Visitor Survey of Day-use and Overnight Visitors at South ... · project. Brian Fowler, Dylan...

Visitor Survey of Day-use and Overnight Visitors at

South Beach State Park

Final Report

Terry Bergerson

and

Jaclyn Rushing

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

2017

Visitor Survey of Day-use and Overnight Visitors at South Beach State Park

i

44

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Mark Needham and Randy Rosenberger at Oregon State

University, and Eric White with the U.S. Forest Service for their technical support for this

project. Brian Fowler, Dylan Anderson, Angela Biggs, Chris Duncan, Janice and Dominic

Westfall, and individuals at Reservations Northwest such as Arik Heidenreich are thanked for

their assistance with data collection. A special thank you is extended to all of the day-use and

overnight visitors who took time to complete questionnaires.


ii

44

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Objectives

Understanding opinions of park users about issues such as the quality of facilities, social and

resource conditions, and how they use these parks is critical to providing adequate programs and

services. Project objectives were to describe day and overnight user activities, demographic

characteristics, and opinions about conditions and management at this park and provide

recommendations for maintaining or improving conditions at this park.

Methods

Data were obtained from questionnaires administered to random samples of day users and

overnight visitors to the park between July 1 and September 1, 2017. Separate methods were

used for each of these visitor types. The total number of completed questionnaires was n = 758

with a response rate of 57%. Completed questionnaires were received from n = 281 day users

(75% response rate) and n = 477 overnight users (50% response rate). These combined sample

sizes across survey methods allow generalizations about the population of day users at South

Beach State Park at a margin of ± 5.8%, overnight users at ± 4.5%, and day and overnight users

at ± 2.7% at the 95% confidence level. The day-use visitor survey involved on-site intercepts.

The overnight visitor survey involved an internet survey of visitors who stayed overnight at the

park during the survey period and made a reservation through Reservations Northwest. Data

were weighted by day-use and overnight user population proportions calculated from a three year

average of park visitation statistics to ensure that responses were representative of the total

population of all users at this park.

Results

Personal and Visit Characteristics

The most popular activities were hiking / walking (81%), beachcombing (46%),

sightseeing (38%), and dog walking (33%). The least popular activities were horseback

riding (< 1%), clam digging, ranger-led programs, scuba / snorkeling (each 1%).

Participation rates did differ moderately between day users and overnight users for 13 of

these 26 activities.

The most common main activity groups were hiking / walking (30%), dog walking

(12%), bicycling on trails (7%), beachcombing and picnicking or barbecuing (each 6%).

The least common activity groups were boating (motor, canoe, kayak, 0%), clam digging

(0%), fishing, ranger-led programs, scuba / snorkeling, visiting the nature/visitor center,

and bicycling on local roads (each < 1%). Day users were significantly more likely to

consider hiking / walking, dog walking, and picnicking or barbecuing as their primary

activities, whereas overnight users were much more likely to consider camping as their

primary activity.

Day users spent an average of about three hours in the park, with 37% of users spending

two hours in the park. Overnight users spent an average of about three nights at the park;

the largest proportion spent two (27%) nights at the park. An additional 24% spent three

nights at the park, and 19% spent one night.

79% of visitors were non-local (driving 31 or more miles to reach the park) and another

16% originated 31 to 60 miles from the park. A significantly higher percentage of day-

use visitors (26%) than overnight visitors (1%) were local visitors (driving 30 miles or


iii

44

less to reach the park). Overnight users, on average traveled significantly farther (M =

374 miles) to visit the park than day visitors (M = 239 miles).

In total, 63% of respondents had visited this park before, whereas 37% had not visited

previously. Day user previous visitation (66%) was significantly higher than overnight

user previous visitation (54%). Although users had visited an average of twelve times in

the past 12 months, the highest proportion visited the park once (20%) or three to five

(20%) times before. On average, day users had visited significantly more times (M =

14.29) than overnight users (M = 1.31). For example, 43% of day users had visited six or

more times in the past 12 months while 1% of overnight users had visited six or more

times.

Average group size was about three and a half people. Groups most commonly consisted

of two people (33%). Overnight users were significantly less likely to visit alone (7%)

than day users (22%), and overnight users visited in significantly larger groups (M =4.32)

than day users (M = 3.19).

In total, 59% of park users did not bring dogs with them and 41% brought dogs.

Most users arrived at the park in their family’s personal vehicle (89%), 6% arrived in

somebody else’s vehicle, and 5% arrived in another form of transportation. On average,

there were 2.94 people in each personal family vehicle, 3.13 people in somebody else’s

vehicle, and 2.50 people in other forms of transportation. For all day-use vehicles, there

was an average of 3.36 people in the vehicle. For all overnight vehicles, there was an

average of 2.86 people in the vehicle.

62% of users considered this park their main destination with 68% of overnight users and

61% of day users considering it the main reason for their trip. There were no significant

differences in reasons for visiting between day users and overnight users.

If they had not been able to go to South Beach State Park for this visit, many visitors

would have gone to Beverly Beach State Park, Nehalem State Park, or any other state

park along the coast.

Physical Activity

85% of all visitors indicated that they did participate in moderate physical activity, while

38% indicated participating in vigorous physical activity. Day users were significantly

more likely to participate in vigorous physical activity (40%) than overnight users (25%).

42% of all visitors indicated that their level of physical activity during their visit to South

Beach State Park was about the same as their daily life, whereas 47% indicated it was

more, and 11% indicated it was less.

Park visitors reported their visit helped to improve mental health (84%), reduce stress

(84%), and reduce anxiety (81%). Day users reported significantly higher benefits for all

five of the health benefit categories.

Visitor Spending

The largest percentage of non-local day users reported spending $151-$350 (40%), $51-

$150 (22%), and $551-$1,000 (17%). The largest percentage of non-local overnight users

also reported spending $151-$350 (39%), $551-$1,000 (22%), and $51-$150 (18%).


iv

44

Altogether, day users and overnight users different significantly in their total spending

within 30 miles of the park.

Most visitors to South Beach State Park reported spending some money on gasoline and

oil (87%), restaurants and bars (84%), and groceries (77%).

52% of all visitors were staying away from home within 30 miles of the park with

significantly more overnight users (68%) than day users (49%) staying away from home.

Of those users staying away from home within 30 miles of the park, respondents

indicated staying an average of three nights (M = 3.68).

Obtaining Information about the Parks

Most users (98%) were able to find the information they needed when planning their

visit to this state park, and those (2%) who did not find the information they needed

would like more information about campsites (e.g., dimensions, availability, amenities).

The most heavily used sources of information were official internet websites (e.g.,

Oregon State Parks, Travel Oregon; 76%), previous visits (67%), and friends and family

(65%). The least used sources were health care providers (9%), videos or DVDs (10%),

and community organizations (10%). Day users and overnight users differed

significantly on twelve information sources.

Official internet websites (e.g., Oregon State Parks, Travel Oregon; 62%) was

overwhelmingly the first primary source used by most respondents, followed by friends

and family (13%), previous visit (9%), highway signs (5%), and brochures (4%). Few

people used other sources when obtaining information. There was a significant

difference between day and overnight users, with overnight users almost entirely

dependent on official internet websites as their primary source (87%). Day users were

also dependent on these websites (56%), but also used other sources such as family and

friends (15%), previous visits (10%), and highway signs (6%).

Satisfaction with Experiences and Conditions

Users considered the most important characteristics were the park’s cleanliness (e.g.,

lawn care, lack of graffiti; 97%), absence of litter (96%), and cleanliness of toilets (95%).

The least important attributes were facilities for groups to gather (31%), the number

(34%) and the quality (41%) of information / education programs or material, and

facilities for groups to gather (42%). There were differences among day users and

overnight users for thirteen of the 20 possible comparisons. Responses for three

additional items that were asked in the questionnaires administered only to overnight

users showed that 95% of overnight users considered the comfort of campsites to be

important, 94% believed that a good value for the fee paid at the park was important, and

90% believed that shading provided by trees and other structures was important.

Overall satisfaction was high, as 95% were satisfied and fewer respondents (5%) were

dissatisfied or neutral. In addition, the highest proportion of users was “very satisfied”

(64%).

Users were most satisfied with park cleanliness (96%), personal safety (91%), number of

toilets / bathrooms (89%), and absence of litter (88%). Users were least satisfied with the

number (53%) and quality of information / education materials (54%), and the facilities

for groups to gather (60%). There were differences among day users and overnight users


v

44

for twelve of the 20 comparisons. Overnight users were also satisfied with the good value

for fee paid in the park (88%), comfort of campsites (87%), and the shading provided by

trees (83%).

Most respondents were also satisfied with the natural environment (96%) and facilities

and services (89%). In total, 95% of respondents said they were likely to return to this

park in the future. Overnight users were significantly more satisfied with facilities and

services (93%) than day users (88%). Day users were significantly more likely to return

to this park in the future (97%) than overnight users (87%).

An Importance – Performance analysis showed that most park attributes were in the

“keep up the good work” category, indicating that users thought staff were doing a good

job managing conditions and experiences. There were, however, several attributes that

were important to users, but users were only slightly satisfied with these attributes. These

results indicate that managers should consider monitoring attributes such the cleanliness

of toilets / bathrooms in day-use areas and opportunities to escape crowds of people and

signs with directions to the park in overnight areas.

Almost all visitors (98%) to South Beach State Park would recommend the park to their

friends or family. Day users were significantly more likely to recommend the park to

others (99%) than overnight users (95%). Reasons respondents indicated they would not

recommend the park were crowding in the campground, campsites too close together, and

mosquitoes.

The most common outstanding features and things to do involved (a) the beach, (b)

accessibility, (c) hiking / walking, (d) trails / paved paths, (e) location (close to Newport,

other parks, the beach), (f) plenty of parking, (g) cleanliness, (h) campgrounds, and (g)

yurts.

43% of all park users felt some degree of crowding on their visit, with significantly more

overnight users (72%) than day users (37%) feeling crowded. According to Shelby,

Vaske, and Heberlein (1989) and Vaske and Shelby (2008), these results suggest that

crowding in the day-use areas are in the “low normal” range, where access, displacement,

or crowding problems are not likely to exist at this time and overnight areas are in the

“more than capacity” range, where further studies and management actions focusing on

social carrying capacity may be necessary to preserve the quality of experiences at the

park.

Attitudes About Programs and Management Strategies

45% of users would consider participating in such a program at a nearby park. From

those who indicated overall interest in Let’s Go programs, the most popular programs

birding (24%), kayaking (23%), stargazing (22%), hiking (20%), and camping (18%).

The least supported Let’s Go programs were mountain biking (9%), and disc golfing

(9%). The most frequently mentioned “other” programs were survival skills (edible

plants, first aid, orienteering), and outdoor photography.

Users most strongly supported strategies to provide more recycling containers (78%),

more opportunities for viewing wildlife (72%), more trash cans (69%), more

opportunities for escaping crowds (69%), and improve maintenance of facilities / services

(67%). The least supported strategies were to close park to all recreation/ tourism


vi

44

activities (7%), limit the number of people allowed per day (19%), and downloadable

mobile phone applications (27%).

A majority of overnight users supported mosquito control in campground (larvicide,

75%), campsites with both RV and tent camping (66%), more space between campsites

(55%), and increased enforcement of quiet hours (55%). They were least supportive of

providing more group camping areas (17%), walk in/ cart in campsites (17%), and more

tent camping in developed campgrounds (24%).

There was overall low support for service reductions in the park. The highest support was

for reducing ranger-led programs (15%), ground maintenance (15%) and ranger patrols

(11%). The lowest support for reducing janitorial services (4%), scaled down facilities

and services (6%), and fewer hours open (7%).

The most popular type of campsite was an RV site (72%). In addition, 19% stayed in

yurts, 17% of overnight users stayed in the tent campsites, and few stayed in other

accommodations.

Overnight users reported that if they were to stay at an RV or tent campsite (75%) would

need 30 amps, (13%) would need 50 amps, and (10%) would not need electric power.

Few users (1%) would need 100 amps. The availability of electric (91%) and water

(83%) hookups were more important than sewer (44%) hookups.

In total, 86% of overnight users reserved their visit using the internet reservation system,

9% used the telephone reservation system, and 5% did not make the reservation. Second,

users were asked to report their satisfaction with the reservation system, which was

somewhat high with 88% satisfied and 12% not satisfied.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Users

There were more female (55%) than male (45%) users.

The average age of visitors was 54 years old and the largest proportion of users was 60 to

69 (34%).

The average annual household income before taxes of respondents was $70,800, and the

largest proportion of users had incomes from $50,000 to $69,999 (21%). Visitors to

South Beach State Park are generally wealthier than the Oregon population at large

(Oregon median household income in 2015 was $54,148). The average annual household

income of day users ($69,400) was significantly lower than overnight users ($78,200).

Most respondents were white (i.e., Caucasian; 86%) with some Asians (5%), Hispanic /

Latinos (3%), and Black / African Americans (2%). Overnight users had a significantly

higher proportion of whites / Caucasians (92%) than day users (85%).

Almost all respondents (95%) considered English as the primary language spoken in their

homes.

Among park users, 58% of users lived in Oregon, 21% lived in California, 4% resided in

Washington, 3% lived in Canada and 14% lived elsewhere. Among park users, 29% lived

in the Willamette Valley region of Oregon, 23% lived in the Portland Metropolitan

region, 13% of park users resided in the Coastal region, 5% lived in Central Oregon, 2%

lived in Southern Oregon, 2% lived in the Mt. Hood / Gorge region, and 1% lived in the

Eastern Oregon. The largest percentages of overnight users were from the Portland Metro


vii

44

(24%) and the Willamette Valley (21%) regions, whereas day users came primarily from

the Willamette Valley region (31%) and the Oregon Coast (28%) region. A majority of

day users lived in Oregon (78%), Washington (8%), and California (4%). Overnight users

resided in Oregon (57%), Washington (12%), California (8%), and Idaho (4%).

In total, 82% of users said that nobody in their group had a disability, whereas 18% had

at least one group member with a disability. Of those who had a disability, the most

common was associated with walking (14% of park users), while 5% had a hearing

disability, 1% had a learning disability, < 1% had impaired sight, and 1% had other

disabilities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Management Recommendations

Based on these results from surveys of day and overnight users, the following recommendations,

in no particular order, are proposed for management of South Beach State Park:

Almost all day and overnight users traveled to this park in their own vehicles (89%), so

adequate parking is important and should be considered in planning and management.

The average number of visitors per vehicle for South Beach State Park day-use visitors

(3.36) was lower than the current FMS assumption of 4.0 visitors per vehicle. Park

managers may want to use this updated figure in future day-use visitation calculations for

the park.

Almost half of overnight users (45%) and day users (40%) brought dogs with them to this

park, so it will be important to ensure adequate facilities to accommodate dogs and their

owners (e.g., pick up bags, signs specifying regulations or restrictions), especially in the

overnight camping areas. Managers may want to consider examining enforcement of

existing pet regulations in the day and overnight areas as 57% of all visitors supported

requiring dogs be on leash at all times.

Most users (95%) were satisfied with their experiences and the conditions at this park.

Satisfaction, however, was consistently lower for the number (53%) and quality of

information / education materials (54%), and the facilities for groups to gather (60%).

Managers may wish to evaluate these services to users to ensure they are meeting visitor

needs.

Users were also somewhat less satisfied with the ease of movement / access (wheelchair,

elderly, stroller; 68%). Given that 43% of park visitors were over the age of 60 and 18%

of users had disabilities (14% with disabilities related to walking), managers may want to

consider evaluating access throughout the park and perhaps even obtaining a current

ADA or related audit.

Approximately 43% of all park users felt some degree of crowding on their visit, with

significantly more overnight users (72%) than day users (37%) feeling crowded. These

results suggest that crowding in the day-use areas are in the “low normal” range, where

access, displacement, or crowding problems are not likely to exist at this time and

overnight areas are in the “more than capacity” range, where further studies and

management actions focusing on social carrying capacity may be necessary to preserve

the quality of experiences at the park.


viii

44




(67%). A majority of overnight users supported mosquito control in the campground

(larvicide, 75%), more campsites with both RV and tent camping (66%), more space

between campsites (55%), and increased enforcement of quiet hours (55%). Managers

may want to consider some of all of these strategies.








The visitor spending analysis showed that non-local overnight visitor party spending was

substantial, with the highest percentage reporting spending $151-$350 (39%), $551-

$1,000 (22%), and $51-$150 (18%) on their trip (within 30 miles of the park). Most

visitors reported spending some money on gasoline and oil, restaurants and bars, and

groceries. A more extensive visitor spending analysis of this data set is being conducted

by the U.S. Forest Service and will be available in a separate report. Park managers may

want to use the USFS report findings to help inform local community leaders about the

positive impact of South Beach State Park visitor spending on the local economies.


friends or family. The most common reasons respondents indicated they would not


mosquitoes. Park managers may want to address these issues in future management

actions.

The largest proportion of users (62%) depended on official internet websites as the first

primary source of obtaining information about state parks such as South Beach State

Park, and the majority of overnight users (86%) reserved their spot at this park using the

online / internet reservation system. Given these findings, it is imperative for staff to

ensure that agency and park internet websites are easy to navigate, up to date, and

provide comprehensive information.

Almost all park visitors (98%) were able to find the information they needed when

planning their visit to South Beach State Park. However, some visitors (2%) were not

able to find all information needed. The most popular information needed was about

campsites (e.g., dimensions, availability, amenities). This type of information could be

added to the South Beach State Park website.

