Lela Cooper*, Program on the Environment, University of Washington

Site Supervisor: Leah Dobey, Washington State Department of Natural Resources

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Ken Yocom, University of Washington, Department of Landscape
Architecture
Host Organization: Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Project Title: Evaluating Recreation Equity: Do WA Public Lands Serve Everyone?

Abstract:

Public lands are designed to be resources that all can use, regardless of background. However,
unfortunately today, many marginalized groups are underrepresented in the outdoors due to
social, cultural, and economic barriers. The aim of this study was to determine who uses
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR) managed public lands, and if
these users reflect the racial diversity of the Washington public. Additionally, inclusive diversity
focused efforts were implemented to make recreation more accessible to underserved groups.
This project revolved around the creation of a statewide user survey of WA DNR users, to
determine who is currently coming to the agency’s managed lands. Additionally, based on the
findings of the survey, foreign language resources were created and in-community outreach was
conducted. Overall, the findings of the survey show that WA DNR users do not reflect the racial
makeup of Washington State, with only 8% of survey respondents indicating being racial
minorities and 92% of respondents reporting as white, despite the Washington public consisting
of an approximately 23% minority population (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). In-community
outreach and the foreign language resources proved to be a successful way to interact with
underserved communities. It is necessary that land managers ensure that public lands are
accessible to all, for the health and welfare of marginalized communities. Furthermore, the future
of public lands depends on increasing racial equity in a rapidly diversifying United States.
 Context and Background:

Public lands, and the idea that nature should be both protected and accessible to all, is a

cornerstone belief in the American land ethic, and can be seen through initial land preservation

efforts of the early 20th century (Xiao et. al 2016). The concept of collective ownership of

recreation resources and natural areas influences the ways in which such landscapes are

distributed and utilized (Crompton et. al 2008). However, despite the noble origins of the notion

of collective use, public lands historically have proven to not be accessible to all members of the

American public, both through previous formal acts of exclusion, and through more subtle

socioeconomic and cultural inequities that persist today (Xiao et. al 2016). Specifically, the

United States’ most marginalized communities, including those of lower incomes, the disabled

community, and people of color have not been able to use the nation’s public lands proportional

to their population (Flores et. al, 2018).

While there have been efforts to make recreation more affordable and American

Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible; the idea of outdoor equity in regard to race is an emerging

topic. Racially diverse urban communities typically face the greatest barriers to outdoor

recreation, due to both limited access to local urban green space, and economic, transportation,

and cultural barriers to reaching more distant locally or federally managed primitive landscapes

(Flores et. al, 2018). Historically racial minorities have been excluded or greatly

underrepresented on U.S. public lands, and underrepresentation persists today, despite racial

minorities having a strong support for increasing public land resources (Amandi et. al 2016).

The inequities racial minorities have towards accessing public lands and their

underrepresentation on the landscapes, has both clearly evident negative consequences for these

communities, as well as land managers and the future of U.S. public lands as a whole. Racially
diverse communities, and specifically urban communities of racial and ethnic minorities tend to

face a greater burden of environmental health concerns: less accessible green spaces, inferior

public transportation networks, and an increased prominence of lifestyle related disease than

their white counterparts (Arakaki et. al 2019). These issues all directly tie into outdoor recreation

and access to clean, healthy environments which increased access to public lands could help

address. Additionally, as the U.S. population is increasingly diversifying and is expected to

become a majority-minority nation by 2044, meaning it is crucial for the future usage and

funding of public lands that land managers are serving the diverse public (U.S. Census, 2010). If

the United States’ growing racial minority population follows the same barriers and

representation trends of today, public lands will not only have a limited user base but will also

not be fulfilling their central goal of providing valuable outdoor resources that can serve the

current and future American public. This can be seen in the National Parks Service’s mission

statement; “The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources

and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and

future generations” (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2019). Many land

managers state similar missions, yet across the nation, racial minorities are often

underrepresented in publicly managed landscapes.

Research Questions

To guide my research, I asked the following questions: Are Washington State recreation

lands adequately serving the diverse public? How can land managers better serve

underrepresented minority groups?

