Grand Canyon Visitor Experience Analysis Final Report

8/12/2019 Grand Canyon Visitor Experience Analysis Final Report

1/103

I could eat way more history of this place!

A Visitor Experience Analysis Reportfor the Industrial Complex Repurposing Project

at Grand Canyon National Park

July 2014

Deborah Perry, Ph.D. Marcella Wells, Ph.D.

Selinda Research Associates, Inc. Wells Resources, Inc.

Chicago, IL Fort Collins, CO


2/103

A Visitor Experience Analysis Report for Grand Canyon National Park ii

Suggested citation:

Perry, D. L. & Wells, M. (2014). I could eat way more history of this place! A visitorexperience analysis report for the Industrial Complex Repurposing Project at GrandCanyon National Park. Unpublished manuscript, Grand Canyon Association, AZ.

Please address all communication to:Deborah Perry, [email protected] Marcella Wells, [email protected]

All photographs in this report 2014 Selinda Research Associates, Inc., unless otherwise stated.


3/103

A Visitor Experience Analysis Report for Grand Canyon National Park iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Visitor Experience Analysis (VEA) project was initiated by the Park to integrate visitorperspectives with next-step planning and decision-making for the Historic Village Industrial

Complex Repurposing Project that has been an ongoing effort for over a decade. The purpose ofthe VEA project was to bring visitors voices to the table by exploringdirectly and indirectlythe nature of visitors experiences in the Park, and their conceptions related to existing andpossible ideas for the Village Industrial Complex.

For this project a naturalistic approach was used and a constellation of five methods

were employed to address the goals of the project. Methods included a review of priorplanning efforts, two stakeholder meetings, a review of secondary visitor data andinformation, on-site visitor depth interviews, a focus group with shuttle bus drivers, andinsights drawn from related literature. This report describes the findings of these effortsand provides discussion, recommendations, and implications for the Historic Village

Industrial Complex.

The findings from this study supported the idea of a repurposed Industrial Complex thathad an education and interpretation focus with some modest visitor amenities. There wassupport among many visitors for a museum-type campus, with indications that it wouldbe more appealing toand more likely to be visited bycertain visitors. A breakdownof who would be moreand lesslikely to visit a museum-type campus is included inthe body of the report.

Respondents in this study talked about the Parks current scattered approach tointerpretation, with the lack of a unifying interpretive theme. History emerged as a likely

unifying construct, with a hub and spoke satellite configuration. This model wouldprovide the opportunity to cover a variety of place-based topics that visitors expressedinterest in including the history of the buildings themselves, Native American cultures,the flora and fauna of the Canyon, geology, river heritage, the mules, art, andarchitecture.

While amenities will need to be part of the museum-campus, it will be important that

these are understated and in keeping with the historical nature of the campus. Visitorsindicated a need for a small deli, caf, and/or ice cream stand, as well as perhaps amodest sit-down restaurant similar to Bright Angel Dining Room. Responding to visitorcare and comfort needs will be essential for a repurposed campus, including providing

ample shade, rest rooms, seating, and water.

Visitors indicated a strong desire for a range of different types of opportunities that

reflect the inherent values they associate with natural resources, values such as aesthetic,historic, cultural, and learning. They also indicated a range of preferences for differenttypes of recreation experiences such as enjoying nature, being with family, reducingtension, physical activity, and so forth.


4/103

A Visitor Experience Analysis Report for Grand Canyon National Park iv

The location of the Industrial Complex will necessitate creative accessibility solutions,

including such options as a bridge across the railroad tracks, shuttle bus access, andperhaps mule drawn wagons. With many Grand Canyon visitors having compromisedmobility, accessibility to the repurposed Industrial Complex will be an important issuethat will need to be carefully considered.

With an annual visitation of 4.5 million, visitor capacity emerged as an issue for Grand

Canyon National Park, with some visitors feeling the effects of overcrowding in certainareas of the Park. There were indications that a repurposed museum-type campus in theIndustrial Complex area may help alleviate some of the congestion along the rimespecially along the El Tovar Bright Angel corridor.

Inadequate orientation and wayshowing emerged as an issue that may compromisemany visitors experiences, especially because of different and inconsistent moments oftruth. These issues are discussed in detail in the report.

The Park is to be commended for their commitment to include visitor perspectives inongoing planning for the repurposed Industrial Complex. Recommendations andstrategies are included to help the Park to think like a visitor.

With concerns about overdevelopment and sustainability at Grand Canyon, the report

also includes a discussion about thinking strategically and in particular, conducting aWALROS (Water and Land Recreational Opportunity Spectrum) inventory of the rangeof different types of recreational opportunities currently available at the South Rim. Suchan inventory would help the Park with its long range planning so that there is a balanceof recreational opportunities available to all visitors.

There were some indications that most visitors would be willing to pay a small increase

in fees if (a) this was a small amount added onto the gate fee, rather than an additionalfee inside the park, and (b) it was clear that the funds were going to support parkinterpretation and the museum campus.

A total of 19 specific recommendations are included in the body of the report.


5/103

A Visitor Experience Analysis Report for Grand Canyon National Park v

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... iii

Figures & Tables......................................................................................................................... vii

Section 1. Overview of the VEA Project ..................................................................................... 1

1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 11.2. The Research Question.................................................................................................................. 1

1.3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4. Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 21.5. Sources of Data ............................................................................................................................. 2

Review of Planning Documents ....................................................................................................................3Stakeholder Meetings ....................................................................................................................................3

Prior Audience Studies ..................................................................................................................................3

Visitor Interviews ..........................................................................................................................................4

Focus Group ..................................................................................................................................................5

Literature Insights..........................................................................................................................................5

1.6. Assumptions and Limitations ........................................................................................................ 6

1.7. Tips for Reading this Report ......................................................................................................... 6

Section 2. Results from the April Site Visit ................................................................................ 82.1. Description of Respondents........................................................................................................... 8

2.2. Meet Some Grand Canyon Visitors............................................................................................... 92.3. Visitor Values and Experiences .................................................................................................. 12

Values ..........................................................................................................................................................12

Recreation Experiences ...............................................................................................................................13

2.4. Ideas for the Industrial Complex and Buildings.......................................................................... 14Save the Buildings.......................................................................................................................................14

Interpret the Buildings.................................................................................................................................15

Develop a (Museum) Campus .....................................................................................................................15

2.5. Possible Uses for the Buildings ................................................................................................... 15

Museums......................................................................................................................................................16

Educational Learning or Training Centers ..................................................................................................16

Locations That Might Serve as Models.......................................................................................................17

Lodging Options ..........................................................................................................................................17

Dining Options ............................................................................................................................................18

Beverage/Bar Options..................................................................................................................................19Entertainment...............................................................................................................................................19

Concerns about Overdevelopment...............................................................................................................20Sustainability ...............................................................................................................................................20

2.6. Stories and Topics ....................................................................................................................... 20Industrial History.........................................................................................................................................20

Native American Cultures ............ .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ...........21

Flora, Fauna, and Ecology...........................................................................................................................21

Geology .......................................................................................................................................................22

Explorers and Visionaries............................................................................................................................22

River Heritage..............................................................................................................................................22Popular Media Events..................................................................................................................................23

Death and Accidents....................................................................................................................................23The Mules ....................................................................................................................................................23

Nighttime Activities .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ....23

2.7. History as a Unifying Concept .................................................................................................... 23


6/103


7/103

A Visitor Experience Analysis Report for Grand Canyon National Park vii

FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 1 Data for this study came from a mosaic of sources. p 2

Figure 2 Overall approach options discussed during Stakeholder Meeting(May 2014). p 33

Figure 3 A hub and spoke approach showing possible satellite locations forselected interpretive themes and experiences. p 34

Figure 4 Front page of The Guide, Spring 2014, with guidance for visitorsbased on values and recreation experience preferences (REP). p 38

Figure 5 Examples of moments of truth between Grand Canyon visitors andselected service providers, and ideas for improved collaboration. p 42

