and Mt Rushmore

National Memorial.

 4. Mapping visitor populations: A pilot study at

Yellowstone National Park.

1985

 5. North Cascades National Park Service Complex

 6. Crater Lake National Park

1986

 7. Gettysburg National Military Park

 8. Independence National Historical Park

 9. Valley Forge National Historical Park

1987

10. Colonial National Historical Park (summer & fall)

11. Grand Teton National Park

12. Harpers Ferry National Historical Park

13. Mesa Verde National Park

14. Shenandoah National Park

15. Yellowstone National Park

16. Independence National Historical Park: Four

Seasons Study

1988

17. Glen Canyon National Recreational Area

18. Denali National Park and Preserve

19. Bryce Canyon National Park

20. Craters of the Moon National Monument

1989

21. Everglades National Park (winter)

22. Statue of Liberty National Monument

23. The White House Tours, President's Park

(summer)

24. Lincoln Home National Historical Site

25. Yellowstone National Park

26. Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area

27. Muir Woods National Monument

1990

28. Canyonlands National Park (spring)

29. White Sands National Monument

30. National Monuments, Washington, D.C.

31. Kenai Fjords National Park

32. Gateway National Recreation Area

33. Petersburg National Battlefield

34. Death Valley National Monument

35. Glacier National Park

36. Scott's Bluff National Monument

37. John Day Fossil Beds National Monument

1991

38. Jean Lafitte National Historical Park(spring)

39. Joshua Tree National Monument (spring)

40. The White House Tours, President's Park

(spring)

41. Natchez Trace Parkway (spring)

42. Stehekin-North Cascades NP/ Lake Chelan NRA

43. City of Rocks National Reserve

44. The White House Tours, President's Park (fall)

1992

45. Big Bend National Park (spring)

46. Frederick Douglass National Historic Site

(spring)

47. Glen Echo Park (spring)

48. Bent's Old Fort National Historic Site

49. Jefferson National Expansion Memorial

50. Zion National Park

51. New River Gorge National River

52. Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, AK

53. Arlington House-The Robert E. Lee Memorial

1993

54. Belle Haven Park/Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve

(spring)

55. Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation

Area (spring)

56. Whitman Mission National Historic Site

57. Sitka National Historical Park

58. Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (summer)

59. Redwood National Park

60. Channel Islands National Park

61. Pecos National Historical Park

62. Canyon de Chelly National Monument

63. Bryce Canyon National Park (fall)
74 Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000

Visitor Services Project Publications (continued)

1994

64. Death Valley National Monument Backcountry

(winter)

65. San Antonio Missions National Historical Park

(spring)

66. Anchorage Alaska Public Lands Information

Center

67. Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts

68. Nez Perce National Historical Park

69. Edison National Historic Site

70. San Juan Island National Historical Park

71. Canaveral National Seashore

72. Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (fall)

73. Gettysburg National Military Park (fall)

1995

74. Grand Teton National Park (winter)

75. Yellowstone National Park (winter)

76. Bandelier National Monument

77. Wrangell-St. Elias National Park & Preserve

78. Adams National Historic Site

79. Devils Tower National Monument

80. Manassas National Battlefield Park

81. Booker T. Washington National Monument

82. San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park

83. Dry Tortugas National Park

1996

84. Everglades National Park (spring)

85. Chiricahua National Monument (spring)

86. Fort Bowie National Historic Site (spring)

87. Great Falls Park, Virginia (spring)

88. Great Smoky Mountains National Park (summer)

89. Chamizal National Memorial

90. Death Valley National Park (fall)

91. Prince William Forest Park (fall)

92. Great Smoky Mountains National Park

(summer & fall)

1997

93. Virgin Islands National Park (winter)

94. Mojave National Preserve (spring)

95. Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site

(spring)

96. Lincoln Boyhood Home National Memorial

97. Grand Teton National Park

98. Bryce Canyon National Park

99. Voyageurs National Park

100. Lowell National Historical Park

1998

101. Jean Lafitte NHP & Preserve (spring)

102. Chattahoochee River National Recreation

Area (spring)

103. Cumberland Island National Seashore

(spring)

104. Iwo Jima/ Netherlands Carillon Memorials

105. National Monuments & Memorials,

Washington, D.C.

