Aqua Fria National Monument Visitor Survey Introduction In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at 24 BLM recreation sites in 13 states during fiscal year 2013 (FY13). The survey was developed to measure each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience, including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation . The information collected during the survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials. The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Aqua Fria National Monument are summarized in this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below (left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due to rounding). The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be found on page 9. FY13 GPRA Satisfaction Measure Percentage of site visitors satisfied overall with appropriate facilities, services, and recreational opportunities: 90% Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior Report # AQFR13 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Proportion of respondents Very poor Poor Average Good Very good 1% 0% 9% 36% 54% FY13 Satisfaction measure: 90% Average evaluation score: 4.4 Overall quality of recreation experience FY13: 70 respondents Rating
12
Embed
Aqua Fria National Monument Visitor Surveysesrc.wsu.edu › pub › blm › reports › FY13 › blm-AQFR13.pdf · Aqua Fria National Monument Visitor Survey Introduction In order
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Aqua Fria National Monument
Visitor Survey
Introduction
In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at
24 BLM recreation sites in 13 states during fiscal year 2013 (FY13). The survey was developed to measure
each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience,
including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and
waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The information collected during the
survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data
regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation
use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials.
The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Aqua Fria National Monument are summarized in
this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below
(left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The
satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This
is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for
this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due
to rounding).
The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor
opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be
found on page 9.
FY13 GPRASatisfaction MeasurePercentage of site visitors satisfied
overall with appropriate facilities,
services, and recreational opportunities:
90%
Aqua Fria National Monument
Visitor Information
Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior
Report # AQFR13
Report # AQFR13
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Managing Visitor and Recreation Use
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Resource Management
Report # AQFR13
Research MethodsSurveys were distributed to a random sample ofvisitors at this site during a selected period inFY13, The survey response rate is described on thefirst page of this report, meaning that 100% ofthose randomly sampled responded to thesurvey.The data reflect visitor opinions about thissite's facilities, management, services, educationalopportunities, and fees during the survey period.Visitor activities and selected demographics werealso captured. A representative sample of thegeneral visitor population were surveyed atselected locations. The results do not necessarilyapply to visitors during other times of the year, orvisitors who did not visit the survey locations onsite.
Returned surveys were electronically scanned andthe data analyzed. Frequency distributions werecalculated for each indicator and category.
All percentage calculations were rounded to thenearest percent.
The survey response rate is described on the firstpage of this report. The sample size (n) varies fromfigure to figure, depending on the number ofresponses.
Caution is advised when interpreting any data witha sample size of less than 30. In such cases, theword “CAUTION!” is included in the graph. Thisreport excludes any indicator with less than 10responses.
For most indicators, the survey data are expected tobe accurate with in ± 6% with 95% confidence.This means that if different samples had beendrawn, the results would have been similar (±6%)95 out of 100 times.
For more information about this survey, contact Jennifer Hoger Russell, BLM Survey Project Coordinator
at the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit (208) 885-4806
Aqua Fria National Monument
Research Methods
Understanding the Results
Inside this report are graphs that illustrate the survey results. The report contains 8 categories of dataregarding BLM amenities, staff, and services plus selected demographics. Within these categories are graphsfor each indicator evaluated by site visitors. For example, the Visitor Information category includesindicators such as “providing useful maps and brochures,” “adequate signs on site for direction,” and soforth. In each category there is a graph entitled “Everything Considered”. This graph is the basis fordetermining visitor satisfaction for each category and GPRA reporting numbers.
Each graph includes the following information:
• The number of visitor responses for the indicator;• The percentage of responses which were "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor;"• A "satisfaction measure" that combines the percentage of total responses which were "very good" or "good;" and•!An average evaluation score (mean score) based on the following values: very poor= 1, poor= 2, average= 3, good= 4, very good= 5.