Figure 6 Revised Decision Tree highlighting recommended Option D. p 43

Figure 7 Chart outlining different levels of amenities. p 44

Figure 8 The Water and Land Recreational Opportunity Spectrum(WALROS). p 51

Figure 9 A Level 1 WALROS inventory of select South Rim visitorexperience opportunities using the map in The Guide. p 51

Table 1 Respondent Ages p 8

Table 2 Race/Ethnicity p 8

Table 3 Countries p 8

Table 4 Selected Natural Resource Values p 13

Table 5 Recreation Experience Preference (REP) Items p 14

Table 6 Previously Suggested Building Uses p 31

Table 7 Building Alternatives Chart p 45

Table 8 Hypothetical Phasing and Tasks for ICRP p 48

Table 9 Examples of Visitor Studies Methods p 50

Table 10 WALROS Attributes p 52


8/103


9/103

A Visitor Experience Analysis Report for Grand Canyon National Park 1

SECTION 1. OVERVIEW OF THE VEA PROJECT

1.1. Introduction

Grand Canyon National Parks South Rim is home to a complex of seven historic buildings invarious stages of use and repair. The Park is undertaking a major project, called the IndustrialComplex Repurposing Project (ICRP) to explore creative interpretive opportunities forrepurposing this complex of buildings, located near Grand Canyon Villages train depot. For thepurposes of this study, this complex is known as the Historic Village Industrial Complex (HVIC)or simply the Industrial Complex (IC), and is part of a larger Grand Canyon Village NationalHistoric Landmark District. Several of the buildings in the Industrial Complex are currentlylisted on the National Register of Historic Places. See Appendix A for photos of the sevenbuildings that are the focus of this particular ICRP effort.

The planning for the ICRP began in 1995 with the publication of the Parks GeneralManagement Plan (GMP, 1995). Since that plan, there has been extensive input andcontributions from several organizations and individuals.1 However, none had been undertakenspecifically from a visitor perspective.

As part of overall planning for the ICRP, the Park initiated a project to consider visitorperspectives as part of pending decisions for the ICRP. Selinda Research Associates, Inc. andWells Resources, Inc. (SRA/WRI) were contracted to conduct this Visitor Experience Analysis(VEA). The purpose of the analysis study was to provide a quick and cost-effective way ofbringing the visitor to the table by having researchers (a) become familiar with the internal Parkplans, discussions, challenges, and bottlenecks; (b) examine what is already known about Park

visitors from the research and theoretical literature; and (c) conduct some face-to-face interviewswith selected Park visitors and those who interface directly with Park visitors.2 The remainder ofthis document discusses the VEA, its findings, recommendations, and implications.

1.2. The Research Question

The research question for this VEA study was:

What can we find out about visitor interests, expectations, preferences, and pre-conceptions that will help inform the ongoing planning for and interpretiverepurposing of theHistoric Village Industrial Complexbuildings?

As part of the planning undertaken to investigate this research question, a VEA plan andaccompanying topical framework were collaboratively developed. The VEA Plan describes indetail the background for the study, the study design, the methods and analysis used, theselection of respondents, the projects timeline, project teams, roles and relationships, apreliminary topical framework, etc. (Appendix B). The Topical Framework outlines in moredetail all of the many topics and issues that were explored (Appendix C).

1Many of these prior efforts and decision points are graphically outlined in Appendix E. Additional information

about various options for uses of the buildings since the GMP is summarized in Appendix F.2A detailed description of the VEA context and process is provided in the VEA Plan (Appendix B).


10/103


1.3. Methodology

A naturalistic methodology was used in this study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As described in the VEAPlan, naturalistic inquiry uses a rigorous and systematic approach for collecting and analyzing data inreal-life settings. The goal of naturalistic methodology is to provide a holistic understanding ofvisitors experiences from a variety of perspectives.

Naturalistic inquiry is grounded in the belief that different participants experience a situation orphenomenon in different ways. The aim of naturalistic inquiry is to uncover and examine the range ofthese experiences in order to more fully understand and articulate their meanings (Allen, et al., 2007).

As a holistic approach to conducting research, naturalistic inquiry embraces complexity,incorporating and examining data from many sources including first-hand observations andinterviews, reviews of existing documents and other materials, and the backgrounds andexperiences of the researchers.3

1.4. Methods

Whereas a methodologydefines and describes the theoretical framework or philosophical

underpinnings of a particular study, the methodsare the specific strategies and techniques theresearchers use to gather and analyze data. As described in the VEA Plan, four primary datacollection methods were used in this study: participant observations; depth interviews; review ofdocuments; and focus group interview. Purposive sampling was used to select respondents forthe interviews and focus group, and data were analyzed using modified inductive constantcomparison (Krueger, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; McCracken, 1988; Miles & Huberman,1994). For a detailed description of all of the methods used in this study, see Appendix B.

1.5. Sources of Data

For this VEA project, data came primarily from six integrated sources as shown in Figure 1below. Each is described in more detail below the figure.

Figure 1. Data for this study came from a mosaic of sources.

3For a more detailed description of the naturalistic methodology used in this study, see the VEA Plan -

Methodology (Appendix B).

!"#$"% '( )*+,,$,-

.'/01",23

42+5"6'*7"8

9"":,-3

)8$'8

;07$",/"

4207$"3


11/103


Review of Planning DocumentsAt the onset of the project, an extensive review and summary of twelve documentsprimarilyprevious planning and conceptual efforts related to the Industrial Complexwas prepared for astakeholder meeting held in September 2013 (Wells & Perry, 2013).4 The purpose of this reviewwas to better understand the current context for decision-making, and to ensure that the VEA

Core Teamand theICRP Leadership Team(as described in the VEA Plan Appendix B) wereon the same page for exploring and analyzing visitor perspectives throughout the remainder ofthe VEA project. In addition to the written summary, the outputs of this review included aworking Decision Tree (Appendix E), a summary Table of Options (Appendix F), and a list ofTerms and Definitions (Appendix G).

Throughout the remainder of the project a number of additional documents and resourcesrelevant to the research question and topical framework issues were consulted and reviewed.These included prior concept plans, research reports, internal working documents, evaluationreports, and relevant literature sources. Information from these sources is discussed throughoutthis report.

Stakeholder MeetingsIn September 2013, a stakeholder meeting was convened at the Park with eleven participants andthe two SRA/WRI researchers. Participants represented various departments of the Park, theGrand Canyon River Heritage Coalition, and the Grand Canyon Association. This meeting wasconducted to discuss and clarify past context and planning efforts related to the IndustrialComplex, to clarify the number and nature of pending decisions, and to identify visitorinformation that would be most useful for informing critical project decisions. The facilitatedsession was a full-day work session for which a number of working handouts were prepared bythe researchers based on the review of documents discussed above (Appendices D, E, F, and G).

The stakeholder discussions not only clarified terms, concepts, and pending decisions, butparticipants also generated a list of visitor questions to be answered throughout the VEA process.These questions were developed into the Topical Framework (Appendix C), which was anevolving document used to guide subsequent data collection and analysis throughout theremainder of the project.

A second Stakeholder Meeting was held the end of May 2014. The primary purpose of thismeeting was to present the preliminary findings from this report, gather feedback from thestakeholders, and discuss and develop implications included later in this report.

Prior Audience StudiesThroughout the VEA process a number of sources related to Grand Canyon visitors andvisitation were consulted. These documents included such written materials as prior evaluationprojects, a visitor comment card study, and economic studies prepared by outside consultants.These data were also considered in the preparation of this report. Information from these sourcesis discussed throughout this report, and in Appendix H.

4 See Appendix D for a complete list of the documents reviewed.


12/103


Visitor InterviewsA significant component of this VEA project was a series of depth interviews (McCracken,1988). Three SRA/WRIresearchers participated in four full days of naturalistic data collection atthe South Rim from April 12 through April 15 (Saturday through Tuesday). As stated in theVEA Plan (Appendix B), these dates were selected to capture busy season visitation (Spring

Break) and to ensure that both weekday and weekend visitation was considered.

