Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
Parks may be one of the greatest public resources available for Americans to enjoy, providing
numerous physical, emotional, and cultural benefits to visitors. However, we are seeing that
privileged individuals appear to be visiting parks at higher rates than others, meaning that not
only are these benefits not shared equitably but only certain individuals will appreciate the value
of natural areas. The purpose of this study was to identify discrepancies between campers at
Washington state parks and the general population in order to identify less represented
populations among park visitors. I also aimed to determine what barriers are discouraging people
from visiting parks. In order to compare these two populations, I analyzed survey and census
data to determine differing characteristics. Through my internship with the Washington State
Parks Foundation, I also conducted interviews and a literature review to identify the most
prominent barriers to visiting public lands. I found that campers at Washington state parks are
generally older, have a higher household income, and are more likely to be white than the
general population. I also determined that major barriers to outdoor recreation are cost, lack of
information, and weak cultural connection. This knowledge enables us to develop more effective
programs that empower disenfranchised populations to visit parks. This will not only welcome a
more diverse array of visitors to enjoy public parks, but will also ensure that a broader
population has experienced the value of natural spaces and will want to see them protected for
future generations.
Background
“I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our
land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations
Theodore Roosevelt acted out his passion for nature by conserving vast swaths of public
land during his presidency, many of which are still enjoyed by American citizens today.
However, while visitation at national and state parks across the country has been increasing in
the last decade, the majority of this growth comes from people who look much like Roosevelt
himself – white and financially well-off (Nelson 2015). On the other hand, people of colour and
other disenfranchised populations are noticeably absent from our public lands, despite the fact
America’s beautiful and diverse wilderness areas. Furthermore, they do not get to enjoy the
physical and mental health benefits associated with spending time outdoors, such as decreased
stress and lowered blood pressure (Briceno & Mojica 2016). Experiences in nature also
encourage a curiosity about environmental sciences and inspire us through the beauty of the
outdoors. All around, having the opportunity to experience nature can enrich almost every aspect
of one’s life and such a beneficial force should be available to as many people as possible.
At the same time, parks also need to expand their base of advocates to combat increasing
pressure from state and national governments to cut funding to natural resources. As the
percentage of white constituents continues to shrink relative to other races and ethnicities (Frey
2018), protection for parks will suffer if a more diverse group of people is not given the
opportunity to experience and develop an appreciation for outdoor spaces. After all, it is unlikely
that someone who has never experienced the benefits of a public resource would see the purpose
This national concern is reflected in Washington’s state parks, which had been struggling
from drastic budget cuts after the economic recession (“State Parks Funding”). As an emergency
measure to keep parks open, the Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission instituted the
Discover Pass, an annual parking pass of $30 or daily pass of $10, as well as increased other user
fees. While Washington State Parks have successfully remained operational thanks to the
public’s willingness to pay for access to parks, the creation of a parking pass raises concerns that
members of the population with lower incomes are now unable to visit. As such, the population
gap between those who are and are not visiting state parks may have widened in recent years,
instead of narrowed.
Given national visitation trends to parks as well as these recent funding shifts in
Washington State Parks, I thought it was imperative to determine whether this perceived lack of
diversity in park visitors was supported by data. If there are indeed discrepancies, it would also
be valuable to identify which populations are being over- and underrepresented, as well as
outdoors. Ultimately, this knowledge could be used to develop better equity programs to
encourage underrepresented groups to visit outdoor areas at higher rates and allow a broader
Research Questions
1. Which communities are visiting state parks at lower rates than we would expect, given
2. What are potential barriers to visiting state parks for these underrepresented groups?
with the Washington State Parks Foundation (WSPF), a nonprofit that supports state parks
through advocacy, outreach, and project funding (“Our Parks”). As part of my work as a policy
intern I undertook many tasks that allowed me to explore diversity in state parks from a variety
of perspectives. These tasks included completing a survey to all state park agencies and
foundations across the country; analyzing data from the National Association of State Parks
Director’s Annual Information Exchange (AIX), including creating interactive dashboards using
Tableau software; as well as designing a series of infographics that tell the story of Washington’s
state parks in order to support efforts of education, fundraising, and generating support from
government officials. A full list of deliverable products that I created for my internship are
available in Appendix A.
