Social Research in Support of Impact Mitigation on Restoration of the Going to the Sun Road in Glacier National Park (Phase 4)

National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Social Science Program

Expedited Approval for NPS-Sponsored Public Surveys
1.

Project Title⎢
Submission
Date:

2.

Abstract:

Assessing the Visitor Experience at Chaco Culture National Historical
Park

Recent proposals to provide paved access to the Chaco Culture National Historical Park
(CHCU) have the potential to result in several changes to the current system of visitor use
and management. If the park were to receive visitor flows similar to more accessible sites like
Mesa Verde National Park, visitor experiences may change and demands on management
may increase. To address this potential for increased demand, CHCU management is
completing an amendment to its general management plan (GMP) to more specifically
address visitor management issues. This project will inform the plan by assessing what type
of visitors currently visit the park and evaluating their perceptions of current and potential
management actions. Park visitors will be sampled during the months of April-September
2009. Two instruments will be used. Both instruments will share a core set of questions, but
one will elaborate on the visitor experience, while the other will focus on opinions of
management alternatives. The results of this study will be one of many sources of
information (e.g. public and stakeholder comments, staff recommendations, other research,
etc.) that management will use in evaluating alternatives for managing increased visitation.
(not to exceed 150 words)

3.

Principal Investigator Contact Information
First Name:

Title:
Affiliation:

Street
Address:
City:

4.

Last
Name:

Wayne

Freimund

Professor
Department of Society and Conservation,
College of Forestry and Conservation
The University of Montana
Missoula

State:

Phone:

406 243-5184

Email:

[email protected]

Fax:

MT

Zip code:

406 243-6656

Park or Program Liaison Contact Information
First Name:

Title:
Park:
Park Office/
Division:

April 7, 2008

Kerri
Visitor Use Specialist/Planner
National Park Service
Denver Service Center - Planning

Last
Name:

Cahill

59812

Street
Address:
City:

P.O. Box 25287
Denver

Phone:

303 969-2261

Email:

[email protected]

State:
Fax:

CO

Zip code:

303 969-2736

80225-0287

Project

Information

5.

Park(s) For Which
Research is to be
Conducted:

6.

Survey Dates:

7.

Type of Information Collection Instrument (Check ALL that Apply)

8.

‰

Mail-Back
Questionnaire

‰

Other (explain)

Survey Justification:
(Use as much space as
needed; if necessary
include additional
explanation on a
separate page.)

Chaco Culture National Historical Park

04/01/2009

9

(mm/dd/yyyy)

On-Site
Questionnaire

‰

to

Face-toFace
Interview

9/30/2009

‰

Telephone
Survey

(mm/dd/yyyy)

‰

Focus
Groups

Social science research in support of park planning and management is mandated in
the NPS Management Policies 2006 (Section 8.11.1, “Social Science Studies”). The
NPS pursues a policy that facilitates social science studies in support of the NPS
mission to protect resources and enhance the enjoyment of present and future
generations (National Park Service Act of 1916, 38 Stat 535, 16 USC 1, et seq.).
NPS policy mandates that social science research will be used to provide an
understanding of park visitors, the non-visiting public, gateway communities and
regions, and human interactions with park resources. Such studies are needed to
provide a scientific basis for park planning, development, operations, management,
education, and interpretive activities.
Recent action by San Juan County to provide paved access to the Chaco Culture
National Historical Park (CHCU) in northwest New Mexico has the potential to
result in several changes to the current system of visitor use and management within
the park. Currently, access to the park and its outstanding concentration of preColumbian ruins is only by long drives over gravel roads. If the park were to
receive visitor flows similar to more accessible sites like the nearby Mesa Verde
National Park, visitor experiences may change, fragile cultural resources could be
threatened, and demands on management may increase.
A 2005 analysis by NPS Transportation Scholar Jonathon Unchurch analyzed six
comparable parks in the region (Capitol Reef National Park, Canyon de Chelly
National Monument, Navajo National Monument, Canyonlands National Park,
Natural Bridges National Monument, Hovenweep National Monument) to assess
the potential for increased visitation relative to alterations to park access. His
conclusion suggested that visitation will increase and the distribution of vehicle
types will change. While he could not be certain of the amount of increase, the most
comparable and recent park to have a change in access was Hovenweep. That park
experienced a 32 percent increase. Upchurch anticipated a larger increase at Chaco
due to the higher population in the area, closer proximity to major roads and World
Heritage Status. To address this potential for increased demand associated with the
county paving of the primary access road, park management is completing an
amendment to its general management plan to more specifically address visitor
management issues. That amendment will comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act and assess a range of alternative visitor management strategies. The
information gathered in this project will inform those alternatives by assessing what
type of visitors currently visit the park and evaluating their perceptions of the
current and potential management actions in response to increased visitation. The
results of this study will be one of many sources of information (e.g., public and
stakeholder comments, staff recommendations, other research, etc.) that
management will use in evaluating alternatives.