For these interviews, visitors were approached at various locations on the South Rim (e.g. nearEl Tovar, at the rim plaza outside Bright Angel Lodge, along the Rim Trail, at various HermitRoad overlooks, on the shuttle bus, at the Grand Canyon Visitor Center [GCVC] plaza and area,etc.) and invited to share their thoughts by engaging in a conversation with the researcher. Inaccordance with standards for conducting naturalistic inquiry, all interviews were conversationaland open-ended, flowing naturally from different respondents particular interests andexperiences. This allowed for unanticipated issues to emerge so that respondents experiencescould be understood as fully as possible.

Each researcher used the overall research question and the issues outlined on the TopicalFramework (Appendix C) to guide and focus their conversations with respondents. In accordancewith standards for naturalistic inquiry, no two interviews were the same and each one focused onissues that were pertinent and relevant to the particular respondent group (Lincoln & Guba,1985; Wolf & Tymitz, 1979). A sample interview protocol is included in Appendix I.

A wide range of interview respondents was selected. This range included (a) group size (e.g.,families, groups, couples, singletons, etc.), (b) observable race characteristics (White, AfricanAmerican/Black, Latino, Asian, etc.), (c) observable age diversity (e.g., children, teens, youngadults, adults, seniors), and (d) observable type of visit (e.g., hiker/walker, sightseer, trainpassenger, shuttlebus rider, etc.). Beyond observable characteristics, other variables such asreason for visiting, length of stay, time in Park, and so forth were all established during theinterviews.

As described in the VEA Plan (Appendix B), respondents were purposively selected to ensure aswide a range of perspectives as possible. Each respondent group was selected because there wasevidence that the group was different from all previous groups in some significant way. Forexample, if a family with children had just been interviewed, the strategy for recruiting asubsequent respondent might include looking for a group that did not include children. Or if agroup with members who had limited mobility was interviewed, a subsequent interview mightseek out an active hiking group. In addition, general physical characteristics were noted.Respondents were not asked any demographic information (such as race, ethnicity, or age), butwhen it was offered during the course of the interview, it was noted. All recording of age, race,and/or ethnicity was based solely on the researchers observation, or when a visitor offeredunsolicited information.

During most of the interviews, photographs of the buildings were shown to respondents(Appendix A), especially when the interviews were conducted out of sight of the buildings.Respondent groups were given a token of appreciation (a small set of Grand Canyon magnets) atthe conclusion of the interview.


13/103


Throughout each day on-site, researchers completed individual debriefs to review and flesh outtheir interview notes in detail, compare the new data with previous data, reflect on the overallfindings, and identify new issues, questions, and recruiting strategies for subsequent interviews.Regularly throughout the data collection period, the three researchers met in group debrief

sessions to share findings, compare and contrast data, identify emerging themes, and decide onfollow-up strategies.

The interviews in this study ranged from three minutes to forty minutes with an averageinterview length of nineteen minutes. The most frequent interview length was 25 minutes. A totalof 20 hours were spent conducting 63 interviews (with a total of 147 respondents), with anadditional 36 hours spent debriefing.

Focus GroupAs described in the VEA Plan (Appendix B) two focus groups were planned, one with touroperators, and the other with shuttle bus drivers. However, because the data collection period

landed during the busy spring break season, it was not possible to recruit enough tour operatorsto form a focus group. As a result, one focus group was conducted with nine purposively selectedshuttle bus drivers. All drivers were with Paul Revere Transportation, the shuttle busconcessionaire to the Park. All shuttle-bus drivers were selected because they were experienceddrivers, and had extensive experience interacting with park visitors. Experience ranged from 5years to 15 years with Paul Revere Transportation.

The focus group was conducted on April 14, 2014 from 1-3pm, and was immediately followedby a one-hour group debrief between the facilitator and another researcher who observed andrecorded the session. See Appendix J for the focus group protocol.

The purpose of the focus group was to extend and triangulate the range of visitor perspectives.Shuttle bus drivers in the Park facilitate upwards of six million boardings each year and haveacquired a wealth of experience and first-hand knowledge about Grand Canyons visitors. Theircollective perspectives and insights further enriched this study and were a significantcontribution to the findings.

Literature InsightsThroughout the VEA process, and particularly during the latter stages of the interviews and focusgroup, several linkages to collateral literature emerged. As a result a variety of sources wereconsulted that either helped explain some of the findings or helped clarify implications for the

project. In general, these insights emerged from the disciplines of recreation and leisure, naturalresource management, tourism, social science, decision science, learning and cognition,motivation, and visitor studies. Specifically, models and research in natural resource values,visitor capacity, recreation experience opportunities, and moments of truth emerged asparticularly useful for explaining the project findings. These topics and their relevance to thefindings and implications of this effort are discussed in the remainder of this report.


14/103


1.6. Assumptions and Limitations

The findings and discussion presented in this report represent the sum total of results from themethods and sources of data summarized above. As such, the following assumptions andlimitations are recognized.

On-site interviews were conducted in April as the busy spring/summer visitation was just

beginning to swell. While a wide range of visitor perspectives was gathered during the Aprildata collection time, if interviews had also been conducted during other seasons andvisitation periods, particularly low season visitation times, additional perspectives may havesurfaced.

The on-site interviews were conducted exclusively in English. If interviews had been

conducted in other languages, additional perspectives may have surfaced. In addition, therewere limited interviews conducted with young visitors. While some children under 18 yearsof age were included in this study with parents permission, most respondents were adults.

Four-and-a-half million visitors visit Grand Canyon National Park each year. This study was

designed to be a quick and cost-effective way of bringing the visitor to the table. Due to

limited resources (both time and money), the study was designed to (a) look at a wealth ofavailable information in terms of what is already known about Grand Canyon visitors fromthe research and literature, (b) couple it with the ongoing internal discussions and debateswithin GRCA, and (c) add in findings from some first-hand conversations with visitors andshuttle bus drivers who interface with visitors frequently. This study is notnor was it everintended to bean extensive exploration into what the four-and-a-half million visitors eachyear need and want. Rather, the intent of this project was to explore and suggest aspects ofthe visitor voice that might be relevant for pending decision-making related to therepurposing of the Industrial Complex. The discussion, recommendations, and implicationspresented in this report (Sections 3 and 4) collectively consider the interviews, the focusgroup, visitation documentation, research literature, stakeholder discussions, previous

planning projects, and the researchers collective professional expertise and experience. Thisreport and recommendations are not intended to direct any decisions. Rather, the visitor voicecontained herein is but one factor that should be considered when weighing and makingdecisions about repurposing the Industrial Complex

1.7. Tips for Reading this Report

Details about the context and rationale for this study are included in the VEA Plan (AppendixB), rather than in the body of the report. In particular, the first four pages of the VEA Planinclude an overview of the project, as well as an aerial photograph of the entire IndustrialComplex (with buildings labeled), which was the focus of this project. A detailed descriptionof the methods and methodology as well as the selection of respondents is also part of theVEA Plan.

Findings are presented in this report primarily in narrative format with a minimum of statistics.Naturalistic inquiry is a descriptive methodology, rather than a predictive one, thus enabling thereader to hear from visitors in their own words (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In accordance withstandards for reporting naturalistic data, we use the adjectives all, most, many, some,few, and none to describe general tendencies as opposed to absolutes (Wolf & Tymitz, 1981).


15/103


Many direct quotes from respondents are included in the report to support some of the

findings. Verbatim or nearly verbatim quotes are presented in italics(without quotationmarks). In choosing comments to use, quotes were selected that best exemplified the pointsto be made, in the clearest manner. The number of quotes following each theme is notnecessarily an indication of how many respondents expressed that sentiment. It is merely an

indication of how many respondents expressed that sentiment succinctly or what variancethere was in expressing that sentiment.