• The higher the average evaluation score, the more positive the visitor response• Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding
51 2 3 4
Very
PoorVery
Good
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
6%
14%
38%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
6%
12%
40%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
12%
46%
37%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
15%
47%
34%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
5%
10%
25%
42%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
1%
6%
44%
49%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
4%
19%
45%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
0%
13%
60%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
0%
12%
42%
46%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
4%
18%
46%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
1%
7%
47%
44%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
3%
8%
37%
53%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
3%
16%
45%
36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
7%
9%
13%
38%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
2%
12%
48%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
20%
36%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
8%
13%
37%
41%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
2%
19%
44%
35%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
1%
0%
9%
36%
54%
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 90% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 79% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 82% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 83% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 80% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 60% Average evaluation score: 3.6
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 93% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 77% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 88% Average evaluation score: 4.3
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 87% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 78% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 92% Average evaluation score: 4.3
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 89% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 71% Average evaluation score: 3.8
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 82% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 86% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 74% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 78% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 79% Average evaluation score: 4.1
2
4
6
5
3
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Developed Facilities
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
2%
8%
22%
37%
31%
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 69% Average evaluation score: 3.9
Everything considered: quality ofBLM visitor information
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Providing adequate signs on sitefor direction and orientation
FY13: 84 respondents
Rating
Providing usefulmaps and brochures
FY13: 77 respondents
Rating
Ensuring public awarenessof rules and regulations
FY13: 82 respondents
Rating
Everything considered: overallcondition of developed facilities
FY13: 85 respondents
Rating
Maintaining aclean site
FY13: 85 respondents
Rating
Maintaining roads formotorized vehicles
FY13: 88 respondents
Rating
Maintaining trails fornon-motorized use
FY13: 78 respondents
Rating
Maintaining cleanliness of restroomsand other physical facilities
Providing sufficient law enforcementpresence to prevent crime
FY13: 45 respondents
Rating
Everything considered: BLM protectionof natural and cultural resources
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Ensuring that visitor activities do notinfringe on resource protection
FY13: 74 respondents
Rating
Adequately protecting thenatural resources
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Adequately protecting thecultural resources
FY13: 83 respondents
Rating
Overall quality ofrecreation experience
FY13: 70 respondents
Rating
Providing useful informationon the Internet
FY13: 51 respondents
Rating
Aqua Fria National Monument
Visitor Survey
Introduction
In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at
24 BLM recreation sites in 13 states during fiscal year 2013 (FY13). The survey was developed to measure
each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience,
including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and
waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The information collected during the
survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data
regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation
use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials.
The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Aqua Fria National Monument are summarized in
this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below
(left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The
satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This
is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for
this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due
to rounding).
The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor
opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be
found on page 9.
FY13 GPRASatisfaction MeasurePercentage of site visitors satisfied
overall with appropriate facilities,
services, and recreational opportunities:
90%
Aqua Fria National Monument
Visitor Information
Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior
Report # AQFR13
Report # AQFR13
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Managing Visitor and Recreation Use
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Resource Management
Report # AQFR13
Research MethodsSurveys were distributed to a random sample ofvisitors at this site during a selected period inFY13, The survey response rate is described on thefirst page of this report, meaning that 100% ofthose randomly sampled responded to thesurvey.The data reflect visitor opinions about thissite's facilities, management, services, educationalopportunities, and fees during the survey period.Visitor activities and selected demographics werealso captured. A representative sample of thegeneral visitor population were surveyed atselected locations. The results do not necessarilyapply to visitors during other times of the year, orvisitors who did not visit the survey locations onsite.
Returned surveys were electronically scanned andthe data analyzed. Frequency distributions werecalculated for each indicator and category.
All percentage calculations were rounded to thenearest percent.
The survey response rate is described on the firstpage of this report. The sample size (n) varies fromfigure to figure, depending on the number ofresponses.
Caution is advised when interpreting any data witha sample size of less than 30. In such cases, theword “CAUTION!” is included in the graph. Thisreport excludes any indicator with less than 10responses.
For most indicators, the survey data are expected tobe accurate with in ± 6% with 95% confidence.This means that if different samples had beendrawn, the results would have been similar (±6%)95 out of 100 times.
