Lassen Volcanic National Park

Visitor Study

Summer 1999

Report 116

Visitor Services Project

Cooperative Park Studies Unit

Lassen Volcanic National Park

Visitor Study

Summer 1999

Jennifer Rogers

Visitor Services Project

Report 116

April 2000

Jennifer Rogers is a Survey Assistant with the Visitor Services Project (VSP) at the Cooperative

Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho. The VSP would like to thank Rosie Pavlov, Mike Meehan, Leigh

Blackburn, Margaret Littlejohn, Karen Haner, and the staff of Lassen Volcanic 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.

Visitor Services Project

Lassen Volcanic National Park

Report Summary

• This report describes the results of a visitor study at Lassen Volcanic National Park (NP) during August

15-21, 1999. A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed to visitors. Visitors returned 473

questionnaires for a 79% response rate.

• This report profiles Lassen Volcanic NP visitors. A separate appendix contains visitors' comments

about their visit. This report and the appendix include summaries of those comments.

• Over two-thirds (70%) of the visitor groups were family groups. Forty-one percent of visitor groups

were groups of two. Forty-one percent of visitors were between 36 and 55 years old. Twenty-four 

percent of visitors were under the age of 15.

• Forty-nine percent of visitors were making their first visit to Lassen Volcanic NP. Most of the visitor 

groups (58%) spent less than a day at the park. Of those groups that spent less than a day at the

park, 49% spent four hours or less.

• United States visitors were from California (80%), Oregon (4%), 33 other states, Washington D.C., and

Puerto Rico. International visitors comprised 5% of Lassen Volcanic NP visitors. They were from

Germany (45%), Canada (15%), England (14%), and 10 other countries.

• The sources of information most used by 442 visitor groups were previous visit(s) (56%), travel

guide/tour book (43%), friends/relatives (42%), and internet/website (21%).

• On this visit, the most common activities were the scenic drive (85%), visiting geological/ geothermal

features (71%), photography (57%), hiking 2 hours or more (51%), and hiking less than 2 hours (45%).

• On this visit, the most commonly visited sites in Lassen Volcanic NP were Manzanita Lake (58%), and

Chalet/information station (58%). The least visited sites were Juniper Lake (5%) and Snag Lake (2%).

• With regard to the use, importance, and quality of information services, it is important to note the

number of visitor groups that responded to each question. The information services most used by 400

visitor groups were the park brochure/map (93%), and park newspaper (57%). According to visitors,

the most important information services were the park brochure/map (86% of 364 respondents,

assistance from park staff (81% of 144 respondents), and ranger-led programs (81% of 64

respondents). The highest quality information services were ranger-led programs (90% of 62

respondents) and assistance from park staff (87% of 141 respondents).

• With regard to the use, importance, and quality of services and facilities, it is important to note the

number of visitor groups that responded to each question. The services and facilities most used by

438 visitor groups were roads (95%), parking lots (86%), and road directional signs (85%). According

to visitors, the most important services and facilities were campgrounds (97% of 153 respondents),

roads (97% of 409 respondents), and trails (95% of 321 respondents). The highest quality services

and facilities were roads (85% of 402 respondents), trails (85% of 320 respondents), and

campgrounds (84% of 151 respondents).

• Many visitor groups (96%) felt that scenic views were either “extremely important” or “moderately

important” to their visit. Most (94%) felt natural features were “extremely important” or “moderately

important,” and 78% felt wilderness was “extremely important” or “moderately important” to their visit.

• The average visitor group expenditure within fifty miles of Lassen Volcanic NP was $206. Of the total

expenditures by groups within fifty miles of Lassen Volcanic NP, 43% was for lodging, 27% was for 

food, 15% was for travel, and 15% was for other expenses.

• Ninety-two percent of visitor groups rated the overall quality of visitor services at Lassen Volcanic NP 

as "very good" or "good." Visitors made many additional comments.

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

University of Idaho Cooperative Park Studies Unit; phone (208) 885-7129 or 885-7863.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

METHODS 2

RESULTS 5

Visitors contacted 5

Demographics 5

Length of visit 11

Source of information 12

Travel plans 14

Visiting the Chalet area 16

Activities 17

Importance of features or qualities 18

Sites visited 22

Information services: use, importance, and quality 23

Visitor services and facilities: use, importance, and quality 37

Concession services and facilities: use and quality 54

Prescribed burn policy 62

Expenditures 63

Opinions about crowding 67

Preferred sources of information for future visits 77

Preferred methods of learning/ subjects of interest for future visits 78

Overall quality of visitor services 81

What visitors liked most about roadside exhibits 82

What visitors liked least about roadside exhibits 84

Planning for the future 85

Comment summary 88

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS 90

QUESTIONNAIRE 91

VISITOR SERVICES PROJECT PUBLICATIONS 93

Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

1

INTRODUCTION

This report describes the results of a study of visitors at

Lassen Volcanic National Park (NP). This visitor study was conducted

August 15-21, 1999 by the National Park Service (NPS) Visitor

Services Project (VSP), part of the Cooperative Park Studies Unit at

the University of Idaho.

The Methods section discusses the procedures and limitations

of the study. The Results section includes a summary of visitor

comments. An Additional Analysis page is included which will help

managers request additional analyses. The final section includes a

copy of the Questionnaire. An appendix includes comment

summaries and visitors' unedited comments.

