Shang Finalsynthesis

Joy Shang*, Program on the Environment, University of Washington Site Supervisor: John Floberg, Washington State Parks Foundation Faculty Advisor: Clare Ryan, School of Environmental and Forest Sciences Host Organization: Washington State Parks Foundation Project Title: Equitable Access to Washington State Parks: Identifying Underrepresented Populations and Barriers to Visitation

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 that come after us.” – Theodore Roosevelt 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 that they were created for the use of all Americans. As it stands, significant portions of our population are missing out on experiencing 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 of maintaining or even expanding it. 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 examine what barriers may be preventing underrepresented populations from recreating 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 portion of citizens to develop a meaningful connection with our parks.

Research Questions 1. Which communities are visiting state parks at lower rates than we would expect, given Washington's increasingly diverse population? 2. What are potential barriers to visiting state parks for these underrepresented groups?

Internship & Methods Throughout my process of developing and addressing these research questions, I interned 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 populations using the best available information. In order to address my second research question, I utilized a combination of personal 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 to pull out core concepts by combining related descriptions of barriers. 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 their funding model and diversity efforts.

Results DEMOGRAPHICS OF STATE PARKS VISITORS 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 of Financial Management, I identified key categories where these populations differ. 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 adults in their 20s. Race and ethnicity was the second characteristic, with 93% of campers at state parks being non-Hispanic White compared to 73% of Washington’s population (Muhly 2018b.; WA 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. BARRIERS TO VISITING STATE PARKS Through consolidating my interview transcripts, personal observations, and conducting 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 cost, lack of information, and weak cultural connection. 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. 481485). 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 informational material as well as interpretive signage in parks. Unsurprisingly, research has 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 limitation, as opposed to a functional one. While vacationing outdoors may be a long-held 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 considerations (Burns et al. 2008 pp. 128). 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 for different populations. 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 al. 2011 pp. 11; Zanon et al. 2013 pp. 480).

Significance 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 most successful methods in increasing visitation among communities of colour in California (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 firsthand and will advocate to protect it for future generations to enjoy.

References 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. PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. p. 123-137. Covelli EA, Burns RC, Graefe A. 2007. Perceived constraints by non-traditional users on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie national forest. In: Burns R, Robinson K, comps. Proceedings of the 2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-14. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. p. 422-429. Frey, William H. 2018. US white population declines and Generation ‘Z-Plus’ is minority white, census shows. Brookings [cited 10 Dec. 2018]. Available from www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/06/21/us-white-population-declines-andgeneration-z-plus-is-minority-white-census-shows/ . Gibson S, Loukaitou-Sideris A, Mukhija V. 2018. Ensuring park equity: a California case study. Journal of Urban Design. p. 1-21. Leung Y., Walden-Schreiner C., Miller A., Smith J. 2018. Statistical Report of State Park Operations: 2016-17, Annual Information Exchange. National Association of State Park Directors. 38.

Muhly D. 2018. In Park Visitor Survey. Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission; [cited 30 June 2018]. Available from https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiMjNiY2QzMzEtNGUwNS00YTZhLTk1ZWIt YmMwM2JlODUzMGJmIiwidCI6IjExZDBlMjE3LTI2NGUtNDAwYS04YmEwLTU3Z GNjMTI3ZDcyZCJ9 . -- 2018. Web-Based Customer Survey Results. Washington State Parks Foundation. Retrieved between 17 May 2018 to 30 Aug. 2018. Nelson G. 2015. Why are our parks so white? The New York Times [cited 12 Sept. 2018]. Available from www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/opinion/sunday/diversify-our-nationalparks.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]. Available from https://parks.state.wa.us:80/177/Funding . Stenovec M, Kern M, Page C, Carnohan S, Schreier A, Hoard S. 2017. Recreation fees in Washington state: Options and recommendations. The William D. Ruckelshaus Center [Internet]. [cited 12 June 2018]. Available from: https://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu/projects/current-projects/recreation-fees-inwashington/ 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 2018]. Available from www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/populationdemographics/population-estimates/estimates-april-1-population-age-sex-race-andhispanic-origin . Zanon D, Doucouliagos C, Hall J, Lockstone-Binney L. 2013. Constraints to park visitation: A meta-analysis of North American studies. Leisure Sciences. 35: 475-493.

Visuals

Distribution of Ages Percentage of Population

45% 40% 35% 30%

WA State Parks Campers WA State Residents

25% 20% 15% 10% 5%

0% 18-24

25-44

45-64

65+

Age

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 and overrepresented for the ages of 45 years and older.

Distribution of Race & Ethnicity 100%

Percentage of Population

90% WA State Parks Campers

80%

WA State Residents

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 be needed in order to come to a conclusive finding.

Distribution of Household Income 30% WA State Parks Campers

25%

WA State Residents

20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Less than $25,000

$25,000 $49,999

$50,000 $74,999

$75,000 $99,999

$100,000 $149,999

$150,000 $199,999

$200,000 or 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 $100,000149,999 being the most overrepresented.

Selection of Barriers to Visiting National Parks by Non-Visitors Unpleasant place

Native American

Asian

African American

Hispanic

White

Unsure what activities are available

Entrance fees too high

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

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 Washington State Parks Foundation (WSPF). Deliverable Title Capstone Journal

Recipient(s) P. Sean McDonald (Capstone Instructor)

Description A journal containing a log of hours worked with host organization, task accomplished, research notes etc.

Progress Memoranda

P. Sean McDonald (Capstone Instructor)

Capstone Blog Post

P. Sean McDonald (Capstone Instructor)

WSPF Blog Post

John Floberg (Site Supervisor)

Twitter Collection

P. Sean McDonald (Capstone Instructor)

Annotated Bibliography

One-Page Infographics

P. Sean McDonald (Capstone Instructor), Clare Ryan (Faculty Advisor) John Floberg (Site Supervisor), P. Sean McDonald (Capstone Instructor), Clare Ryan (Faculty Advisor)

Tableau Data Dashboards

John Floberg (Site Supervisor)

Survey Report

John Floberg (Site Supervisor)

Two memos describing questions, challenges, and successes of my internship and research experience. The second memo included a selfevaluation of the quarter. One blogpost describing my internship experience, including images, to be viewed by my peers in the capstone. One blog post for the WSPF newsletter and website describing my background and the goals of the internship. Compilation of a minimum of 2 Tweets and 2 replies sent during the quarter to fulfill weekly prompts. A formal annotated bibliography containing at least ten academic sources that serve to answer my research questions. Four infographics that effectively communicate the consequences of insufficient or significant shifts in state park funding as well as potential solutions – particularly those involving the role of nonprofits and advocacy organizations. These documents will be tailored for specific audiences, including the general public, media outlets, WSPF donors, and public officials for the purposes of education and a clear call to action. A living collection of over 10 interactive data visualizations that compare key variables at state parks across the country as well as data within Washington state on visitor demographics, land acquisition history, and funding. These dashboards were shown to elected officials to advocate for the needs of parks and an increased budget. 2 preliminary reports and 2 final reports that summarize the findings from a survey begun by a former capstone student to all 50 state park agencies and over 30 foundations that I completed. The report identifies significant findings and trends that can be shared with other states to highlight differences and similarities.