106. Klondike Gold Rush NHP, AK

107. Whiskeytown National Recreation Area

(summer)

108. Acadia National Park (summer)

1999

109. Big Cypress National Preserve (winter)

110. San Juan National Historic Site, Puerto

Rico (winter)

111. St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

112. Rock Creek Park

113. New Bedford Whaling National Historical

Park

114. Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve

115. Kenai Fjords National Park

116. Lassen Volcanic National Park

117. Cumberland Gap NHP (fall)

2000

118. Haleakala National Park

119. White House Tour & White House Visitor

Center

120. Mount Rainier National Park

121. Olympic National Park

122. Eisehower National Historic Site

123. Badlands National Park

124. Mount Rainier National Park

For more information about the Visitor Services Project, please contact the

University of Idaho Cooperative Park Studies Unit; phone (208) 885-7863.
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 1
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 2

NPS D-476 November 2001

Printed on recycled paper
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 1

Mount Rainier National Park

Visitor Study

Summer 2000

Appendix

Todd Simmons

Margaret Littlejohn

Wayde Morse

Visitor Services Project

Report 124

November 2001

 Todd Simmons is a Scientific Aide with the Visitor Services Project based at the

Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho. Margaret Littlejohn is VSP Coordinator,

National Park Service. Wayde Morse was a Research Assistant with the CPSU. We thank Krista

Mitchell and the staff and volunteers of Mount Rainier National Park for their assistance with this

study. The VSP acknowledges the Public Opinion Lab of the Social and Economic Sciences

Research Center, Washington State University, for its technical assistance.

Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 1

Table 9: Planning for the future

N=500 comments;

many visitors made more than one comment.

Number of

Comment times mentioned

PERSONNEL

More staff needed 12

More rangers on trails 6

More knowledgeable rangers 2

Rangers need to be more friendly 2

INTERPRETIVE SERVICES

More environmental stewardship education 19

More educational signs along trail 10

More educational programs 7

Appreciate informational signs 3

More guided tours 3

Provide more weather information on web site 3

Improve visitor center 2

Other comments 7

FACILITIES/ MAINTENANCE

Build more hiking trails 6

Maintain roads 6

More parking 6

Maintain infrastructure 5

More eco-friendly toilets 4

Improve trails 3

More backcountry campsites 3

Mowich Lake road in bad shape 3

Improve facilities for water supply 2

More campsites in sunny areas 2

Remove non-natural structures 2

Showers at campgrounds 2

Trails in good shape 2

Other comments 13
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 2

Number of

Comment times mentioned

POLICIES

Provide shuttle system 85

Limit cars in park 36

Implement reservation system 25

Keep development limited 22

Limit number of visitors 13

Increase fees 12

Keep people on trails 11

Limit access 7

Alternative fuel shuttles 6

Keep fees low 6

Plan for increased use 5

Acquire more funding 4

Less rules 4

Year-round access 4

Charge more for private vehicles 3

Longer hours at visitor center 3

No motorized vehicles in park 3

Reduced fees for bicyclist and hikers 3

Shuttle system must be well run 3

Cheaper fee for carpoolers 2

Encourage volunteerism 2

Land acquisition 2

Other comments 21

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Strict resource protection 33

Keep natural 15

Reduce clear-cutting 2

Close areas for recovery 2

Other comments 8

CONCESSIONS

More choices for food and clothes 6

Different types of lodging 2

More camping outside park 2

More money to park from concessions 2

Other comments 4

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS

Keep up the good work 7
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 3

Table 10: Additional comments

N=376 comments;

many visitors made more than one comment.

Number of

Comment times mentioned

PERSONNEL

Helpful, knowledgeable employees/ volunteers 29

Park staff should be friendly 2

More rangers on trails 2

Other comment 1

INTERPRETIVE SERVICES

More exhibit signs/ improve signs 4

Programs good 3

More information on human history 3

Provide more information about day hikes 2

Provide more planning information 2

Provide exhibits about wildlife habitat 2

Other comments 8

FACILITIES/ MAINTENANCE

Well maintained park and roads 11

Improve roads 8

Trails well maintained 7

Mowich Lake Road needs improvement 5

Grove of Patriarchs boardwalk not an improvement 2

Improve road sign clarity 2

Park clean 2

Clean restrooms more frequently 2

Improve trail signs 2

Provide more showers 2

Provide more parking 2

Provide more camping 2

Other comments 9

POLICIES

Lower U.S. resident fee 4

Implement shuttle bus 4

Prohibit RVs 3

Improve reservation system 3

Set maximum visitation 2

Do not use reservation system 2

Other comments 11
Mount Rainier National Park Visitor Study August 18-27, 2000 4

Number of

Comment times mentioned

CONCESSIONS

Provide more options for obtaining food in park 4

Food poor quality 3

Lodge needs improvement 3

Paradise food quality poor 2

Reduce prices 2

Provide more lodging near park 2

Other comments 7

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Keep park natural 10

Too crowded 2

Other comments 5

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS

Park beautiful 72

Enjoyed visit 65

Will return 20

Appreciate NPS' hard work 20

Could not see mountain 7

Too much rain 4

Saw the mountain 3

Other comments 2