 Internship Methods:

In order to address the above questions, I used a three-pronged approach to assist the

Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR) in evaluating racial minority

usership of their over three million acres of recreation lands in Washington State. Firstly, I

focused on evaluating what the current racial minority usership was of WA DNR managed

landscapes. I used this information to create a profile of how both racial minority and white users

use WA DNR landscapes, and their associated perceived barriers to recreation. This was

completed through the creation of the WA DNR Statewide Recreation User Survey, which

allowed respondents to indicate their socioeconomic information, county of residence, recreation

behavior, barriers to recreation, and satisfaction with the WA DNR recreation experience based

on the WA DNR landscapes they had visited (Appendix B). The survey was modeled after the

United States Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey (NVUM), which the

agency has used to gather visitor information for decades (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest

Service 2016). The survey was conducted entirely online, and shared through WA DNR’s social

media channels, with approximately 30,000 followers on both Twitter and Facebook. The survey

was posted four times within a three-week period, and the results were then analyzed and

evaluated. This analysis focused on determining non-white users’ rates of visitation to WA DNR

managed recreation areas, as well as their recreation behavior and satisfaction, compared to

white users. Results were also analyzed at a county level, to determine how specific counties’

rates of minority respondents who indicated visiting a WA DNR site (as a proxy for estimated

minority visitors), compared to the counties’ overall racial minority populations. This analysis

led to a final cumulation of findings and recommendations for WA DNR, through the creation of

an inequity index, and an internal conclusionary report.

 The second prong of my approach was to create recreation information resources that

provided an introductory glance of WA DNR managed recreation within the greater Seattle area.

These documents highlighted recreation for a broad range of recreation interests and abilities, as

well as King County’s transit to trails system, Trailhead Direct, which helps people in Seattle’s

urban core, access WA DNR-managed recreation sites without a personal vehicle. These

documents were then translated into two target languages of Seattle’s racial minority population,

Simplified Chinese and Vietnamese. This was done in order to address some of the language

barriers that prevent non-English speaking communities from accessing information on nearby

recreation areas (Flores et. al, 2018).

The third main aspect of my project centered around the distribution of these brochures

and in-community outreach with Seattle’s Asian-American community. At the state and national

level, it is relatively uncommon for land managers to conduct outreach efforts within the

communities they serve. Instead they often rely on having events at the sites they manage and by

encouraging diverse communities to come to their landscapes. This can be seen through

partnerships with minority outdoor groups, cultural events, such as the Washington State Parks’

Folk and Traditional Arts program, or promotions such as free admission days at National Parks,

(Washington State Parks 2019), (U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service 2019).

While these efforts can often be effective, in-community outreach was a selected strategy so that

WA DNR would have the opportunity to interact with community members in a setting that did

not pose transportation or financial barriers in a low stakes, familiar environment.

 Results

Survey Results Overview & Inequity Index

The Statewide WA DNR Recreation User Survey provided a sample size of 712

responses, distributed across nearly every county in Washington. Distribution of responses was

fairly even, with the greatest number of responses coming from highly populated Puget Sound

counties, specifically King and Pierce counties. However, rural counties with low populations

were most difficult to sample, making Southern and Eastern Washington underrepresented in the

final sample group. However, Washington’s minority population is most represented in the

metropolitan, Puget Sound counties, and agricultural counties of Central Washington, which are

adequately represented in the sample, based on their population sizes. The survey findings

helped to provide valuable insights into who currently uses public lands and followed the overall

trends as seen in similar analyses of federally managed lands in the Pacific Northwest.

One way to evaluate the diversity of recreational areas’ visitors is through the

creation of an inequity index (Flores et al., 2018). An inequity index is measured by

taking the percentage of the minority population of a given geographic area, versus the

total population, and then comparing the percentage of minority visitors out of the total

DNR visitor population. A simple equation is shown as:

Inequity Index= % DNR Visitor Minority - % Washington State or Specific County Minority

Approximately 8% of survey respondents self-identified as people of color, with

the remaining 92% identifying as white (Figure 2). This result was further analyzed

through the inequity index, which evaluated select counties’ racial proportions and the

state as a whole. Overall, Washington has an approximately 23% racial minority

population, which, compared to 8% of survey respondents indicating they were people of

color, leads to an inequity score of -14 (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). Additionally, similar
to the findings of Flores et. al 2018, more diverse counties had lower equity scores, and in

some cases, less diverse counties sometimes had a positive equity score (meaning an

overrepresentation of minorities), simply due to the fact that only a few minorities needed

to respond in order to make the inequity index score positive. These counties would likely

benefit from larger sample sizes, or in person surveying.