The term respondentis used to refer to the specific individuals and/or groups who

participated in this study during the April on-site data collection. The term visitor is used torefer to the people who visited the Park during the period of time of this study. For example,when the following phrase is used: most respondents said xyz, it refers specifically to thevisitors that were interviewed in April. Alternatively, when the following phrase is used:most visitors experienced xyz, it means that the composite data gathered for this report arestrong enough to indicate that xyz was likely an experience shared by most visitors to thePark during the time of the study.

In this report, we use non-sexist language whenever possible which sometimes obscures the

gender of a respondent. In doing so, we have chosen to replace the false generics he andhis, and the awkwardness of he or she and his or hers, with they and their.Grammarians may object to this obvious lack of agreement in number. Given the choicebetween (a) agreement in number, (b) agreement in gender, and (c) less awkward prose, wehave opted for the latter two (Miller & Swift, 1980, p. 35-47).

A number of terms, definitions, and acronyms were used throughout the VEA process and in

this report. These can be found in Appendix G.


16/103


SECTION 2. RESULTS FROM THE APRIL SITE VISIT

As noted previously, this VEA was a limited holistic approach to help the Park incorporatevisitor-centric thinking into the planning process. In addition to the document reviews andparticipant observations described above, hearing directly from visitors (and those who interface

directly with visitors) was critical to this study.

This section of the report isolates and presents the findings that emerged specifically from thevisitor interviews and shuttle bus driver focus group, data that was gathered during the April sitevisit described in Section 1.5 above. Four primary issues framed this aspect of the datacollection: What activities and services (related to the repurposing effort) are important to visitors? What types of overall experiences do visitors value? What topics and stories are visitors most interested in? How do visitors notice and think about the IC buildings and plans for their repurposing?

For a more detailed look at the many issues that were discussed with respondents, see AppendixC. While this section of the report focuses exclusively on the conversations with respondentsduring the April 2014 site visit, in Sections 3 and 4 these findings are fully integrated with theother findings from the VEA effort. The first section of this chapter describes the respondentsand their experiences. The second section presents what they told the researchers during theinterviews and focus group.

2.1. Description of Respondents

During this part of the study, 63 interviews and one focus group were conducted with a total of 156respondents. The respondents included 126 adults and 30 children (88 female and 68 male) from avariety of countries. Most were from the US, with others from the United Kingdom, France,Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Canada, Mexico, Finland, Switzerland, and Italy. Their ages

ranged from approximately 7 years old to 80 years old. Respondents included a range ofracial/ethnic backgrounds including Middle Eastern, Latino, African American, Indian, Asian,Native American, and White. (See Tables 1, 2, and 3 below.) Respondent groups ranged in sizefrom single visitors up to eight visitors. Thirteen of the 63 visitor groups included at least one child.

Table 1. Respondent Ages Table 2. Race/Ethnicity Table 3. Countries (by group)Ages Female Male Race/Ethnicity n Country n

< 20 years 13 11 White (US) 92 USA 51

20-40 years 16 9 White (other) 27 United Kingdom 2

41-60 years 31 30 Middle Eastern 10 France 2

> 60 years 19 18 Latino 9 Australia & New Zealand 2

don't know 3 6 African American 8 Belgium 1Subtotal: 82 74 Indian 5 Canada 1

Total: n = 156 Asian 3 Mexico 1

Native American 2 Finland 1

Total: n = 156 Switzerland 1

Italy 1

Total: n = 63


17/103


18/103


Fossil FanaticsThis woman was visiting with her husband and 10-year old daughter from Virginia. She hadbeen to Grand Canyon once before; this was her husband and daughters first time. They were atGrand Canyon for two days and two nights, with reservations to do a rim mule ride the following

day. (107 and 109)

This woman (and her daughter) had just returned from a fossil ranger talk, and she bubbled withenthusiasm about all they had just learned: layers of geology, how the universe was formed, whyearth explodes. She said she couldnt stop asking questions because the ranger reveals so much.During the ranger talk, she had taken a photo (using her phone) of the geologic chart the rangerhad shared so she could study it and learn the rock layers. She also said she wanted to go into thegift shop and buy a book on geology and that she was going to sign up for a geology class.Although she admitted she had not always been interested in fossils, she came across as someonewho is naturally curious about many topics and generally loves to learn. Her husband describedher as someone who always goes to every museum.

Dirt BikingThis was a man visiting on the train with his wife and sons family. The couple was in their late50s, and they were waiting for the rest of their family at the top of the metal steps overlooking thePowerhouse. A self-proclaimed dirt biker, he said that he didnt like environmentalists who onlywant to close down access everywhere. He described how great our God is that he created [theGrand Canyon] for us to use, and now, all the environmentalists want to stop me from doing what Iwant to do. Later in the interview he admitted to being somewhat interested in the mules. (319)

Grapes and Carrots

This young couple visiting from the city, admitted they were used to a diet of burgers, fries, andbeer. However, they said that on this trip to Grand Canyon, they purposefully brought naturalsnacks such as grapes and carrots because they felt it seemed more consistent with the naturalenvironment that they planned to experience. He explained that the National Park was a catalystfor both of them to adjust their own behavior. He explained later that now theyve seen thecanyon, they both want to lose weight so they can come back and ride the mules down into thecanyon. (205)

The Canyon Gift GiversThis three-generation groupconsisting of a grandmother, her daughter (and husband), and

granddaughterhad a common thread of gifting or being gifted a Grand Canyon experience. Thegrandmother visited Grand Canyon long ago and said she was deeply moved by the experienceand knew she wanted to somehow share it with her daughter. When her daughter graduated (inabout the early 1990s), the grandmother gave her daughter a raft trip down the Colorado Riverthrough Grand Canyon. The daughter said she too was overcome by the experience, though sheonly saw the canyon from the river looking up. She vowed that some day she would come backto see the Grand Canyon from the rim. Now the daughter is married and is mother to a teenagedaughter of her own. This trip was this moms gift to her daughter, the third generation. This


19/103


time however, it was received with a slightly different attitude. The mom explained that thegrand vistas were impressive to her teenage daughter (who had never seen anything like themgrowing up in Virginia), but that they didnt keep her from reading a book, complaining abouthiking so much, and asking about where they could get a burger and fries. (222)

The CowboyThis self-described cowboy, by himself at one of the Hermit Road overlook stops, was ex-military and law enforcement. He explained he wasnt much for cities, and loved to be outside.He said,I like being my own explorer, but the Grand Canyon stopped me in my tracks. He saidhe was amazed by the canyon, and described it as a marvel, a work of art, amazing, and a thingof wonder, and that the enormity of it was overwhelming for him. The inspiration this visitor feltfrom the canyon was so powerful that he said he wanted to bring his blind son (age 34) back nextyear. He admitted he wasnt sure how that would work, but he wanted to try to share themagnificence of this place with his son. (217)

The BackpackersThis woman and her two teenage sons had just come up from the bottom of the Canyon wherethey stayed overnight in the cabins at Phantom Ranch. She said she has been coming to GrandCanyon at least once a year for the past 20 years, always to do hiking. She said she lives in Mesa,AZ (just east of Phoenix and Tempe) and has backpacked to the bottom about 15 times, goingdown South Kaibab and coming out Bright Angel. She explained that whenever she bringspeople to the bottom for the first time, she wants them to thoroughly enjoy their experience, soshe tries to make it easy for them by booking a cabin rather than camping. As an avid hiker, shesaid, why do we come here if its not for the walking? She also stressed however that she wouldreally appreciate an opportunity to learn more history about the Canyon, concluding thatI amalways into museums. (105)

The Finnish CoupleThis couple (probably in their 30s) explained that they were on their second day of a two-dayvisit to Grand Canyon, and that they had walked the Rim Trail, watched the sunset, and eaten ina few restaurants. She said she had been to Grand Canyon twice before and wanted to show it toher husband who had never visited; they were on holiday and had traveled from Los Angeles.They said they loved the bignessof the canyon but felt a little crowded with all the people. Shesaid, we like small enclaves out of the way, where its quiet and we can enjoy the place. (320)

The Sisters

These two teenage sisters were in the Park with their family for the day, as part of a longersouthwest trip. They had spent much of the day walking around the rim area between El Tovarand Bright Angel Trailhead, viewing the canyon, shopping, eating, and using their cell phones.They were against the idea of any kind of museum and explained that this place would be boringif all [the shops and restaurants] werent here. (318)


20/103


This is only a brief glimpse into the visits of eleven different Grand Canyon visitors. Capturingthe diverse unique perspectives of Grand Canyon visitors was an important part of the interviewprocess, and this report includes the insights and experiences of 52 additional groups interviewedin the process. As decisions are made regarding the future of the Industrial Complex, it will beimportant to remember these many voices. The rich perspectives and insights of visitors can help

determine what will best serve the public at large, while at the same time honoring the mission ofthe Park Service and maintaining the integrity of this particular park.