Fortunately, WSPF has an established relationship with the Washington State Parks &
Recreation Commission that allowed me to gain access to their unpublished research. One set of
data that proved immensely helpful in answering my first research question was a set of survey
responses from campers at state parks, which included demographic characteristics of the
respondents. By comparing the demographics of campers with that of Washington state overall, I
hoped to approximate which populations are underrepresented. Of course, there are more
activities available to visitors of state parks than just camping and visitors of different ages or
ethnic and racial backgrounds have been shown to prefer different types of activities (Gibson et
al. 2018 pp.6-7). However, at the time of my research, demographics data on all visitors was not
available. Furthermore, given that approximately 20% of visitors to Washington State Parks are
from out of state, either comparison would not provide a perfect picture of where these
discrepancies exist (Muhly 2018a.). However, lacking a method to differentiate between in-state
and out-of-state visitors, this preliminary analysis provides a starting point to compare these two
observations, in-depth interviews of staff members at different state parks agencies, and a
literature review of existing research. Although no studies have been conducted on visitors of
Washington State Parks, I drew from research conducted in similar outdoor recreation areas,
such as the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington, California State Parks, and
the National Parks Service (Covelli et al. 2007; Gibson et al. 2018; Taylor 2011). One
complication is that there is no standardized set of questions or barriers between studies, so I had
The interviews I conducted were with representatives from state park agencies that I had
identified to exemplify key phases of state park operations across the country. These included
North Carolina which is free to enter and relies primarily on state funding; Minnesota which is
experiencing gradual but significant cuts to funding, forcing it to increasingly rely on earned
revenue; and California which receives high numbers of visitation while also charging some of
the highest entrance and activity fees in the country (Leung et al. 2018 pp. 32). I asked these
representatives whether they thought visitors to their state parks were representative of their
state’s overall population and what, if any, actions their agency was taking to address these
inequalities. These interviews gave me a better understanding of how these issues are being
addressed across the country, as well as how different philosophies of operating parks impact
Results
Through my analysis of survey results from the Washington State Parks & Recreation
Commission, I was able to determine demographics information on state parks campers over the
summer of 2018. By comparing this data to the latest census estimates from Washington’s Office
Age was the first differing characteristic, with 39% of Washington state residents
between the ages of 25 and 44 years old while only 26% of campers are in this age range, with
the majority being above 45 years old and very few being below 24 years old, as shown in Figure
1 (Muhly 2018b.; WA OFM). Based on these distributions we can see that campers at state parks
are overall older than Washington residents. In particular, campers are absent among young
Race and ethnicity was the second characteristic, with 93% of campers at state parks
OFM). Across the board we also see that there is a smaller population of racial and ethnic
minorities among campers, with the greatest difference being 4% of campers being Hispanic
compared to 11% of Washington state (Fig. 2). The exception to this pattern is for Pacific
Islanders and Native Americans who are slightly more prevalent among campers.
The third characteristic was income, where campers at state parks have a much higher
household income than Washington residents, with most campers making $100,000-149,000 per
year and most Washingtonians only making $25,000-49,000 per year, as shown in Figure 3
(Muhly 2018b.; Washington OFM). This discrepancy is particular noticeable in the lower income
brackets, with only 4% of campers making less than $25,000 per year.
an extensive literature review, I identified the most common barriers to recreating in rural
outdoor areas, which comprise most of Washington’s state parks. While none of these studies
were conducted at Washington State Parks themselves, we can assume that similar barriers are
facing potential visitors as in other rural outdoor areas. The key barriers that I identified were
There can be costs simply to get into parks through entrance or parking fees, which are
required at 37 of the 50 state parks systems across the country (Stenovec et al. 2017 pp. 31).