King County, the state’s most populous and racially diverse county had a lower

inequity score than the statewide result at -22, with 11% of survey respondents

identifying as racial minorities, despite a 33% county minority population (Figure 2).

Other Western Washington counties faced similar results, with Thurston County seeing

only 3% racial minority users, compared to the county’s 18% racial minority population

(Figure 2).

Nuances with Results and Sampling Limitations

There are further nuances with the results of the inequity analysis, specifically regarding

counties with high Hispanic populations. For example, Yakima County has a 45%

Hispanic/Latinx population, however Yakima County has an 87.2% white population, meaning

the county has a high proportion of Hispanic whites. These Hispanic whites, who may not be

racial minorities, could likely have different needs than non-Hispanic whites, specifically

regarding Spanish language resources. This also means that non-Hispanic whites make up a

minority of Yakima County residents, compared to Hispanic-whites, and people of color.

Overall, 11% of Yakima County respondents indicated being a person of color, and no

respondents indicated being of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish ancestry. Compared to the overall

population of 12.8% racial minorities excluding Hispanic whites, there is little inequity among

these results. However, using a minority population in which Hispanic whites are included as
minorities, since no Yakima County respondents indicated having Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish

heritage, the inequity index shifts from -1.80 to -46.30. This is significantly lower than the state

average inequity score for WA DNR visitors of -13.6. This shows that it is it is likely the

Hispanic community of Yakima County is not engaging in recreation on WA DNR-managed

lands at an expected rate, and that WA DNR may not be adequately engaging with Spanish

speaking communities. This trend was further seen in other Central Washington counties with

high Latinx/Hispanic populations, such as Benton and Franklin County.

While these findings can provide predictions and baselines for potential usage of WA

DNR- managed lands, they cannot entirely depict the actual usage that in person surveying can

deliver. However, this survey does offer valuable insights into the demographics that WA DNR

online communication channels reach. As a whole, both white and non-white Hispanics of

Central and Eastern Washington appear to be inadequately reached by WA DNR-lead

communication networks. From 2000 to 2010, the Hispanic and Latino population of

Washington State has grown by 71.2%, and by 2030, Hispanics are expected to comprise over

15% of the state’s total population (Washington Office of Financial Management 2019).

Similarly, the Asian population of Washington is expected to grow from its current 9.3% of the

total population to 10.7% in 2030 (Washington Office of Financial Management 2019). Having

good relations and engaging with these growing minority groups will be crucial for the agency

moving forward.

Minorities’ Barriers to Recreation

The cited barriers to recreation for both white, and racial minority respondents are quite

similar. The minority respondents that are currently visiting WA DNR sites are satisfied with

their experience yet remain underrepresented. As a whole, lack of time, transportation issues, and
unfamiliarity of nearby recreation areas were the greatest limiting factors, preventing minorities

from recreating on WA DNR lands, reported by 30%, 20%, and 18% of minority respondents

respectively (Figure 1).

Notably, expense proved to be a fairly low barrier to recreation for minority respondents

who took the survey. Recreation is often notorious for being an expensive pastime, even in its

most primitive forms, and this notion is backed by consumer spending reports in the outdoor

sector. In 2016, adult camping participants, spent an average of $546.41 on camping related gear

(The Outdoor Foundation 2017). Alongside the other associated costs of recreation such as

gasoline, recreation fees, etc., and even opportunity costs, outdoor recreation can be a cost

burdensome hobby. However, it is worth mentioning that Washington’s own regulatory

recreation pass, the Discover Pass, is below the national average state recreation pass fee

(Stenovec et. al 2017). This could help to explain why cost was seen as less of a barrier for

survey respondents than in other previous case studies. Additionally, the survey was reaching

individuals that were presumably already more disposed to outdoor recreation, due to their

engagement with WA DNR social media, and could see the costs associated with outdoor

recreation more worthwhile than those who are less involved with the outdoors.

Overall, while there are both limitations to the results of this survey, and nuanced

implications, these stated barriers to recreation help to provide areas for land managers,

including WA DNR, to focus diversity efforts on. Specifically, land managers have the capability

to independently address unfamiliarity of nearby recreation areas through further inclusive

marketing efforts, in a way that addressing transportation needs, cultural differences, lack of

time, etc. would require more collaboration and planning. This was part of the rationale for the
in-community outreach, and creation of translated informational resources that was then

concluded this project.