The purpose of this study is to examine peak and shoulder season visitor
perspectives of the park as it is currently managed. Another purpose is to

investigate how visitors would prefer CHCU to be managed under a scenario of
increased visitor demand. The specific objectives include:
1.

Documentation of the current users and use patterns. This element of the
study will provide park managers with documentation of the current visitor
characteristics and use patterns within and outside of the park. This
documentation and survey question wording will be consistent with the
approach taken in a similar study (Lee 1995) and will be able to illustrate
changes to the visiting clientele that have occurred over the past 14 years.

2.

Description of the desired visitor experience. Visitor expectations,
motives for the visit and evaluations of existing conditions will be
assessed. The importance of experience features such as access, personal
freedom, desired services, etc. will be assessed.

3.

Visitor perceptions of park values. The park is protected as a World
Heritage Site for universal outstanding values. This element of the study
will evaluate visitor perceptions of the park’s purpose. These value
orientations will be used to compare visitor perceptions of the park’s
purpose to those stated in the area’s protection and managerial policies. It
will also allow segmentation of visitors when assessing desired conditions
and support for potential management actions.

4. Visitor perceptions of management actions given existing and increased
demand scenarios. This component of the study will assess visitor opinion
on a range of management policies that are currently in place and actions
that could be implemented if visitation increased significantly.
Literature Review
Previous Visitor Studies at Chaco Culture National Historical Park.
Three types of visitor research have been reported at Chaco Culture National
Historical Park. The first is an annual Visitor Survey Card that has been conducted
since 1998 as part of the NPS response to the Government Performance and Results
Act. Conducted by the NPS Visitor Service Project at the University of Idaho, these
survey cards look at a limited number of issues and general visitor satisfaction
levels. Over the past ten years, the average satisfaction rate has been 95.8%. While
visitors have generally been quite satisfied with the outdoor recreation setting at
CHCU (upper 80th percentiles), they have been more satisfied with the abilities to
learn about nature, culture and history (mid 90th percentiles).
The second type of research is a detailed visitor study completed in 1992 and 1993
(Lee and Stephens, 1995). That study assessed visitors at Chaco Culture National
Historical Park, Mesa Verde National Park, and Wupatki National Monument.
Similar to the Visitor Survey Card data reported above, the opportunity “to learn
and see how people lived back then” was the most important reason for visiting
(Lee and Stephens, 1995, p. 23). Mobility and access within the park were highly
rated, while potential features such as gift shops, picnic areas or restaurants, etc.
that would offer more amenities were rated low in importance. Finally, road access
affected 36 percent of the visitors in a positive way, 15 percent in a negative way
and had no effect on 49 percent of the visitors. The results of that study found the
visitors to CHCU preferred the rustic setting and social freedom provided by the
management regime much more than visitors to Mesa Verde who were less
interested in those experience attributes. The authors conclude that a regional
approach to the management of cultural sites in the area was necessary to protect
the range of desired experiences that the visitor population demanded. This
recommendation is consistent with the literature cited earlier.
The third study of CHCU is a case study of the park prepared for the Getty