For more information about this survey, contact Jennifer Hoger Russell, BLM Survey Project Coordinator
at the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit (208) 885-4806
Aqua Fria National Monument
Research Methods
Understanding the Results
Inside this report are graphs that illustrate the survey results. The report contains 8 categories of dataregarding BLM amenities, staff, and services plus selected demographics. Within these categories are graphsfor each indicator evaluated by site visitors. For example, the Visitor Information category includesindicators such as “providing useful maps and brochures,” “adequate signs on site for direction,” and soforth. In each category there is a graph entitled “Everything Considered”. This graph is the basis fordetermining visitor satisfaction for each category and GPRA reporting numbers.
Each graph includes the following information:
• The number of visitor responses for the indicator;• The percentage of responses which were "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor;"• A "satisfaction measure" that combines the percentage of total responses which were "very good" or "good;" and•!An average evaluation score (mean score) based on the following values: very poor= 1, poor= 2, average= 3, good= 4, very good= 5.
• The higher the average evaluation score, the more positive the visitor response• Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding
51 2 3 4
Very
PoorVery
Good
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
6%
14%
38%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
6%
12%
40%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
12%
46%
37%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
15%
47%
34%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
5%
10%
25%
42%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
1%
6%
44%
49%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
4%
19%
45%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
0%
13%
60%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
0%
12%
42%
46%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
4%
18%
46%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
1%
7%
47%
44%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
3%
8%
37%
53%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
3%
16%
45%
36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
7%
9%
13%
38%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
2%
12%
48%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
20%
36%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
8%
13%
37%
41%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
2%
19%
44%
35%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
1%
0%
9%
36%
54%
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 90% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 79% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 82% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 83% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 80% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 60% Average evaluation score: 3.6
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 93% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 77% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 88% Average evaluation score: 4.3
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 87% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 78% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 92% Average evaluation score: 4.3
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 89% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 71% Average evaluation score: 3.8
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 82% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 86% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 74% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 78% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 79% Average evaluation score: 4.1
2
4
6
5
3
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Developed Facilities
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
2%
8%
22%
37%
31%
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 69% Average evaluation score: 3.9
Everything considered: quality ofBLM visitor information
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Providing adequate signs on sitefor direction and orientation
FY13: 84 respondents
Rating
Providing usefulmaps and brochures
FY13: 77 respondents
Rating
Ensuring public awarenessof rules and regulations
FY13: 82 respondents
Rating
Everything considered: overallcondition of developed facilities
FY13: 85 respondents
Rating
Maintaining aclean site
FY13: 85 respondents
Rating
Maintaining roads formotorized vehicles
FY13: 88 respondents
Rating
Maintaining trails fornon-motorized use
FY13: 78 respondents
Rating
Maintaining cleanliness of restroomsand other physical facilities
Providing sufficient law enforcementpresence to prevent crime
FY13: 45 respondents
Rating
Everything considered: BLM protectionof natural and cultural resources
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Ensuring that visitor activities do notinfringe on resource protection
FY13: 74 respondents
Rating
Adequately protecting thenatural resources
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Adequately protecting thecultural resources
FY13: 83 respondents
Rating
Overall quality ofrecreation experience
FY13: 70 respondents
Rating
Providing useful informationon the Internet
FY13: 51 respondents
Rating
Aqua Fria National Monument
Visitor Survey
Introduction
In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at
24 BLM recreation sites in 13 states during fiscal year 2013 (FY13). The survey was developed to measure
each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience,
including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and
waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The information collected during the
survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data
regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation
use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials.
The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Aqua Fria National Monument are summarized in
this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below
(left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The
satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This
is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for
this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due
to rounding).
The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor
opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be
found on page 9.