Most of this report’s graphs resemble the example below. The

large numbers refer to explanations following the graph.

SAMPLE ONLY

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.
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 2

METHODS

Questionnaire

design and

administration

The questionnaire for this visitor study was designed using a

standard format that has been developed in previous Visitor Services

Project studies. A copy of the questionnaire is included at the end of

this report.

Interviews were conducted with, and questionnaires distributed

to, a sample of visitors who arrived at Lassen Volcanic NP during

August 15-21. Visitors were sampled at a total of five locations (see

Table 1).

Table 1: Questionnaire distribution locations

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Location: Questionnaires distributed

Number %

Southwest entrance station 280 47

Manzanita Lake entrance station 250 42

Warner Valley 30 5

Butte Lake 20 3

Juniper Lake 20 3

GRAND TOTAL 600 100

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

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

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

mail.

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. Eight weeks after the survey a

second replacement questionnaire was mailed to visitors who still had

not returned their questionnaires.
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

3

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 sample size (‘N’), varies from

figure to figure. For example, while Figure 1 shows information for 471

visitor groups, Figure 5 presents data for 1,413 individuals. A note

above each graph specifies the information illustrated.

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 473 visitors to Lassen

Volcanic NP returned questionnaires, Figure 1 shows data for only 471

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
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 4

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 disadvantage applies to all such studies and 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 15-21, 1999. 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

August with warm, sunny days.
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

5

RESULTS

At Lassen Volcanic NP, 645 visitor groups were contacted, and

600 of these groups (93%) agreed to participate in the survey.

Questionnaires were completed and returned by 473 visitor groups,

resulting in a 78.8% 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.

Visitors

contacted

Table 2: Comparison of total sample and

actual respondents

Variable Total sample Actual

respondents

N Avg. N Avg.

Age of respondents 598 45.5 469 46.6

Group size 595 4.3 471 3.9

Figure 1 shows visitor group sizes, which ranged from one

person to 80 people. Forty-one percent of visitor groups consisted of

two people, while another 17% were people visiting in groups of four.

Seventy percent of visitor groups were made up of family

members, 9% consisted of family and friends, 8% were made up of only

friends, and 8% of visitors were alone (see Figure 2). Groups listing

themselves as “other” for group type included Sierra Club,

boyfriend/girlfriend, and scout troop. One percent of visitors were in a

tour group (see Figure 3).

Twenty-five percent of visitors were over the age of 50. Visitors

under the age of 21 comprised 30% of the visitation to Lassen Volcanic

NP (see Figure 4).

Forty-nine percent of visitors were visiting Lassen Volcanic NP

for the first time, while 32% of visitors had visited Lassen Volcanic NP

between two and four times (see Figure 5).

Demographics
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 6

Demographicscontinued

International visitors comprised 5% of Lassen Volcanic

National Park’s visitors. The largest proportion of international visitors

were from Germany, Canada, and England (see Table 3). The largest

proportion of U.S. visitors were from California and Oregon. Smaller

proportions came from 33 other states Washington D.C., and Puerto

Rico. (see Map 1 and Table 4).

Figure 1: Visitor group sizes
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

7

Figure 2: Visitor group types

Figure 3: Participation in a guided tour
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 8

Figure 4: Visitor ages

Figure 5: Number of visits
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

9

Table 3: International visitors by country of residence

N=78 individuals;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Country

Number of

individuals

Percent of

Int’l visitors

Percent of

total visitors

Germany 35 45 2

Canada 12 15 1

England 11 14 1

Switzerland 5 6 <1

Brazil 2 3 <1

Costa Rica 2 3 <1

Holland 2 3 <1

Japan 2 3 <1

Norway 2 3 <1

Spain 2 3 <1

France 1 1 <1

Nepal 1 1 <1

Poland 1 1 <1
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 10

Map 1: Proportion of United States visitors by state of

residence

Table 4: United States visitors by state of residence

N=1,361 individuals;

percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

State

Number of

individuals

Percent of

U.S. visitors

Percent of

total visitors

California 1085 80 75

Oregon 47 4 3

Nevada 32 2 2

Washington 32 2 2

Maryland 22 2 2

Massachusetts 11 1 1

New York 10 1 1

Florida 9 1 1

Illinois 7 1 1

Ohio 7 1 1

Texas 7 1 1

Wisconsin 7 1 1

23 other states, Washington

D.C. & Puerto Rico

85 6 6
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

11

Visitor groups were asked how much time they spent at Lassen

Volcanic NP. Fifty-eight percent of visitor groups spent less than one

day at the park (see Figure 6). Of the groups that spent less than a day

at the park, 49% spent four hours or less, while 22% spent seven hours

or more (see Figure 7).

Length of visit

Figure 6: Days spent at Lassen Volcanic NP

Figure 7: Hours spent at Lassen Volcanic NP
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 12

Source of

information

Visitor groups were asked to indicate the sources they used to

obtain information about Lassen Volcanic NP prior to this visit. Six

percent of visitors did not obtain any information prior to their visit to

Lassen Volcanic NP. Of the visitors that received information prior to this

visit, 56% used previous visit(s), 43% used a travel guide/tour book, and

42% used friends/relatives (see Figure 8). “Other” sources of information

include maps and guide books.