Users also provided 215 verbatim open ended comments on what they found to be the

most outstanding features or things to do at South Beach State Park. The most common

outstanding features and things to do involve (a) the beach, (b) accessibility, (c) hiking /

walking, (d) trails / paved paths, (e) location (close to Newport, other parks, the beach),

(f) plenty of parking, (g) cleanliness, (h) campgrounds, and (g) yurts. This information

could be added to the South Beach State Park website to inform future visitors regarding

what other visitors feel are the most outstanding features at the park.


ix

44

Users provided 333 verbatim open ended positive and negative comments, and

suggestions for possible improvement of South Beach State Park and other park related

issues. The most common concerns raised involved: (a) bathroom maintenance and

upkeep, (b) many loose dogs and children, (c) crowding in the campground, (d) lack of

space and privacy in the campground, (e) mosquito abatement, (f) more recycling bins,

(g) more dump stations, (h) more yurt availability, and (i) the loud foghorn. Park

managers may want to address these issues in future planning efforts.


x

44

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... x

List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................ xii

Introduction and Objectives ....................................................................................... 1

Methods...................................................................................................................... 1

Onsite Survey of Day Users ........................................................................... 1

Internet Survey of Overnight Users ............................................................... 2

Sample Sizes and Response Rates ................................................................. 2

Results ........................................................................................................................ 4

Personal and Visit Characteristics ................................................................. 4

Activity Groups ........................................................................................ 4

Duration of Visit ...................................................................................... 6

Distance Traveled .................................................................................... 7

Previous Visitation ................................................................................... 8

Group Size ............................................................................................... 8

Bringing Dogs to the Park........................................................................ 9

Transportation to the Park ........................................................................ 9

Reasons for Visiting ................................................................................. 10

Alternatives to Visit ................................................................................. 10

Section Summary ..................................................................................... 10

Physical Activity and Other Health Benefits ................................................. 12

Section Summary ..................................................................................... 13

Visitor Spending ............................................................................................ 14

Section Summary ..................................................................................... 16

Obtaining Information About the Park .......................................................... 17

Section Summary ..................................................................................... 19

Satisfaction with Experiences and Conditions ............................................... 20

Overall Satisfaction .................................................................................. 20

Satisfaction and Expectations with Specific Characteristics ................... 20

Importance – Performance Analysis ........................................................ 23

Outstanding Features ............................................................................... 27


xi

44

Perceived Crowding ................................................................................. 27

Section Summary ..................................................................................... 27

Attitudes About Programs and Management Strategies ................................ 29

Let’s Go Program Interest ........................................................................ 29

Attitudes About Management Strategies ................................................. 30

Overnight Campsite Use .......................................................................... 32

Overnight User Requirements.................................................................. 32

Section Summary ..................................................................................... 34

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Users .................................................. 35

Section Summary ..................................................................................... 38

Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 39

Management Recommendations .................................................................... 39

References .................................................................................................................. 42

Appendix A. Open-Ended Comments ...................................................................... 43

Positive Comments ........................................................................................ 43

Negative Comments and / or Issues for Improvement................................... 44

Appendix B. Questionnaires ..................................................................................... 58

Appendix C. Uncollapsed Percentages ..................................................................... 73


xii

44

LIST OF TABLES

1 Sample sizes and response rates for each survey approach ....................................... 2

2 Comparison of day and overnight users for recreation activities at the park ............. 5

3 Comparison of day and overnight users for primary activity at the park ..................... 6

4 Duration of visit at the park ....................................................................................................... 7

5 Comparison of day and overnight user distance traveled to the park ........................ 7

6 Comparison of day and overnight user previous visitation to the park ..................... 8

7 Comparison of day and overnight user number of previous visits

to the park in the last 12 months ................................................................................ 8

8 Comparison of day and overnight user group size at the park ................................... 9

9 Comparison of day and overnight users bringing dogs with them to the park .......... 9

10 Comparison of day and overnight user transportation to the park ............................. 10

11 Comparison of day and overnight users in whether the park

was their main destination ......................................................................................... 10

12 Comparison of day and overnight user participation in moderate and physical

activity during visit .................................................................................................... 12

13 Comparison of day and overnight user level of physical activity at South Beach to

daily life ..................................................................................................................... 13

14 Comparison of day and overnight user health benefits related to park visitation ...... 13

15 Comparison of day and overnight users, local / non-local......................................... 14

16 Comparison of day and overnight total spending, dollars per party per trip ............. 15

17 Comparison of percent of day and overnight party spending of any dollars

in eight spending categories ....................................................................................... 16

18 Comparison of day and overnight user nights staying away from home

within 30 miles of park .............................................................................................. 16

19 Comparison of day and overnight users in whether they

found the information needed .................................................................................... 17

20 Comparison of day and overnight user use of information sources........................... 18

21 Comparison of day and overnight users for primary information source .................. 19

22 Comparison of day and overnight user overall satisfaction ....................................... 20

23 Comparison of day and overnight user specific expectations at the park .................. 21

24 Comparison of day and overnight user specific satisfactions at the park .................. 22

25 Comparison of day and overnight user likelihood of returning

and satisfaction with the park fees, facilities, and environment ................................ 26

26 Comparison of day and overnight user recommendation of park

to friends and family .................................................................................................. 26


xiii

44

27 Comparison of day and overnight crowding evaluations .......................................... 27

28 Comparison of day and overnight user consideration of participating

in “Let’s Go” programs .............................................................................................. 30

29 Comparison of day and overnight user attitudes about management at the park ...... 31

30 Comparison of day and overnight user support of possible service

reduction at the park................................................................................................... 32

31 Overnight campsite use at the park ............................................................................ 32

32 Overnight user power supply needs ........................................................................... 33

33 Overnight user importance of RV hookups ............................................................... 33

34 Overnight user reactions to the reservation systems .................................................. 33

35 Comparison of day and overnight user demographic characteristics ........................ 36

36 Respondent location of residence .............................................................................. 37

37 Comparison of day and overnight user disabilities .................................................... 38

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Importance-performance (I-P) analysis matrix .......................................................... 23

2 Importance-performance (I-P) analysis matrix for day users .................................... 24

3 Importance-performance (I-P) analysis matrix for overnight users ........................... 25

Visitor Survey of Day-use and Overnight Visitors at South Beach State Park 1

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The Oregon State Parks system provides public access to a collection of the state’s outstanding

natural, cultural, scenic, and outdoor recreation resources. Understanding the opinions of park

users regarding issues such as the quality of facilities, recreational opportunities, social and

resource conditions, and how they use these parks is critical to providing effective facilities,

programs, and services. Project objectives were to describe day and overnight user activities,

demographic characteristics, and opinions about conditions and management at this park and

provide recommendations for maintaining or improving conditions at this park.

METHODS

Data were obtained from questionnaires (see Appendix B) administered to randomly selected

samples of day and overnight users at South Beach State Park between July and August 2017.

Separate survey methods were used for each of these visitor types — on-site (face to face) for

day users and electronic (email, internet) for overnight users. Questionnaires administered to

overnight users were basically identical to those administered to day users, but contained a few

additional questions specific to overnight activities (e.g., camping). Each day user or overnight

user contacted only completed the full length questionnaire once using only one of these

methods, not multiple times using more than one approach.

Onsite Survey of Day Users

Day users 18 years of age and older who visited South Beach State Park between July 1 and

August 6, 2017 were approached in person (face to face) and asked to complete the six page

questionnaire onsite at this park. Onsite questionnaires were necessary because personal contact

information (e.g., home mail and email addresses, telephone numbers) required for alternative

approaches such as telephone or mail surveys are not available from day users, as OPRD does

not regularly collect this information from these users. Day users were asked if they would be

willing to complete the questionnaire and asked to immediately complete and return the full

length questionnaire onsite. Questionnaires were printed on both sides of two legal sized (8 ½ x

14) pages and folded into a small booklet, and took most respondents approximately 15 to 20

minutes to complete. Respondents were provided with a clipboard and pen to complete the

questionnaire onsite. Two volunteers (e.g., Camp Hosts) administered these questionnaires to

reduce costs.


Internet Survey of Overnight Users

Random samples of overnight users 18 years of age and older were contacted via email and

directed to complete the questionnaire on the SurveyMonkey internet website

(http://www.surveymonkey.com/). OPRD and Reservations Northwest collect contact

information such as email addresses from overnight users when these users reserve their camping

spot through the agency telephone or internet reservation systems. A single completion option on

the SurveyMonkey website was used to ensure that respondents did not complete the full length

questionnaire more than once.

Users were sent a first email letter that requested their participation by completing an internet

questionnaire, provided standard verbiage regarding recruitment / consent and length. A week

after this initial email, a second email letter was sent to those who had not yet completed the

internet questionnaire stressing the importance of the study, emphasizing anonymity and

confidentiality, and requesting participation. A third final email letter was sent to those that had

not yet completed the questionnaire. No further email letters were sent, so users were considered

a nonresponse if they did not complete the internet questionnaire following these three email

letters. Email letters requesting participation were sent between July 20 and September 1, 2017.

These emails and internet questionnaires were administered by researchers at the Oregon Parks

and Recreation Department.

Sample Sizes and Response Rates

As shown in Table 1, the total number of completed questionnaires across all survey approaches

was n =758 with an estimated total response rate of 57%. Completed questionnaires were

received from n = 281 day users (75% response rate) and n = 477 overnight users (50% response

rate). These combined sample sizes across survey methods allow generalizations about the

population of day users at South Beach State Park at a margin of 5.8%, overnight users at ±

4.5%, and day and overnight users at ± 2.7% at the 95% confidence level.

Table 1. Sample sizes and response rates for each survey approach

Initial contacts Completed surveys (n) Response rate (%)

Day Users 375 281 75

Overnight Users 959 477 50

Total 1332 758 57

https://surveys/


Table 1 also shows that the total number of completed questionnaires for overnight users (n =

477) was higher than day users (n = 281). Between 2015 and 2017, however, a much larger

proportion of the total population of users at South Beach State Park consisted of day users.

Actual population estimates for day users, for example, ranged from 783,092 in 2015, to 805,642

in 2016, and 825,162 in 2017 compared to just 170,433 overnight users in 2015, 168,010 in

2016, and 177,972 overnight users in 2017. These average use levels across the three years from

2015 to 2017 show that approximately 82.4% of users at South Beach State Park were day users

and 17.6% were overnight users. The sample for this project, however, consisted of 37.1% day

users and 62.9% overnight users. Consequently, in the results sections reporting findings only for

all users taken together (i.e., total users at South Beach State Park), the data were weighted by

population proportions calculated from the three year average using the following formula

(Vaske, 2008) to ensure that questionnaire responses were statistically representative of the total

population of all users at this park:

Weight = Population %

Sample %

Weight (day users) = 0.824

= 2.22 0.371

Weight (overnight users) = 0.176

= 0.28 0.629

Questionnaires administered to both the day users and overnight users included questions on a

range of topics such as prior visitation, activity participation, visitor spending, satisfaction,

support of management, and demographic characteristics. Results in this report are grouped into

subsections according to these questions. Within each subsection, analysis is conducted on

potential differences between day users and overnight users. Percentages, crosstabulations, and

bivariate statistical tests were used to analyze and present results. These tests produce p-values

and when a p-value associated with any statistical tests (i.e., 2, F) presented in this report is p <

.05, a statistically significant relationship or difference was observed between groups or

variables. In addition to these tests of statistical significance, effect size statistics (e.g., Cramer’s

V, eta η) were used to compare the strength of relationships. In general, a value of .10 for effect

sizes can be considered a “minimal” (Vaske, 2008) or “weak” (Cohen, 1988) relationship or

difference. An effect size of .30 is considered “medium” or “typical,” and .50 or greater is a


“large” or “substantial” relationship or difference; larger effect sizes imply stronger relationships

or differences. To highlight key findings, data were often recoded into major response categories

(e.g., agree, disagree; support, oppose), but basic descriptive findings of uncollapsed questions

(i.e., strongly, slightly agree) are provided in Appendix C.

RESULTS

Personal and Visit Characteristics

Activity Groups. The questionnaires asked respondents to check all of the activities in which

they participated at South Beach State Park on their most recent trip. Table 2 shows that the most

popular activities at this park were hiking / walking (81%), beachcombing (46%), sightseeing

(38%), and dog walking (33%). The least popular activities were horseback riding (< 1%), clam

digging, ranger-led programs, scuba / snorkeling (each 1%). Participation rates did differ

moderately between day users and overnight users for 13 of these 26 activities: beachcombing,

bicycling on trails and local roads, bird or wildlife watching, picnicking or barbecuing,

sightseeing, outdoor photography, visiting the nature/visitor center, kiteboarding, crabbing,

boating (motor, canoe, kayak), windsurfing, and clam digging. The most popular other activities

were: relaxing / playing in the sand and disc golf.


Table 2. Comparison of day and overnight users for recreation activities at the park

User Group a Effect size

Day Users Overnight Users Total b χ

2 value p value Phi ()

Hiking / walking 81 83 81 .46 .496 .03

Beachcombing 43 61 46 16.13 < .001 .15

Sightseeing 34 59 38 27.04 < .001 .19

Dog walking 32 37 33 1.17 .279 .04

Picnicking or barbecuing 22 41 25 19.10 < .001 .17

Outdoor photography 18 28 20 6.84 .009 .10

Swimming / wading 17 21 18 1.33 .249 .04

Bird or wildlife watching 16 88 28 262.12 < .001 .61

Bicycling on trails 14 30 17 15.53 < .001 .15

Kite flying 14 15 14 .20 .656 .02

Other c 10 7 10 .87 .350 .03

Visit nature / visitor center 7 18 9 13.50 < .001 .15

Running or jogging 7 7 7 .02 .895 .01

Surfing / boogie boarding 7 4 6 2.75 .097 .06

Kiteboarding 6 1 5 9.28 .002 .09

Bicycling on local roads 5 15 6 13.81 < .001 .15

Crabbing 3 17 6 27.81 < .001 .22

Fishing 3 2 3 .19 .662 .02

Boating (motor, canoe, kayak) 2 8 3 12.30 < .001 .15

Ranger-led programs 1 1 1 .48 .487 .02

Windsurfing 1 5 2 4.22 .040 .08

Clam digging 1 11 3 28.40 < .001 .23

Scuba diving / snorkeling 1 < 1 1 2.74 .098 .05

Horseback riding < 1 < 1 < 1 .78 .377 .02

Camping -- 88 -- -- -- -- a Cell entries are percentages (%) of users who reported participating in the activity at the park on their most recent visit.

Percentages do not sum to 100% because respondents could check more than one activity from the list. b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. c The most popular “other” activities was: sandboarding, playing on the playground, and relaxing in the sand.

Respondents were then asked to specify the one primary activity in which they participated most

often during their recent visit to South Beach State Park. Table 3 shows that the most common

primary activity groups were hiking / walking (30%), dog walking (12%), bicycling on trails

(7%), beachcombing and picnicking or barbecuing (each 6%). The least common activity groups

were boating (motor, canoe, kayak, 0%), clam digging (0%), fishing, ranger-led programs, scuba

/ snorkeling, visiting the nature/visitor center, and bicycling on local roads (each < 1%). Day

users were significantly more likely to consider hiking / walking, dog walking, and picnicking or

barbecuing as their primary activities, whereas overnight users were much more likely to

consider camping as their primary activity.


Table 3. Comparison of day and overnight users for primary activity at the park a

Day Users (%) Overnight Users (%) Total (%) b

Hiking / walking 34 14 30

Dog walking 13 5 12

Bicycling on trails 7 7 7

Picnicking / barbecuing 7 1 6

Kiteboarding 6 < 1 5

Beachcombing 6 10 6

Other 6 0 5

Sightseeing 5 4 5

Surfing / boogie boarding 5 1 4

Kite flying 4 < 1 3

Outdoor photography 2 1 2

Bird or wildlife watching 1 < 1 1

Windsurfing 1 < 1 1

Surfing / boogie boarding 5 1 4

Crabbing 1 2 1

Running or jogging 1 0 1

Swimming / wading 1 < 1 < 1

Fishing < 1 1 < 1

Ranger-led programs < 1 2 < 1

Scuba diving / snorkeling < 1 0 < 1

Visit nature / visitor center < 1 1 < 1

Bicycling on local roads 0 2 < 1

Boating (motor, canoe, kayak) 0 < 1 0

Clam digging 0 < 1 0

Camping -- 51 9 a χ2 = 312.86, p < .001, V = .71.

b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users.

Duration of Visit. Day users were asked to report how many hours they spent at South Beach

State Park on their recent trip and overnight users were asked how many nights in a row they

spent at the park on their trip. Table 4 shows that, on average, day users spent approximately

three hours in the park, with 37% of users spending two hours in the park.

Overnight users spent an average of about three nights at the park; the largest proportion spent

two (27%) nights at the park (Table 4). An additional 24% spent three nights at the park, and

19% spent one night.


Table 4. Duration of visit at the park

Day Users (Hours)

1 hour 28

2 hours 37

3 hours 18

4 to 5 hours 19

6 to 9 hours 7

10 or more hours 1

Mean / average hours 2.76

Overnight Users (Nights)

1 night 19

2 nights 27

3 nights 24

4 nights 14

5 nights 7

6 or more nights 9

Mean / average nights 3.00 1 Cell entries are percentages (%) unless specified as means / averages

Distance Traveled. Respondents were also asked to report about how far from home they

traveled to get to the park. Table 5 shows that 79% of visitors were non-local (driving 31 or more

miles to reach the park) and another 16% originated 31 to 60 miles from the park. A significantly

higher percentage of day-use visitors (26%) than overnight visitors (1%) were local visitors

(driving 30 miles or less to reach the park). Overnight users, on average traveled significantly

farther (M = 374 miles) to visit the park than day visitors (M = 239 miles).

Table 5. Comparison of day and overnight user distance traveled to the park a


30 miles or less 26 1 21

31 to 60 miles 17 8 16

61 to 90 miles 9 13 9

91 to 120 miles 12 14 13

121 to 150 miles 10 12 10

151 to 250 miles 7 13 9

251 to 500 miles 9 20 9

501 or more miles 10 20 13

Mean / average c 239.13 374.10 252.76

a χ2 = 74.04, p <.001, V = .29.

b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. c t = 3.01, p = 003, rpb .13


Previous Visitation. Users were asked if they had ever visited South Beach State Park before

their most recent trip. Table 6 shows that 63% of respondents had visited this park before,

whereas 37% had not visited previously. Day user previous visitation (66%) was significantly

higher than overnight user previous visitation (54%).

Table 6. Comparison of day and overnight user previous visitation to the park a


Yes, visited park before 66 54 63

No, not visited park before 34 46 37

a χ2 = 6.02, p = .014, < .09.


Users who had previously visited this park were then asked how many trips they had made to

this park in the past 12 months. Table 7 shows that although users had visited an average of

twelve times in the past 12 months, the highest proportion visited the park once (20%) or three to

five (20%) times before. On average, day users had visited significantly more times (M = 14.29)

than overnight users (M = 1.31). For example, 43% of day users had visited six or more times in

the past 12 months while 1% of overnight users had visited six or more times.

Table 7. Comparison of day and overnight user number of previous visits to the park in the last 12 months a


0 Trips 11 22 13

1 Trip 15 44 20

2 Trips 9 24 11

3 to 5 Trips 22 10 20

6 to 12 Trips 19 1 16

13 to 24 Trips 13 0 11

More than 24 Trips 11 0 9

Mean / average trips c 14.29 1.31 12.17

a χ2 = 191.170, p < .001, V = .63.

b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. c t = 7.84, p = .001, rpb=.16.

Group Size. Respondents were asked to report how many people, including themselves,

accompanied them at South Beach State Park on their most recent trip. Table 8 shows that the

average group size was about three and a half people. Groups most commonly consisted of two

people (33%). Overnight users were significantly less likely to visit alone (7%) than day users


(22%), and overnight users visited in significantly larger groups (M =4.32) than day users (M =

3.19).

Table 8. Comparison of day and overnight user group size at the park a


1 Person (alone) 22 7 20

2 People 34 30 33

3 or 4 People 30 35 31

5 to 10 People 11 23 13

11 to 25 People 3 5 3

More than 25 People < 1 < 1 < 1

Mean / average c 3.19 4.32 3.50

a χ2 = 69.414, p < .001, V = .31.

b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. c t = 3.68, p = < .001, rpb =.14.

Bringing Dogs to the Park. The questionnaires asked day users and overnight users if they or

anyone else in their group brought dog(s) with them to South Beach State Park. Table 9 shows

that 59% of park users did not bring dogs with them and 41% brought dogs.

Table 9. Comparison of day and overnight users bringing dogs with them to the park a


No, did not bring dog(s) 60 55 59

Yes, brought dog(s) 40 45 41

a χ2 = 1.73, p = .189, = .05.


Transportation to the Park. Respondents were asked how they got to South Beach State Park on

their most recent trip. Table 10 shows that almost all users arrived at the park in their family’s

personal vehicle (89%), 6% arrived in somebody else’s vehicle, and 5% arrived in another form

of transportation. On average, there were 2.94 people in each personal family vehicle, 3.13

people in somebody else’s vehicle, and 2.50 people in other forms of transportation. For all day-

use vehicles, there was an average of 3.36 people in the vehicle. For all overnight vehicles, there

was an average of 2.86 people in the vehicle.


Table 10. Comparison of day and overnight user transportation to the park a


My family’s personal vehicle c 88 94 89

Somebody else’s personal vehicle d 6 2 6

Other e 6 4 5

a χ2 = 8.18, p =.017, V = .11.

b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. c Number of people in vehicle: mean / average = 2.94 (1-2 people = 52%, 3-4 people = 34%), day user = 2.73, overnight = 3.01. d Number of people in vehicle: mean / average = 3.13 (1-4 people = 80%), day user = 3.27, overnight = 3.06. e Number of people in vehicle: mean / average = 2.16 (1-4 people = 94%), day user = 1.55, overnight = 2.50.

Reasons for Visiting. Visitors were asked if this park was the main reason for their trip. Table 11

shows that 66% of users considered this park their main destination with 68% of overnight users

and 61% of day users considering it the main reason for their trip. There were no significant


Table 11. Comparison of day and overnight users in whether the park was their main destination a


Primarily for recreation – this

park was main destination

61 68 62

Primarily for recreation – main

destination was not this park

29 25 28

Primarily for business, family,

or other reasons – park was side

trip

8 4 7

Some other reason 3 2 3

a χ2 = 6.34, p =.096, V = .09.