FY13 GPRASatisfaction MeasurePercentage of site visitors satisfied
overall with appropriate facilities,
services, and recreational opportunities:
90%
Aqua Fria National Monument
Visitor Information
Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior
Report # AQFR13
Report # AQFR13
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Managing Visitor and Recreation Use
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Resource Management
Report # AQFR13
Research MethodsSurveys were distributed to a random sample ofvisitors at this site during a selected period inFY13, The survey response rate is described on thefirst page of this report, meaning that 100% ofthose randomly sampled responded to thesurvey.The data reflect visitor opinions about thissite's facilities, management, services, educationalopportunities, and fees during the survey period.Visitor activities and selected demographics werealso captured. A representative sample of thegeneral visitor population were surveyed atselected locations. The results do not necessarilyapply to visitors during other times of the year, orvisitors who did not visit the survey locations onsite.
Returned surveys were electronically scanned andthe data analyzed. Frequency distributions werecalculated for each indicator and category.
All percentage calculations were rounded to thenearest percent.
The survey response rate is described on the firstpage of this report. The sample size (n) varies fromfigure to figure, depending on the number ofresponses.
Caution is advised when interpreting any data witha sample size of less than 30. In such cases, theword “CAUTION!” is included in the graph. Thisreport excludes any indicator with less than 10responses.
For most indicators, the survey data are expected tobe accurate with in ± 6% with 95% confidence.This means that if different samples had beendrawn, the results would have been similar (±6%)95 out of 100 times.
For more information about this survey, contact Jennifer Hoger Russell, BLM Survey Project Coordinator
at the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit (208) 885-4806
Aqua Fria National Monument
Research Methods
Understanding the Results
Inside this report are graphs that illustrate the survey results. The report contains 8 categories of dataregarding BLM amenities, staff, and services plus selected demographics. Within these categories are graphsfor each indicator evaluated by site visitors. For example, the Visitor Information category includesindicators such as “providing useful maps and brochures,” “adequate signs on site for direction,” and soforth. In each category there is a graph entitled “Everything Considered”. This graph is the basis fordetermining visitor satisfaction for each category and GPRA reporting numbers.
Each graph includes the following information:
• The number of visitor responses for the indicator;• The percentage of responses which were "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor;"• A "satisfaction measure" that combines the percentage of total responses which were "very good" or "good;" and•!An average evaluation score (mean score) based on the following values: very poor= 1, poor= 2, average= 3, good= 4, very good= 5.
• The higher the average evaluation score, the more positive the visitor response• Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding
51 2 3 4
Very
PoorVery
Good
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
6%
14%
38%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
6%
12%
40%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
12%
46%
37%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
15%
47%
34%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
5%
10%
25%
42%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
1%
6%
44%
49%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
4%
19%
45%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
0%
13%
60%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
0%
12%
42%
46%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
4%
18%
46%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
1%
7%
47%
44%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
3%
8%
37%
53%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
3%
16%
45%
36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
7%
9%
13%
38%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
2%
12%
48%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
20%
36%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
8%
13%
37%
41%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
2%
19%
44%
35%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
1%
0%
9%
36%
54%
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 90% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 79% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 82% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 83% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 80% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 60% Average evaluation score: 3.6
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 93% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 77% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 88% Average evaluation score: 4.3
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 87% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 78% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 92% Average evaluation score: 4.3
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 89% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 71% Average evaluation score: 3.8
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 82% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 86% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 74% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 78% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 79% Average evaluation score: 4.1
2
4
6
5
3
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Developed Facilities
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
2%
8%
22%
37%
31%
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 69% Average evaluation score: 3.9
Everything considered: quality ofBLM visitor information
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Providing adequate signs on sitefor direction and orientation
FY13: 84 respondents
Rating
Providing usefulmaps and brochures
FY13: 77 respondents
Rating
Ensuring public awarenessof rules and regulations
FY13: 82 respondents
Rating
Everything considered: overallcondition of developed facilities
FY13: 85 respondents
Rating
Maintaining aclean site
FY13: 85 respondents
Rating
Maintaining roads formotorized vehicles
FY13: 88 respondents
Rating
Maintaining trails fornon-motorized use
FY13: 78 respondents
Rating
Maintaining cleanliness of restroomsand other physical facilities
Providing sufficient law enforcementpresence to prevent crime
FY13: 45 respondents
Rating
Everything considered: BLM protectionof natural and cultural resources
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Ensuring that visitor activities do notinfringe on resource protection
FY13: 74 respondents
Rating
Adequately protecting thenatural resources
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Adequately protecting thecultural resources
FY13: 83 respondents
Rating
Overall quality ofrecreation experience
FY13: 70 respondents
Rating
Providing useful informationon the Internet
FY13: 51 respondents
Rating
Aqua Fria National Monument
Visitor Survey
Introduction
In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at
24 BLM recreation sites in 13 states during fiscal year 2013 (FY13). The survey was developed to measure
each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience,
including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and
waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The information collected during the
survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data
regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation
use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials.