However, recreating in parks is accompanied by a slew of other potential costs, such as the price
of gas for transportation, equipment and rentals, lodging, and dining. For reference, a survey
conducted by the National Parks Service found that 46% of respondents who do not visit
National Parks cited the cost of hotel and food as a reason for not visiting and 28% cited that
entrance fees are too high (Taylor 2011 pp. 13). As one could intuit, people at lower income
levels found cost to be a greater barrier to recreating outdoors (Gibson et al. 2018 pp. 5; Zanon et
al. 2013 pp. 484). However, cost is also found to be a major constraint for people who are racial
or ethnic minorities, younger in age, and have lower education levels (Zanon et al. 2013 pp. 481-
485). That being said, these other populations may identify cost as a greater barrier because they
also have a lower income and not necessarily because of other demographic factors.
If people are not informed about parks, they naturally will not feel comfortable visiting or
will not be aware of activities that are available at them in the first place. Washington has also
been criticized for the overly complicated collection of over 20 passes and permits for accessing
different public lands (Stenovec et al. 2017 pp. 6). At the same time, a survey of visitors to
Washington state parks revealed that almost half of visitors learned about the park from a friend
or family member, whereas the state parks website made up just over a fifth (Muhly 2018a.).
These findings may indicate that if you do not know someone who already visits state parks, it is
unlikely that you will become familiar with the process of visiting. Furthermore, citizens who do
not speak English as a first language face an even greater barrier, since most materials for state
parks are not available in multiple languages. These monolingual materials include online
found that people of colour find a lack of information to be a major barrier to recreating
outdoors, as well as people who are younger and have a lower-income (Covelli et al. 2007 pp.
425-426; Gibson et al. 2018 pp. 5; Zanon et al. 2013 pp. 482-485).
A weak cultural connection may be a less intuitive barrier, since it stems from a social
tradition for many white families, people of other races and ethnicities are less likely to have
grown up regularly visiting rural parks. Furthermore, parks are often seen by people of colour as
a “white space” where they may be unwelcome or unsafe, perhaps influenced by a history of
segregation in public outdoor areas (Nelson 2015). In a survey conducted by the National Parks
Service, 23% of Hispanic respondents and 25% of Native American respondents said that they
felt parks were an unpleasant place to be, as opposed to only 5% of white respondents (Taylor et
al. 2011 pp. 11). Given that parks are seen as a space for white people, the parks in turn have
been designed to favour the recreation preferences associated with white culture, whether
intentionally or unintentionally. Due to this, even when people of colour have the resources to
visit state parks, they may prefer not to if they are uninterested in the activities provided there
(Covelli et al. 2007 pp. 425; Gibson et al. 2018 pp. 7). A study conducted in Oregon State Parks
further parsed how different racial and ethnic minorities value different characteristics when
determining whether they would visit a park. For instance, Asian Americans were more
concerned with safety, Latinos were concerned with bilingual signage and adequate
transportation, and African Americans were concerned with cleanliness, among other
Figure 4 compares a selection of the barriers to visiting National Parks between people of
different races and ethnicities. Notably, white respondents are less likely to feel impeded by
almost all of the barriers. This graph also highlights how the significance of barriers varies
between different racial and ethnic minority groups, indicating that different solutions are needed
Other barriers that I identified in my literature review included that parks were too far
away or took too long to travel to, were too crowded, lacked accessibility for disabled people,
were not accessible by public transportation, and that respondents had no companions to recreate
with (Burns et al. 2008 pp. 128; Covelli et al. 2007 pp. 424; Gibson et al. 2018 pp. 7; Taylor et
Despite the increasing diversity of Washington residents, we can see that visitors to our
state parks have largely remained financially well-off, older, and more likely to be white than the
rest of the state. Meanwhile, racial and ethnic minorities, young people, and those with lower
incomes are facing a greater barrage of barriers that make it more difficult to enjoy our public
parks. Across the country we are witnessing a similar phenomenon where disenfranchised
populations are notably absent from our rural outdoor spaces. This not only raises concerns over
how equitable our parks are, but also poses a threat to parks themselves as an ever-growing
percentage of our population may not be visiting parks and developing a lifelong appreciation for
nature. As public lands face increasing scrutiny and cuts to funding, a lack of a broad support
base may prove detrimental for the continued conservation of natural areas, including state parks.