2.3. Visitor Values and Experiences

Grand Canyon attracts a large number of diverse visitors who, not surprisingly, embrace a widearray of values about what it means to go to a national park. A number of studies done for theGrand Canyon include information about visitors (Appendix H), but in our conversations withrespondents, they talked about the importance of being outdoors, being in a quiet place, solitudeand nature, beauty, hiking, shopping, and being with family and friends. They talked aboutcoming to Grand Canyon as an item on their bucket list, as part of a pilgrimage, to share a placethey love with others, as part of a larger southwest or western exploration, and much more.

In exploring the question about the types of overall experiences visitors value at the Park,emergent data from the interviews is organized below using two different frameworks from therecreation literature. First, the values and meanings expressed by visitors about the Park aresummarized, followed by a summary of some of the types of experiences respondents talkedabout.

ValuesSocial psychology defines valuesas our codes of internal conduct or universal principles uponwhich we run our lives and make decisions (Rokeach, 1973). Values are beliefs that are

important to us in our lives, for example, security, success, pleasure, and independence. They areabstract goals that transcend specific actions and situations. They are also individual andinextricably tied to emotion (Schwartz, 2006). That is to say that a value important to one personmay not be important to another.

Although a thorough examination of human values was beyond the scope of this study, thevalues research can be useful in this context. Recent research in natural resource values (e.g.,Rolston, 1981; Zube 1987; Brown & Reed, 2000) points to a number of values that people holdabout nature, recreation, and their enjoyment and use of natural resources. Not surprisingly, inour discussions with visitors, many of these values emerged.

Table 4 includes examples of some of the ways visitors talked about their visits to GrandCanyon, ways that echo many natural resource values. Value labels that correspond to theresearch related to natural resource values are shown in the left column (e.g. Clement & Cheng,2011). Words and phrases offered by visitors in describing what value or meaning the GrandCanyon holds for them is shown in the right column. (A more detailed description of each ofthese value domain labels is provided in Appendix K.) These values are important for the Park toconsider in moving forward with plans for the repurposing of the Industrial Complex.


21/103


Table 4. Selected Natural Resource ValuesValue Words Used by Respondents

AestheticIts beautiful here; the beauty; natural beauty, serenity, beautiful views why else would you

come here; quiet and peaceful.

SpiritualIts inspiring, unbelievable, extraordinary, awesome, monumental, impressive; it leaves me

speechless; I feel so insignificant, the bigness.

FutureIts part of America, part of our heritage, part of our tradition; we need to save if for future

generations.

Historic The history/preservation of this place is important.

Cultural Its a wonder of the world; one of a kind; a must see; unique.

Biodiversity Untouched nature; protected nature; preservation of nature; fresh air; its a Park.

Intrinsic We love the outdoors; just knowing its here is important.

Learning I like learning about the unknown; we learn things here.

Recreation We like to walk, hike, explore.

Recreation ExperiencesThe recreation literature also provides some valuable guidance related to different types ofrecreation experiences. The work of Driver, Tinsley, and Manfredo (1991) provides an extensiveand rigorously tested set of Recreation Experience Preference (REP) items that represent a rangeof desirable recreation experiences. The REP items are frequently used in survey research tocapture the extent to which recreationists seek specific experience opportunities for variousoutdoor recreation or natural resource areas.5

Since the VEA was not a survey research project, experiences were not deliberately captured asthey might be using a scale item questionnaire. Instead, in this study the REP categories wereused to help categorize emergent findings from respondent interviews as they talked about theircanyon experiences in many different ways. Table 5 arrays the range of recreation experiencepreferences respondents expressed in roughly descending order.

Again, because this was not the intentional focus of this project, there are some experiences thatwere not mentioned at all.This does not suggest that visitors to the canyon do not have or seekthese experiences. It merely suggests that conversations with the respondents in this study didnot mention these experiences. To thoroughly examine visitors recreation experiencepreferences, a more detailed ROS-based study would have to be done. There are undoubtedly

other experience preferences relevant to a canyon visit. Here, the intent is to simply arrayrespondent experience notions using a model well accepted in the recreation literature.

5This work is also tied to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) discussed later in Section 4.8.


22/103


23/103


away, you destroy it and you can never get it back (109); you cant get rid of them (210);absolutely dont knock them down (216); save the buildings (219).

In contrast, a few respondents indicated that they felt that the buildings should be removed: tearthem down! too often we preserve everything, even if its junk (203); these buildings arent old

enough to be that important(204). There were also a few respondents who said they had noopinion:I dont care what you do with the buildings(319).

Interpret the BuildingsMany respondents indicated an interest in having the buildings themselves interpreted (109, 201,222, 325). For example, one couple stated that interpreting the buildings is criticalit creates animportant outdoor part of the experience (323). Another family suggested that the Park couldtellhow the building was used and where the materials came from to build it (324). Others offered:tell the story of the buildings what they were used for, why, and when (202); interpret [thebuildings] original functions (218); leave the buildings and tell me how theyve been usedthrough the yearshow things were done back in those days (224).

A few different respondents suggested providing some sort of outdoor self-guided opportunityfor visitors to learn about the buildings:Id enjoy a self-guided trail around the buildingstolearn more about them we would definitely do that (320). Another respondent explained thatthey would use a written guide to explore the buildings to learn more about how the Powerhousewas part of the story of power at the canyon (324).

Develop a (Museum) CampusThe idea of developing the IC area into some type of campus with some museums appeared toresonate with many respondents, especially if the campus was developed in an understated way

with comfortable seating, shade, and some amenities: clean up the ugly industrial area make ita walking campus plant native species, concentrate the parking in one place, and remove someof the pavement(203). Some respondents appeared to feel strongly that if the complex wasdeveloped into a museum campus, the outdoor aspect of it would be just as important as insidethe buildings: make the outdoor area part of the experience too(323). A few respondentscautioned against making the area overly commercialized: You dont want to overdo it. Keep itnatural, not kitschy (103);keep it a little less developed [than Bright Angel Lodge area] - not socrazy. (320)

2.5. Possible Uses for the Buildings

During the course of the interviews, respondents talked about many different possible uses for

the buildings. These uses are categorized below into those related to interpretation or education,and those related to amenities or visitor services. This is then followed briefly by respondentscomments and concerns about overdevelopment.


24/103


2.5a. Interpretation and Education

Many respondents suggested possible educational and/or interpretive functions for the buildings.

MuseumsFor some respondents, their first reaction upon seeing the photographs of the buildings--

especially the Powerhouse (217, 303, 323)was to suggest a museum(224, 323, 322, 217, 215). Somerespondents suggested particular types of museums: to tell the stories of geology, plants, animalsand native Americans(322); to show what it was like in the beginningearly adventurers andnative American myths and legends(215); a hands-on childrens museum for families (221); andmainly as a general history museum (224, 221).

Some respondents indicated that a history museumin particular would be of interest. Onerespondent suggested, a history museum something like the feel of the Smithsonian acombination of stuff thats old and new (201).