The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Aqua Fria National Monument are summarized in
this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below
(left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The
satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This
is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for
this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due
to rounding).
The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor
opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be
found on page 9.
FY13 GPRASatisfaction MeasurePercentage of site visitors satisfied
overall with appropriate facilities,
services, and recreational opportunities:
90%
Aqua Fria National Monument
Visitor Information
Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior
Report # AQFR13
Report # AQFR13
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Managing Visitor and Recreation Use
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Resource Management
Report # AQFR13
Research MethodsSurveys were distributed to a random sample ofvisitors at this site during a selected period inFY13, The survey response rate is described on thefirst page of this report, meaning that 100% ofthose randomly sampled responded to thesurvey.The data reflect visitor opinions about thissite's facilities, management, services, educationalopportunities, and fees during the survey period.Visitor activities and selected demographics werealso captured. A representative sample of thegeneral visitor population were surveyed atselected locations. The results do not necessarilyapply to visitors during other times of the year, orvisitors who did not visit the survey locations onsite.
Returned surveys were electronically scanned andthe data analyzed. Frequency distributions werecalculated for each indicator and category.
All percentage calculations were rounded to thenearest percent.
The survey response rate is described on the firstpage of this report. The sample size (n) varies fromfigure to figure, depending on the number ofresponses.
Caution is advised when interpreting any data witha sample size of less than 30. In such cases, theword “CAUTION!” is included in the graph. Thisreport excludes any indicator with less than 10responses.
For most indicators, the survey data are expected tobe accurate with in ± 6% with 95% confidence.This means that if different samples had beendrawn, the results would have been similar (±6%)95 out of 100 times.
For more information about this survey, contact Jennifer Hoger Russell, BLM Survey Project Coordinator
at the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit (208) 885-4806
Aqua Fria National Monument
Research Methods
Understanding the Results
Inside this report are graphs that illustrate the survey results. The report contains 8 categories of dataregarding BLM amenities, staff, and services plus selected demographics. Within these categories are graphsfor each indicator evaluated by site visitors. For example, the Visitor Information category includesindicators such as “providing useful maps and brochures,” “adequate signs on site for direction,” and soforth. In each category there is a graph entitled “Everything Considered”. This graph is the basis fordetermining visitor satisfaction for each category and GPRA reporting numbers.
Each graph includes the following information:
• The number of visitor responses for the indicator;• The percentage of responses which were "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor;"• A "satisfaction measure" that combines the percentage of total responses which were "very good" or "good;" and•!An average evaluation score (mean score) based on the following values: very poor= 1, poor= 2, average= 3, good= 4, very good= 5.