Alternatives to Visit. Respondents were also asked to specify what other park they would

consider going to if they had not been able to go to South Beach State Park for this visit, many

visitors would have gone to Beverly Beach State Park, Nehalem State Park, or any other state


Section Summary. Taken together, results in this section showed that:

The most popular activities were hiking / walking (81%), beachcombing (46%),

sightseeing (38%), and dog walking (33%). The least popular activities were horseback

riding (< 1%), clam digging, ranger-led programs, scuba / snorkeling (each 1%).

Participation rates did differ moderately between day users and overnight users for 13 of

these 26 activities.


The most common main activity groups were hiking / walking (30%), dog walking

(12%), bicycling on trails (7%), beachcombing and picnicking or barbecuing (each 6%).

The least common activity groups were boating (motor, canoe, kayak, 0%), clam digging

(0%), fishing, ranger-led programs, scuba / snorkeling, visiting the nature/visitor center,

and bicycling on local roads (each < 1%). Day users were significantly more likely to

consider hiking / walking, dog walking, and picnicking or barbecuing as their primary

activities, whereas overnight users were much more likely to consider camping as their

primary activity.

Day users spent an average of about three hours in the park, with 37% of users spending

two hours in the park. Overnight users spent an average of about three nights at the park;

the largest proportion spent two (27%) nights at the park. An additional 24% spent three

nights at the park, and 19% spent one night.

79% of visitors were non-local (driving 31 or more miles to reach the park) and another

16% originated 31 to 60 miles from the park. A significantly higher percentage of day-

use visitors (26%) than overnight visitors (1%) were local visitors (driving 30 miles or

less to reach the park). Overnight users, on average traveled significantly farther (M =

374 miles) to visit the park than day visitors (M = 239 miles).

In total, 63% of respondents had visited this park before, whereas 37% had not visited

previously. Day user previous visitation (66%) was significantly higher than overnight

user previous visitation (54%). Although users had visited an average of twelve times in

the past 12 months, the highest proportion visited the park once (20%) or three to five

(20%) times before. On average, day users had visited significantly more times (M =

14.29) than overnight users (M = 1.31). For example, 43% of day users had visited six or

more times in the past 12 months while 1% of overnight users had visited six or more

times.

Average group size was about three and a half people. Groups most commonly consisted

of two people (33%). Overnight users were significantly less likely to visit alone (7%)

than day users (22%), and overnight users visited in significantly larger groups (M =4.32)

than day users (M = 3.19).

In total, 59% of park users did not bring dogs with them and 41% brought dogs.


Most users arrived at the park in their family’s personal vehicle (89%), 6% arrived in

somebody else’s vehicle, and 5% arrived in another form of transportation. On average,

there were 2.94 people in each personal family vehicle, 3.13 people in somebody else’s

vehicle, and 2.50 people in other forms of transportation. For all day-use vehicles, there

was an average of 3.36 people in the vehicle. For all overnight vehicles, there was an

average of 2.86 people in the vehicle.

62% of users considered this park their main destination with 68% of overnight users and

61% of day users considering it the main reason for their trip. There were no significant


If they had not been able to go to South Beach State Park for this visit, many visitors

would have gone to Beverly Beach State Park, Nehalem State Park, or any other state


Physical Activity and Other Health Benefits

Day and overnight visitors were asked their extent of participation in moderate physical activity

(e.g., walking, bicycling, canoeing at a moderate pace), and vigorous physical activity (e.g.,

jogging, walking, or bicycling at a vigorous pace, breaking a sweat, heart beating rapidly) during

their trip to South Beach State Park (Table 12). 85% of all visitors indicated that they did

participate in moderate physical activity, while 38% indicated participating in vigorous physical

activity. Day users were significantly more likely to participate in vigorous physical activity

(40%) than overnight users (25%).

Table 12. Comparison of day and overnight user participation in moderate and vigorous physical activity during visit


Day Users Overnight

Users

Total b χ

2 or t

value

p value or rpb

Moderate Physical Activity .65 .421 .03

No 16 13 14

Yes 84 87 85

Avg (min) 77.45 147.86 112.50 8.50 <.001 .35

Vigorous Physical Activity 14.32 < .001 .15

No 60 75 62

Yes 40 25 38

Avg (min) 85.49 86.79 85.65 .06 .530 .00 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of users who reported participating in physical activity unless otherwise specified as average

minutes participating in moderate or vigorous physical activity. b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users.


Furthermore, 42% of all visitors indicated that their level of physical activity during their visit to

South Beach State Park was about the same as their daily life, whereas 47% indicated it was

more, and 11% indicated it was less (Table 13).

Table 13. Comparison of day and overnight user level of physical activity at South Beach State Park to daily life a


Physical activity ABOUT THE

SAME than daily life 40 48 42

Physical activity MORE than

daily life 49 38 47

Physical activity LESS as daily

life 11 14 11

a χ2 =7.22, p = ..027, V = .11. b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users.

Park visitors were asked to rate the degree that their visit to South Beach State Park had

improved their mental and physical health. Table 14 shows that, overall, park visitors reported

their visit helped to reduce stress (84%), improve mental health (84%), and reduce anxiety

(81%). Day users reported significantly higher benefits for all five of the health benefit

categories.

Table 14. Comparison of day and overnight user health benefits related to park visitation


Day

Users

Overnight

Users

Total b χ


Reducing stress 87 71 84 39.69 < .001 .25

Improving mental health 86 73 84 20.96 < .001 .18

Reducing anxiety 84 65 81 32.70 < .001 .22

Improving physical health 71 38 65 93.27 < .001 .38

Improving level of physical fitness 66 32 61 96.26 < .001 .39 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of users who reported benefiting “much” or “a great deal” from visit to park. b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users.


85% of all visitors indicated that they did participate in moderate physical activity, while

38% indicated participating in vigorous physical activity. Day users were significantly

more likely to participate in vigorous physical activity (40%) than overnight users (25%).

42% of all visitors indicated that their level of physical activity during their visit to South

Beach State Park was about the same as their daily life, whereas 47% indicated it was

more, and 11% indicated it was less.


Park visitors reported their visit helped to improve mental health (84%), reduce stress

(84%), and reduce anxiety (81%). Day users reported significantly higher benefits for all

five of the health benefit categories.

Visitor Spending

Park visitors were asked to estimate how much they and the other members of their party spent

on their trip within 30 miles of South Beach State Park on eight spending categories. The

information included in this section of the report summarizes basic visitor spending results from

the survey. A more extensive visitor spending analysis will be conducted by Oregon State

University and available in a separate report.

For this analysis, “local” visitors are defined as those visitors reporting traveling 30 miles or less

from home to get to the park. “Non-local” visitors are those respondents living 31 or more miles

from the park. All foreign visitors were classified as “non-local” visitors. Visitor responses were

excluded under the following conditions:

The number of nights spent away from home in the local area was greater than 30,

The reported size of the group was greater than 10 individuals,

Spending per day/night was greater or equal to $500 or spending on recreation and

equipment rental was greater or equal to $500 in total.

Table 15 includes the percentages of all park day users and overnight users that are local and

non-local visitors. Most visitors to the park are non local (living 31 or more miles from the park,

79%). Significantly more day users (26%) are local than overnight users (1%). Based on

previous year visitation estimates, approximately 82% of all users at South Beach State Park are

day users and 18% are overnight users.

Table 15. Comparison of day and overnight users, local / non-local a


Local 26 1 21

Non-Local c 74 99 79

a χ2 = 123.48, p <.001, = .41.



Table 16 shows the proportion of total spending for each visitor profile type and reported on a

party trip basis. The largest percentage of non-local day users reported spending $151-$350

(40%), $51-$150 (22%), and $551-$1,000 (17%). The largest percentage of non-local overnight

users also reported spending $151-$350 (39%), $551-$1,000 (22%), and $51-$150 (18%).

Altogether, day users and overnight users different significantly in their total spending within 30

miles of the park.

Table 16. Comparison of day and overnight total local spending, dollars per party per trip a

Local Non-Local

Day

(%)

Overnight

(%)

Day

(%)

Overnight

(%)

All b

(%)

Spent no money 17 -- 2 1 2

$1 - $25 7 -- 5 1 2

$26 - $50 10 -- 7 5 6

$51 - $150 48 -- 22 18 21

$151 - $350 10 -- 40 39 37

$351 - $550 3 -- 8 15 13

$551 - $1,000 3 -- 17 22 19

a χ2 = 33.65, p < .001, V = .27 b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users.

Table 17 includes the proportion of visitor parties that reported spending any dollars on the eight

spending categories (e.g., motel, camping, restaurants and bars, groceries, etc.). For non-local

day use visitors, most reported spending some money on restaurants and bars (79%), gasoline

and oil (78%), and groceries (60%). Most non-local overnight visitors reported spending money

on camping (97%), gasoline and oil (94%), and groceries (90%). The “All” spending average is

estimated as a weighted average for spending by day-user and overnight visitors. Most visitors to

South Beach State Park reported spending some money on gasoline and oil (87%), restaurants

and bars (84%), and groceries (77%).


Table 17. Comparison of percent of day and overnight party spending of any dollars in eight spending categories

Local Non-Local

Spending Categories Day

(%)

Overnight

(%)

Day

(%)

Overnight

(%)

All a

(%)

Restaurants and bars 70 -- 79 88 84

Gasoline and oil 73 -- 78 94 87

Groceries 42 -- 60 90 77

Camping 6 -- 39 97 69

Souvenirs, clothing, and other

miscellaneous 27 -- 33 69 52

Motel, lodge, cabin, B&B, other lodging 12 -- 32 19 23

Park entry, parking, or recreation user fees 6 -- 12 60 38

Recreation and equipment (guide fees,

equipment rental) 6 -- 8 17 12

a Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users.

Respondents were asked to indicate if they were staying away from home within 30 miles of

South Beach State Park, and the number of nights they were staying if they were. Table 18

shows that 52% of all visitors were staying away from home within 30 miles of the park with

significantly more overnight users (68%) than day users (49%) staying away from home. Of

those users staying away from home within 30 miles of the park, respondents indicated staying

an average of four nights (M = 3.68).

Table 18. Comparison of day and overnight user nights staying away from home within 30 miles of park

Day Users Overnight Users Total (%) a

Staying away from home b

49 68 52

Mean number of nights c 3.86 3.59 3.68

a Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. b Cell entries in this row are percentages (%) of visitors staying away from home within 30 miles χ2 = 21.70, p < .001, = .19. c Cell entries in this row are mean (avg) nights. t = .69, p = .266, rpb = .04.


The largest percentage of non-local day users reported spending $151-$350 (40%), $51-

$150 (22%), and $551-$1,000 (17%). The largest percentage of non-local overnight users

also reported spending $151-$350 (39%), $551-$1,000 (22%), and $51-$150 (18%).

Altogether, day users and overnight users different significantly in their total spending

within 30 miles of the park.


Most visitors to South Beach State Park reported spending some money on gasoline and

oil (87%), restaurants and bars (84%), and groceries (77%).

52% of all visitors were staying away from home within 30 miles of the park with

significantly more overnight users (68%) than day users (49%) staying away from home.

Of those users staying away from home within 30 miles of the park, respondents

indicated staying an average of three nights (M = 3.68).

Obtaining Information About the Park

The questionnaires contained several questions examining how users obtained information about

state parks such as South Beach State Park and whether they were able to obtain the information

they needed. Table 19 shows that most users (98%) were able to find the information they

needed when planning their visit to this state park, and those (2%) who did not find the

information they needed would like more information about campsites (e.g., dimensions,

availability, amenities).

Table 19. Comparison of day and overnight users in whether they found the information needed a


Yes, found the information needed 98 97 98

No, did not find the information needed c 2 3 2

a χ2 = .05, p = .826, = .01.

b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. c The most popular information needed regarded photos of campsites and facilities, site dimensions, and descriptions of

amenities.


Table 20. Comparison of day and overnight user use of information sources




Official internet websites (OPRD) 72 92 76 45.15 < .001 .27

Previous visits 67 68 67 .23 .635 .02

Friends / family 66 58 65 4.03 .045 .08

Highway signs 53 33 49 21.25 < .001 .19

Brochures 37 39 38 2.12 .347 .05

Other c 32 13 28 11.56 .001 .22

Social media websites

31 29 30 .26 .611 .02

Magazines 23 15 22 7.46 .024 .11

Newspapers 23 10 20 19.17 < .001 .18

Books 22 13 21 9.12 .003 .12

Work 16 11 15 3.44 .064 .08

Television 16 9 14 6.75 .009 .11

Radio 14 8 13 7.39 .007 .11

Community organizations (church) 11 6 10 5.01 .025 .09

Videos / DVDs 11 4 10 9.52 .002 .13

Health care providers 10 4 9 9.99 .002 .13 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of users who used the information source “sometimes” to “often.” b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. c The most popular “other” way was: locals knowledge and unofficial internet websites.

Respondents were also presented with a list of 16 possible sources for finding information and

asked how often they obtained information from these sources when thinking about visiting an

Oregon State Park such as South Beach State Park. Table 20 shows that the most heavily used

sources of information were official internet websites (e.g., Oregon State Parks, Travel Oregon;

76%), previous visits (67%), and friends and family (65%). The least used sources were health

care providers (9%), videos / DVDs (10%), and community organizations (10%). Day users and

overnight users differed significantly on twelve information sources.

Respondents were then asked to specify from this list of information sources what one source

they would first use when obtaining information about an Oregon State Park such as South

Beach State Park. Table 21 shows that official internet websites (e.g., Oregon State Parks, Travel

Oregon; 62%) was overwhelmingly the first primary source used by most respondents, followed

by friends and family 13%), previous visit (9%), highway signs (5%), and brochures (4%). Few

people used other sources when obtaining information. There was a significant difference

between day and overnight users, with overnight users almost entirely dependent on official

internet websites as their primary source (87%). Day users were also dependent on these


websites (56%), but also used other sources such as friends / family (15%), previous visits

(10%), and highway signs (6%).

Table 21. Comparison of day and overnight users for primary information source a


Official internet websites (OPRD) 56 87 62

Friends / family 15 4 13

Previous visit 10 4 9

Highway signs 6 1 5

Brochures 4 2 4

Other 2 1 3

Social media websites 1 2 2

Books 1 0 1

Radio 1 0 1

Community organizations (church) < 1 0 < 1

Newspapers < 1 0 < 1

Magazines < 1 0 < 1

Television < 1 0 < 1

Videos / DVD’s < 1 0 < 1

Work 0 < 1 < 1 a χ2 = 92.71, p < .001, V = .38.



Most users (98%) were able to find the information they needed when planning their

visit to this state park, and those (2%) who did not find the information they needed

would like more information about campsites (e.g., dimensions, availability, amenities).

The most heavily used sources of information were official internet websites (e.g.,

Oregon State Parks, Travel Oregon; 76%), previous visits (67%), and friends and family

(65%). The least used sources were health care providers (9%), videos or DVDs (10%),

and community organizations (10%). Day users and overnight users differed

significantly on twelve information sources.

Official internet websites (e.g., Oregon State Parks, Travel Oregon; 62%) was

overwhelmingly the first primary source used by most respondents, followed by friends

and family (13%), previous visit (9%), highway signs (5%), and brochures (4%). Few

people used other sources when obtaining information. There was a significant

difference between day and overnight users, with overnight users almost entirely

dependent on official internet websites as their primary source (87%). Day users were


also dependent on these websites (56%), but also used other sources such as family and

friends (15%), previous visits (10%), and highway signs (6%).

Satisfaction with Experiences and Conditions

Overall Satisfaction. Respondents were asked “overall, how dissatisfied or satisfied were you

with your overall experience at South Beach State Park?” Table 22 shows that overall

satisfaction was high, as 96% were satisfied and fewer respondents (4%) were dissatisfied or

neutral. In addition, the highest proportion of users was “very satisfied” (64%).

Table 22. Comparison of day and overnight user overall satisfaction a


Very Satisfied 65 55 64

Satisfied 31 40 32

Dissatisfied or Neutral 4 5 4

a χ2 = 20.96, p = .001, V = .15.


Satisfaction and Expectations with Specific Characteristics. Although most users were satisfied

with their overall visit at South Beach State Park, this does not indicate that they were satisfied

with every aspect of this park. This project, therefore, first measured respondent expectations by

asking them the extent they believed that several attributes of South Beach State Park were

important to their visit (e.g., absence of litter, personal safety, signs, parking). Then, respondents

reported their satisfaction of these same attributes at this park to measure performance of these

attributes.

Table 23 shows that the most important characteristics were the park’s overall cleanliness (e.g.,

lawn care, lack of graffiti; 97%), absence of litter (96%), and cleanliness of toilets (95%). The

least important attributes were the number (34%) and the quality (41%) of information /

education programs or materials, and facilities for groups to gather (42%). There were

differences among day users and overnight users for 13 of the 20 possible comparisons.

Responses for three additional items that were asked in the questionnaires administered only to

overnight users showed that 95% of overnight users considered the comfort of campsites to be

important, 94% believed that a good value for the fee paid at the park was important, and 90%

believed that shading provided by trees and other structures was important.


Table 23. Comparison of day and overnight user specific expectations at the park




Overall park cleanliness 97 98 97 .76 .383 .03

Absence of litter 96 98 96 1.68 .194 .05

Cleanliness of toilets/ bathrooms 95 95 95 .15 .698 .01

Number of toilets / bathrooms 90 87 89 1.59 .208 .05

Personal safety 85 93 87 11.30 .001 .13

Courteousness of rangers / personnel 85 93 87 10.85 .001 .13

Opportunities to escape crowds 83 80 83 1.07 .302 .04

Conditions of trails 76 85 77 9.89 .002 .12

Presence of rangers / personnel 67 80 70 14.71 < .001 .14

Parking for vehicles 68 77 70 6.10 .014 .09

Number of trails 64 74 66 8.94 .003 .11

Directional signs within the park 58 85 63 61.27 < .001 .30

Ease of movement / access

(wheelchair, elderly, stroller) 58 45 56 1.83 .176 .05

Directional signs to the park 57 76 60 25.61 < .001 .19

Variety of things to do 57 66 58 6.22 .013 .09

Information on conditions or hazards 55 77 59 35.92 < .001 .23

Facilities for groups to gather 46 23 42 38.79 < .001 .24

Quality of information / education 39 51 41 10.58 .001 .12

Number of information / education 32 43 34 10.81 .001 .12

Comfort of campsites c -- 95 -- -- -- --

Good value for fee paid c -- 94 -- -- -- --

Shading provided by trees or other

structures c -- 90 -- -- -- --

a Cell entries are percentages (%) of users who rated the characteristic as “somewhat” or “extremely important.” b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. c Only asked in questionnaires of overnight users, not day users.

Table 24 shows that the majority of users were satisfied with most of these characteristics at

South Beach State Park. Users were most satisfied with park cleanliness (96%), personal safety

(91%), number of toilets / bathrooms (89%), and absence of litter (88%). Users were least

satisfied with the number (53%) and quality of information / education materials (54%), and the

facilities for groups to gather (60%). There were differences among day users and overnight

users for twelve of the 20 comparisons. Overnight users were also satisfied with the good value

for fee paid in the park (88%), comfort of campsites (87%), and the shading provided by trees

(83%).