Visitor groups were also asked to indicate the sources of

information they would prefer to use prior to future visits. As shown by

Figure 9, the most common preferences for sources of information about

Lassen Volcanic NP for future visits are, internet/web site (39%), travel

guide/tour book (32%), and previous visit(s) (30%).

Figure 8: Sources of information this visit
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

13

Figure 9: Sources of information future visits
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 14

Travel plans Visitor groups were asked to indicate how their visit to Lassen

Volcanic fit into their travel plans. Forty-seven percent of visitors to

Lassen Volcanic NP were planning to visit as one of several

destinations (see Figure 10). Forty-three percent of visitors intended it

to be their primary destination. Ten percent of visitors were not

planning on visiting Lassen Volcanic NP at all.

Visitors were asked what towns they traveled through to

arrive at Lassen Volcanic National Park. Figure 11 shows the

proportion of visitors that traveled through each town. The most

common towns traveled through were Redding (42%), Red Bluff

(37%), and Chester (27%).

Figure 10: Lassen Volcanic NP as part of travel plans
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

15

Figure 11: Towns traveled through to reach Lassen Volcanic NP
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 16

Visiting the

Chalet area

Visitors were asked to indicate their group’s reasons for

visiting the Chalet area of Lassen Volcanic NP. As shown in Figure

12, the most common reason for visiting the Chalet area was to use

the restrooms (55%). Thirty-eight percent of visitors reported “other”

reasons for visiting the Chalet area, the most common of these

reasons were eating or buying food, and buying espresso or coffee.

Figure 12: Reasons for visiting the Chalet area
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

17

Figure 13 shows the proportions of visitor groups that

participated in a variety of activities while visiting Lassen Volcanic NP.

The most common activities reported were “scenic drive” (85%), “visit

geological/geothermal features” (71%), and “photography” (57%).

“Other” activities reported include swimming, kayaking/canoeing, and

relaxing.

Activities

Figure 13: Visitor activities at Lassen Volcanic NP
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 18

Importance of

features or

qualities

Visitor groups were asked to rate the importance of certain

features or qualities during their visit to Lassen Volcanic NP. The

features or qualities included scenic views, natural features (such as

volcanic, plants, animals, etc.), recreational opportunities (including

hiking, camping, fishing, etc.), educational opportunities, solitude/quiet,

wilderness, and historic features.

Figures 14-20 show the importance ratings that were provided

for each of the individual features or qualities. The features or qualities

that received the highest “extremely important” and “moderately

important” ratings were: scenic views (96%), natural features (94%),

wilderness (78%), and solitude/quiet (75%). The highest “not

important” ratings were for educational opportunities (6%), recreational

opportunities (5%), and historic features (5%). Each of these activities

were “extremely important” or “moderately important” to some visitors:

46% for educational opportunities, 76% for recreational opportunities,

and 55% for historic features.

Figure 14: Importance of scenic views

<1%
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

19

Figure 15: Importance of natural features

Figure 16: Importance of recreational opportunities
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 20

Figure 17: Importance of educational

opportunities

Figure 18: Importance of solitude/quiet
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

21

Figure 19: Importance of wilderness

Figure 20: Importance of historic features
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 22

Sites visited Visitors were asked to list the sites they visited at Lassen

Volcanic NP. Figure 21 shows the proportion of visitor groups that

visited each site within Lassen Volcanic NP during this visit. The

most frequently visited sites include Manzanita Lake (58%), Chalet

and information station (58%), Sulphur Works (57%), and Bumpass

Hell (52%). The least visited sites were Juniper Lake (5%) and

Snag Lake (2%).

Figure 21: Sites visited this visit
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

23

Visitor groups were asked to note the information services they

used during their visit to Lassen Volcanic NP. As shown in Figure 22,

the information services most commonly used by visitor groups were

park brochure/map (93%), park newspaper (57%), self-guiding trail

brochures (39%), and assistance from park staff (37%). The least used

services were ranger-led programs (17%) and sales publications (13%).

Information

services: use,

importance, and

quality

Figure 22: Information services used
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 24

Visitor groups rated the importance and quality of each of the

information services they used. The following five point scales were used

in the questionnaire:

IMPORTANCE QUALITY

5=extremely important 5=very good

4=very important 4=good

3=moderately important 3=average

2=somewhat important 2=poor

1=not important 1=very poor

The average importance and quality ratings for each service

were determined based on ratings provided by visitors who used each

service. Figures 23 and 24 show the average importance and quality

ratings for each of the information services. All services were rated as

above "average" both in importance and quality.

Figures 25-34 show the importance ratings that visitor groups

gave for each of the individual services. Those services receiving the

highest combined proportion of "extremely important" and "very

important" ratings included park brochure/map (86%), assistance from

park staff (81%), and ranger-led programs (81%). The service with the

largest proportion of "not important" responses was park newspaper

(5%).

Figures 35-44 show the quality ratings that visitor groups gave

for each of the individual services. Those services receiving the highest

combined proportion of "very good" and "good" ratings included rangerled programs (90%), assistance from park staff (87%), and park

brochure/map (86%). The highest proportion of “very poor” ratings was

for Loomis Museum staff (3%).