• The higher the average evaluation score, the more positive the visitor response• Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding
51 2 3 4
Very
PoorVery
Good
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
6%
14%
38%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
6%
12%
40%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
12%
46%
37%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
15%
47%
34%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
5%
10%
25%
42%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
1%
6%
44%
49%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
4%
19%
45%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
0%
13%
60%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
0%
12%
42%
46%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
4%
18%
46%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
1%
7%
47%
44%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
3%
8%
37%
53%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
3%
16%
45%
36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
7%
9%
13%
38%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
2%
12%
48%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
20%
36%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
8%
13%
37%
41%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
2%
19%
44%
35%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
1%
0%
9%
36%
54%
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 90% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 79% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 82% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 83% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 80% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 60% Average evaluation score: 3.6
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 93% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 77% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 88% Average evaluation score: 4.3
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 87% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 78% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 92% Average evaluation score: 4.3
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 89% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 71% Average evaluation score: 3.8
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 82% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 86% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 74% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 78% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 79% Average evaluation score: 4.1
2
4
6
5
3
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Developed Facilities
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
2%
8%
22%
37%
31%
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 69% Average evaluation score: 3.9
Everything considered: quality ofBLM visitor information
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Providing adequate signs on sitefor direction and orientation
FY13: 84 respondents
Rating
Providing usefulmaps and brochures
FY13: 77 respondents
Rating
Ensuring public awarenessof rules and regulations
FY13: 82 respondents
Rating
Everything considered: overallcondition of developed facilities
FY13: 85 respondents
Rating
Maintaining aclean site
FY13: 85 respondents
Rating
Maintaining roads formotorized vehicles
FY13: 88 respondents
Rating
Maintaining trails fornon-motorized use
FY13: 78 respondents
Rating
Maintaining cleanliness of restroomsand other physical facilities
Providing sufficient law enforcementpresence to prevent crime
FY13: 45 respondents
Rating
Everything considered: BLM protectionof natural and cultural resources
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Ensuring that visitor activities do notinfringe on resource protection
FY13: 74 respondents
Rating
Adequately protecting thenatural resources
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Adequately protecting thecultural resources
FY13: 83 respondents
Rating
Overall quality ofrecreation experience
FY13: 70 respondents
Rating
Providing useful informationon the Internet
FY13: 51 respondents
Rating
Aqua Fria National Monument
Visitor Survey
Introduction
In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at
24 BLM recreation sites in 13 states during fiscal year 2013 (FY13). The survey was developed to measure
each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience,
including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and
waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The information collected during the
survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data
regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation
use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials.
The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Aqua Fria National Monument are summarized in
this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below
(left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The
satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This
is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for
this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due
to rounding).
The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor
opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be
found on page 9.
FY13 GPRASatisfaction MeasurePercentage of site visitors satisfied
overall with appropriate facilities,
services, and recreational opportunities:
90%
Aqua Fria National Monument
Visitor Information
Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior
Report # AQFR13
Report # AQFR13
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Managing Visitor and Recreation Use
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Resource Management
Report # AQFR13
Research MethodsSurveys were distributed to a random sample ofvisitors at this site during a selected period inFY13, The survey response rate is described on thefirst page of this report, meaning that 100% ofthose randomly sampled responded to thesurvey.The data reflect visitor opinions about thissite's facilities, management, services, educationalopportunities, and fees during the survey period.Visitor activities and selected demographics werealso captured. A representative sample of thegeneral visitor population were surveyed atselected locations. The results do not necessarilyapply to visitors during other times of the year, orvisitors who did not visit the survey locations onsite.
Returned surveys were electronically scanned andthe data analyzed. Frequency distributions werecalculated for each indicator and category.
All percentage calculations were rounded to thenearest percent.
The survey response rate is described on the firstpage of this report. The sample size (n) varies fromfigure to figure, depending on the number ofresponses.
Caution is advised when interpreting any data witha sample size of less than 30. In such cases, theword “CAUTION!” is included in the graph. Thisreport excludes any indicator with less than 10responses.
For most indicators, the survey data are expected tobe accurate with in ± 6% with 95% confidence.This means that if different samples had beendrawn, the results would have been similar (±6%)95 out of 100 times.