Table 24. Comparison of day and overnight user specific satisfactions at the park

User Group a Effect

size


2 value p

value Phi ()

Cleanliness of park (graffiti, lawns) 96 95 96 .47 .493 .03

Personal safety 90 94 91 1.56 .212 .05

Number of toilets / bathrooms 89 89 89 .12 .723 .01

Absence of litter 87 95 88 15.18 < .001 .15

Parking for vehicles 83 82 83 .14 .710 .01

Opportunities to escape crowds 83 69 81 5.13 .024 .07

Courteousness of rangers / personnel 82 91 83 11.39 .001 .13

Presence of rangers / personnel 79 88 80 9.33 .002 .12

Cleanliness of toilets / bathrooms 77 86 79 8.59 .003 .11

Conditions of trails 77 86 78 10.59 .001 .13

Number of trails 76 86 77 11.51 .001 .13

Variety of things to do 69 77 70 6.56 .010 .10

Ease of movement / access

(wheelchair, elderly, stroller) 68 65 68 .37 .542 .02

Signs with directions to the park 66 81 69 19.14 < .001 .17

Signs with directions within the park 63 86 67 47.26 < .001 .27

Facilities for groups to gather 63 46 60 15.72 < .001 .15

Information on conditions or hazards 62 72 64 6.77 .009 .10

Quality of information / education 53 59 54 2.25 .133 .06

Number of information / education 52 59 53 3.63 .057 .07

Good value for fee paid -- 88 -- -- -- --

Comfort of campsites c -- 87 -- -- -- --

Shading provided by trees /

structures c

-- 83 -- -- -- --

a Cell entries are percentages (%) of users who rated the characteristic as “satisfied” or “very satisfied.” b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. c Only asked in questionnaires of overnight users, not day users.


Importance – Performance Analysis.

Figure 1. Importance-performance (I-P) analysis matrix

One approach for visualizing relationships between expectations (i.e., importance of attributes)

and satisfaction (i.e., performance of these attributes) is Importance – Performance (I-P) analysis

(Figure 1). Importance or expectations are represented as averages (i.e., means) on the vertical

axis (i.e., y-axis) and average performance or experiences (i.e., satisfaction) are measured on the

horizontal axis (i.e., x-axis). When combined, these axes intersect and produce a matrix of four

quadrants that can be interpreted as “concentrate here” (high importance or expectation, low

satisfaction or poor experiences; Quadrant A), “keep up the good work” (high importance or

expectation and high satisfaction or good experiences; Quadrant B), “low priority” (low

importance or expectation and low satisfaction or poor experiences; Quadrant C), and “possible

overkill” (low importance or expectation, high satisfaction or good experiences; Quadrant D).

This matrix provides managers with an easily understandable picture of the status of services,

facilities, and conditions as perceived by users, and reveals conditions that may or may not need

attention (Bruyere, Rodriguez, & Vaske, 2002; Vaske, Beaman, Stanley, & Grenier, 1996).

Very

Dissatisfied

Very

Satisfied

Not

Important

Very

Important

-2

-1

1

2

-2 -1 1 2

Very

Dissatisfied

Very

Satisfied

Not

Important

Very

Important

A - Concentrate Here B - Keep up Good Work

C - Low Priority D - Possible Overkill


Figure 2. Importance-performance (I-P) analysis matrix for day users

V1

V2

V3 V4

V5

V6

V7

V8

V9 V10

V11

V12

V13

V14

V15

V16

V17 V18

V19

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00

Very

Satisfied

V1 = Overall cleanliness of park

V2 = Number of toilets/ bathrooms

V3 = Cleanliness / conditions of toilets/ bathrooms

V4 = Absence of litter

V5 = Presence of park rangers / personnel

V6 = Courteousness of park rangers / personnel

V7 = Number of park trails

V8 = Conditions / maintenance of park trails

V9 = Ease of movement or access

V10 = Facilities for groups to gather

V11 = Variety of things to do

V12 = Opportunities to escape crowds of people

V13 = Personal safety

V14 = Number of information/ educational materials

V15 = Quality of information/ educational materials

V16 = Information about conditions or hazards in the park

V17 = Signs about directions within the park

V18 = Signs about directions to the park

V19 = Parking for vehicles

Very

Dissatisfied

Not

Important

Very

Important


Figure 3. Importance-performance (I-P) analysis matrix for overnight users

Figure 2 is the I-P matrix for day users and Figure 3 is the matrix for overnight users. Both

matrices show that most attributes were in the “keep up the good work” quadrant, indicating that

users thought that park staff were doing a good job managing conditions and experiences at

South Beach State Park. For this state park visitor survey project, we are also taking a closer

examination of I-P scores in the “keep up the good work” quadrant within the dashed lines

V1

V2

V3 V4

V5

V6

V7

V8

V9

V10

V11

V12

V13

V14

V15

V16

V17

V18 V19

V20

V21 V22

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00Very

Dissatisfied

Not

Important

Very

Satisfied

Very

Important

V1 = Overall cleanliness of park

V2 = Number of toilets/ bathrooms

V3 = Cleanliness / conditions of toilets/ bathrooms

V4 = Absence of litter

V5 = Presence of park rangers / personnel

V6 = Courteousness of park rangers / personnel

V7 = Number of park trails

V8 = Conditions / maintenance of park trails

V9 = Ease of movement or access

V10 = Facilities for groups to gather

V11 = Variety of things to do

V12 = Opportunities for escaping crowds of people

V13 = Personal safety

V14 = Number of information/ educational materials

V15 = Quality of information/ educational materials

V16 = Information about conditions or hazards in the park

V17 = Signs about directions within the park

V18 = Signs about directions to the park

V19 = Parking for vehicles

V20 = Comfort of campsites

V21 = Shading provided by trees or other structures

V22 = Good value for the rates paid at the park


included in Figures 2 and 3. For day users, these results reveal that cleanliness of toilets /

bathrooms (V3) fell into the “concentrate here” quadrant. For overnight users, these results

reveal managers should consider monitoring opportunities to escape crowds of people (V12) and

signs with directions to the park (V18) in the overnight areas of the park (Figure 3).

Respondents were asked several additional questions about their satisfaction with South Beach

State Park, including this park’s natural environment, facilities and services, and fees. Users

were also asked how likely they would return to this state park. Table 25 shows high user

satisfaction with the environment (96%) and facilities and services (89%). In total, 95% of

respondents said they were likely to return to this park in the future. Overnight users were

significantly more satisfied with facilities and services (93%) than day users (88%). Day users

were significantly more likely to return (97%) than overnight users (87%).

Table 25. Comparison of day and overnight user likelihood of returning and satisfaction with the park fees, facilities,

and environment

User Group Effect

size

Day Users Overnight Users Total a χ


Satisfaction with natural environment b 96 93 96 3.71 .054 .07

Satisfaction with facilities and services b 88 93 89 7.57 .023 .02

Satisfaction with the feed paid -- 90 -- -- -- --

Likelihood of returning c 97 87 95 24.48 < .001 .17

a Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. b Cell entries are percentages (%) of users who rated the characteristic as “satisfied” or “very satisfied.” c Cell entries are percentages (%) of users who said they were “likely” or “very likely” to return to the park in the future.

Table 26 shows that all almost visitors (98%) to South Beach State Park would recommend the

park to their friends or family. Day users were significantly more likely to recommend the park

to others (99%) than overnight users (95%). Reasons respondents indicated they would not


mosquitoes.

Table 26. Comparison of day and overnight user recommendation of park to friends and family a


Yes, recommend park 99 95 98

No, would not recommend park 1 5 2

a χ2 = 10.06, p = .002, = .011.



Outstanding Features. Users also provided 215 verbatim open ended comments on what they

found to be the most outstanding features or things to do at South Beach State Park. The most

common outstanding features and things to do involved (a) the beach, (b) accessibility, (c) hiking

/ walking, (d) trails / paved paths, (e) location (close to Newport, other parks, the beach), (f)

plenty of parking, (g) cleanliness, (h) campgrounds, and (g) yurts.

Perceived Crowding. Perceived crowding is a subjective and negative evaluation that this

reported number of encounters or people observed in an area is too many. Research suggests that

when users perceived an area to be crowded, they likely encountered more than their maximum

acceptance (i.e., their norm) of impacts (e.g., use levels) for the particular setting (Manning,

2010; Needham & Rollins, 2009).

Table 27 shows that, on average, both overnight users and day users felt slightly crowded. More

specifically, 43% of all park users felt some degree of crowding on their visit, with significantly

more overnight users (72%) than day users (37%) feeling crowded. According to Shelby, Vaske,

and Heberlein (1989) and Vaske and Shelby (2008), these results suggest that crowding in the

day-use areas are in the “low normal” range, where access, displacement, or crowding problems

are not likely to exist at this time and overnight areas are in the “more than capacity” range,

where further studies and management actions focusing on social carrying capacity may be

necessary to preserve the quality of experiences at the park.

Table 27. Comparison of day and overnight crowding evaluations

User Group Effect size

Day Users Overnight Users Total a t value p value rpb

Perception of crowding c 2.53 4.22 2.81 10.47 < .001 .35

a Cell entries are means on 9 point crowding scale of 1-2 “not at all crowded” to 3-4 “slightly crowded” to 5-7 “moderately

crowded” to 8-9 “extremely crowded.” Median = 3, Mode = 1, Percent crowded = 43% (37% Day Users, 72% Overnight).


Users considered the most important characteristics were the park’s cleanliness (e.g.,

lawn care, lack of graffiti; 97%), absence of litter (96%), and cleanliness of toilets (95%).

The least important attributes were facilities for groups to gather (31%), the number

(34%) and the quality (41%) of information / education programs or material, and

facilities for groups to gather (42%). There were differences among day users and

overnight users for thirteen of the 20 possible comparisons. Responses for three


additional items that were asked in the questionnaires administered only to overnight

users showed that 95% of overnight users considered the comfort of campsites to be

important, 94% believed that a good value for the fee paid at the park was important, and

90% believed that shading provided by trees and other structures was important.

Overall satisfaction was high, as 95% were satisfied and fewer respondents (5%) were

dissatisfied or neutral. In addition, the highest proportion of users was “very satisfied”

(64%).

Users were most satisfied with park cleanliness (96%), personal safety (91%), number of

toilets / bathrooms (89%), and absence of litter (88%). Users were least satisfied with the

number (53%) and quality of information / education materials (54%), and the facilities

for groups to gather (60%). There were differences among day users and overnight users

for twelve of the 20 comparisons. Overnight users were also satisfied with the good value

for fee paid in the park (88%), comfort of campsites (87%), and the shading provided by

trees (83%).

Most respondents were also satisfied with the natural environment (96%) and facilities

and services (89%). In total, 95% of respondents said they were likely to return to this

park in the future. Overnight users were significantly more satisfied with facilities and

services (93%) than day users (88%). Day users were significantly more likely to return

to this park in the future (97%) than overnight users (87%).









friends or family. Day users were significantly more likely to recommend the park to

others (99%) than overnight users (95%). Reasons respondents indicated they would not


mosquitoes.


The most common outstanding features and things to do involved (a) the beach, (b)

accessibility, (c) hiking / walking, (d) trails / paved paths, (e) location (close to Newport,

other parks, the beach), (f) plenty of parking, (g) cleanliness, (h) campgrounds, and (g)

yurts.

43% of all park users felt some degree of crowding on their visit, with significantly more

overnight users (72%) than day users (37%) feeling crowded. According to Shelby,

Vaske, and Heberlein (1989) and Vaske and Shelby (2008), these results suggest that

crowding in the day-use areas are in the “low normal” range, where access, displacement,

or crowding problems are not likely to exist at this time and overnight areas are in the

“more than capacity” range, where further studies and management actions focusing on

social carrying capacity may be necessary to preserve the quality of experiences at the

park.

Attitudes About Programs and Management Strategies

Let’s Go Program Interest. The questionnaires asked respondents to indicate if they, or their

family members, would consider participating in a weekend program (i.e., Let’s Go program) for

beginners to learn basic outdoor skills and to identify all of the skills they would be interested in

learning about. Table 28 indicates that 45% of users would consider participating in such a

program at a nearby park. From those who indicated overall interest in Let’s Go programs, the

most popular programs birding (24%), kayaking (23%), stargazing (22%), hiking (20%), and

camping (18%). The least supported Let’s Go programs were mountain biking (9%), and disc

golfing (9%). The most frequently mentioned “other” programs were survival skills (edible



Table 28. Comparison of day and overnight user consideration of participating in “Let’s Go” programs




Overall Interest

Yes 46 39 45 3.53 .060 .07

Specific Program Interest

Birding 26 18 24 1.25 .264 .07

Kayaking 23 21 23 1.17 .280 .07

Stargazing 22 24 22 6.78 .009 .16

Hiking 21 17 20 .00 .996 .00

Camping 19 15 18 .03 .864 .01

Canoeing 18 14 17 .01 .916 .01

Fishing 15 17 15 5.14 .023 .14

Horseback riding 14 11 14 .04 .852 .01

Rafting 14 9 13 1.47 .226 .07

Geocaching 13 14 13 3.25 .071 .11

Scenic road biking 12 13 12 2.11 .146 .09

Rock climbing 11 9 11 .01 .915 .01

Disc golfing 9 7 9 .01 .914 .01

Mountain biking 9 8 9 .08 .774 .02

Other 3 2 3 .42 .520 .04 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of users who reported interest in “Let’s Go” programs. Percentages do not sum to 100%

because respondents could check more than one program from the list. b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. c The most popular “other” programs was plant and animal identification.

Attitudes About Management Strategies. Several items in the questionnaires examined user

attitudes about possible management strategies at South Beach State Park. Users were asked, for

example, the extent they opposed or supported several potential new strategies for this park.

Table 29 shows that the most strongly supported strategies were to provide more recycling

containers (78%), more opportunities for viewing wildlife (72%), more trash cans (69%), more

opportunities for escaping crowds (69%), and improve maintenance of facilities / services (67%).

The least supported strategies were to close park to all recreation/ tourism activities (7%), limit

the number of people allowed per day (19%), and downloadable mobile phone applications

(27%). Day and overnight users’ support differed significantly for twelve management options

(Table 29). Overnight users were also asked to rate their support of eight additional strategies

specifically related to lodging and camping in the park. The majority of these users supported

mosquito control in campground (larvicide, 75%), campsites with both RV and tent camping

(66%), more space between campsites (55%), and increased enforcement of quiet hours (55%).

They were least supportive of providing more group camping areas (17%), walk in/ cart in

campsites (17%), and more tent camping in developed campgrounds (24%).


Table 29. Comparison of day and overnight user attitudes about management at the park


Day

Users

Overnight

Users

Total b χ


More recycling containers 81 65 78 18.47 < .001 .16

More opportunities for escaping crowds 74 65 72 8.52 .014 .11

More trash cans 71 64 69 2.97 .085 .07

Improve maintenance of facilities / services 69 59 67 6.92 .009 .10

More opportunities for viewing wildlife 69 72 69 .71 .400 .03

Do not change anything 60 40 56 23.68 < .001 .19

More information / education 57 54 57 .65 .421 .03

More opportunities for hiking 55 60 56 1.24 .265 .04

Require all dogs be kept on leash at all times 55 69 57 13.23 < .001 .14

Restore to historical conditions 47 51 48 1.24 .266 .04

Provide natural buffers to block views of

development 45 70 49 41.61 < .001 .25

More ranger-led programs 42 45 43 .45 .505 .03

More pet friendly 40 41 40 .02 .881 .01

More paved trails 39 44 40 1.87 .171 .05

More group picnic areas 39 20 36 27.99 < .001 .21

Wireless internet access 33 54 37 27.21 < .001 .20

Limit number of large groups allowed 30 42 32 8.43 .004 .11

More enclosed shelters 28 30 29 .43 .512 .03

Downloadable mobile phone applications 25 35 27 8.00 .005 .11

Limit number of people allowed per day 15 37 19 35.71 < .001 .23

Close park to all recreation/tourism activities 8 4 7 5.83 .016 .10

Mosquito control in campground -- 75 -- -- -- --

Campsites with both RV and tent camping c -- 66 -- -- -- --

More space between campsites c

-- 55 -- -- -- --

Increase enforcement of quiet hours c

-- 55 -- -- -- --

Food for sale c

-- 27 -- -- -- --

More tent camping in campgrounds c

-- 24 -- -- -- --

More walk in/ cart in campsites c -- 17 -- -- -- --

More group camping areas c -- 17 -- -- -- --

a Cell entries are percentages (%) of users whose response was “support” or “strongly support.” b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. c Only asked in questionnaires of overnight users, not day users.

Park users were also asked the extent that they would oppose or support possible service

reductions at South Beach State Park. Table 30 shows overall low support for service reductions

with the highest support for reducing ranger-led programs (15%), ground maintenance (15%)

and ranger patrols (11%). The lowest support for reducing janitorial services (4%), scaled down

facilities and services (6%), and fewer hours open (7%).


Table 30. Comparison of day and overnight user support of possible service reductions at the park


Day

Users

Overnight

Users

Total b χ


Fewer ranger-led programs 15 17 15 .35 .555 .02

Reduced ground maintenance (e.g. mowing) 15 11 15 3.21 .073 .07

Fewer ranger patrols 11 10 11 .30 .583 .02

Fewer hours open 7 7 7 .03 .853 .01

Scaled down facilities (e.g., restrooms, shelters) 7 3 6 5.24 .022 .09

Reduced janitorial services 5 1 4 7.35 .007 .11 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of users whose response was “support” or “strongly support.” b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users.

Overnight Campsite Use. The questionnaires completed only by overnight users asked what

type of campsite(s) they used on their most recent trip to South Beach State Park. Table 31

shows that the most popular type of campsite was an RV site (72%). In addition, 19% stayed in


accommodations.

Table 31. Overnight campsite use at South Beach State Park

RV Campsite 72

Yurt 19

Tent Campsite 17

Other 1

Group Tent Campsite < 1

Group RV Campsite < 1

Cabin 0

Hiker / Biker Campsite 0 1 Cell entries are percentages (%) of overnight users who reported using

the campsite type at the park on their most recent visit. Percentages do

not sum to 100% because respondents could check more than one

campsite type from the list.

Overnight User Requirements. A number of additional questions related to management of

facilities and services were asked in questionnaires completed only by overnight users. One

questions, for example, asked overnight users what power supply they would require if they were

to stay at an RV or tent campsite. Table 32 shows that over half these users (75%) would need 30

amps, (13%) would need 50 amps, and (10%) would not need electric power. Few users (1%)

would need 100 amps.


Table 32. Overnight user power supply needs

30 amps 75

50 amps 13

No power required 10

100 amps 1 1 Cell entries are percentages (%) of overnight users who require

this type of power supply.

Overnight users were also asked about the importance of electric, water, and sewer hookups.

Table 33 shows electric (91%) and water (83%) hookups to be more important than sewer (44%)

hookups.

Table 33. Overnight user importance of RV hookups

Electric hookups 91

Water hookups 83

Sewer hookups 44 1 Cell entries are percentages (%) of overnight users who

indicated that hookup was “somewhat” to “extremely” important.

Overnight users were also asked several questions about the Oregon State Parks reservation

systems. First, these users were asked what reservation systems they used for their most recent

overnight trip to South Beach State Park. Table 34 shows that 86% of overnight users reserved

their visit using the internet reservation system, 9% used the telephone reservation system, and

5% did not make the reservation. Second, users were asked to report their satisfaction with the

reservation system, which was somewhat high with 88% satisfied and 12% not satisfied (Table

34).

Table 34. Overnight user reactions to the reservation systems

Type of reservation system used

Internet reservation system 86

Telephone reservation system 9

Did not make the reservation 5

Satisfaction with reservation system

Very Satisfied 45

Satisfied 43

Dissatisfied or Neutral 12 1 Cell entries are percentages (%) unless specified as means /

averages



45% of users would consider participating in such a program at a nearby park. From

those who indicated overall interest in Let’s Go programs, the most popular programs

birding (24%), kayaking (23%), stargazing (22%), hiking (20%), and camping (18%).

The least supported Let’s Go programs were mountain biking (9%), and disc golfing

(9%). The most frequently mentioned “other” programs were survival skills (edible





(67%). The least supported strategies were to close park to all recreation/ tourism

activities (7%), limit the number of people allowed per day (19%), and downloadable

mobile phone applications (27%).

A majority of overnight users supported mosquito control in campground (larvicide,

75%), campsites with both RV and tent camping (66%), more space between campsites

(55%), and increased enforcement of quiet hours (55%). They were least supportive of

providing more group camping areas (17%), walk in/ cart in campsites (17%), and more

tent camping in developed campgrounds (24%).