Conservation Institute in 2005 by de la Torre and others. The purpose of this study
was to assess the degree to which the park’s heritage values evolved, were
articulated, and protected in the current management regime. This study concluded
that CHCU has successfully protected the values of the area, in large part due to the
local policy to keep the park somewhat isolated but accessible. By contrasting
Mesa Verde, de la Torre and others point out that the undeveloped nature of the
area allows broad access, rather than the developed but limited access of a design
developed for a higher level of visitation. Although many of the characteristics that
make the visitor experience unique at CHCU were identified in the case study, it
was noted that no official plan for the park documents these characteristics in detail.
This study will aid the general management amendment by providing a better
understanding of these characteristics so they can be documented and evaluated in
light of proposed changes to visitor access opportunities.
This research focuses on how perceptions of park values are related to visitor
support of park management policies designed to maintain desired social settings as
visitation increases. While several studies have addressed the role of perceived park
values in affecting visitors’ support for management alternatives, none have directly
examined the role of perceived values in cultural parks. By investigating how
different visitors value CHCU as a social, cultural, and natural setting, the
information developed in this survey will allow park managers to more precisely
understand visitors’ experiences in the park and the visitor population as a whole.
Specifically, question 10 in the management alternatives survey is designed to build
understanding on what visitors perceive the primary purpose of CHCU to be. This
type of understanding has been instrumental in predicting management trade –offs
(Borrie et al, 2002 and comparing the perceptions of the purpose of various parks
9Tanner et al, in press).
In addition, CHCU managers are specifically interested in visitors’ degree of
acceptance of a group size limitation in certain areas of the park, such as prehistoric
ruins. This will become an important issue if paved access leads to greater
visitation. Previous research found that 68% of NPS wilderness areas employ some
form of group size limitation and that these limitations are widely supported by
visitors (Monz et al., 2000). Across 201 wilderness areas examined by Monz et al.,
the median group size limitation was 12 and the mode was 10 people per party.
While CHCU is not a wilderness area, it is managed to provide opportunities for
solitude, an intimate relationship among visitors and the prehistoric cultural sites,
and minimal ecological impact. Thus, we have used a group size of 12 in this
survey as the basis for inquiry about support for group size limitations.
References
Borrie, W. T., Freimund, W. A., & Davenport, M. A. (2002). Winter visitors to
Yellowstone National Park: Their value orientations and support for
management actions. Human Ecology Review 9(2):41-48
De la Torre, M. Maclean, M.G.H., & D. Myers. 2003. Chaco Culture National
Historical Park: U.S. National Park Service. The Getty Conservation
Institute. Los Angeles.
Lee, M. E. and D. Stephens. 1995. Anasazi cultural parks study: assessment of
visitor experiences at three cultural parks. Technical Report
NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-95/07. NPS Colorado Plateau Research Station at
Northern Arizona University.
Monz, C., Roggenbuck, J.W., Cole, D.N., Brame, R & A. Yoder. 2000.
Wilderness party size regulations: implications for management and a
decisionmaking framework. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.;
Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness
science in a time of change conference—Volume 4: Wilderness visitors,
experiences, and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT.
Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 265-273

Tanner, R.J., Freimund, W.A., Borrie, W.T. & R. N. Moisey. (2009). A Meta
Study of the Values of Visitors to Four Protected Areas in Western United
States. Leisure Sciences 30: 1-14.
Upchurch, J. 2005. Potential Impacts Associated with Improvements to County
Road 7950. Draft. Prepared for Chaco Culture National Historical Park.
16 pages.
9.

Survey Methodology:
(Use as much space as
needed; if necessary
include additional
explanation on a
separate page.)