For more information about this survey, contact Jennifer Hoger Russell, BLM Survey Project Coordinator
at the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit (208) 885-4806
Aqua Fria National Monument
Research Methods
Understanding the Results
Inside this report are graphs that illustrate the survey results. The report contains 8 categories of dataregarding BLM amenities, staff, and services plus selected demographics. Within these categories are graphsfor each indicator evaluated by site visitors. For example, the Visitor Information category includesindicators such as “providing useful maps and brochures,” “adequate signs on site for direction,” and soforth. In each category there is a graph entitled “Everything Considered”. This graph is the basis fordetermining visitor satisfaction for each category and GPRA reporting numbers.
Each graph includes the following information:
• The number of visitor responses for the indicator;• The percentage of responses which were "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor;"• A "satisfaction measure" that combines the percentage of total responses which were "very good" or "good;" and•!An average evaluation score (mean score) based on the following values: very poor= 1, poor= 2, average= 3, good= 4, very good= 5.
• The higher the average evaluation score, the more positive the visitor response• Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding
51 2 3 4
Very
PoorVery
Good
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
6%
14%
38%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
6%
12%
40%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
12%
46%
37%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
15%
47%
34%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
5%
10%
25%
42%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
1%
6%
44%
49%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
4%
19%
45%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
0%
13%
60%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
0%
12%
42%
46%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
4%
18%
46%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
1%
7%
47%
44%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
3%
8%
37%
53%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
3%
16%
45%
36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
7%
9%
13%
38%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
2%
12%
48%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
20%
36%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
8%
13%
37%
41%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
2%
19%
44%
35%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
1%
0%
9%
36%
54%
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 90% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 79% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 82% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 83% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 80% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 60% Average evaluation score: 3.6
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 93% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 77% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 88% Average evaluation score: 4.3
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 87% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 78% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 92% Average evaluation score: 4.3
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 89% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 71% Average evaluation score: 3.8
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 82% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 86% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 74% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 78% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 79% Average evaluation score: 4.1
2
4
6
5
3
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Developed Facilities
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
2%
8%
22%
37%
31%
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 69% Average evaluation score: 3.9
Everything considered: quality ofBLM visitor information
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Providing adequate signs on sitefor direction and orientation
FY13: 84 respondents
Rating
Providing usefulmaps and brochures
FY13: 77 respondents
Rating
Ensuring public awarenessof rules and regulations
FY13: 82 respondents
Rating
Everything considered: overallcondition of developed facilities
FY13: 85 respondents
Rating
Maintaining aclean site
FY13: 85 respondents
Rating
Maintaining roads formotorized vehicles
FY13: 88 respondents
Rating
Maintaining trails fornon-motorized use
FY13: 78 respondents
Rating
Maintaining cleanliness of restroomsand other physical facilities
Providing sufficient law enforcementpresence to prevent crime
FY13: 45 respondents
Rating
Everything considered: BLM protectionof natural and cultural resources
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Ensuring that visitor activities do notinfringe on resource protection
FY13: 74 respondents
Rating
Adequately protecting thenatural resources
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Adequately protecting thecultural resources
FY13: 83 respondents
Rating
Overall quality ofrecreation experience
FY13: 70 respondents
Rating
Providing useful informationon the Internet
FY13: 51 respondents
Rating
Aqua Fria National Monument
Visitor Survey
Introduction
In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at
24 BLM recreation sites in 13 states during fiscal year 2013 (FY13). The survey was developed to measure
each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience,
including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and
waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The information collected during the
survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data
regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation
use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials.
The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Aqua Fria National Monument are summarized in
this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below
(left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The
satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This
is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for
this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due
to rounding).
The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor
opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be
found on page 9.
FY13 GPRASatisfaction MeasurePercentage of site visitors satisfied
overall with appropriate facilities,
services, and recreational opportunities:
90%
Aqua Fria National Monument
Visitor Information
Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior
Report # AQFR13
Report # AQFR13
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Managing Visitor and Recreation Use
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Resource Management
Report # AQFR13
Research MethodsSurveys were distributed to a random sample ofvisitors at this site during a selected period inFY13, The survey response rate is described on thefirst page of this report, meaning that 100% ofthose randomly sampled responded to thesurvey.The data reflect visitor opinions about thissite's facilities, management, services, educationalopportunities, and fees during the survey period.Visitor activities and selected demographics werealso captured. A representative sample of thegeneral visitor population were surveyed atselected locations. The results do not necessarilyapply to visitors during other times of the year, orvisitors who did not visit the survey locations onsite.