In-Community Outreach Efforts:

Based on the findings of the survey, in-community outreach was conducted with a major

racial minority population in Seattle, to help address the specific barriers minorities had to

recreation (Figure 1). Specifically, efforts were done to create more accessible and inclusive

information, through the creation of foreign language resources. A series of informational

brochures were created, highlighting WA DNR-managed recreation nearby Seattle, and Seattle’s

transit to trails system, Trailhead Direct. These brochures were translated into Simplified

Chinese and Vietnamese (Figure 4). Additionally, since WA DNR has no existing external

marketing materials depicting people recreating of Asian descent, the brochures specifically

portrayed an Asian-American family, in an effort to be more culturally relevant and inclusive for

the target audience.

These brochures were then distributed through an in-community outreach effort to

members of Seattle’s International District/Chinatown community, which was selected for the

neighborhood’s ethnic diversity, and high Asian population. Through this effort, DNR staffed a

booth in the International District, providing informational resources, and the translated

materials, alongside free promotional items. During this event, DNR was able to interact with

people that otherwise would not have heard of the lands that the agency manages, or the

resources that can assist them in getting there.

Broader Implications

While this project provided greater insight into who currently uses WA DNR managed

lands, it also highlighted a shortcoming in previous research on racial minority usage of state
recreation lands. Though there is a great emphasis on increasing diversity in federally managed

landscapes, as well as local parks/green spaces, these resources all have different usership

patterns, compared to state managed lands, due to varying barriers to entry, proximity, and

allocation. However, this project’s results provide valuable information for land managers to

better understand which user groups are not currently being served by state managed recreation

sites.

Additionally, this project highlighted the need for further efforts aimed at increasing

racial minority representation in outdoor recreation related media. This includes representing

racial minorities in advertising, making information more accessible and distributing it through

ethnically appropriate media channels, and by increasing the availability of foreign language

resources. Information on public lands is rarely distributed to non-mainstream media sources,

and is often most heavily distributed through agency platforms, ignoring ethnic media channels

(i.e. Spanish radio stations, Asian language local newspapers) (Xiao et al. 2016). Representing

people of color in outdoor recreation marketing materials, and recreation information resources

is important in order to help change the perceived ‘face of the outdoors’, which can prevent

marginalized communities from engaging with natural landscapes. This project attempted to

begin to address this issue by creating foreign language information resources, that also included

inclusive imagery (Figure 3).

Moreover, inclusivity within the outdoors requires public land managers to actively

engage with underserved groups and ensure that racial minorities have seats at their discussion

tables. In-community outreach with minorities can provide land managers a better format for

engaging with people of color. As a collaborative process that respects the needs of each specific

cultural group, in-community outreach helps to break down the barriers marginalized groups
have to both accessing public lands, and information on public lands. This can provide a low-

stakes environment for individuals of diverse groups to learn more about the recreation areas

near them and raise the image of the land managing agency within that community. This was

seen greatly throughout the outreach event within Seattle’s International District, as previously,

WA DNR had essentially no previous connections, or targeted efforts with the community.

Likewise, increased representation of racial minorities in recreation planning decisions is crucial

in order to truly adjust issues of recreation inequity. This will allow land managers to gain a

reputation as a trusted ally and ensures that minority concerns are being heard.

Beyond more inclusive marketing, representation and outreach efforts, there are many

more subtle efforts land managers can do to make the outdoors more equitable. Specifically,

hiring more diverse staff, and considering the role of uniforms and different cultural associations

of law enforcement are also important factors for land managers to further evaluate, and is

explicitly mentioned in President Obama’s Memorandum for the Heads of Executive

Departments and Agencies of 2017 (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary 2017).

While this study provides many strategies for land managers to integrate as the issue of

outdoor equity in regard to race becomes more prominent in the recreation sector, the process

towards creating an inclusive outdoors does not have one simple solution or path towards

success. However, by implementing more inclusivity efforts, and collaborating with underserved

communities, state, as well as local and federal land agencies will be able to better serve all

Americans, regardless of ethnic background.