Figure 45 combines the “very good” and “good” quality ratings

and compares those ratings for all of the services.
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

25

Figure 23: Average ratings of information service importance

and quality

Figure 24: Detail

= see

enlargement

below
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 26

Figure 25: Importance of park brochure/map

Figure 26: Importance of park newspaper: Peak Experiences
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

27

Figure 27: Importance of bulletin boards

Figure 28: Importance of Loomis Museum exhibits
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 28

Figure 29: Importance of Loomis Museum staff

Figure 30: Importance of assistance from park staff
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

29

Figure 31: Importance of ranger-led programs

Figure 32: Importance of self-guiding trail brochures
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 30

Figure 33: Importance of road guide booklet

Figure 34: Importance of sales publications
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

31

Figure 35: Quality of park brochure/map

Figure 36: Quality of park newspaper: Peak

Experiences
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 32

Figure 37: Quality of bulletin boards

Figure 38: Quality of Loomis Museum exhibits
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

33

Figure 39: Quality of Loomis Museum staff

Figure 40: Quality of assistance from park staff
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 34

Figure 41: Quality of ranger-led programs

Figure 42: Quality of self-guiding trail brochures
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

35

Figure 43: Quality of road guide booklet

Figure 44: Quality of sales publications
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 36

Figure 45: Combined proportions of “very good” and “good” 

quality ratings for information services
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

37

Visitor groups were asked to note the services and facilities

they used during their visit to Lassen Volcanic NP. As shown in Figure

46, the services and facilities most commonly used by visitor groups

were roads (95%), parking lots (86%), road directional signs (85%),

and restrooms (83%). The least used services were the guest ranch

(4%) and handicapped access (2%).

Visitor services

and facilities:

use, importance,

and quality

Figure 46: Services and facilities used
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 38

Visitor groups rated the importance and quality of each of the

services and facilities they used. The following five point scales were

used in the questionnaire:

IMPORTANCE QUALITY

5=extremely important 5=very good

4=very important 4=good

3=moderately important 3=average

2=somewhat important 2=poor

1=not important 1=very poor

The average importance and quality ratings for each service

were determined based on ratings provided by visitors who used each

service. Figures 47 and 48 show the average importance and quality

ratings for each of the visitor services. All services were rated as above

"average" both in importance and quality. It should be noted that the

guest ranch and handicapped access were not rated by enough visitor

groups to provide reliable data.

Figures 49-61 show the importance ratings that visitor groups

gave for each of the individual services. Those services receiving the

highest combined proportion of "extremely important" and "very

important" ratings included campgrounds (97%), roads (97%), and trails

(95%). The service with the largest proportion of "not important"

responses was the Chalet (3%).

Figures 62-74 show the quality ratings that visitor groups gave

for each of the individual services. Those services receiving the highest

combined proportion of "very good" and "good" ratings included roads

(85%), trails (86%), and campgrounds (84%). The highest proportion of

“very poor” ratings was for restrooms (4%).

Figure 75 combines the “very good” and “good” quality ratings

and compares those ratings for all of the services.
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

39

Figure 47: Average ratings of service and facility importance

and quality

Figure 48: Detail

= see

enlargement

below
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 40

Figure 49: Importance of road directional signs

Figure 50: Importance of roads
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

41

Figure 51: Importance of parking lots

Figure 52: Importance of pull outs
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 42

Figure 53: Importance of restrooms

Figure 54: Importance of trails
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

43

Figure 55: Importance of trail signs

Figure 56: Importance of campgrounds
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 44

Figure 57: Importance of picnic areas

Figure 58: Importance of handicapped access
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

45

Figure 59: Importance of guest ranch

Figure 60: Importance of Camper Store
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 46

Figure 61: Importance of Chalet

Figure 62: Quality of road directional signs
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

47

Figure 63: Quality of roads

Figure 64: Quality of parking lots
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 48

Figure 65: Quality of pull outs

Figure 66: Quality of restrooms
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

49

Figure 67: Quality of trails

Figure 68: Quality of trail signs
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 50

Figure 69: Quality of campgrounds

Figure 70: Quality of picnic areas
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

51

Figure 71: Quality of handicapped access

Figure 72: Quality of guest ranch
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 52

Figure 73: Quality of Camper Store

Figure 74: Quality of Chalet
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

53

Figure 75: Combined proportions of “very good” and “good” 

quality ratings for visitor services and facilities
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 54

Concession

services and

facilities: use

and quality

Visitor groups were asked to note the concession services and

facilities they used during their visit to Lassen Volcanic NP. As shown

in Figure 76, the concession services and facilities most commonly

used by visitor groups were Manzanita Lake Camper Store food

service (44%), Chalet gifts (38%), Chalet food service (37%), and

Manzanita Lake gifts/gas station (34%). The least used services were

Drakesbad guided horseback trips (3%), Manzanita Lake equipment

rentals (1%), and Drakesbad fly fishing lessons (0%).

Figure 76: Concession services and facilities used
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

55

Visitor groups rated the quality of each of the services and

facilities they used. The following five point scale was used in the

questionnaire:

QUALITY

5=very good

4=good

3=average

2=poor

1=very poor

It should be noted that Drakesbad Guest Ranch overnight

lodging, food service, guided horseback trips, and Manzanita Lake

Camper Store equipment rentals were not rated by enough visitor

groups to provide reliable data. Drakesbad Guest Ranch fly fishing

lessons was not rated by any visitors.