Some respondents suggested an art museum: [the historic buildings would be] a good place to

display art (209); an art gallery I really liked seeing art of the Grand Canyon (103); particularlyan art museum thatdisplays local art only(220).

Some respondents mentioned an anthropology museum, particularly one with a focus on NativeAmerican cultures...there could be a museum of human anthropologyheavily integrated withlocal Native American cultures. You could have an Indian making something and talking about

why they are making itand how it relates to their tribe. There are Native Americans aroundwho would bring life to a museum like this(109).

A few respondents seemed less interested in a museum. One couple had been at the Canyon for fivedays and felt they hadnt covered everything yetthere is enough already at the canyonthe

people who think there needs to be more stuff here should maybe look inside themselves rather thanout here for more stuffthe Park is not a babysitter (205). Other respondent groups explainedthiswhole thing [the canyon] is a museumthere are enough opportunities alreadythere are ruinsdown the road and the Trail of Time is great. I came here to be outside (204); there are so manyexisting opportunities at the visitor center, art studio, Desert View, geology museum, there is really

no need [for a museum]...people cant absorb all thats already here (203).

Educational Learning or Training CentersA few respondents suggested a variety of different types of educational learning or training centers.One respondent brought up the need to educate visitors who will be hiking. They describedatraining center for beginning hikers to simulate a hike and to teach about what to expect, like dontfeed the wildlife, take plenty of water(312). Other groups suggested an educational center orresearch center specifically for adults (327, 307, 109)where workshops in nature study or arts andcrafts could be offeredor where adults could participate in ongoing [citizen science] projects. Insuggesting this however, one group wondered if people would sign up and made the point that itwould have to be heavily communicated to induce people to attend courses.

6

6Along these lines however, readers should note that many Parks (e.g., Rocky Mountain NP, Yellowstone NP) have

very successful adult education workshop programs run by associated concessionaires (RMNA, YA).


25/103


Some respondents mentioned educational opportunities for youth. Specifically, one mothersuggested the buildings be used for some type of kids camp, where the Girl/Boy Scouts orNavigators [a youth organization that has a strong philosophy of connecting kids, nature,personal responsibility, and social justice]could spend some time (109).Similarly, a family groupsuggested that the buildings mightserve as a summer camp for teenagersfor them to come live

here for two weeks and do trail maintenance and other conservation things (108). A group ofgraduate students traveling from the eastern United States together suggested that the buildingscould be usedfor a summer camp program of some kind that would draw youth here to learnabout nature (327). This group also mentioned the possibility of SAT campsthat are anincreasingly popular academic option for kids in grades 4-12 to prepare for academic testing in acamp-like setting.

Locations That Might Serve as ModelsThroughout the interviews, when talking about possibilities for the IC campus, respondentsmentioned a number of model locations or properties that came to mind. These included a widerange of types of organizations, including some that incorporate repurposed historic buildings: Colonial Williamsburg (204)or similar places that re-create in first person how people lived in

another time(306). A ski village or similar kind of place that has a variety of fun things to do together as a

family(108). Folsom Prison Powerhouse (204), now a State Park and a popular California landmark. Artspace Loveland(323), an historic Feed and Grain complex in Loveland, Colorado which is

now being developed into a sustainable mixed-use community art campus with affordablelive/work spaces for artists and a home for creative businesses.

Sutters Mill (224), the modern reconstruction of the famous mine associated with the 19

thcentury gold rush.

Biltmore Estate (328), the famous historic area in North Carolina, which is a lucrative

commercial enterprise today. Route 66 Museum (106)was cited as an example of how an existing powerhouse had been

repurposed into a museum.

2.5b. Service and Amenity Ideas

In addition to respondents suggesting many educational/interpretive uses for the buildings, manyalso suggested facilities to provide additional amenities, such as food and lodging.

Lodging OptionsIn the interviews some respondents offered suggestions related to more or different housing.Some simply suggested a need for more lodging(204, 300, 221, 314, 207). This need seemed to bedriven by both availability and cost(211). One respondent said wetried to get lodging on site, butit was full and very expensive (314).Another said [we] searched online and saw El Tovar, but it

was booked and other places looked like military barracks.[We]wish there were more niceaccommodations (207).This respondent, in reference to the historic building photos, then gave anexample of a repurposed cannery that had been made into a nice boutique hotel.


26/103


Some respondents indicated that they would particularly like lodging options that were simple,and affordable, and hostel-like accommodations. As one respondent said,Im going forwhatever is cheap I tend to stay at Maswik or Yavapai. Id love to stay at Bucky ONealscabin because of the history but Ive never been able to get in[A hostel] would be awesome, Iwould love thatits so common in different countries (105).

A few other groups also mentioned the idea of affordable hostel accommodations. One suggestedperhaps a hostelthere seems to be lots of kids, so a hostel-type place to stay with children for3-4 days would be good(317). Anothers initial reaction to the photos was more lodging, and thenthey added, but not a lodge, something more for backpackersand not paying through the teethfor itcomfortable but not flashy(210). A couple from the UK, in referencing the size of theMule Barn,7suggested that building would be useful for affordable lodging that is clean andreasonably-priced, like an international hostel(305). And a trio traveling from France remarked,we just want a nice place to stay but we dont want to pay too muchI just need somethingsimple, a bed, bath, hot water, but no TV, no fancy stuff (322). This group voiced cordialfrustration about how expensive it was to stay at the canyon and repeatedly referred tosimple

needs of the middle classin their comments.

Dining OptionsMany respondents brought up the need for additional dining options. In offering thoughts aboutfood service, some respondents talked about a desire for more local and organic offerings(322,323, 224, 207), as well as the need for additional caf-type venues where one could get agood cupof coffeeand/orgood bakery items(311, 220, 300)and possibly ice cream (300, 309). Two differentrespondent groups mentioned a themed cafsuggesting that Grand Canyons sense of place behonored in the development of additional food service (101, 207).

One respondent group indicated a desire for a Starbucks (104), but other respondents strongly

urged the Park to avoid food courts or fast food like McDonalds or Subway (205, 323, 304, 221).

Food cost and serviceappeared to be important criteria for many respondents. There appeared tobe a perception among many respondents that food at the Park is expensive (203, 208, 314, 305)andwaits are long (302, 105). An alternative, modest, affordable, and sit-down food venue appeared tobe desirable for some respondents, like a step up from a cafeteria [such as Maswik and Yavapai]and a step down from El Tovar or Arizona Room(105). One respondent felt the prices at thecanyon generally were fairly reasonable, but wanted a dining option less expensive than BrightAngel but less crowded than the pizza bar at Maswik (320). And one large family group wishedfora reasonable option that could seat all 13 of them (314).

One couple, who particularly appreciated the existing amenities at the canyon in general (e.g.,shade structures, water stations, trash/recycling bins, outdoor seating), cautioned that, whereassome level of food or drink service would be necessary at the IC complex, it should be offered ina supporting role, not as a feature of that area (323).

7This is not the building currently housing the mules (the Livery Stable) but the original Mule Barn, as shown in

Appendix A.


27/103


Beverage/Bar OptionsThere were indications that some visitors would enjoy a brew pub type experience. For example,one respondent group thought that a brew pub would be a good idea if it also served wine. Theywent on to imagine visitors watching a sports event on TV and even having a Karaoke night(104). A different adult female respondent said,sure; why not [have a brew pub], for the men?

(102). Another couple said they had arrived late at the Park the night before and had dinner atYavapai cafeteria, commenting, its not very good. They definitely need a brew pub (108). A pairof RV campers said they really wanted a place to have a drink of wine with a view (221). And yetanother said,I wouldnt mind having an option to go for a drink at night without the kids (207).

In contrast, many respondents indicated that they were against a brew pub. One group said theywere trying to get away from the noise and glitz of places like Las Vegas and appreciated thequiet at the canyon (201). One family suggested that the canyon is a place for families andkidsthis is no place for a Brew Pub unless you want a bunch of drunks walking around (206).