There was overall low support for service reductions in the park. The highest support was

for reducing ranger-led programs (15%), ground maintenance (15%) and ranger patrols

(11%). The lowest support for reducing janitorial services (4%), scaled down facilities

and services (6%), and fewer hours open (7%).

The most popular type of campsite was an RV site (72%). In addition, 19% stayed in


accommodations.

Overnight users reported that if they were to stay at an RV or tent campsite (75%) would

need 30 amps, (13%) would need 50 amps, and (10%) would not need electric power.

Few users (1%) would need 100 amps. The availability of electric (91%) and water

(83%) hookups were more important than sewer (44%) hookups.

In total, 86% of overnight users reserved their visit using the internet reservation system,

9% used the telephone reservation system, and 5% did not make the reservation. Second,


users were asked to report their satisfaction with the reservation system, which was

somewhat high with 88% satisfied and 12% not satisfied.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Users

Table 35 shows demographic characteristics of users. There were more female (55%) than male

(45%) users at South Beach State Park. There was no significant difference in the gender of

overnight and day users. The average age of respondents was 54 years old and the largest

proportion of users was 60 to 69 (34%). Almost all respondents were white (i.e., Caucasian;

86%) with some Asians (5%), Hispanic / Latinos (3%), and Black / African Americans (2%).

Overnight users had a significantly higher proportion of whites / Caucasians (92%) than day

users (85%). The average annual household income before taxes of respondents was $70,800,

and the largest proportion of users had incomes from $50,000 to $69,999 (21%). Visitors to

South Beach State Park are generally wealthier than the Oregon population at large (Oregon

median household income in 2015 was $54,148). The average annual household income of day

users ($69,400) was significantly lower than overnight users ($78,200). Almost all users (95%)

considered English as the primary language spoken in their homes.


Table 35. Comparison of day and overnight user demographic characteristics

User Group a χ

2 or t Effect size

Day Users Overnight Users Total b value p value or rpb

Gender 1.42 .233 .05

Female 54 59 57

Male 46 41 43

Age

Less than 20 years old 1 0 1

20 – 29 years 5 3 4

30 – 39 years 14 16 14

40 – 49 years 16 26 18

50 – 59 years 19 15 19

60 – 69 years 36 27 34

70 – 79 years 8 12 8

80+ years old 1 1 1

Average age (mean years) 53.79 54.41 3.89 .48 .635 .02

Household income (before taxes) 27.28 .001 .22

Less than $10,000 4 1 4

$10,000 – $29,999 7 5 6

$30,000 – $49,999 21 14 20

$50,000 – $69,999 21 18 21

$70,000 – $89,999 14 18 14

$90,000 – $109,999 10 13 11

$110,000 – $129,999 7 15 8

$130,000 – $149,999 4 8 5

$150,000 – $169,999 4 4 4

$170,000 or more 8 5 8

Average income (mean dollars) 69,400 78,200 70,800 2.22 .027 .09

Ethnicity 324.71 < .001 .19

White (Caucasian) 85 92 86

Black / African American 2 < 1 2

Hispanic / Latino 3 2 3

Asian 5 2 5

American Indian or Alaskan Native 2 0 2

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1 1 1

Other 1 3 1

Language spoken most often at home 19.94 < .001 .16

English 95 97 95

Spanish 4 0 3

Russian 0 1 <1

Other 2 2 2 a Cell entries are percentages (%) unless specified as means or averages. b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users.


Table 36 shows that 58% of users lived in Oregon, 21% lived in California, 4% resided in

Washington, 3% lived in Canada and 14% lived elsewhere. Among park users, 29% lived in the

Willamette Valley region of Oregon, 23% lived in the Portland Metropolitan region, 13% of park

users resided in the Coastal region, 5% lived in Central Oregon, 2% lived in Southern Oregon,

2% lived in the Mt. Hood / Gorge region, and 1% lived in the Eastern Oregon. The largest

percentages of overnight users were from the Portland Metro (24%) and the Willamette Valley

(21%) regions, whereas day users came primarily from the Willamette Valley region (31%) and

the Oregon Coast (28%) region. A majority of day users lived in Oregon (78%), Washington

(8%), and California (4%). Overnight users resided in Oregon (57%), Washington (12%),

California (8%), and Idaho (4%).

Table 36. Respondent location of residence

Day Users (%) Overnight Users (%) Total (%) a

Country

USA 97 91 96

Canada 3 7 3

Other < 1 2 1

State

Oregon b 78 57 75

Washington 8 12 9

California 4 8 5

Idaho -- 4 1

Other 10 19 10

a Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. b In total, 29% lived in the Willamette Valley region of Oregon, 23% lived in the Portland Metropolitan region, 13% of park

users resided in the Coastal region,5% lived in Central Oregon, 2% lived in Southern Oregon, 2% lived in the Mt. Hood /

Gorge region, and 1% lived in the Eastern Oregon. Around 42% of users came from out of state. The largest percentage of

overnight users was from the Portland Metro region (24%) and the Willamette Valley (21%) region, whereas day users came

primarily from the Willamette Valley (31%) and Coast (28%) regions.

Table 37 shows that 82% of users said that nobody in their group had a disability, whereas 18%

had at least one group member with a disability. Of those who had a disability, the most common

was associated with walking (14% of park users), while 5% had a hearing disability, 1% had a

learning disability, < 1% had impaired sight, and 1% had other disabilities.


Table 37. Comparison of day and overnight user disabilities

User Group a χ

2 Effect size

Day Users Overnight Users Total b value p value

Disability in group 1.59 .207 .05

No 82 78 82

Yes c 18 22 18

a Cell entries are percentages (%). b Cell entries in this column based on data weighted by population proportions to represent total population of all park users. c Types of disabilities: walking = 14%, hearing = 5%, learning = 1%, sight = < 1%, other = 1%


There were more female (55%) than male (45%) users.

The average age of visitors was 54 years old and the largest proportion of users was 60 to

69 (34%).

The average annual household income before taxes of respondents was $70,800, and the

largest proportion of users had incomes from $50,000 to $69,999 (21%). Visitors to

South Beach State Park are generally wealthier than the Oregon population at large

(Oregon median household income in 2015 was $54,148). The average annual household

income of day users ($69,400) was significantly lower than overnight users ($78,200).

Most respondents were white (i.e., Caucasian; 86%) with some Asians (5%), Hispanic /

Latinos (3%), and Black / African Americans (2%). Overnight users had a significantly

higher proportion of whites / Caucasians (92%) than day users (85%).

Almost all respondents (95%) considered English as the primary language spoken in their

homes.

Among park users, 58% of users lived in Oregon, 21% lived in California, 4% resided in

Washington, 3% lived in Canada and 14% lived elsewhere. Among park users, 29% lived

in the Willamette Valley region of Oregon, 23% lived in the Portland Metropolitan

region, 13% of park users resided in the Coastal region, 5% lived in Central Oregon, 2%

lived in Southern Oregon, 2% lived in the Mt. Hood / Gorge region, and 1% lived in the

Eastern Oregon. The largest percentages of overnight users were from the Portland Metro

(24%) and the Willamette Valley (21%) regions, whereas day users came primarily from

the Willamette Valley region (31%) and the Oregon Coast (28%) region. A majority of

day users lived in Oregon (78%), Washington (8%), and California (4%). Overnight users

resided in Oregon (57%), Washington (12%), California (8%), and Idaho (4%).


In total, 82% of users said that nobody in their group had a disability, whereas 18% had

at least one group member with a disability. Of those who had a disability, the most

common was associated with walking (14% of park users), while 5% had a hearing

disability, 1% had a learning disability, < 1% had impaired sight, and 1% had other

disabilities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Management Recommendations

Based on these results from surveys of day and overnight users, the following recommendations,

in no particular order, are proposed for management of South Beach State Park:

Almost all day and overnight users traveled to this park in their own vehicles (89%), so

adequate parking is important and should be considered in planning and management.

The average number of visitors per vehicle for South Beach State Park day-use visitors

(3.36) was lower than the current FMS assumption of 4.0 visitors per vehicle. Park

managers may want to use this updated figure in future day-use visitation calculations for

the park.

Almost half of overnight users (45%) and day users (40%) brought dogs with them to this

park, so it will be important to ensure adequate facilities to accommodate dogs and their

owners (e.g., pick up bags, signs specifying regulations or restrictions), especially in the

overnight camping areas. Managers may want to consider examining enforcement of

existing pet regulations in the day and overnight areas as 57% of all visitors supported

requiring dogs be on leash at all times.

Most users (95%) were satisfied with their experiences and the conditions at this park.

Satisfaction, however, was consistently lower for the number (53%) and quality of

information / education materials (54%), and the facilities for groups to gather (60%).

Managers may wish to evaluate these services to users to ensure they are meeting visitor

needs.

Users were also somewhat less satisfied with the ease of movement / access (wheelchair,

elderly, stroller; 68%). Given that 43% of park visitors were over the age of 60 and 18%

of users had disabilities (14% with disabilities related to walking), managers may want to


consider evaluating access throughout the park and perhaps even obtaining a current

ADA or related audit.

Approximately 43% of all park users felt some degree of crowding on their visit, with

significantly more overnight users (72%) than day users (37%) feeling crowded. These

results suggest that crowding in the day-use areas are in the “low normal” range, where

access, displacement, or crowding problems are not likely to exist at this time and

overnight areas are in the “more than capacity” range, where further studies and

management actions focusing on social carrying capacity may be necessary to preserve

the quality of experiences at the park.




(67%). A majority of overnight users supported mosquito control in the campground

(larvicide, 75%), more campsites with both RV and tent camping (66%), more space

between campsites (55%), and increased enforcement of quiet hours (55%). Managers

may want to consider some of all of these strategies.








The visitor spending analysis showed that non-local overnight visitor party spending was

substantial, with the highest percentage reporting spending $151-$350 (39%), $551-

$1,000 (22%), and $51-$150 (18%) on their trip (within 30 miles of the park). Most

visitors reported spending some money on gasoline and oil, restaurants and bars, and

groceries. A more extensive visitor spending analysis of this data set is being conducted

by the U.S. Forest Service and will be available in a separate report. Park managers may

want to use the USFS report findings to help inform local community leaders about the

positive impact of South Beach State Park visitor spending on the local economies.



friends or family. The most common reasons respondents indicated they would not


mosquitoes. Park managers may want to address these issues in future management

actions.

The largest proportion of users (62%) depended on official internet websites as the first

primary source of obtaining information about state parks such as South Beach State

Park, and the majority of overnight users (86%) reserved their spot at this park using the

online / internet reservation system. Given these findings, it is imperative for staff to

ensure that agency and park internet websites are easy to navigate, up to date, and

provide comprehensive information.

Almost all park visitors (98%) were able to find the information they needed when

planning their visit to South Beach State Park. However, some visitors (2%) were not

able to find all information needed. The most popular information needed was about

campsites (e.g., dimensions, availability, amenities). This type of information could be

added to the South Beach State Park website.

Users also provided 215 verbatim open ended comments on what they found to be the

most outstanding features or things to do at South Beach State Park. The most common

outstanding features and things to do involve (a) the beach, (b) accessibility, (c) hiking /

walking, (d) trails / paved paths, (e) location (close to Newport, other parks, the beach),

(f) plenty of parking, (g) cleanliness, (h) campgrounds, and (g) yurts. This information

could be added to the South Beach State Park website to inform future visitors regarding

what other visitors feel are the most outstanding features at the park.

Users provided 333 verbatim open ended positive and negative comments, and

suggestions for possible improvement of South Beach State Park and other park related

issues. The most common concerns raised involved: (a) bathroom maintenance and

upkeep, (b) many loose dogs and children, (c) crowding in the campground, (d) lack of

space and privacy in the campground, (e) mosquito abatement, (f) more recycling bins,

(g) more dump stations, (h) more yurt availability, and (i) the loud foghorn. Park

managers may want to address these issues in future planning efforts.


REFERENCES

Bruyere, B. L., Rodriguez, D. A., & Vaske, J. J. (2002). Enhancing importance – performance

analysis through segmentation. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 12, 81-95.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Manning, R. E. (2010). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction (3rd

ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Needham, M. D., & Rollins, R. (2009). Social science, conservation, and protected areas theory.

In P. Dearden & R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks and protected areas in Canada: Planning and

management (3rd

ed.) (pp. 135-168). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Needham, M. D., Rollins, R. B., & Wood, C. J. B. (2004). Site-specific encounters, norms and

crowding of summer visitors at alpine ski areas. International Journal of Tourism

Research, 6, 421-437.

Shelby, B., Vaske, J. J., & Heberlein , T.A. (1989). Comparative analysis of crowding in

multiple locations: Results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences, 11, 269-291.

Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and human

dimensions. State College, PA: Venture.

Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (2002). Generalizing the encounter-norm-crowding relationship.

Leisure Sciences, 24, 255-270.

Vaske, J. J., & Shelby, L. B. (2008). Crowding as a descriptive indicator and an evaluative

standard: Results from 30 years of research. Leisure Sciences, 30, 111-126.


APPENDIX A: OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS

Positive Comments

Thank you for this beautiful place, loved that it was free! Keep it up!

Just keep smiling! :)

Nothing, I like it just the way it is!

Really appreciate ADA-accessible facilities! Especially accessible showers located

outside restrooms so it’s easier to assist with showers.

Keep up the good work. Thank you.

Beautiful place! Thanks!

Doing great!

Keep the same.

Beautiful Park!

Keep it up.

Keep as is!

Keep up the good work.

It is great as it is.

Good now! Thanks!

Great park, so are all of or coast State Parks

Keep doin' what you're doin'! Thanks so much. We're grateful!

Keep up the good work. Great volunteers!

Keep it like it is!

Great work.

We love it!

It's absolutely perfect as it is

Your rangers were very friendly! And patient when we were searching for "unreserved

sites". They were grumpy and not helpful at Nehalem. Your park was clean!! And I loved

the coffee hut being open early! And all the recycling options and overflow

parking/camping sites (we could sleep in our cars). And you let 3 cars park in one RV site

which is super great!! I like all the ranger presence!! it seemed to keep everyone

behaving well, and quiet.

My family has always been pleased with South Beach.

Doing great!

Good for now.

I have no complaints about this park. It's very nice and well maintained.

Love this park. It’s a wonderful campground.

Not much to improve upon.

We loved South Beach. Wish we had stayed 2 nights instead of heading down the coast.

We love South Beach State Park and stay there every summer, at least, once or twice.

The camp hosts are very friendly & helpful. They do a great job at maintaining the sites

and the trails. Thx for repaving the bicycle trails!


It was perfect! Don't change a thing.

No improvements needed. Great park.

It is just fine.

Nice park, no need to improve

I think it's great just the way it is

We loved it!

All good.

Keep up the great work! Oregon state parks are the very best. It makes other states less

fun to camp in. :-)

Love it.

Love Oregon Parks.

Keep as is. We love it.

Had a great experience. No change necessary It is beautiful! The staff at the entry were

very pleasant. Great place except for farther to the beach than we expected. We enjoyed

our stay with our grandchildren very much and felt very safe here. The tide pools near the

jetty wall were full of good sized crab & anemone. We loved it here

Loved everything.

Keep it the same. It is great now.

The park, restrooms, showers, etc. were maintained excellent. All the park staff were

most professional and helpful. It's just a busy park, Lots of sites! Have been coming to

the Oregon Coast for over 35 years now. Cleanliness and professionalism puts CA coastal

parks to shame! Thanks so much!!!!

I cannot suggest any improvements. We have used Oregon State Parks over the past 5

years and have been happy with our stays. You should be very proud of South Beach

State Park.

Nothing, it was great experience as usual. Great staff. Thank you.

Don't change anything!

We had a wonderful time as a family here. If everything stayed exactly the same it would

be perfect!

Negative Comments and / or Issues for Improvement

More tent sites.

Too many loose dogs.

Too much dog poo!

Bike rack please.

Keep dogs on leash.

Bike racks.

Pay hot showers.

Pay hot showers.

Pay hot showers.


It would be nice to have some campsites open for drop-ins on 1st come first serve. Maybe

15-20 sites. I am sure these could be filled. (National Parks do this with their

Reservations)

Add showers and hot water; drinking water.

Replace broken urinal.

More recycle bins.

Off leash area. Keep homeless out of day use.

Showers, toilets, drinking water.

More picnic tables.

Put bathrooms at the Jetty and a shower - 600,000 visitors to the Jetty a year, the

outhouse is a HORROR!

The state and federal parks need to maintain (increase?) funding!

Build bathrooms and showers at the South Jetty. Build parking lot at South Jetty.

More recycling bins.

Nicer bathrooms.

Watch loose dogs.

More picnic tables.

Hard surface to beach.

Add more tent camping.

Put soap in bathrooms. Other than that, really great park!

Keep it open!

Maintenance.

Wifi. Phone tower.

More non-reservable camp sites.

Too many off leash dogs.

More picnic tables.

Too many loose dogs in day use!

Keep it wild; stop allowing horses - or make owners clean up after them.

Trash on beach is the only issue - you guys are doing great considering your budget!

Thank you!

Gate for day use to keep druggies out.

More signs about rip tides and other water dangers.

Pay our Park's workers for a job well done. Thank you!

More recycle bins.

Need more State Parks!

Program for elderly and middle ages.

More recycling bins.

More recycle containers.

Bike racks.

More beach cleaning.


Way finding to the trails could be slightly better from the South Jetty Road. Otherwise,

it's great. Would be nice to have a water fountain by the restrooms.

Hot water heater and a shower.

Trim the vegetation along the Jetty Trail.

More signage - interpretive. Signage for website, programs.

Leave it alone.

Please maintain even with government cut to best of ability.

Pave the berm walkway.

Free camping for Casey Hutchinson and Mary Hutchinson [email protected]

New picnic tables.

More recycle bins.

Please enforce off leash dog rules. Not safe for humans. Impossible for an off-leash dog

to co-exist with dogs running up.

Maintain facilities. Recycling bins.

More off leash.

Provide sufficient to maintain the same high level of quality. Increase the number of 1st

come camp sites.

More frogs.

Spray trail for mosquitoes.

Buy more land for preservation.

I like it the way it is. Jetty info on construction, purpose, effects would be great.

Keep it just the way it is. Maybe add recycle bins for cans/bottles.

Would really appreciate bike racks to secure bicycles while enjoying the beach :)

Bike racks by bathrooms. Great park!

We pretty much like it as it is. You do a good job. Hot water in restrooms would be nice.

Newer, bigger restrooms.

Improve disc golf signage. Update older washrooms. Don't book up and charge more for

special events (Solar Eclipse). **We explained to this participant that OR State Parks

does NOT raise campground prices for "special events". She had misunderstood the

fundraising campsite raffle.

Charge day use fee to keep unwanted visitors anyway.

Too many loose dogs at day use.

New restroom facilities!

Bike racks, recycle cans.

More law enforcement presence.

More rangers.

More picnic tables, benches, water drainage, water hose.

Stay open and clean. Thanks!

Clean and stock restroom. Bike rack. More trash receptacles.

More fire pits.

Soap for the bathrooms, ran out too fast.


More picnic benches.

It is nice to provide bags for dog poop but should train the owners not to throw the bags

in the bushes.

Nicer toilets, kept clean. New picnic tables.

Get soap, paper towels, and mirrors in bathroom!

Reduce dog droppings on grass.

The bathrooms could be nicer. Otherwise the park was amazing!

One complaint is the state of the bathrooms. Everything else was a complete pleasure!

Thanks!

I love the park. Maybe more night patrols to remind campers to be quiet. Other than that

this is my favorite place.

Bike racks. Recycle bins.

It's perfect, maybe a few more trash cans by beach area.

More signs and information about Tsunamis and Tsunami hazard zones. I have asked

about the Tsunami evacuation route to the ranger at the check-in booth on two different

trips now. First time kind of got laughed at, second time got told "go up hill". (Yeah, I

know) Had to specifically ask "what's the fastest way to uphill/which way do I go?" and

then got vaguely pointed towards a trail. I think the rangers should highlight on the map

where the evacuation route from your campsite is by foot and by car. I did notice that

there are now some of the blue tsunami route signs, but some more emphasis and training

on it by the rangers would be good! Great stay otherwise- thank you!