Figures 77-84 show the quality ratings that visitor groups gave

for each of the individual services. Those services receiving the highest

combined proportion of "very good" and "good" ratings included Chalet

food service (71%), Manzanita Lake Camper Store food service (64%),

and Manzanita Lake Camper Store gifts/gas station (64%). The highest

proportion of “very poor” ratings was for Manzanita Lake Camper Store

food service (3%).

Figure 85 combines the “very good” and “good” quality ratings

and compares those ratings for all of the services and facilities.

Visitors were also asked to provide suggestions on how

concession services and facilities could better serve their needs. Table

5 summarizes these visitor suggestions.
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 56

Figure 77: Quality of Drakesbad overnight lodging

Figure 78: Quality of Drakesbad food service
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

57

Figure 79: Quality of Drakesbad guided horseback trips

Figure 80: Quality of Manzanita Lake Camper Store food

service
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 58

Figure 81: Quality of Manzanita Lake Camper Store gifts/ gas

station

Figure 82: Quality of Manzanita Lake Camper Store equipment

rentals
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

59

Figure 83: Quality of Chalet food service

Figure 84: Quality of Chalet gifts
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 60

Figure 85: Combined proportions of “very good” or “good” 

quality ratings for concession facilities or services

Table 5: Ways to improve concession services and

facilities

N=220 comments;

many visitors made more than one comment.

Comment

Number of

times mentioned

FOOD SERVICES

Great/adequate/no need for more 19

Too expensive 19

Need wider variety of food services 16

Need better/healthier food 7

Need basic groceries at Chalet/Camper Store 4

More camping supplies 2

Have pre-packaged food/sandwiches 2

Need bigger, cleaner, more organized stores 2

Other comments 10

SERVICE

Cleaner port-a-potties/restrooms 4

Improve restroom conditions 3

Restrooms are antiquated 2

Need warm water in bathrooms 2

Not important 2

Other comments 8

GIFTS

Adequate/no need for more 15

Need greater variety (t-shirts/gifts) 13

Too expensive 7

Other comments 9
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

61

Comment

Number of

times mentioned

MISCELLANEOUS

Keep food service open longer (for dinner) 16

Make sure ice is available/ice machine broken 6

Give better service 4

Wood supply was low 3

Adequate 3

Re-open ski area 2

Provide fishing info/regulations at camp store 2

Need more showers 2

Larger dining area 2

Need more room inside/bigger building 2

Need more picnic tables 2

Don’t charge for showers 2

Other comments 28
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 62

Prescribed burn

policy

Visitor groups were asked if they were aware of the prescribed

burn policy in Lassen Volcanic NP. As shown in Figure 86, 72% of

visitors were aware of the policy, 6% were unsure. Visitors were then

asked if they would be willing to tolerate short periods (up to 2 days) of

smoke or reduced visibility during their visit.

Figure 87 shows that 60% of visitors would be willing to tolerate

short periods of smoke. Many visitors wrote comments on this question

relating to their opinions about prescribed burning in Lassen Volcanic

NP. Comments included visitors saying that they would reschedule their

visit due to burning, that burning should not take place during fire

season or peak visitation times, and suggestions that the park inform

visitors in advance.

Figure 86: Proportion of visitors aware of prescribed burn

policy

Figure 87: Proportion of visitors willing to tolerate short

periods of smoke
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

63

Visitor groups were asked to state the amount of money they

spent in Lassen Volcanic National Park and in the surrounding area

(within 50 miles of the park including Redding, Red Bluff, Chico,

Susanville, and Burney) on this visit. Groups were asked to indicate

the amounts they spent for lodging, travel, food and “other” items (such

as recreation, gifts and film).

Total expenditures: Twenty-seven percent of the groups

spent from $1 to $50, and another 18% spent from $51 to $100 in

Lassen Volcanic NP and the surrounding area (see Figure 88).

Sixteen percent of the groups spent $351 or more and 7% of visitor

groups spent no money. Of the total expenditures by groups, 43% was

for lodging, 27% was for food, 15% was for travel and 15% was for

“other” items (see Figure 89).

The average visitor group expenditure during this visit was

$206. The median visitor group expenditure (50% of groups spent

more and 50% of groups spent less) was $96. The average per capita

expenditure was $71.

Lodging: Twelve percent of the groups spent from $1 to $25

and another 18% spent $26 to $50 on lodging in Lassen Volcanic NP

and the surrounding area (see Figure 90). Twenty-four percent of

visitor groups spent no money on lodging.

Travel: Forty-five percent of the groups spent from $1 to $25

and another 29% spent from $26 to $50 on travel in Lassen Volcanic

NP and the surrounding area (see Figure 91). Eleven percent of visitor

groups spent no money on travel.

Food: Thirty-six percent of the groups spent from $1 to $25

and another 21% spent from $26 to $50 on food in Lassen Volcanic NP

and the surrounding area (see Figure 92). Twelve percent of visitor

groups spent no money on food.

“Other” items: Thirty-six percent of the groups spent from $1

to $25 and another 22% spent from $26 to $50 on “other” items (such

as recreation, film and gifts) in Lassen Volcanic NP and the

surrounding area (see Figure 93). Twenty-five percent of visitor groups

spent no money on “other” items.