 Visuals

Figure 1: This graphic showcases minorities’ stated barriers to recreation as indicated in the WA
DNR Recreation User Survey results. Overall, these barriers were very similar to the barriers
expressed by white visitors, however transportation barriers played a greater role with minority
respondents. These stated barriers provide WA DNR, as well as other agencies, with a platform
to focus future diversity efforts towards. Notably however, nearly all of these stated barriers
require some form of either cross-agency, or cross-community efforts to address, yet programs
that address one barrier, often can help to address another simultaneously. For example, the
introduction of a transit to trails system, helps to both lessen transportation barriers, but also has
the ability to lower the cost of recreation (no car passes/fees needed). Indirectly, transit to trails
systems could also have the ability to raise awareness of nearby recreation areas, if advertised in
target communities.
Figure 2: This graphic showcases some of the major findings of the WA DNR Recreation User
Survey conducted, and the associated inequity index that was created. Overall, the more racially
diverse a county was, the greater inequity index score it had. These inequities are particularly
visible in Western Washington’s most populated and diverse counties, such as King, Thurston,
and Pierce counties, all of which had a higher inequity score than the Washington state average.
These inequities are more complex in counties with high populations of white Hispanics, who
while not necessarily racial minorities, proved to be greatly underreached by WA DNR’s media
channels, as very few Latinx/Hispanic individuals responded to the survey. This was seen
especially within majority or high proportion Latinx/Hispanic counties in central and eastern
Washington. While this survey was conducted online, the inequities seen were very similar to the
regional scores outlined in Flores et. al 2018, based on data collected in person, at USFS
recreation areas.

Figure 3: This image shows the outreach booth

staffed in Seattle’s International District. Trail maps,
informational translated brochures, stickers, flyers,
and backpacks were given out to booth visitors. This
event was WA DNR’s first external diversity effort,
and one of the agency’s first in-community outreach
efforts. WA DNR was able to interact with several
hundred community members through the event, and
both the agency’s presence in the neighborhood, and
translated brochures proved to be popular with
visitors. Many community members stated that they
previously had not heard of the recreation areas WA
DNR managed nearby, as well as King County’s
transit to trails system, helping to make these promotional materials and in-community
engagement a useful strategy.

Figure 4: These images showcase the covers of the brochures created, translated into Simplified
Chinese and Vietnamese, and the inside page of the English version. Additionally, it was chosen
to depict an Asian family in the brochures since WA DNR did not have any images of Asian
people recreating on their website, or any print materials the agency has distributed. The
brochures focused on highlighting a variety of recreation opportunities, especially those that
were suitable for beginners and families. Additionally, sites were chosen that were within a 1-
hour drive of downtown Seattle or were accessible by public transit. Additionally, information
was included on outdoor safety/etiquette, as well as the Washington State Discover Pass.

Bibliography:

Amandi F. (2016). An Untapped Natural Resource Our National Public Lands and 'The New
America'. http://media.namx.org/images/editorial/2016/08/0822/pub_land_div_poll.pdf

Arakaki, E, Craig, K, Stevenson, M. (2019). Connecting People to Parks in King County.

https://www.wilderness.org/sites/default/files/media/file/Report-Transit%20to%20Parks
%20King%20County.pdf

Crompton, J., & West, S. (2008). The Role of Moral Philosophies, Operational Criteria and
Operational Strategies in Determining Equitable Allocation of Resources for Leisure
Services in the United States. Leisure Studies, 27(1), 35-58.

Flores D, Falco G, Roberts NS, Valenzuela FP. (2018). Recreation Equity: Is the Forest Service
Serving Its Diverse Publics? 116(3):266–272.
Nyaupane, G, Graefe, A & Burns, C. (2007). Understanding Equity in the Recreation User Fee
Context, Leisure Sciences, 29:5, 425-442, DOI: 10.1080/01490400701394899

Stenovec M, Kern M, Page C, Carnohan S, Schreier A, Hoard S. (2017). Recreation Fees In

Washington State. Seattle, WA: William D. Ruckelshaus Center. p. 6–52.

The Outdoor Foundation. (2017). American Camper Report 2017. 1(1), 1- 54.

The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2017). Presidential Memorandum -- Promoting
Diversity and Inclusion in Our National Parks, National Forests, and Other Public Lands
and Waters. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2017/01/12/presidential-memorandum-promoting-diversity-and-inclusion-our-
national

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). QuickFacts Washington. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/WA

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. (2016). U.S. Forest Service National Visitor Use
Monitoring Survey Results National Summary Report.