A second dump setup for RV's, plant more trees between the campsites, improve the

signage at the entrance to the park on the highway - I really have to look for it whether

heading north or south.

Keep it clean and friendly and I will be back.

It was too crowded with RVs and Trump supporters.

Only issue was the mosquitoes.

More privacy between camping spots, more washrooms.

Keep it the same.

Revamp the angles for pull in n out of sites seems to be hard for anything over 25ft. Trees

bushes in way n electric boxes water off a bit.

Friendlier staff in the Hospitality Station & work on the mosquito problem. Also the fog

horn was annoying, hard to sleep.

Needed mowing, restrooms need updated (grout was gross - black).

We traveled via car to Alaska from Nashville, TN and stopped in Washington and

Oregon on our return home. Of all the park systems, we found Oregon to have the best of

all Provincial Parks in Canada, and all State parks in the United States. While traveling

we stayed in over 6 National Parks. The facilities in Oregon (Potable water, showers,

toilets, level campsites) were the best. We had to get a RV site because we had a tent

trailer. However, we never used the water and electric hookups. We just needed a level

site to put our tent trailer in which could have been either a back-in site or a pull through

site.


Might help if you sold a few toiletries or snacks somewhere within in the park. Soda and

or vending machines even. :-) Love South Beach State Park!!!!

Better access to beach. Many trails to beach were not user friendly.

I know you can't change this, but the constant horn noise from the navigation beacon at

the jetty is disconcerting. I don't recall hearing it on previous trips.

Not sure other than we will wait until the summer has ended because so many people.

Dogs and kids on bicycles make our stay really too congested.

Less noise.

It perfectly meets our personal needs at this time. Oregon state parks are far superior to

Washington's. You must have a better budget directed to your parks. We never have any

complaints when visiting. I also personally greatly appreciate the fact that you provide

paper towels in the restrooms. Hand dryers are horrible and blow around germs and not

child friendly in terms of ease of use and the horrible noise.

We are happy with the park. We wouldn't mind helping with nonnative plant removal if

there was a way to do that.

More privacy for sites.

Keep bathrooms maintained properly.

Don't change a thing. If you need more revenue to keep up with cost charging more is a

reasonable solution. Especially if for luxury items ; power, water etc. people have a

choice and basic cost still accessible to everyone ( those base cost could survive a small

hike).

Turn off fog horn. Hard to book a yurt. Had to stay up till midnight many nights until I

got lucky.

Limiting number of people at each campsite.

Better mark the trail from the far loop to the highway. The trail there now seems like

some drug deals go down on it.

The bathroom could use more cleaning.

Sewer hook ups would be wonderful, and a dumpster in each loop.

Placement of fire rings, more garbage cans.

More space in between the RV campground with more privacy. There is no privacy in

between the campground for the people in the middle of the ground. The tree in between

spot is a big help. Mosquitoes control is needed.

Everything was good except tent area ranger cleaning bathrooms and showers kind of

crabby.

Bigger tent sites with more privacy.

Continue to maintain the park so it is available for the next generation to use.

Continue present level of maintenance and services and teach folks how to avoid building

a smoky fire and burning garbage in the same fire.

Dump station was not working during our visit.

Make sure the showers are in working order. It’s nice to have rangers make their presence

known it makes people feel safe in the park.


Install hand dryers in the bathrooms instead of paper Enforce dogs leash and tie up rope

no more than 8 feet long.

More RV sites.

I like a more private feeling when I go camping because I go to get away from people.

This is a very large campground so I don't know if there is a way to improve it but maybe

a lot more trees in between campsites. Also, maybe upon check in make sure parents

understand that the playground is for small children and not to let their teenagers

congregate there. Maybe some basic campsite etiquette lessons for their kids as well, like

don't walk or ride your bike through someone else campsite. We had it happen multiple

times. I've never experienced anything like that when camping. We were in the loop with

the playground and the kids would just go right through the middle of our campsite to get

to the playground rather than walk a little further to the pathway.

Reserve a number of spots that only Oregonians can use. Unless we plan way ahead and

make reservations we can't use our own parks!

More yurts or cabins.

Make more yurts hidden in the woods like yurt #7 Cooper Ridge. I will ONLY ever stay

at South Beach if I can be in yurt #7, otherwise everything else is too crowed and close

together and in view of all the other campers. FYI, I would never tent camp at South

Beach! It's too much of a parking lot with all the RVs. To me it's a camping nightmare. I

think you should separate all the RVs from the tents. I don't want to hear generators and

know that people all around me are watching TV and playing video games. For the tent

section: plant tons of trees and shrubs in between the tent sites and make more space

around each site.

Walkway all the way to Beach for the elderly.

Find some way to combat the mosquitoes. We were unable to sit outside and enjoy the

park. I know it's Mother Nature, but spray, do something. Pets are a nuisance. Their

owners allow them to crap in the park and don't pick it up, disgusting. Don't pander to pet

owners.

The only real problem I found is that many of the trees are not trimmed high enough for

large RVs.

Full hookups available and more handicapped sites.

One of the yurts we were staying was an older model. Please consider updating it with

more lights inside the yurt, better heating system (heater wasn't very warm), and maybe

another set of electrical outlet.

Have sewer hookups at the sites

Camp spots could be further apart and the parking spot longer. Some cars were sticking

out a bit into the roadway in front of their RV.

Modernize the bathroom facilities and showers, enforce quiet time hours, shorten the first

"Speed Hump" a few inches so people stop scraping their trailers on it.

Give more privacy to campsites. I felt too close and open to the neighbors.

The trash. It is a long way to get to the container.


More restrooms closer to each other. One in section h I was closed for cleaning for 30

minutes and it is a long haul to walk to another bathroom in G.

Sites could be more private - more trees/shrubbery. A little too close together on some

sites.

Cleaner bathrooms, clean the smelly bathrooms, have somebody actually use cleaner

inside the bathrooms, the bathrooms smell bad-use cleaners and disinfectants.- six parks

host in a row only one on duty at a time all day- everyday

Make each site the same size or big enough to park an RV and tow vehicle so when

making reservations you know you will fit.

Keep the non-campers out.

Need to add at least one more dump station. With only one dump station the line can get

quite long. We waited forever to dump. Other Oregon state parks that have as many sites

as South Beach State Park have more dump stations. This is my main concern about

South Beach State Park. Thank you.

Get rid of the crows!

Just mosquito control otherwise nothing else love this campground!

This is the first time in many years of camping at South Beach that I saw supplies (i.e.

toilet paper and paper towels) running out in the bathrooms. It seemed that in previous

trips, there would be someone that checked and replenished in the evening. It appeared it

was only done in the morning when the restrooms were cleaned. It also seemed as though

the full cleanings were done at more inconvenient times when there is more likely going

to be use of them.

The bathroom facilities could be a little nicer. Showers could use a curtain.

More electric outlets, bigger heater, clean rest room more often, direction signs on trails,

street lighting.

Make people clean up after their dogs!

Make campsites more private.

Wonderful place, keep it clean, well patrolled, and supply the bathrooms.

Limit the online registration fee. That was the only part of the process that was

overpriced. Reservations should not cost that much.

Fewer people - NO barking dogs.

Include sewer hookups.

Do something about mosquitoes.

Check the mattress of the yurt. Ours was very worn out and lumpy, very uncomfortable.

Also need to leave more trash bags in yurt to dispose of garbage.

Small area covered tent sites. More yurts power at tent sites.

Due to some issues with my foot, I found the beach sand a bit of a struggle to navigate,

and would have liked more areas with a boardwalk to walk on. However this is a

temporary issue and normally wouldn't have been a problem for me.

The dump station needs to be improved and have good running water at it.


Trash not convenient, 1 dump station vs individual not convenient, long lines. More

benches along walks by paths, very hard on older people not to have rest stop every so

often.

Please spray for mosquitoes, we all got bit but my bites became infected and we had to

leave a day early, very sad, but I still love South Beach.

Main section of campground was jam packed, like sardines. If tenting area was like that I

would not have stayed.

Add a second dumping station to eliminate hour long waiting line - especially Sundays!!

More space and trees between campsites. Move fire pits to back side of parking away

from roads! Biggest negative was lack of privacy at campsite!!!!!

Recycle the camp hosts. They are entrenched, poor attitudes, lack of energy; you really

need to get fresh stock in there.

My biggest complaint was the kid’s playground. My 6 and 3 year old were not able to

play on the playground because teenagers who were too old to play in the baby slide and

regular were occupying the entire playground. They wouldn’t let my kids play and one

bumped into my child making him cry. I wish this was better supervised.

Put some restriction on number of pets campers bring to campsite.

You have openings even when the sign at the entrance says park is full...very confusing

and frustrating

South Beach is a great park, unfortunately we were robbed during our stay. My son had

his backpack stolen out of our truck during a 45-min window when we went to the beach

to watch sunset. This incident was reported to park staff & local police. I'm not sure how

to address, except maybe set up law enforcement presence; notices about safety and

leaving camping / RV sites unattended. Total value of items stolen exceeded $300

including hard candy headphones, a go pro, $60 cash, dakine backpack and a few books.

It soured our trip to the coast, however, we resolved to make the best of it and reflect on

the fact that it was "just stuff" after all. Sad to know that thieves and dishonest people

abound, even in lovely campgrounds and state parks. We felt somewhat unsafe after this

incident.

Reduce the mosquito population. It was intense.

I feel very satisfied with everything. Would like more of a selection in the store you have.

Also a lot of mosquitoes.

I wish it was easier to get a yurt. They're always booked.

Make some RV sites longer.

Enforce leash laws. We had 3 dogs running loose in our campsite over 1 night stay

More full hookups.

Cleaner showers, add another playground around E loop field, and more space between

campsites and/or more sites with better tree coverage.

Spray mosquitoes and connect outside bottom of yurt canvas to floor to keep out bugs

and cold air. It was wonderful having new restroom in coop village.

Make the fire pits all the high sided type. We had a small, low sided pit and tough to keep

a fire going with the wind.


Offer bags for bottles and cans that people can fill and donate back to the park. I to often

see bottles and cans thrown away or recycled.

I like the idea of mosquito management as that was the only thing we weren't prepared

for.

I enjoyed my stay and thought the cleanliness of the bathrooms were great. The only two

things I would say are: The grass is SO dead :( It'd be awesome if it could be healthier

and green. And the shower stalls didn't feel like they were designed very well. The whole

floor outside the shower gets almost as wet as inside.

Angle parking for all campsites especially those for RV's. It is very difficult maneuvering

into the straight sites with a longer trailer. Angled sites are much easier to manage. This

is my most important comment.

Get rid of the mosquitoes.

More sites to camp in. it seems they are becoming harder and harder to get reservations

This trip to South Beach bathrooms ran out of toilet paper consistently. Needs to be

replenished more often.

No charge for vehicle with motorhome.

Improve up keep of bathrooms and showers.

Keep up the improvements.

A little too crowded, not much shade, too many camping/RV sites.

Full hookups (I would gladly pay more for the site if I didn't have to go to the dump

station) otherwise, I love this park and have been going there every year for over 20

years.

Allow pre-registered visitors to either bypass check-in booth, or have expedited entry.

Turn down the fog horn??

Sell camping fuel and food. Info activity sheets. We did bike ride to Bay Lighthouse and

drove to tidepools and the point lighthouse.

Figure out something for the fog horn.

We were pretty happy with everything on the stay we came in late so spots were limited

so we really didn't enjoy listening to the kids running around and screaming but they

were in an area for that.

Get rid of the mosquitoes!

One staff member we encountered was rude on more than one occasion. Remind staff to

be kind in the way they communicate.

Noxious weeds need to go. My Granddaughter wanted to play but there were so many

prickly weeds near our site. Problem backing a trailer into the sites. I like people and

socializing but when you sit so close to others it is not fun. They interrupt you and you

interrupt them. We take the kids once and they are tired of going to that park. They love

to ride bikes and go to the beach.

More maintenance.

More space between sites. Enforce quiet hours. More easily accessible garbage

cans/recycling.


Have more than one dump station for RV's.

Provide a shade or curtain to block light from the center skylight in the yurts so it's easier

to sleep. Work with the Coast Guard to improve the fog horn sound away from land. Tell

people about the fog horn on the park description. When the wind is calm the foghorn is

really loud and obnoxious at the campground. The foghorn definitely made the stay less

relaxing for our family. Plant trees around the playground to give it shade.

Too many campsites. Very busy on the roads in the campsites. Constant traffic.

Clean up the campsites as we found dog shit in several spots in our campsite

Stop selling those bags of match sticks you guys are calling firewood! $5 for 5 minutes of

fire, not cool! I won't be ripped off again. Mosquito control wouldn't be a bad idea.

More dump station spots. One is not enough for size of campground.

More wheelchair accessible trails.

It is great except for the mosquito problem.

The restroom in the H loop needed cleaning. The trees could be trimmed so that larger

vehicles can maneuver through without scratches and knocking off down sports from RV.

Our RV is 13 feet high and there are several low branches and roadways where the

branches could be trimmed on either side (and the campsites as well) in order to facilitate

these RVs and still keep the wooded areas of the park.

Check in earlier, check out later.

Do not reduce services.

The park is wonderful. But we do not like huge RVs. But this is not the fault of the park.

When we first arrived to the park, another camper had parked their truck in our camping

spot. It took them 20 minutes to move the vehicle so we could park. Having the staff

roam around in the golf carts looking for single vehicles in a camping spot and telling

them to get out would be nice. Also, the playground in the center of the park needs to be

monitored. There were about 15 kids ranging from -16 playing tag. My two-year old had

a heck of a time trying to play due to kids running and climbing all over the structures,

even the toddler play set. There is no need for 16 year old kids to be running and jumping

all over that.

We need more campsites. The population in Oregon has greatly increased and it is

difficult to get campsites, particularly on weekends, unless they are scheduled months in

advance. This is a need throughout the state park system. Otherwise, we absolutely love

South Beach State Park. Our kids are grown now, but we have many wonderful memories

and hope to add to them as our adult children join us in bringing their families to camp

with us. Oregon State Parks are gems compared to Washington and California and

Montana state parks--we would be willing to pay more to keep them that way (although I

realize we are in a position to afford this while others may not be). I would donate some

of my tax refund directly to Oregon State Parks if given that option.

Pay rangers more.

It does feel pretty crowded and somewhat noisy there (compared to some smaller

mountain campsites we use in CO). It would require a remodel, but I think it would be


nicer to have more space and privacy between the RV sites. However, we love the area

and will continue to visit just knowing that this isn't a "quiet" campground.

We loved our stay. The kids enjoyed the bicycling but the rental price was steep and not

flexible. We were only there overnight and needed to buy helmets too. It was $60 for the

kids to bike two hours. Paid it since we wanted them to be active would appreciate half

day rate or hourly and not having to purchase a helmet. (Not going to travel 3000 miles

with one in a suitcase). Overall the experience was fantastic. Very clean, quiet and safe

facilities. Talked to all our family about staying there in the years to come. Keep up the

great work.

The ladies' showers were horrible - in the A loop, the last shower was the very worst and

the water barely trickled out. Also, I was eaten alive by the mosquitoes - and this will

make me think twice before I reserve for our group again next year.

Have some tent sites available for first come/first served, rather than online reservations

for all sites.

Maintain restrooms better and increase signage within the park to assist in locating the

assigned campsite when hiking

Excellent park. My family from Albuquerque will be back. Side note. Yurt #27 the door

didn't latch and had to be locked at all times. The window shades had no way of tying

open for ventilation.

Have all lost and found in one location.

More brush between campsites. Keep rowdy kids and dogs together. Let us curmudgeons

congregate together - separately! More patrols, more visibility, especially on the camps

that leave their dogs to bark at any leaf that moves.

Group site had a limit of free parking spots but there was plenty of room for those who

couldn't join us due to the restrictions. Meal yurt was very nice. So many staff. I don't

know if they were all volunteers. Very nice and helpful. There was garbage in our fire pit

when we arrived. Restrooms and showers were very nice and appreciated. Loved the

trails.

More grasses on campgrounds for comfort and privacy. Mosquitoes are a problem.

Mark unsaved trails. It was very crowded with a fairly constant parade of vehicles past

our loop B site. Great location and beach, if there were more than one road from the

ranger station to the campsites it might cut back some of the noise. Really a great stay

though, thank you!

Please just keep it opened and affordable! I'm frustrated government wants to save

money by closing state parks!!!!!!!!!!

Mosquitoes heavy when wind not blowing. Otherwise we liked it a lot.

Angle RV parking spaces to enable easy access

WiFi!!!!

Better tent sites, less crowded or more privacy between sites.

The foghorn is bothersome especially in the night time. But, I'm not sure if South Beach

State Park can make any changes on the foghorn.


Please replace the lights in the ADA bathroom, it is pitch black in there at night. Also

there's a ventilation fan in that bathroom that doesn't work. Replace the shade ties that

allow you to roll and tie up the window coverings of the yurts to allow air flow. Most of

them are broken or missing. And why isn't there a simple ladder to get to the top bunk?

That would have made a huge difference in my feeling of safety getting on and off the

top bunk. Also, here's a tip: Don't give a disabled person a lift in one of those utility

vehicles to the beach at the end of the walking trail unless you also plan to give them a

lift back again. My husband was walking slowly along the path when a park employee

kindly gave him a lift and dropped him off at the beach end of that long walk path. Later

he was stranded down by the beach unable to walk back and we couldn't find anyone

willing to go get him.

More playgrounds and more overflow parking. The overflow parking option was minimal

and not very accommodating. The access to the beach is very challenging with small

children. We had hoped to bike their regularly. The sand trails did not allow this to

happen.

Do not allow children to play in bathrooms unattended. Or in the streets or bathroom

trails.

Improve the access to RV sites. The main ring roads are very narrow (within the A,B,C

loops) and the trees and signage adjacent to the sites are too close to the site entrances.

My 5th wheel is of moderate size and yet I almost couldn't back into the site.

Enforce the speed limit. Very few campers are driving the posted speed. Dangerous!!

Reservation system does not allow you to extend your stay from within the park. Limit

and enforce the number of vehicles allowed at each site. Add internet wifi in the park.

Campsites too crowded, lack any privacy. Need better leash enforcement while dogs are

at campsite. Single dump station for a park this size is a joke. This alone would make me

consider another park.

You need a warning sign on Highway 101 telling drivers how close the entrance is or

have a longer turn lane. Very difficult to get out of parking turning to the north.

Toilets in women’s bathrooms were very difficult to flush, stalls not large enough to

comfortably open/shut door. Spray to reduce mosquitoes.

Fog horn noise Screaming children Noise, noise, noise

Keep up the great work you do. I would like to suggest increasing the frequency of

cleaning the men's bathroom on C/D loop which smelled funky pretty much the entire

time. I've stayed at other parks which uses disinfectant when floors are mopped at least

twice a day. It seems this is not being done in the bathroom I used at South Beach.

Clean out fire pits.

Wind shield in campground.

Please continue to offer ice, ice cream, and fire in a bag. More outdoor movies would be

great.

Keep Junior Rangers, enhance rules on animals (aggressive dogs), keep South Beach

beautiful so my sons can enjoy it for 30 more years too!


Please make everyone keep dogs on a leash. My standard schnauzers and I were attacked

by a German Shepherd off leash. I kept him from my dogs but it was very scary. I talked

to owners and they said they would keep it and other German shepherd leashed or I

would turn them in to Ranger. Within 2 hours they packed up and left the park and their

spot remained empty for 4 days. I was concerned for my dogs and the hundreds of

children in the park.

The only this is there is a ground cover that is really pokey and it was all over the soles of

our shoes, dogs feet and in RV. This needs to be removed because very hard on dogs feet.

We were in site B13 and the grass walk to bathroom was bad.

Dump Station. One hole is inappropriate for a campground of this size.