Returned surveys were electronically scanned andthe data analyzed. Frequency distributions werecalculated for each indicator and category.
All percentage calculations were rounded to thenearest percent.
The survey response rate is described on the firstpage of this report. The sample size (n) varies fromfigure to figure, depending on the number ofresponses.
Caution is advised when interpreting any data witha sample size of less than 30. In such cases, theword “CAUTION!” is included in the graph. Thisreport excludes any indicator with less than 10responses.
For most indicators, the survey data are expected tobe accurate with in ± 6% with 95% confidence.This means that if different samples had beendrawn, the results would have been similar (±6%)95 out of 100 times.
For more information about this survey, contact Jennifer Hoger Russell, BLM Survey Project Coordinator
at the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit (208) 885-4806
Aqua Fria National Monument
Research Methods
Understanding the Results
Inside this report are graphs that illustrate the survey results. The report contains 8 categories of dataregarding BLM amenities, staff, and services plus selected demographics. Within these categories are graphsfor each indicator evaluated by site visitors. For example, the Visitor Information category includesindicators such as “providing useful maps and brochures,” “adequate signs on site for direction,” and soforth. In each category there is a graph entitled “Everything Considered”. This graph is the basis fordetermining visitor satisfaction for each category and GPRA reporting numbers.
Each graph includes the following information:
• The number of visitor responses for the indicator;• The percentage of responses which were "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor;"• A "satisfaction measure" that combines the percentage of total responses which were "very good" or "good;" and•!An average evaluation score (mean score) based on the following values: very poor= 1, poor= 2, average= 3, good= 4, very good= 5.
• The higher the average evaluation score, the more positive the visitor response• Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding
51 2 3 4
Very
PoorVery
Good
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
6%
14%
38%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
6%
12%
40%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
12%
46%
37%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
15%
47%
34%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
5%
10%
25%
42%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
1%
6%
44%
49%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
4%
19%
45%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
0%
13%
60%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
0%
12%
42%
46%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
4%
18%
46%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
1%
7%
47%
44%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
3%
8%
37%
53%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
3%
16%
45%
36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
7%
9%
13%
38%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
2%
12%
48%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
5%
20%
36%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
8%
13%
37%
41%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
0%
2%
19%
44%
35%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
1%
0%
9%
36%
54%
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 90% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 79% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 82% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 83% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 80% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 60% Average evaluation score: 3.6
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 93% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 77% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 88% Average evaluation score: 4.3
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 87% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 78% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 92% Average evaluation score: 4.3
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 89% Average evaluation score: 4.4
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 71% Average evaluation score: 3.8
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 82% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 86% Average evaluation score: 4.2
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 74% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13 Satisfaction measure: 78% Average evaluation score: 4.1
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 79% Average evaluation score: 4.1
2
4
6
5
3
Report # AQFR13
Aqua Fria National Monument
Developed Facilities
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of respondents
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very good
2%
8%
22%
37%
31%
FY13: Satisfaction measure: 69% Average evaluation score: 3.9
Everything considered: quality ofBLM visitor information
FY13: 86 respondents
Rating
Providing adequate signs on sitefor direction and orientation
FY13: 84 respondents
Rating
Providing usefulmaps and brochures
FY13: 77 respondents
Rating
Ensuring public awarenessof rules and regulations
FY13: 82 respondents
Rating
Everything considered: overallcondition of developed facilities
FY13: 85 respondents
Rating
Maintaining aclean site
FY13: 85 respondents
Rating
Maintaining roads formotorized vehicles
FY13: 88 respondents
Rating
Maintaining trails fornon-motorized use
FY13: 78 respondents
Rating
Maintaining cleanliness of restroomsand other physical facilities