For a number of reasons, some respondents indicated that they felt that bars and drinking were

incompatible with the Grand Canyon experience. One couple described, if I eat a burger andhave a beer Im gonna feel yuckythat wouldnt make my body feel the way I want to feel here[at the canyon] (204). This was a couple whose visit to the Canyon was likely transformative interms of how being outdoors and walking around at this Park suggested to them a particularhealthy attitude toward eating. Others voiced this notion of incompatibility with a nature-basedexperience as well: [going to a brew pub]is not why people would go to Grand Canyon (101).One mother said that they were busy during the day and that we are too tired to do much at night(305). One group voiced some ethical concerns about a brew pub because of the water needed tosustain such an enterprisethe idea of a brew pub is just not sustainable [in this area] (203).Another respondent explained well, with my business hat on, [the Powerhouse] would make afantastic place for a pub, but with my ethical had on, this makes more sense as a museum (305).

A few people were on the fence about the bar idea, offering, it might be ok, but it wouldnt beimportant for us as we brought our own wineand a brew pub might increase the number of rescueoperations and thus the costs for everyone(103);you could use the money you make with a pub tocover the cost of what you do in a museum(304); we dont need a bar, we just need a bottle of wineand our big rocks to sit on (309); not a brew pubthe world has enough brew pubsbut we visitedthe bar at Old Faithful Inn in Yellowstone and really liked it. It has the same dcor as 1920, and itwasnt loud. It was a place for a quiet evening; relaxed, not high energy (201).

EntertainmentA few respondents indicated they might appreciate the buildings as a place related to games or

entertainment for children.One father from NJ suggested a game room for kidshave arcadesor something to do with kids at night(300). However, some respondents felt strongly that arcadeexperiences were inappropriate at Grand Canyon, modern day kids have too muchindulgencekids need simple things here and you have so much plants, animals, trees, rocks Im all about no more indulgence! (109). Other respondents offered similar sentiment: as parentswe try to keep away from the arcade thingskids carry [their technology] with them all the time(306); absolutely NO play stations! Teddy Roosevelt would not want a game arcade! An arcade isnot appropriate at a National Park (314); a game arcadewe dont need that here! (320).


28/103


29/103


30/103


information about the condor program (218). In another group with young children, the familydescribed their interest in wild animals, the sounds they make and what their fur/feathers feel like(325). And another family indicated they wanted more about animal habitats, specificallymountain lions, and more about native plants(310).

Geology

Not unexpectedly, many respondents also indicated an interest in topics related to geology. Oneparticular group, having just attended a ranger talk, appeared over-the-top excited about topics ofthat presentation particularly fossils, rock layers, and how the universe was formed. This groupseemed passionate about learning in general, but appeared very stimulated by the Ranger talk ongeology (109). Another respondent wished for a way to label the stratathis is a million years[old] theres no place to learn that (221). And yet another respondent (who said they wereinterested in geology generally) voiced a specific interest in how the vegetation might havelooked at the various ages of the rock layers throughout history (301).

Beyond a fairly broad general interest in geology (e.g., rock types, rock layers), some respondentgroups indicated an interest in how the canyon was carved.These groups specifically envisioned

a film, 3D animation, or some type of simulationshowing how the river cut the canyon downthrough the Colorado Plateau (206, 213, 325, 320).

And one elderly gentleman who admitted he was going blind mentioned that he loved feeling thesample rocks on the Trail of Time(212).

Explorers and VisionariesMany respondents were interested in the history of the area, and some of these respondentssuggested some sort of movie or video about area history (304, 310, 320, 206, 313). For example,one retired couple said, we would love a movie about the history of the Grand Canyon - who

lived here, how it has changed, how it became a park, and the future of this place (224). Anothergroup suggested a Ken Burns type movie to help you understand the history here like thevisions of Mather, Albright, and Roosevelt for making this place a Parkalso about what it waslike here early when the area was discovered you know how Coronado came here but didnt

find what he was looking for (304).

Other respondents suggested interpretingthe lives of the key playersand what this park waslike before it was a National Park; how the Park has had an impact on this area in terms of

commerce (207); who were the first white people here? (401). One respondent specificallymentioned the old west, early pioneers, gold panning and what cowboys did back then (and whatthey still do in America) (217).

River HeritageSome respondents indicated that they were curious about the river and its heritage. This did notappear to be a topic that was on many visitors minds, although the idea of learning more aboutthe river resonated with some respondents (216, 217, 219, 105, 209). Some respondents were curiousspecifically about the boats (early boats,where do the boats go?)and thought that seeing actualboats would be fun (105, 209). One respondent suggested reconstruction of important boats, withmannequinsto depict Colorado River history (303).


31/103


Other respondents indicated they were more interested in the river itself, where is the river (401);what does it look like going down the river (103); what is the view like from the bottom looking up(207); how do they get boats down to the river (209); etc. In addition, some were interested instories of the river and particularlyearly river travel and explorations(219). One group askedwho were the first rafters and explorers on the river(304). Another suggestedshowing who

explored the river, like Lewis and Clark, or whoever(106). One group was interested inseeinghow the river flowed wildly all the way down through the canyon (312).

Popular Media EventsA few respondents in the focus group indicated that some Park visitors are also interested inpopular media eventsthat happen at the Canyon, for example, where the Brady Bunch saw thecanyon, whereEvil Knievelrode his bike over the canyon, where the recent tightrope walkerwalked across the canyon, where Thelma and Louisedrove their car of the cliff, and so forth (401).

Death and Accidents

There were also indications that some Park visitors have questions about the numbers andmanner of deaths and accidentsat the canyon (401).

The MulesMany respondents appeared interested in the mules both as transportation and recreation. (103,108, 109, 201, 312, 401). One train visitor admitted that he was not particularly interested in history,but he was interested in the mules and suggested getting the old mule equipment to put it in amuseum(106). Respondents shared ideas about seeing, petting, riding, or otherwise interactingwith and learning about the mules. One family, in talking about the IC buildings simply said,letme go see the mules and tell me how theyve been used though the years (224). Some wanted toride them(323); others wanted topet them(104). A family with a large number of children said

they were generally curious about them(325). Still another respondent said they would beinterested in seeing the mules(319). One respondent however said, no mule tours(201).

Nighttime ActivitiesWhile some respondents indicated that after a busy day in the Park they were pretty much donefor the daywe are so tired from all the other outdoor activities during the day that there is noneed for night activities (306)some indicated their interest in topics and activities well-suitedfor evening. One respondent suggested telescopesfor viewing the night sky (204). In anothergroup, one young respondent suggested an illuminated trail for night explorationor ranger talksabout the night skies (306). The idea of night exploration was echoed by one respondent who

mentioned ranger talks at night for kids, but then another respondent added, if they needentertainment (at night) then they need to go to the city(309).

2.7. History as a Unifying Concept

Many respondents indicated that history could be a useful and meaningful unifying theme forany kind of interpretive endeavor at the IC. As one respondent noted, the [History Room] attheBright Angel Lodge is such a small museum compared to the history of this place; I could eat

way more history of this place! (105). One family talked about the interpretation at Grand Canyon


32/103


33/103


see the mules (224); have a snack or meal (108); sit outside in the shade (323); see some exhibits(214); learn some new stuff (103); watch a Native American performance (104); draw or paint a

picture (103); ride a bike (203); etc.

Its Cold Out There

Some respondents talked about the desire to have indoor opportunities that dont involveshopping especially when the weather becomes a challenge (for example, too cold, windy, rainy,or snowy). For example, one couple from Europe who were biking the Park and camping in thecampground, said that the stores all have the same thing so there is no need to shop, but perhapsa coffee shop with a really nice bakerya relaxing place inside when its a little cooler outsidewould be good (311). Similarly, another group commented,we need someplace to go inside whilewaiting for the bus (104). Repurposing the historical buildings might serve the purpose of anindoor respite for some visitors.