The park was sold out the 2 nights I was there, over the 4th of July weekend. I've never

"camped" (stayed in a yurt) with that many people around. I generally stay away from

State Parks due to the number of other people around all the time. Turns out: your park

did great with all those people and I'll definitely return to stay in a yurt again. I came

home covered in bug bites, and support chemical control of vectors. Thank you for a

great visit & I'll be back!

Provide more pet friendly yurts.

More private campsites.

Do not charge for car when entering with a motorhome. It is not fair to not charge for the

same vehicle being towed in then it is for it to be drove in.

Better maintenance (or check) on bathrooms. I got stuck in the family/handicap bathroom

in C loop. I had to bang on the door until somebody came. I yelled through the door and

had them go get my husband. He had to use his tools to get me out by taking off the door

handle. The lady who came to my banging on the door said the handle had been broken

and tricky to use her whole visit there and she almost got stuck in there too! I am just

thankful it was a true handicap person or a kid. It was scary, but I had the brains to bang

on the door and stay calm until somebody came to answer me.

The only issue we had was the mosquitoes

More handicap accessible showers and bathroom stalls.

The mosquitoes were very bad! Even with repellent on they were aggressive almost all

day. My elderly mom had a hard time walking the path to the beach. A nice paved, not

steep option would be nice.

The campfire in a bag may be ok for starting a fire but we had to go outside the camp for

real fire wood. Don't like the bag thing. The women’s bathroom nearest us was out of

order. All in all we had a good time and will be back.

More yurts!

Better enforce the quiet hours and begin quiet hours earlier.

Need a dog park.

Please strive to keep the soap dispensers in the restrooms filled; toilet paper never ran out

but soap did. Our futon frame in our yurt was also a little wobbly - we weren't able to

lock it in place per instructions posted in the yurt.


Please keep it: 1- Clean; 2- Quiet; 3-Respected by visitors. Thank you for all your hard

work! (This park is one of our favorite places in the US, and in the world after visiting 50

countries).

Watch out for the playground. A lot of teen-agers make it very dangerous for younger

Kids!!

More divided camp spots. Hedges or foliage to block other campers

Please enforce the speed limit. Too many kids and too many irresponsible drivers.

More space between sites.

Keep doing what you're doing, don't change too much or bring in more commercial

activity.

Great park, but needs slight improvement. Our biggest complaint would be the

mosquitoes.

Control mosquitoes.

We did not know how windy/gusty the grounds would be. We properly staked our tent

and the wind still destroyed it enough we had to leave a day early. Maybe measure the

wind and give a monthly average of gusts on the website.

More yurts.

It would have been helpful if the ranger at the gate have told us which loop to go into to

turn around so as to be headed the right direction to back into our campsite.


APPENDIX B: QUESTIONAIRES

Day Visitor Experiences and Perceptions

at South Beach State Park

Please Complete this Survey and Return it as Soon as Possible

Participation is Voluntary and Responses are Anonymous

Thank You for Your Participation

A Study Conducted by:

We are conducting this survey to learn about your experiences at South Beach State Park. Your input is important and will assist

managers improve your experiences at this park. Once you have completed this survey, please return it as soon as possible.


1. Before this trip, had you ever visited South Beach State Park? (check ONE)

No

Yes if yes, how many day trips have you made to this park in the past 12 months? (write number) ________ trip(s)

2. How many hours did you spend at South Beach State Park on this trip? (write number) ________ hour(s)

3. Please check all recreation activities you did at South Beach State Park on this trip. (check ALL THAT APPLY)

A. Hiking or walking I. Scuba diving/ snorkeling Q. Crabbing

B. Dog walking J. Kite flying R. Clam digging

C. Running or jogging K. Sightseeing S. Fishing

D. Bicycling on trails

E. Bicycling on local roads

L. Picnicking or barbecuing

M. Outdoor photography

T. Boating (motor, canoe, kayak)

U. Windsurfing

F. Horseback riding N. Bird or wildlife watching V. Kiteboarding

G. Beachcombing O. Visit nature/visitor center W. Ranger-led program(s)

H. Surfing/boogie boarding P. Swimming/ wading X. Other (write response) _____________________

4. From activities in Question 3 above, what ONE primary activity did you do at South Beach State Park on this trip?

(write a letter that matches your response)

Letter for primary activity ________

5. Which of the following best describes the purpose of your trip? (check ONE)

Primarily for recreation – this park was my main destination

Primarily for recreation – my main destination was NOT this park

Primarily for business, family, or other reasons – this park was a side trip

Some other reason

6. About how far from your home did you travel to get to this park? (write number of miles) _________ mile(s)

7. Overall, how dissatisfied or satisfied were you with your overall experience at South Beach State Park? (check ONE)

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Satisfied

8. How dissatisfied or satisfied were you with the natural environment at South Beach State Park? (check ONE)


9. How dissatisfied or satisfied were you with the facilities / services at South Beach State Park? (check ONE)


10. How unlikely or likely are you to return to South Beach State Park in the future? (check ONE)

Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely


11. How important is it to you that each of the following is at South Beach State Park? (circle one number for EACH)

Not

Important Neither

Extremely

Important

Overall cleanliness of park (e.g., graffiti, lawn care). 1 2 3 4 5

Number of toilets / bathrooms. 1 2 3 4 5

Cleanliness / conditions of toilets / bathrooms. 1 2 3 4 5

Absence of litter. 1 2 3 4 5

Presence of park rangers / personnel. 1 2 3 4 5

Courteousness of park rangers / personnel. 1 2 3 4 5

Number of park trails. 1 2 3 4 5

Condition / maintenance of park trails. 1 2 3 4 5

Ease of movement or access (e.g., wheelchair, elderly, baby stroller). 1 2 3 4 5

Facilities for groups to gather. 1 2 3 4 5

Variety of things to do. 1 2 3 4 5

Opportunities to escape crowds of people. 1 2 3 4 5

Personal safety. 1 2 3 4 5

Number of information / education programs or materials. 1 2 3 4 5

Quality of information / education programs or materials. 1 2 3 4 5

Information specifically about conditions or hazards in the park. 1 2 3 4 5

Signs about directions within the park. 1 2 3 4 5

Signs about directions to the park. 1 2 3 4 5

Parking for vehicles. 1 2 3 4 5

12. Now, how dissatisfied or satisfied were you with the following at South Beach State Park? (circle a number for EACH)

Very

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied

Very

Satisfied









Ease of movement or access (e.g., wheelchair, elderly, stroller). 1 2 3 4 5












13. To what extent do you oppose or support each of the following possible management actions at South Beach State Park?

(circle one number for EACH)

Strongly

Oppose Oppose Neither Support

Strongly

Support

Provide more opportunities for escaping crowds of people. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more opportunities for viewing wildlife. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more group picnic areas. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more opportunities for hiking. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more paved trails. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more trash cans. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more recycling containers. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more information / education about nature, history, or

archeology. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more programs led by park rangers. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide wireless internet access within the park. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide downloadable mobile phone applications. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more enclosed shelters. 1 2 3 4 5

Improve maintenance or upkeep of facilities / services. 1 2 3 4 5

Require all dogs be kept on leash at all times. 1 2 3 4 5

Make the park more pet friendly. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide natural buffers to block views of development outside the

park. 1 2 3 4 5

Restore it to historical conditions (e.g., replace non-native with native

plants). 1 2 3 4 5

Limit the number of people allowed per day. 1 2 3 4 5

Limit the number of large groups allowed (e.g., no more than 10-20

people). 1 2 3 4 5

Close this park to all recreation / tourism activities. 1 2 3 4 5

Do not change anything / keep things as they are now. 1 2 3 4 5

As agency budgets for management of this park decrease over time, we may be faced with difficult decisions related to service

reductions. Before making any changes, however, we feel that it is important to know what changes would be supported or opposed

by current visitors. As a result, the following questions list various hypothetical changes that managers could make in the future.

Please indicate your level of opposition or support to these possible changes.

14. To what extent would you oppose or support each of the following possible service reductions at South Beach State Park?


Strongly


Strongly

Support

Fewer hours open. 1 2 3 4 5

Fewer ranger patrols. 1 2 3 4 5

Fewer ranger-led programs. 1 2 3 4 5

Scaled down facilities (e.g., fewer restrooms, picnic shelters). 1 2 3 4 5

Reduced janitorial services. 1 2 3 4 5

Reduced ground maintenance (e.g., mowing, landscaping). 1 2 3 4 5

15. To what extent did you feel crowded at South Beach State Park on this trip? (circle a number)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Not at all

Crowded

Slightly

Crowded

Moderately

Crowded

Extremely

Crowded

16. Including yourself, how many people accompanied you at South Beach State Park on this trip? _______ person(s)

17. Did you or anyone in your group bring dog(s) with you to South Beach State Park? (check ONE) No Yes


18. Did anyone in your group have a disability?

No

Yes if yes, what are these disabilities? (check ALL THAT APPLY) Hearing Sight Walking

Learning Other _____________

19. When you were thinking about visiting an Oregon State Park such as South Beach State Park, about how often did you

obtain information from each of the following sources when making your decision? (circle one number for EACH)

Never Sometimes Often

A. Official internet websites (e.g., Oregon State Parks, Travel Oregon). 1 2 3 4 5

B. Social media internet websites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter). 1 2 3 4 5

C. Brochures. 1 2 3 4 5

D. Newspapers. 1 2 3 4 5

E. Magazines. 1 2 3 4 5

F. Books. 1 2 3 4 5

G. Television. 1 2 3 4 5

H. Videos / DVDs. 1 2 3 4 5

I. Radio. 1 2 3 4 5

J. Community organization or church. 1 2 3 4 5

K. Health care providers. 1 2 3 4 5

L. Work. 1 2 3 4 5

M. Friends or family members. 1 2 3 4 5

N. Highway signs. 1 2 3 4 5

O. Previous visit. 1 2 3 4 5

P. Other (write response) _______________________________ 1 2 3 4 5

20. From the list of sources in question 19 above, which ONE would you use FIRST when obtaining information about an

Oregon State Park? (write letter)

Letter ________

21. When planning your visit to South Beach State Park, were you able to find the information you needed? (check ONE)

Yes

No if no, what additional information did you need? (write response) ____________________________________

22. How did you get to South Beach State Park on this trip? (check ONE)

My family's personal vehicle how many total people were in the vehicle? _________ person(s)

Somebody else's personal vehicle how many total people were in the vehicle? _________ person(s)

Other (write response) _________________________________________________

______________________________ how many total people were in the vehicle? _________ person(s)

23. If you had NOT been able to go to South Beach State Park for this visit, what other park(s) would you have considered

going to instead? (list park names)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

24. Would you recommend a South Beach State Park visit to friends or family members? (check ONE)

Yes

No if no, why not? (write response) ________________________________________________________________


25. What do you feel are the most outstanding features or things to do at South Beach State Park? (write response)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

26. If Oregon State Parks offered weekend programs for beginners to learn basic outdoor skills, would you/your family consider

participating in such a program at a nearby park?

No

Yes if yes, what types of activities would you/your family be interested in learning about? (check ALL THAT APPLY)

Birding Disc golfing Hiking Mountain biking Scenic bicycling on roads

Camping Fishing Horseback riding Rafting Stargazing

Canoeing Geocaching Kayaking Rock climbing Other ___________

27. Did you participate in any moderate physical activity during this trip (for example walking, bicycling, canoeing at a moderate

pace)? (check ONE)

No

Yes if yes, how much time did you spend in moderate physical activity for this trip? _________ minutes

28. Did you participate in any vigorous physical activity during this trip (for example jogging, walking, or bicycling at a vigorous

pace, breaking a sweat, heart beating rapidly)? (check ONE)

No

Yes if yes, how much time did you spend in vigorous physical activity for this trip? _________ minutes

29. Is your level of physical activity at South Beach State Park more than, less than, or about the same as your level of physical

activity in your day-to-day life? (check ONE)

My physical activity is MORE at South Beach State Park than my daily life.

My physical activity is LESS at South Beach State Park than in my daily life.

My physical activity is ABOUT THE SAME at South Beach State Park as it is in my daily life.

30. To what degree did this South Beach State Park visit result in the following health benefits for you? (circle one number for

EACH)

Not at all A great deal

A. Reducing your stress. 1 2 3 4 5

B. Improving your level of physical fitness. 1 2 3 4 5

C. Improving your physical health. 1 2 3 4 5

D. Improving your mental health. 1 2 3 4 5

E. Reducing your anxiety. 1 2 3 4 5


31. For each of the following categories, please estimate how much you and other members of your party spent and plan to

spend on this trip both inside the Park and within 30 miles of South Beach State Park. Please round off to the nearest dollar.

Motel, lodge, cabin, B&B, other lodging: $________.00

Camping: $________.00

Restaurants and bars: $________.00

Groceries: $________.00

Gasoline and oil: $________.00

Park entry, parking, or recreation use fees: $________.00

Recreation and equipment (guide fees, equipment rental): $________.00

Souvenirs, clothing, and other miscellaneous: $________.00

32. Are you staying away from home either inside the Park or within 30 miles of South Beach State Park on this trip? (check

ONE)

No

Yes if yes, how many nights are you staying away from home inside the Park or within 30 miles of this Park? _______ night(s)

33. Are you: (check ONE) Male Female

34. How old are you? (write response) ________ years old

35. Which of the following best describes you? (check ONE)

White (Caucasian) Hispanic / Latino American Indian or Alaskan Native Other (write response)

Black / African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander _____________________

36. What language is spoken most often at your home? (check ONE)

English Spanish Russian Other (write response) _________________

37. Where do you live? (write responses) City / town __________ State __________ Country __________ Zipcode

________

38. Which of these broad categories best describes your current annual household income before taxes? (check ONE)

Less than $10,000 $90,000 to $109,999

$10,000 to $29,999 $110,000 to $129,999

$30,000 to $49,999 $130,000 to $149,999

$50,000 to $69,999 $150,000 to $169,999

$70,000 to $89,999 $170,000 or more

Please tell us how we can improve South Beach State Park:

Thank you, your input is important! Please return this survey as soon as possible.


Overnight Visitor Experiences and Perceptions






We are conducting this survey to learn about your experiences at South Beach State Park. Your input is important and will

assist managers improve your experiences at this park. Once you complete this survey, please return it as soon as possible.



No

Yes if yes, how many trips have you made to this park in the past 12 months? (write number) _______ trip(s)

2. How many nights in a row did you spend at South Beach State Park on this trip? (write number) ________ night(s)

3. Please check all recreation activities you did at South Beach State Park on your recent trip. (check ALL THAT APPLY)

A. Hiking or walking J. Kite flying S. Clam digging

B. Dog walking K. Sightseeing T. Fishing

C. Running or jogging L. Picnicking or barbecuing U. Boating (motor, canoe, kayak)

D. Bicycling on trails

E. Bicycling on local roads

M. Outdoor photography

N. Camping

V. Windsurfing

W. Kiteboarding

F. Horseback riding O. Bird or wildlife watching X. Ranger-led program(s)

G. Beachcombing P. Visit nature/visitor center Y. Other (write response) _____________________

H. Surfing/boogie boarding Q. Swimming/ wading ___________________________________________

I. Scuba diving/ snorkeling R. Crabbing



Letter for primary activity ________


Primarily for recreation – this park was my main destination

Primarily for recreation – my main destination was NOT this park

Primarily for business, family, or other reasons – this park was a side trip

Some other reason

6. About how far from your home did you travel to get to this park? (write number of miles) _________ mile(s)







10. How dissatisfied or satisfied were you with the rates that you paid at South Beach State Park? (check ONE)



Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely



Not

Important Neither

Extremely

Important




















Comfort of campsites. 1 2 3 4 5

Shading provided by trees or other structures. 1 2 3 4 5

Good value for the rates that I paid at the park. 1 2 3 4 5


Very


Very

Satisfied























14. Do you think Oregon State Parks should do more in controlling mosquitoes at South Beach State Park campground? (check

ONE)

yes no not sure




Strongly


Strongly

Support

Provide more opportunities for escaping crowds of people. 1 2 3 4 5


Food for sale (restaurants, snack shops, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5











Provide enclosed shelters. 1 2 3 4 5




Mosquito control in campground -apply larvicide to standing water

sources 1 2 3 4 5

Provide natural buffers to block views of development outside the park. 1 2 3 4 5


plants). 1 2 3 4 5



people). 1 2 3 4 5


Provide more space between campsites. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more walk-in / cart-in campsites. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more tent camping in developed campgrounds. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide campsites that accommodate both RV and tent camping. 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more group camping areas. 1 2 3 4 5

Increase enforcement of campground quiet hours (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.) 1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Not at all

Crowded

Slightly

Crowded

Moderately

Crowded

Extremely

Crowded

17. Did you make your reservation for your recent overnight visit to South Beach State Park using the Oregon State Parks

telephone or internet reservation system? (check ONE)

Telephone reservation system Internet reservation system I did not make the reservation

18. How dissatisfied or satisfied were you with the reservation system for your trip to South Beach State Park? (check ONE)

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Satisfied Didn't make reservation








Strongly


Strongly

Support

Fewer hours open. 1 2 3 4 5






20. Including yourself, how many people accompanied you at South Beach State Park on this trip? ________ person(s)

21. Did you or anyone in your group bring dog(s) with you to South Beach State Park? (check ONE) No Yes


No

Yes if yes, what are these disabilities? (check ALL THAT APPLY) Hearing Sight Walking

Learning Other _______________


going to instead? (list park names) ____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


My family's personal vehicle how many total people were in the vehicle? _________ person(s)

Somebody else's personal vehicle how many total people were in the vehicle? _________ person(s)

Other (write response) how many total people were in the vehicle? _________ person(s)




A. Official internet websites (e.g., Oregon State Parks, Travel Oregon). 1 2 3 4 5


C. Brochures. 1 2 3 4 5



F. Books. 1 2 3 4 5


H. Videos / DVDs. 1 2 3 4 5

I. Radio. 1 2 3 4 5

J. Community organization or church. 1 2 3 4 5


L. Work. 1 2 3 4 5




P. Other (write response) _______________________________ 1 2 3 4 5




Letter ________


Yes

No if no, what additional information did you need? (write response) ____________________________________

28. Would you recommend a South Beach State Park overnight visit to friends or family members? (check ONE)

Yes

No if no, why not? (write response) ________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________________________

30. What type of campsite(s) did you use on your most recent trip to South Beach State Park? (check ALL THAT APPLY)

RV campsite Cabin Group RV camp Hiker / biker campsite

Tent campsite Yurt Group tent camp Other (write response) ________________

31a. If you used a RV campsite, what type of RV did you stay in? (check ONE)

Towable (Travel trailer, pop-up, etc.)

Truck camper

Fifth-wheel

Motorhome

31b . What is the approximate length of this RV (tongue to bumper)? _____ feet

32. If you were to stay at a RV campsite, what type of power supply would you require? (check ONE)

30 amps 50 amps 100 amps No electric power

needed

33. If you were to stay at an RV campsite, how important are electric, water, and sewer hookups? (circle one number for EACH)

Not

Important

Neithe

r

Extremely

Important

Electric hookups. 1 2 3 4 5

Water hookups. 1 2 3 4 5

Sewer hookups. 1 2 3 4 5

34. As campground utility and energy costs rise, we may be faced with the need to increase fees at full-hookup and electrical

campsites to cover campground operational expenses. To what extent would you oppose or support each of the following possible

methods of determining fees for State Park campsites? For individual campsites, assume a standard flat rate charge for water and

sewer usage. (circle one number for EACH)

Strongly


Strongly

Support

Flat rate electric use charge per site based on overall average historical

use. 1 2 3 4 5

Individually metered sites where each site pays for the electricity it uses. 1 2 3 4 5

Site charge based on the RV (length x width) square footage and amp use. 1 2 3 4 5

Flat rate charge for use of dump station (e.g., $5 or $10) per use 1 2 3 4 5

Flat rate charge for full-hookup site. 1 2 3 4 5




No

Yes if yes, what types of activities would you/your family be interested in learning about? (check ALL THAT APPLY)

Birding Disc golfing Hiking Mountain biking Scenic bicycling on roads

Camping Fishing Horseback riding Rafting Stargazing

Canoeing Geocaching Kayaking Rock climbing Other ___________

36. Did you participate in any moderate physical activity during this trip (for example walking, bicycling, canoeing at a moderate pace)? (check ONE)

No

Yes if yes, how much time did you spend in moderate physical activity for this trip? _________ minutes



No

Yes if yes, how much time did you spend in vigorous physical activity for this trip? _________ minutes



My physical activity is MORE at South Beach State Park than my daily life.