That being said, as is showcased by recent initiatives across the country to research the
barriers to recreating outdoors, more resources are being devoted to identifying these inequities.
However, there is a need in Washington state to conduct more research on equitable visitation.
The better we are able to pinpoint where these gaps exist and describe the causes for those gaps,
the better we can empower disenfranchised communities to visit parks by developing programs
that directly address their needs. Having this reliable data is also crucial in showcasing the extent
of the disparity and generating support from the public as well as policy makers. For instance,
the Florida State Parks Foundation has conducted extensive data collection to showcase the
benefit of parks to local businesses which has led to billions of dollars in funding from their state
legislature (personal communication, 9 Oct. 2018). Integrating the data that I analyzed in this
report could be similarly used by the Washington State Parks Foundation in their efforts to
advocate for state parks, rather than relying on anecdotes and personal hypotheses.
Even before this data analysis, in the last decade we have seen an increasing number of
initiatives aimed to help disenfranchised populations visit Washington State Parks. One example
is Check Out Washington, a program that is currently being developed collaboratively between
the Washington State Parks Foundation and Washing State Parks & Recreation Commission.
Check Out Washington is set to debut in 2019 and would equip libraries across the state with
backpacks containing Discover Passes and field guides that can be checked out for free. Not only
would this program address the cost of paying to enter state parks, but may also help increase
familiarity with the recreation opportunities available and foster a spirit of curiosity about nature.
That being said, while Check Out Washington will be valuable resource for low-income
people hoping to visit state parks, we are still seeing a lack of programs that work directly with
leaders and organizations that are already a trusted resource within their communities.
Washington should explore investing in these local groups since it was found to be one of the
(Gibson et al. 2018 pp. 14). Often the most effective solution to address inequity is to empower
those who are being left out and allow them to pursue the solutions that appeal to them directly.
We are at a point in time where research has indicated a clear lack of diversity in who is
visiting rural outdoor spaces, as well as given us an idea of what barriers are preventing
disenfranchised individuals from accessing them. Given the universal importance of protecting
natural areas, we can no longer ignore these inequities but must invest resources into outdoor
recreation programs that ask communities how we can be serving them better and make our
parks a more inclusive space for people of all socioeconomic groups. In turn, parks will enjoy
support from a broad group of constituents who will have experienced the value of nature first-
Briceno T, Mojica J. 2016. A Model for Measuring the Benefits of State Parks. Tacoma (WA):
Earth Economics.
Burns RC, Covelli E, Grafe AR. 2008. Outdoor recreation and non-traditional users: results of
focus group interviews with racial and ethnic minorities. In: Chavez DJ, Winter PL,
Absher JD, editors. Recreation visitor research: studies of diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep.
Covelli EA, Burns RC, Graefe A. 2007. Perceived constraints by non-traditional users on the Mt.
Frey, William H. 2018. US white population declines and Generation ‘Z-Plus’ is minority white,
www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/06/21/us-white-population-declines-and-
generation-z-plus-is-minority-white-census-shows/ .
Gibson S, Loukaitou-Sideris A, Mukhija V. 2018. Ensuring park equity: a California case study.
Leung Y., Walden-Schreiner C., Miller A., Smith J. 2018. Statistical Report of State Park
Directors. 38.
Muhly D. 2018. In Park Visitor Survey. Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission;
https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiMjNiY2QzMzEtNGUwNS00YTZhLTk1ZWIt
YmMwM2JlODUzMGJmIiwidCI6IjExZDBlMjE3LTI2NGUtNDAwYS04YmEwLTU3Z
GNjMTI3ZDcyZCJ9 .