(a) Respondent universe:
All adults, 18 years of age or older, visiting the Pueblo Bonito ruin and the Pueblo
del Arroyo ruin in the park from 04/01/09 to 9/30/09.
(b) Sampling plan/procedures:
Parking lots adjacent to the Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo del Arroyo ruins, the two
most popular sites in the park (receiving 96% of the park visitors), were selected for
administering on-site surveys. Study areas will be sampled during the primary
daylight hours of operation—approximately 8 AM until 8 PM in six-hour sampling
periods. An open tent will be set up to provide shade to respondents, and cold water
will be offered to assist visitors with hot temperatures. Sampling will be conducted
by two people who will administer a questionnaire to one person per group of
visitors. The member of the group with the closest birthday to the sampling day will
be asked to complete the questionnaire. Information will be collected through two
survey instruments to reduce burden on individual respondents. Each group will
randomly be assigned one of the two questionnaires used in the study. Completed
surveys will be collected from each visitor before he/she leaves the survey site.
During the two sampling period (spring and summer) there are a total of 12 weeks,
or 60 days, of potential sampling. The crew is limited to a five-day workweek and
thus, after time subtracted for training and data management, can sample a total of
48 sampling periods (resulting in 24 sampling periods per season). We expect
interviewers to average approximately 30 completed questionnaires per day.
The sampling procedure will use a systematic random sampling process in which
the initial study areas and period will be randomly selected. Following the initial
day of sampling, sampling periods (AM/PM) and study areas will be rotated
systematically to ensure that over the study period each study area is sampled
equally.
Contacts will occur based upon a pre-designed systematic schedule starting with the
first available group during the sample time. Average visitation for the months of
April – September 2007 was 4,279 visitors per month (NPS Public Use Statistics
Office). This equates to approximately 142 visitors or 57 parties per day. Thus,
within a sampling period, we should be able to contact approximately 30 parties per
sampling period. To achieve our desired sample size, we will attempt to contact all
of these parties. The probability of contacting all parties is high. In each sampling
location, there is only one access portal to the site (which is where our surveyors
will be stationed). Visitation in this park is generally low and in the vast majority
of cases, both surveyors will be able to contact visitors and distribute the
questionnaires to them. Based on our observations, having two surveyors present
during peak times will enable one person to distribute questionnaires while the
other contacts visitor groups to ask for their participation in the study.
(c) Instrument administration:
Two surveys will be administered in this study: a Management Alternatives Survey
and a Visitor Experience Survey. Respondents will be asked to complete only one
of the surveys. The surveys will be administered based upon a pre-designed
systematic schedule starting with the first available group during the sampling
period. The sampling script the surveyors will use is included with the survey
instrument below.

(d) Expected response rate/confidence levels:
For each questionnaire, we will contact approximately 720 individuals stratified by
season, weekend and weekday periods and expect 500 or 84 percent, to agree to
respond (White and Virden, 2004). With these anticipated sample sizes, we will be
90 percent confident that the true proportion in the population is +/- 4 percentage
points of the sample statistic. A confidence interval of five percentage points is a
standard level of precision for social science surveys of this type.
Although we anticipate a very high response rate, even a 75 percent response rate
will leave us with over 450 completed questionnaires for each instrument. An 80
percent power level for a two tailed t-test at the .05 alpha level, assuming a
difference in the true mean of .5, would require an “n” of 64 in each cell. Thus, the
proposed sample size will certainly be adequate for bivariate comparisons and will
also allow for more sophisticated multivariate analysis if deemed necessary.
(e) Strategies for dealing with potential non-response
bias:
A survey log of non-respondents will be used to monitor observable group
characteristics, such as group size, presence of children, and, primary language.
(f) Description of any pre-testing and peer review of the methods and/or
instrument (recommended):
In order to estimate burden and get feedback on questions, a draft of the survey
instruments was pre-tested on nine visitors at CHCU. The majority of questions in
the Visitor Experience instrument were used in a survey at CHCU by Lee (1995).
Whenever possible we chose to use the same wording to enable a comparison of
results from the two studies. We are also using a similar sampling frame and
approach. Additionally, the wording in Question 18 of the visitor survey is
identical to that used in the Lee 1995 survey. We would like to keep that wording
since it was slightly different than the type of wording often used for this type of
question.

10.

Total Number of
Initial Contacts |
Expected Respondents:

13.

Reporting Plan:

720
720

600
600

11

Estimated Time
to Complete
Initial
Contact |
Instrument
(mins.):

1
1

15
15

12

Total
Burden
Hours:

300

A technical report will be submitted to CHCU. We will also hold a workshop with
CHCU employees and NPS regional planners in January, 2009. Finally, we will
submit a copy of the technical report to the NPS Social Science Program for
inclusion in the Social Science Studies Collection.
Analysis will include descriptive statistics on all measures. Values scales will be
tested for reliability and unidimensionality. Logit and probit analysis will be used
to assess the relationship between preferred management alternatives and perceived
park values. Specifically, we will employ an ordered probit approach to analyze
respondents’ choices among the three visitor management alternatives being
considered by the park. Choices between alternatives will be analyzed as a function
of people’s perceptions of what the attributes of each alternative mean to their park
experiences. This approach relates changes in visitors’ preferred management
action to the likely impacts it will have on key components of the visitor experience
at Chaco Culture National Historical Park.