My physical activity is LESS at South Beach State Park than in my daily life.

My physical activity is ABOUT THE SAME at South Beach State Park as it is in my daily life.

39. To what degree did this South Beach SP visit result in the following health benefits for you? (circle one number for EACH)


A. Reducing your stress. 1 2 3 4 5





40. For each of the following categories, please estimate how much you and other members of your party spent on your trip both

inside the Park and within 30 miles of South Beach State Park. Please round off to the nearest dollar.

Motel, lodge, cabin, B&B, other lodging: $________.00

Camping: $________.00

Restaurants and bars: $________.00

Groceries: $________.00

Gasoline and oil: $________.00

Park entry, parking, or recreation use fees: $________.00

Recreation and equipment (guide fees, equipment rental): $________.00

Souvenirs, clothing, and other miscellaneous: $________.00


ONE)

No

Yes if yes, how many nights are you staying away from home inside the Park or within 30 miles of this Park?

_______ night(s)

42. Are you: (check ONE) Male Female


43. How old are you? (write response) ________ years old


White (Caucasian) Hispanic / Latino American Indian or Alaskan Native Other (write response)

Black / African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander _____________________


English Spanish Russian Other (write response) _________________

46. Where do you live? (write responses) City / town ______ State ________ Country ________ Zipcode ________


Less than $10,000 $90,000 to $109,999

$10,000 to $29,999 $110,000 to $129,999

$30,000 to $49,999 $130,000 to $149,999

$50,000 to $69,999 $150,000 to $169,999

$70,000 to $89,999 $170,000 or more




APPENDIX C: UNCOLLAPSED PERCENTAGES

Day Visitor Experiences and Perceptions






We are conducting this survey to learn about your experiences at South Beach State Park. Your input is important and will assist

managers improve your experiences at this park. Once you have completed this survey, please return it as soon as possible.



35% No

65% Yes if yes, how many day trips have you made to this park in the past 12 months? (write number) M = 14.29 trip(s)

2. How many hours did you spend at South Beach State Park on this trip? (write number) M = 2.76 hour(s)

3. Please check all recreation activities you did at South Beach State Park on this trip. (check ALL THAT APPLY)

81% A. Hiking or walking 1% I. Scuba diving/ snorkeling 3% Q. Crabbing

32% B. Dog walking 14% J. Kite flying 1% R. Clam digging

7% C. Running or jogging 34% K. Sightseeing 3% S. Fishing

5% D. Bicycling on trails

14 E. Bicycling on local roads

22% L. Picnicking or barbecuing

18% M. Outdoor photography

1% T. Boating (motor, canoe, kayak)

1% U. Windsurfing

< 1% F. Horseback riding 16% N. Bird or wildlife watching 6% V. Kiteboarding

43% G. Beachcombing 7% O. Visit nature/visitor center 1% W. Ranger-led program(s)

7% H. Surfing/boogie

boarding

17% P. Swimming/ wading 10% X. Other (write response) See Report.



Letter for primary activity See Report.


61% Primarily for recreation – this park was my main destination

29% Primarily for recreation – my main destination was NOT this park

8% Primarily for business, family, or other reasons – this park was a side trip

3% Some other reason

6. About how far from your home did you travel to get to this park? (write number of miles) M = 239.13 mile(s)


3% Very Dissatisfied 0% Dissatisfied 1% Neither 31% Satisfied 66% Very Satisfied


2% Very Dissatisfied < 1% Dissatisfied 1% Neither 33% Satisfied 63% Very Satisfied




1% Very Unlikely < 1% Unlikely 1% Neither 32% Likely 65% Very Likely



Not

Important Neither

Extremely

Important

Overall cleanliness of park (e.g., graffiti, lawn care). 0% 0% 3% 34% 63%

Number of toilets / bathrooms. < 1 3 7 36 54



















Very


Very

Satisfied






Courteousness of park rangers / personnel. < 1 1 17 35 46


Condition / maintenance of park trails. 0 < 1 23 47 30


Facilities for groups to gather. < 1 1 36 36 26





Quality of information / education programs or materials. 1 < 1 46 29 25


Signs about directions within the park. 0 < 1 37 35 28






Strongly


Strongly

Support

Provide more opportunities for escaping crowds of people. < 1% < 1% 25% 39% 36%

Provide more opportunities for viewing wildlife. < 1 0 31 38 31




Provide more trash cans. < 1 1 28 48 23

Provide more recycling containers. 0 < 1 19 41 39


archeology. <1 1 41 34 23




Provide more enclosed shelters. 10 15 47 17 11




Provide natural buffers to block views of development outside the

park. 1 4 50 24 21


plants). 5 11 38 22 25



people). 18 18 34 20 10









Strongly


Strongly

Support

Fewer hours open. 47% 27% 18% 6% 2%







36% 27% 16% 5% 5% 8% 2% 1% 0%

Not at all

Crowded

Slightly

Crowded

Moderately

Crowded

Extremely

Crowded

16. Including yourself, how many people accompanied you at South Beach State Park on this trip? M = 3.21 person(s)

17. Did you or anyone in your group bring dog(s) with you to South Beach State Park? (check ONE) 60% No 40% Yes



82% No

18% Yes if yes, what are these disabilities? (check ALL THAT APPLY) 5% Hearing < 1% Sight 13% Walking

1% Learning 1% Other See Report.




A. Official internet websites (e.g., Oregon State Parks, Travel Oregon). 24% 4% 34% 13% 25%


C. Brochures. 51 11 22 10 5


E. Magazines. 66 11 15 6 2

F. Books. 69 9 14 5 3


H. Videos / DVDs. 77 12 8 3 0

I. Radio. 73 13 11 3 0

J. Community organization or church. 76 11 9 2 < 1


L. Work. 75 10 14 1 0




P. Other (write response) See Report. 64 5 20 2 9



Letter See Report.


97% Yes

3% No if no, what additional information did you need? (write response) See Report.


88% My family's personal vehicle how many total people were in the vehicle? M = 2.73 person(s)

6% Somebody else's personal vehicle how many total people were in the vehicle? M = 3.27 person(s)

6% Other (write response) See Report. how many total people were in the vehicle? M = 1.55 person(s)


going to instead? (list park names)

See Report.

24. Would you recommend a South Beach State Park visit to friends or family members? (check ONE)

99% Yes

1% No if no, why not? (write response) See Report.


See Report.




54% No

46% Yes if yes, what types of activities would you/your family be interested in learning about? (check ALL THAT APPLY)

26% Birding 9% Disc golfing 21% Hiking 9% Mountain biking 12% Scenic bicycling on roads

19% Camping 15% Fishing 14% Horseback riding 14% Rafting 22% Stargazing

18% Canoeing 13% Geocaching 23% Kayaking 11% Rock climbing 3% Other See Report.

27. Did you participate in any moderate physical activity during this trip (for example walking, bicycling, canoeing at a moderate

pace)? (check ONE)

16% No

84% Yes if yes, how much time did you spend in moderate physical activity for this trip? M = 77.45 minutes



60% No

40% Yes if yes, how much time did you spend in vigorous physical activity for this trip? M = 85.49 minutes



49% My physical activity is MORE at South Beach State Park than my daily life.

11% My physical activity is LESS at South Beach State Park than in my daily life.

40% My physical activity is ABOUT THE SAME at South Beach State Park as it is in my daily life.

30. To what degree did this South Beach State Park visit result in the following health benefits for you? (circle one number for

EACH)


A. Reducing your stress. 2% 1% 10% 30% 57%





31. For each of the following categories, please estimate how much you and other members of your party spent and plan to

spend on this trip both inside the Park and within 30 miles of South Beach State Park. Please round off to the nearest dollar.

Motel, lodge, cabin, B&B, other lodging: See Report.

Camping: See Report.

Restaurants and bars: See Report.

Groceries: See Report.

Gasoline and oil: See Report.

Park entry, parking, or recreation use fees: See Report.

Recreation and equipment (guide fees, equipment rental): See Report.

Souvenirs, clothing, and other miscellaneous: See Report.



ONE)

50% No

50% Yes if yes, how many nights are you staying away from home inside the Park or within 30 miles of this Park?

M = 3.86 night(s)

33. Are you: (check ONE) 46% Male 54% Female

34. How old are you? (write response) M = 53.79 years old


85% White (Caucasian) 4% Hispanic / Latino 2% American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% Other (write

response) See Report.

2% Black / African American 5% Asian 1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander


95% English 4% Spanish 0% Russian 2% Other (write response) See Report.

37. Where do you live? (write responses) City / town See Report. State See Report. Country See Report. Zipcode See

Report.


4% Less than $10,000 14% $90,000 to $109,999

7% $10,000 to $29,999 10% $110,000 to $129,999

21% $30,000 to $49,999 4% $130,000 to $149,999

21% $50,000 to $69,999 4% $150,000 to $169,999

14% $70,000 to $89,999 8% $170,000 or more


See Report.



Overnight Visitor Experiences and Perceptions







We are conducting this survey to learn about your experiences at South Beach State Park. Your input is important and will

assist managers improve your experiences at this park. Once you complete this survey, please return it as soon as possible.


46% No

54% Yes if yes, how many trips have you made to this park in the past 12 months? (write number) M = 1.31 trip(s)

2. How many nights in a row did you spend at South Beach State Park on this trip? (write number) M = 3.00 night(s)

3. Please check all recreation activities you did at South Beach State Park on your recent trip. (check ALL THAT APPLY)

84% A. Hiking or walking 15% J. Kite flying 2% S. Clam digging

37% B. Dog walking 15% K. Sightseeing 7% T. Fishing

7% C. Running or jogging 41% L. Picnicking or barbecuing 5% U. Boating (motor, canoe, kayak)

30% D. Bicycling on trails

15% E. Bicycling on local

roads

28% M. Outdoor photography

88% N. Camping

1% V. Windsurfing

< 1% W. Kiteboarding

< 1% F. Horseback riding 18% O. Bird or wildlife watching 7% X. Ranger-led program(s)

62% G. Beachcombing 21% P. Visit nature/visitor center 7% Y. Other (write response) See Report.

3% H. Surfing/boogie

boarding

16% Q. Swimming/ wading

< 1% I. Scuba diving/

snorkeling

11% R. Crabbing



Letter for primary activity See Report.


68% Primarily for recreation – this park was my main destination

25% Primarily for recreation – my main destination was NOT this park

4% Primarily for business, family, or other reasons – this park was a side trip

3% Some other reason

6. About how far from your home did you travel to get to this park? (write number of miles) M = 372.16 mile(s)







10. How dissatisfied or satisfied were you with the rates that you paid at South Beach State Park? (check ONE)



3% Very Unlikely 5% Unlikely 5% Neither 36% Likely 51% Very Likely



Not

Important Neither

Extremely

Important

Overall cleanliness of park (e.g., graffiti, lawn care). 0% < 1% 2% 32% 66%


Cleanliness / conditions of toilets / bathrooms. 2 < 1 3 22 73

Absence of litter. 0 < 1 2 37 61


Courteousness of park rangers / personnel. < 1 <1 6 40 53







Personal safety. < 1 1 6 29 64







Comfort of campsites. < 1 0 4 37 58

Shading provided by trees or other structures. 1 < 1 9 43 47

Good value for the rates that I paid at the park. < 1 < 1 6 40 54


Very


Very

Satisfied


Number of toilets / bathrooms. < 1 2 8 49 40


Absence of litter. < 1 1 4 45 51

Presence of park rangers / personnel. < 1 1 11 47 41

Courteousness of park rangers / personnel. < 1 1 8 38 52

Number of park trails. < 1 1 13 49 37

Condition / maintenance of park trails. < 1 1 12 47 40





Personal safety. < 1 1 5 46 47




Signs about directions within the park. < 1 1 12 54 32






14. Do you think Oregon State Parks should do more in controlling mosquitoes at South Beach State Park campground? (check

ONE)

19% yes 47% no 35% not sure




Strongly


Strongly

Support

Provide more opportunities for escaping crowds of people. < 1% 2% 33% 44% 21%


Food for sale (restaurants, snack shops, etc.) 13 19 42 21 6











Provide enclosed shelters. 2 7 60 24 7




Mosquito control in campground -apply larvicide to standing water

sources 2 5 20 38 35

Provide natural buffers to block views of development outside the park. 1 2 27 46 24


plants). 2 4 43 37 15



people). 5 7 46 30 12


Provide more space between campsites. 2 5 39 34 20

Provide more walk-in / cart-in campsites. 2 7 74 13 5

Provide more tent camping in developed campgrounds. 1 7 68 17 7

Provide campsites that accommodate both RV and tent camping. 1 3 31 45 21

Provide more group camping areas. 2 9 71 14 3

Increase enforcement of campground quiet hours (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.) 1 3 41 35 20



15% 13% 22% 5% 7% 19% 9% 6% 4%

Not at all

Crowded

Slightly

Crowded

Moderately

Crowded

Extremely

Crowded

17. Did you make your reservation for your recent overnight visit to South Beach State Park using the Oregon State Parks

telephone or internet reservation system? (check ONE)

9% Telephone reservation system 86% Internet reservation system 5% I did not make the reservation

18. How dissatisfied or satisfied were you with the reservation system for your trip to South Beach State Park? (check ONE)

3% Very

Dissatisfied

4% Dissatisfied 5% Neither 4% Satisfied 44% Very

Satisfied

45% Didn't make

reservation








Strongly


Strongly

Support

Fewer hours open. 28% 34% 31% 7% 1%

Fewer ranger patrols. 21 43 26 10 < 1





20. Including yourself, how many people accompanied you at South Beach State Park on this trip? M = 4.30 person(s)

21. Did you or anyone in your group bring dog(s) with you to South Beach State Park? (check ONE) 55% No 45% Yes


77% No

23% Yes if yes, what are these disabilities? (check ALL THAT APPLY) 6% Hearing < 1% Sight 17% Walking

2% Learning 5% Other See Report.


going to instead? (list park names) See Report.


94% My family's personal vehicle how many total people were in the vehicle? M = 3.02 person(s)

3% Somebody else's personal vehicle how many total people were in the vehicle? M = 3.05 person(s)

3% Other (write response) See Report. how many total people were in the vehicle? M = 2.50 person(s)




A. Official internet websites (e.g., Oregon State Parks, Travel Oregon). 5% 3% 21% 19% 52%


C. Brochures. 47 14 30 6 3



F. Books. 78 9 11 1 1

G. Television. 84 8 7 1 < 1

H. Videos / DVDs. 89 6 4 < 1 0

I. Radio. 85 7 6 1 1

J. Community organization or church. 89 5 5 < 1 1


L. Work. 84 6 8 1 1




P. Other (write response) See Report. 85 2 7 3 4



Letter See Report.



97% Yes

3% No if no, what additional information did you need? (write response) See Report.

28. Would you recommend a South Beach State Park overnight visit to friends or family members? (check ONE)

95% Yes

5% No if no, why not? (write response) See Report.


See Report.

30. What type of campsite(s) did you use on your most recent trip to South Beach State Park? (check ALL THAT APPLY)

72% RV campsite 0% Cabin < 1% Group RV camp 0% Hiker / biker campsite

17% Tent campsite 19% Yurt < 1% Group tent camp 1% Other (write response) See Report.

31a. If you used a RV campsite, what type of RV did you stay in? (check ONE)

57% Towable (Travel trailer, pop-up, etc.)

5% Truck camper

10% Fifth-wheel

28% Motorhome

31b. What is the approximate length of this RV (tongue to bumper)? M = 26.27 feet

32. If you were to stay at a RV campsite, what type of power supply would you require? (check ONE)

75% 30 amps 13% 50 amps 2% 100 amps 10% No electric power

needed

33. If you were to stay at an RV campsite, how important are electric, water, and sewer hookups? (circle one number for EACH)

Not

Important Neither

Extremely

Important

Electric hookups. 5% 1% 3% 27% 65%

Water hookups. 7 4 6 25 58

Sewer hookups. 28 7 21 22 22

34. As campground utility and energy costs rise, we may be faced with the need to increase fees at full-hookup and electrical

campsites to cover campground operational expenses. To what extent would you oppose or support each of the following possible

methods of determining fees for State Park campsites? For individual campsites, assume a standard flat rate charge for water and

sewer usage. (circle one number for EACH)

Strongly


Strongly

Support

Flat rate electric use charge per site based on overall average historical

use. 12% 14% 25% 34% 14%

Individually metered sites where each site pays for the electricity it uses. 18 15 18 27 21

Site charge based on the RV (length x width) square footage and amp use. 15 19 24 29 12

Flat rate charge for use of dump station (e.g., $5 or $10) per use 16 17 18 36 13

Flat rate charge for full-hookup site. 4 5 21 47 23




61% No

39% Yes if yes, what types of activities would you/your family be interested in learning about? (check ALL THAT APPLY)

18% Birding 7% Disc golfing 17% Hiking 8% Mountain biking 13% Scenic bicycling on roads

15% Camping 17% Fishing 11% Horseback riding 9% Rafting 24% Stargazing

14% Canoeing 14% Geocaching 21% Kayaking 9% Rock climbing 2% Other See Report.

36. Did you participate in any moderate physical activity during this trip (for example walking, bicycling, canoeing at a moderate pace)? (check ONE)

13% No

87% Yes if yes, how much time did you spend in moderate physical activity for this trip? M = 149.99 minutes



74% No

26% Yes if yes, how much time did you spend in vigorous physical activity for this trip? M = 84.96 minutes



38% My physical activity is MORE at South Beach State Park than my daily life.

14% My physical activity is LESS at South Beach State Park than in my daily life.

48% My physical activity is ABOUT THE SAME at South Beach State Park as it is in my daily life.

39. To what degree did this South Beach SP visit result in the following health benefits for you? (circle one number for EACH)


A. Reducing your stress. 5% 4% 20% 36% 35%





40. For each of the following categories, please estimate how much you and other members of your party spent on your trip both

inside the Park and within 30 miles of South Beach State Park. Please round off to the nearest dollar.

Motel, lodge, cabin, B&B, other lodging: See Report.

Camping: See Report.

Restaurants and bars: See Report.

Groceries: See Report.

Gasoline and oil: See Report.

Park entry, parking, or recreation use fees: See Report.

Recreation and equipment (guide fees, equipment rental): See Report.

Souvenirs, clothing, and other miscellaneous: See Report.


ONE)

32% No

68% Yes if yes, how many nights are you staying away from home inside the Park or within 30 miles of this Park?

M = 3.59 night(s)


42. Are you: (check ONE) 41% Male 59% Female

43. How old are you? (write response) M = 54.41 years old


92% White (Caucasian) 2% Hispanic / Latino 0% American Indian or Alaskan Native 3% Other (write

response) See Report/

< 1% Black / African

American

2% Asian 1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander


97% English 0% Spanish 1% Russian 2% Other (write response) See Report.

46. Where do you live? (write responses) City / town See Report. State See Report. Country See Report. Zipcode See

Report.


1% Less than $10,000 13% $90,000 to $109,999

6% $10,000 to $29,999 15% $110,000 to $129,999

13% $30,000 to $49,999 8% $130,000 to $149,999

18% $50,000 to $69,999 4% $150,000 to $169,999

18% $70,000 to $89,999 5% $170,000 or more


See Report.


Visitor Survey of Day-use and Overnight Visitors at South ... · project. Brian Fowler, Dylan...

Documents

Transcript of Visitor Survey of Day-use and Overnight Visitors at South ... · project. Brian Fowler, Dylan...