-- 2018. Web-Based Customer Survey Results. Washington State Parks Foundation. Retrieved
Nelson G. 2015. Why are our parks so white? The New York Times [cited 12 Sept. 2018].
parks.html .
Our Parks [Internet]. Washington State Parks Foundation; [cited 12 Aug 2018]. Available from
https://waparks.org/about-us/ .
State Parks Funding. Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission; [cited 2018 June 8].
https://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu/projects/current-projects/recreation-fees-in-
washington/
Taylor PA, Grandjean BD, Gramann JH. 2011. National Park Service Comprehensive Survey of
the American Public: Racial and Ethnic Diversity of National Park System Visitors and
Non-visitors. Laramie (WY): Wyoming Survey & Analysis Center. Available from
www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/docs/CompSurvey2008_2009RaceEthnicity.pdf .
Theodore Roosevelt Quotes [Internet]. National Park Service; [cited 24 Oct. 2018]. Available
from www.nps.gov/thro/learn/historyculture/theodore-roosevelt-quotes.htm .
Washington Office of Financial Management. 2017. Estimates of April 1 population by age, sex,
race and Hispanic Origin: State: 2010-2017 [Internet]. Olympia (WA) [cited 12 Aug
demographics/population-estimates/estimates-april-1-population-age-sex-race-and-
hispanic-origin .
Visuals
Distribution of Ages
45%
40%
Percentage of Population
Figure 1. This graph shows the age of campers in Washington State Parks from approximately
9,000 survey responses that were collected by the Washington State Parks & Recreation
Commission between May 17th 2018 and August 30th 2018, which includes peak camping season
(Muhly 2018b.). The data on campers is compared with the estimated age of Washington
residents in the year of 2017 from the Office of Financial Management (WA OFM). From this
graph, Washington State Park campers are underrepresented in the age categories of 18-44 years
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
White Asian Hispanic Black Pacific Islander Native American
Race/Ethnicity
Figure 2. This graph shows the race and ethnicity of Washington state park campers parks from
approximately 9,000 survey responses that were collected by the Washington State Parks &
Recreation Commission between May 17th 2018 and August 30th 2018 (Muhly 2018b.). This data
is compared with the race and ethnicity of all Washington residents, as estimated by the Office of
Financial Management for 2017 (WA OFM). This data shows that Washington State Park
campers are overrepresented among white populations and underrepresented among Asian,
Hispanic, and Black populations. While Pacific Islanders and Native Americans are both
overrepresented among campers as well, these differences are so small that further research may
15%
10%
5%
0%
Less than $25,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000 - $150,000 - $200,000 or
$25,000 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 more
Annual Household Income
Figure 3. This graph shows the annual household income of Washington state park campers
from approximately 9,000 survey responses that were collected by the Washington State Parks &
Recreation Commission between May 17th 2018 and August 30th 2018 1 (Muhly 2018b.). This
data is compared with the annual household income of all Washington residents, as estimated by
the Office of Financial Management for 2017 (WA OFM). Comparing these data sets shows that
Washington State Park campers are underrepresented among populations making less than
$50,000 in annual household income and are overrepresented in populations making over
$50,000, with those under $25,000 being the most underrepresented and those making $100,000-
Figure 4. This graph showcases the percentage of respondents in different racial and ethnic
groups who described experiencing a barrier to visiting National Parks. These barriers are a
selection of the 13 that were included in the phone survey to 4,103 respondents from across the
United States who said they do not visit National Parks (Taylor et al. 2011 pp. 13). Results show
that while the percentage individuals in different racial and ethnic groups experience barriers at
different rates, generally white respondents experienced the barriers less than other populations.
Appendices
APPENDIX A.
Table 1. Tangible products and other materials that were completed during Summer 2018 as part
of the Program on the Environment’s capstone experience and for my host organization, the