Desire for Learning Opportunities

Some respondents indicated that they were naturally curious and wanted to delve deeper into allkinds of topics relevant to the canyon experience. As one respondent explained, wed like moreeducational information about the cultural history here (310).

Something More for the KidsSome respondents said they were looking for additional activities for their children. As twoparents explained with the kids you can only hike for a couple of hours, then you look for otherthings to do (216); last night there was nowhere to go with my son (300).

I Want to See What I Cant See

A few respondents indicated that they would like to be able to see or learn about something theywould not otherwise be able to see or experience, for example, Havasu Falls, the Colorado River,certain wildlife, views of the rim from inside the canyon, or historical artifacts. A repurposed ICcould serve these visitors.

2.8b. Barriers that Might Prevent People from Visiting IC Campus

Desire to be OutdoorsAs described in Section 2.3 above, many visitors come to Grand Canyon because they valuebeing outdoors, interacting with nature, appreciating the views, and being in close proximity tothe rim and the canyon. One international couple, in talking about repurposing the buildings,

said, but why go inside when you can see it all outside (303). Several other comments byrespondents reinforce this notion, for example, its the view why else would you come [toGrand Canyon] (304); we love the outdoors its beautiful (311, 315); Id rather be outside (222); Icant imagine coming here to do anything but be outside at the rim (219);our primary goal iswalking (301); we came to get away from the citywe just need a few rocks to sit on (309);I camehere to be outsideif I wanted to be inside Id have gone to Vegas (204). Although these visitorsmight go to a developed area away from the rim, it would likely not be among their top desiredexperiences during their visit to the Park.


34/103


No Perceived NeedOn the other hand, a few respondents offered: if visitors need entertainment, then they need togo to the city (309); orthere are so many existing opportunities here visitor center, art studio,Desert View, geology museum that people cant absorb all thats heretheres really no need

for a museum (203). Similarly, one respondent cautioned, dont overdo it like Yosemite, especiallywith things not related to the Park, for example ice skating (307).

Accessibility and MobilityFor those visitors who have mobility issues8, the distance to the IC from Bright Angel Lodge orEl Tovar maybe a challenge. A few respondents talked about the challenges they might face ingaining access to a repurposed IC: what about all those stairsit would have to have easyaccess and be well-signed if you were going to put a museum (over) there (222). One respondentwho had recently had knee replacement surgery saidIm surprised at so many stairs (202). Onegroup said they probably wouldnt go across to the IC area because its too far off the beaten

path (201).

One respondent group talked in detail about the range of issues that would likely be associatedwith getting visitors across the railroad tracks so that the IC campus might be accessible: Thismight involve changing bus routes, creating different/new sidewalks and ramps, changing the

size of buses (to vans), addressing traffic issues, and addressing the mule smells in the summer(401).A different conveyance like mules and wagons was offered as a unique possibility foraccessing that area. In any case, the range of mobility challenges faced by many Grand Canyonvisitors, even when most of the members of the visiting group do not have mobility issues,means that the industrial complex will need to be fully and easily accessible by foot and byshuttle bus to increase the likelihood that folks will visit.

Time ConstraintsVirtually all visitors to Grand Canyon are here to see the canyon first and foremost. Manyvisitors stay for less than a day at the canyon. For those on very short visits (e.g., tour and trainvisitors) and/or very focused visits (e.g. to go backpacking) opportunities at the IndustrialComplex may not be attractive since their time would most likely be used to appreciate theviews, take a short stroll, and perhaps purchase a snack or gift. As one respondent group stated[an IC campus] would probably not be used by a day-tripper, but would be best for peoplewho are here for a few days. A day-tripper would want to spend most of their time seeing thecanyon. It also probably would not be good for those folks who are going down into the canyonas that will be their focus (104).

2.9. Willingness to Pay for Added Experience

Some respondents expressed the opinion that there should be no additional fee charged for anadded museum experience. A separate entrance fee for a specific venue such as a museum wouldlikely inhibit some visitors from going to the campus, especially those for whom money is tight.

8which is all of us apparently. As one gentleman pointed outwe are all only temporarily-able(213).


35/103


Sentiments expressed by respondents included, any museum opportunity should be free or adonationyou should not have to pay to go in because youve already paid an entry fee [to the

Park] (104); it should be freeI paid $25 to get in (201); the entry fee needs to cover it (204);Ithought it would be covered in the $35 admission?! (206).On the other hand, one respondent saidthat the price of Park admission is too low (203).

However, some respondents suggested they would be willing to pay an additional fee to visit amuseum or educational facility. Some respondents suggested amounts of $5-10 extra per family,while others suggested $5-8 per person. One group said they would pay $10/family if it wassuper cool (207).Another woman said,I agree with paying extrathe people who come here areof an economic background that they arent worried about an extra $5-10 dollars. Its not a bigdeal(109).

More importantly, many respondents felt strongly that they didnt want to have to keep digginginto their pockets for extra fees during their visit. One respondent who was initially against anytype of fee, followed up by suggesting thatjust $2/per person would give you plenty of

operational money, but dont nickel and dime me like at Sea World where it costs $5 to feed theseal (204). Other respondent comments included: keep it free, but if you cant, add it onto theentry. We dont want to have to pull it out of pocket (103); we would not want to pay an extra feeat a different location but would be willing to pay like $40/car for the entire experience, butdont charge us separately (305); we would pay more if it was reasonable but not $40/perperson$100 per family is too expensive dont suck the money out of usdo one price for

entry, with options for add-ons if people want (306).

One group said they thought the $25 gate fee was very reasonable and so $30-35 would be ok,but qualified this comment by saying, if youre only adding one thing (a museum) it shouldntincrease the gate fee too much. They further noted, that sometimes things get cost-prohibitive forsome families and you dont want to exclude anyone from seeing or using it. Their finalpreference was that once they are in the Park they dont have to pay again (216).

Some respondents indicated that if it were clear that it was going to a good cause (i.e. to supportthe Park) it would be less of a burden. For example, it would be easier to pay if [a museum] wasmanaged by the Park, and if the money went back into the Park. Make it sustainable (103).

In another instance, a pair of adult couples reinforced this notion, and compared the idea ofpaying for a museum with an experience they had elsewhere:In a place near Branson, Missouriwe paid $23 per person to go see a Titanic Museum. They had artifacts from the ship and youcould touch ice to feel what an iceberg felt like. But it was not worth the moneyit was too

commercialized. But [we would pay for a well done history experience] if the money went for agood cause like maintaining the history or preserving the buildingsbut not if youre going tojust have a bunch more tchotchkes there is plenty of that already here(304).9

9Although the respondent comments above are informative on this topic, this study was not designed as an

exhaustive marketing study to thoroughly assess visitors willingness to pay. If it is determined that an additional fee

for service is required for successful renovation and/or maintenance of a repurposed IC, a more extensive market

study would reveal specifics including issues such as when and how to collect that fee.


36/103


2.10. Introduction and Orientation to the Park

Although this study did not set out to look at visitors introduction and orientation to the Park,some of the findings indicated that there may be important issues related to how some visitorsenter the Park and orient themselves. However, its important to note that, due to limitedresources, and because this issue was not a focus of this study, these findings were not

triangulated and redundancy was not reached.

There were indications that some visitors to the Park, upon arriving at the Grand Canyon VisitorCenter parking lots, bypass the Visitor Center, as well as most of the printed materials given atthe gate, and the signs and bulletin boards that contain Park introduction and orientationinformation (401). Most visitors first priority on arriving at Grand Canyon is seeing thecanyonand then they often start walking. For example, one respondent group said they hadevery intention of going back to the Visitor Center to get information but they started walkingand the views were so good that they kept going. They were then information-less, and asked theresearcher about the next available place to get something to eat (329).

It appears that the configuration of the Grand Canyon Visitor Center parking lot, alt

Grand Canyon Visitor Experience Analysis Final Report

Documents

Transcript of Grand Canyon Visitor Experience Analysis Final Report