Expenditures
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 64

Figure 88: Total expenditures in park and surrounding area

Figure 89: Proportions of expenditures in park and

surrounding area
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

65

Figure 90: Expenditures for lodging in park and surrounding

area

Figure 91: Expenditures for travel in park and surrounding

area
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 66

Figure 92: Expenditures for food in park and surrounding area

Figure 93: Expenditures for “other” items in park and

surrounding area
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

67

Visitor groups were asked to indicate whether they felt crowded

by people or vehicles at certain sites during this visit to Lassen

Volcanic National Park. Figure 94 shows the percentage of

respondents that visited each site. The most commonly visited sites

included the Bumpass Hell trail (52%), campgrounds (46%), and the

Loomis Museum (37%). The top five sites visitors listed as “other”

were Cinder Cone, Sulphur Works, Juniper Lake, and Manzanita

Lake/trail.

Opinions about

crowding

Figure 94: Sites visited by respondents
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 68

Visitor groups rated the crowding in people and vehicles at each

of the sites listed. The following five point scale was used in the

questionnaire:

CROWDING

1=not at all crowded

2=slightly crowded

3=moderately crowded

4=extremely crowded

0=don’t remember

Figures 95-101 show how crowded by people visitors felt at each

site. Those sites receiving the highest combined proportion of "extremely

crowded" and "moderately crowded" ratings included campgrounds

(68%), Lassen Peak trail (54%), and Bumpass Hell trail (53%). The

highest proportion of “not at all crowded” ratings were for “other” (59%),

Loomis Museum (44%), and Warner Valley/guest ranch (43%).

Figures 102-108 show how crowded by vehicles visitors felt at

each site. Those sites receiving the highest combined proportion of

"extremely crowded" and "moderately crowded" ratings included

Bumpass Hell trail (67%), campgrounds (62%), and Lassen Peak trail

(39%). The highest proportion of “not at all crowded” ratings were for

“other” (60%), Kings Creek area (44%), and Loomis Museum (36%).

Figures 109 and 110 combine the “extremely crowded” and

“moderately crowded” ratings and compares those ratings for all of the

sites.
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

69

Figure 95: Level of crowding by people at campgrounds

Figure 96: Level of crowding by people at Loomis Museum
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 70

Figure 97: Level of crowding by people at Lassen Peak trail

Figure 98: Level of crowding by people at Bumpass Hell trail
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

71

Figure 99: Level of crowding by people at Kings Creek area

Figure 100: Level of crowding by people at Warner

Valley/guest ranch
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 72

Figure 101: Level of crowding by people at “other” sites

Figure 102: Level of crowding by vehicles at campgrounds
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

73

Figure 103: Level of crowding by vehicles at Loomis Museum

Figure 104: Level of crowding by vehicles at Lassen Peak trail
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 74

Figure 105: Level of crowding by vehicles at Bumpass Hell

trail

Figure 106: Level of crowding by vehicles at Kings Creek area
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

75

Figure 107: Level of crowding by vehicles at Warner

Valley/guest ranch

Figure 108: Level of crowding by vehicles at “other” sites
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 76

Figure 109: Combined proportions of “extremely crowded” 

and “moderately crowded” with people at each site

Figure 110: Combined proportions of “extremely crowded” 

and “moderately crowded” with vehicles at each site
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

77

Visitor groups were asked what source of information they

would prefer to use when learning about Lassen Volcanic NP. As

shown in Figure 111, most visitors prefer learning about the park

through park brochures/maps (90%), internet/website (58%), park staff

(52%), and park exhibits (52%). “Other” preferences for learning about

the park include videos at the visitor center, and by phone.

Preferred

sources of

information

for future

visits

Figure 111: Preferred sources of information about Lassen

Volcanic NP
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 78

Preferred

methods of

learning/

subjects of

interest for

future visits

Visitor groups were asked how they would prefer to learn about

the park’s cultural and natural history on a future visit. Two percent of

respondents are not interested in learning about Lassen Volcanic NP

(see Figure 112). Of the groups interested in learning, most visitors

prefer learning about park history through printed materials (77%),

visitor center exhibits (76%), roadside exhibits (69%), trailside exhibits

(68%), and ranger-led walks/tours (45%), as shown in Figure 113.

“Other” preferences for learning about park history include ranger-led

campfire programs, view points with interpretive signs, and audio

tapes/c.d.’s.

Visitor groups were also asked what subjects they would be

interested in learning about on a future visit. Of the groups interested in

learning, 94% are interested in volcanoes/geology, and 72% are

interested in natural history/nature study (see Figure 114). “Other”

subjects visitors were interested in learning about on a future visit

included local Native American culture and history, and fishing

opportunities, regulations and stocking.

Figure 112: Interested in learning about cultural and natural

history of Lassen Volcanic NP
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

79

Figure 113: Preferences for learning about park’s cultural and

natural history
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 80

Figure 114: Subjects of interest on future visits
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

81

Visitor groups were asked to rate the overall quality of the

visitor services provided at Lassen Volcanic NP during this visit.

Most visitor groups (92%) rated services as “very good” or “good”

(see Figure 115). Less than 1% rated the overall quality of services

provided at Lassen Volcanic NP as “very poor.”

Overall quality of

visitor services

Figure 115: Overall quality of services
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 82

What visitors

liked most

about the

roadside

exhibits

Visitor groups were asked, “What did you and your group like

most about the roadside exhibits along the main park road at Lassen

Volcanic National Park?” Seventy-two percent of visitor groups (339

groups) responded to this question. Seventy-seven visitor groups

reported that they did not stop/ did not use the roadside exhibits. A

summary of their responses is listed below in Table 6 and complete

copies of visitor responses are contained in the appendix.

Table 6: What visitors like most

N=375 comments;

many visitors made more than one comment.

Comment

Number of

times mentioned

Enjoyed scenery/scenic views 37

Informative 33

Educational 20

Easy access 20

Easy to understand 19

Good off-road parking/pull-outs 16

Sulphur Works 12

Geological history 12

Geothermal activity/features 12

Historical information 12

Interesting 12

Lassen Peak 11

Interpretive signs 9

Describing features 9

Bumpass Hell 8

Cleanliness 7

Well marked 7

Signs well done 6

Devastated Area 5

Descriptions 5

Not too many people 5

Hot Rock 5

Ability to visit features close up 4

Kings Creek 4

Succinct 4

Don’t obstruct views/unobtrusive 4

Relative lack of them/not too many 3

Everything 3

Pictures of geological changes 3

Nature/natural history information 3

Signs pointing out peaks 3

Short walks to exhibits 3

Variety of sites 2

Enjoyed reading signs 2

Walkways 2

Elevation signs 2
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

83

Comment

Number of

times mentioned

Devastated Area exhibits 2

Lake Helen 2

Emerald Lake 2

Clearly marked features 2

Seeing wildlife 2

Landscape 2

Well thought out 2

Other comments 37
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 84

What visitors

liked least

about the

roadside

exhibits

Visitor groups were asked, "What did you and your group like

least about the roadside exhibits along the main park road at Lassen

Volcanic National Park?" Forty-three percent of visitor groups (205

groups) responded to this question. Thirty-nine visitor groups reported

that they did not stop/ did not use the roadside exhibits. Some visitors’

comments did not relate to the roadside exhibits. A summary of

related responses is listed below in Table 7 and complete copies of

visitor responses are contained in the appendix.

Table 7: What visitors like least

N=133 comments

Comment

Number of

times mentioned

Crowds 12

Parking 10

Need more exhibits 10

Some boardwalks need repair 9

Too little information 5

Not enough pull-outs 5

Not enough signs 5

Need more details 4

Steps at Sulphur Works hazardous 4

Smell 4

Not enough warning to stop 4

Have to hike to see more 3

Not wheelchair accessible 3

Written signs outdated 2

Vandalism 2

Hard to find 2

Road markers don’t go with guide book 2

Hot Rock 2

Need to be more prominent 2

Dust 2

Other comments 41
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

85

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

planning for the future of Lassen Volcanic National Park, what would

you propose?" Sixty-three percent of visitor groups (296 groups)

responded to this question. A summary of their responses is listed in

Table 8 and complete copies of visitor responses are contained in the

appendix.

Planning for

the future

Table 8: Planning for the future

N=656 comments;

many visitors made more than one comment.

Comment

Number of

times mentioned

PERSONNEL

More roving rangers 8

Increase park staff 3

Keep excellent staff 2

Keep ranger talks 2

Use volunteers for small building projects/maintenance 2

Other comments 7

INTERPRETIVE SERVICES

More ranger-led programs 15

Advertise 7

Increase roadside exhibits/pullouts 7

Better visitor center with video & interactive stations 7

Larger NPS-run visitor center at SW entrance 6

More Native American history at Loomis Museum 5

Don’t promote/advertise 4

More exhibits on wildlife 4

More information on brochure 3

More emphasis on geological education 3

Provide detailed hiking maps of all trails 3

More information about collapse of Mt. Tehama 3

More information on trailside signs 3

Publish road guide in newsletter 2

Expand Loomis Museum 2

Need basic & detailed scientific explanations 2

More information on roadside signs 2

Have a museum at the Chalet 2

Create Junior Ranger program 2

Other comments 30
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 86

Comment

Number of

times mentioned

FACILITIES/MAINTENANCE

Boardwalks/walkways need maintenance 11

Need more trails 8

Need more campsites/campgrounds 7

Increase spacing/privacy between campsites 7

Maintain trails 6

Improve campgrounds 6

More restrooms 6

Hot showers in all campgrounds 6

Port-a-potties/restrooms at trailheads 5

Improve Chalet restrooms 5

Provide more parking 5

More picnic areas 4

Improve trail markings 4

Improve roads 4

Better signs to trailheads and pull outs 4

Keep bathrooms cleaner 4

Need flush toilets 4

Campgrounds too crowded 3

Create bike lanes 3

Signs at trailheads stating length/elevation/quality 3

Provide RV hook-ups 2

Bear boxes in campgrounds 2

Bumpass Hell parking lot is poor/crowded 2

Create access to hot springs via day hike 2

More benches 2

Well maintained park 2

More directional signs 2

Better signs 2

Other comments 67

POLICIES

Have downhill skiing area 20

Have cross-country ski trails 16

Fees should be lower 7

Keep roads open in winter 6

Accommodate pets 6

No water skis/snowmobiles 6

Keep campgrounds open later in season 5

Snowshoeing 4

Glad ski area has been removed 3

Open campgrounds earlier in season 2

Winter sports 2

Keep park open longer 2

Limit cars 2

Other comments 31
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

87

Comment

Number of

times mentioned

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Keep natural resources undisturbed 24

Limit development to limit use 19

Keep it like it is 16

Expand/improve roads to remote areas 15

Limit number of people 12

It is relatively uncrowded 6

Improve access to Cinder Cone 6

Develop hot springs bathing area 3

Controlled burns in some areas not in others 2

Other comments 24

CONCESSIONS

Provide shuttles 11

More lodging 8

More gas stations 4

Longer food service hours 4

No new commercial ventures 4

Add store near Summit Lake 3

More groceries/supplies 3

Food service at Chalet available Winter & Summer 2

Concessions available at summit 2

Small restaurant with healthy food 2

No new lodging/cabins 2

Other comments 17

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS

Wonderful trip 8

Continue good work 3

Elementary/middle school visits 2

Other comments 18
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 88

Comment

summary

Sixty-two percent of visitor groups (293 groups) wrote

additional comments, which are included in the separate appendix of

this report. Their comments about Lassen Volcanic National Park are

summarized below (see Table 9). Some comments offer specific

suggestions on how to improve the park; others describe what visitors

enjoyed or did not enjoy about their visit.

Table 9: Additional comments

N=481 comments;

many visitors made more than one comment.

Comment

Number of

times mentioned

PERSONNEL

Very friendly/helpful/knowledgeable rangers 18

Enjoyed roving rangers 2

Need more roving rangers 2

Didn’t encounter rangers 2

Other comments 10

INTERPRETIVE SERVICES

Don’t advertise/attract more visitors 6

Very educational 4

Evening programs informative and enjoyable 3

More information on cultural history 3

Map did not show all trails 2

More information on hiking trails 2

Liked brochures 2

Other comments 20

FACILITIES/MAINTENANCE

Trails well maintained 7

Park is beautifully kept 7

Fix boardwalks at Sulphur Works 5

Provide showers at all campgrounds 5

Need more restrooms 3

Need hand dryers or towels 2

Enjoyed clean restrooms 2

Enjoyed clean campgrounds 2

Like accessibility of trails 2

Need more trail signs 2

Need more trail maintenance 2

Trails are for all levels except wheelchairs 2

Other comments 51
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

89

Comment

Number of

times mentioned

POLICIES

Fees too high 5

Too many pets/don’t allow pets 3

Police campgrounds to deter loud behavior 2

Increase fees to limit use 2

Gas station poorly marked 2

Other comments 19

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Not too crowded 33

Keep it as it is 8

Don’t develop 6

Unspoiled 5

Enjoy the fresh air 4

Saw lots of wildlife 2

Loved the wildflowers 2

Protect it 2

Other comments 12

CONCESSIONS

Need a gas station 2

Other comments 14

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS

Great/wonderful trip/nice park 58

Beautiful place 54

Wonderful place 21

Love this park 12

Wish we had more time 11

Fun climbing Lassen Peak 5

One of the best national parks 4

Just passing through 3

Nicer and more interesting than expected 2

Other comments 20
L

assenVolcanicNationalParkVisitorStudyAugust15-21,1999

90
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

91

Lassen Volcanic National Park

Additional Analysis

VSP Report 116

The Visitor Services Project (VSP) staff 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 this trip • Age • Visitor service/facility use

• Sources of information future trips • State of residence • Visitor service/facility importance

• Travel plans • Country of residence • Visitor service/facility quality

• Towns traveled through • Number of visits • Concession service/facility use

• Reasons for visiting Chalet area • Park feature/quality importance • Concession service/facility quality

• Visitor activities • Sites visited • Expenditures in area

• Hours spent in park • Information service used • Level of crowding by people

• Days spent in park • Information service importance • Level of crowding by vehicles

• Group size • Information service quality • Subjects of interest

• With guided tour • Aware of prescribed burn policy • Method of learning

• Group type • Willing to tolerate smoke • Overall quality rating

• Future sources of information to

learn about park

Database

The VSP database is currently under development.

Phone/send requests to:

Visitor Services Project, CPSU Phone: 208-885-2819

College of Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Sciences FAX: 208-885-4261

University of Idaho

Moscow, Idaho 83844-1133
L

assenVolcanicNationalParkVisitorStudyAugust15-21,1999

92
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

93

QUESTIONNAIRE
L

assenVolcanicNationalParkVisitorStudyAugust15-21,1999

94
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999

95

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
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 96

Visitor Services Project Publications (continued)

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)

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)

1996 (continued)

88. Great Smoky Mountains National Park

(summer)

89. Chamizal National Memorial

90. Death Valley National Park (fall)

91. Prince William Forest Park (fall)

1997

92. Great Smoky Mountains National Park

(summer & fall)

93. Virgin Islands National Park (winter)

94. Mojave National Preserve (spring)

95. Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historical

Park (spring)

96. Lincoln Boyhood Home National Memorial

97. Grand Teton National Park

98. Bryce Canyon National Park

99. Voyageurs National Park

1998

101. Jean Lafitte National Historical Park &

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 National Historical

Park (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 & Preserve

116. Lassen Volcanic National Park

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

University of Idaho Cooperative Park Studies Unit; phone (208) 885-7863.
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 1
Lassen Volcanic National Park Visitor Study August 15-21, 1999 2

NPS D-86 April 2000

Printed on recycled paper