U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. (2019). About Us.
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/index.htm

U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. (2019). National Park Week.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/npscelebrates/national-park-week.htm

Washington Office of Financial Management. (2019). Projections of the state population by age,
sex, race and Hispanic origin. https://www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-
research/population-demographics/population-forecasts-and-projections/projections-
state-population-age-sex-race-and-hispanic-origin

Washington State Parks. 2019. Washington State Parks Folk and Traditional Arts Program.
https://parks.state.wa.us/982/Folk-and-Traditional-Arts

West, S., & Crompton, J. (2013). Who ought to receive what? An instrument to assess a
community's preferred strategy for allocating leisure service resources. World Leisure
Journal, 55(1), 38-57.

Xiao X, Perry E, Manning R, Krymkowski D, Valliere W, Reigner N. (2016). Effects of

Transportation on Racial/Ethnic Diversity of National Park Visitors. 39(2):126–143.
APPENDIX A.

Table 1. Tangible products and other materials done as part of Capstone Experience in Spring
2019 and Summer 2019. Products specifically required in ENVIR 492 Post-Capstone are not
included.

Deliverable Title Recipient Description

Statewide Recreation User
Survey
WA DNR A survey designed to be
implemented on DNR’s
social media to gain
information from recreation
users across Washington
State. The questions regard
recreation behavior,
satisfaction with DNR-
managed lands, and
 socioeconomic information
Report on Survey Findings WA DNR A final report was compiled
to give WA DNR the results
of the Statewide User Survey
and provide an inequity index
and give suggestions to better
address recreation equity in
the future, as well as ways to
improve future survey efforts.
Translated Brochures WA DNR Three variations of brochures
were created to be distributed
by WA DNR that highlighted
the agency’s managed
landscapes within the Seattle
area, and nearby public
transportation resources.
These brochures were
‘beginner guides’ and were
created in an English,
Simplified Chinese, and
Vietnamese version.
Outreach tabling/event WA DNR In-community outreach was
conducted through the
staffing of an informational
booth in Seattle’s
International District. I was
able to interact with local
community members and
distribute the informational
documents I made.
Report on Outreach Event WA DNR A final report was given to
WA DNR focusing on the
success of the outreach event,
and potential areas for
improvement with future
recreation equity projects.
Annotated Bibliography P. Sean McDonald An annotated bibliography of
sources to be used in my
Capstone analysis paper, as
required by the Capstone
guidelines.

Progress Memoranda P. Sean McDonald Two memos were delivered

to the Capstone Instructor
detailing internship progress.
Delivery dates were July 12
 and September 16 of 2019.

APPENDIX B: 2019 WA DNR Recreation User Survey Questions (Sample Based on King
County Respondents)

1. Do you live in Washington State? (‘No’ responses get forwarded to a question asking them if
they have visited any WA DNR sites (similar to question 4), and then are further sorted from that
question)

Yes
No

2. Which county do you live in? (Question is not asked if respondent answers no to question 1)

(Drop down menu of all 39 Washington counties, listed alphabetically)

3. Have you visited any of the following WA DNR managed recreation areas in King
County? (Specific to county response from Question 2)

Granite Creek Trailhead High Point and West Tiger Mountain

Little Si Mailbox Peak
Mine Creek Day-Use Area Mount Si
Mount Teneriffe Poo Poo Point
Tiger Summit I have not visited any of these sites

4. Have you visited any WA DNR recreation sites outside your county of residence? Not
sure which WA DNR recreation areas are in your county? Here is a map of all WA DNR
managed recreation land: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/go (‘no and I’m not sure’ responses get
forwarded to only ask demographic questions and general recreation behavior questions
(questions 9 and below))

Yes
No
I’m not sure
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Questions 5 through 8 only asked if respondents indicate that they have visited either WA DNR
recreation areas in their county, or in general*

5. How many times per year do you visit WA DNR recreation areas?

1 to 5 times
6 to 10 times
11 to 15 times
16 to 20 times
20+ times

6. How satisfied are you with WA DNR trail conditions?

Very Satisfied Dissatisfied

Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
Neutral/ Not Satisfied or Dissatisfied Do not know

7. How satisfied are you with WA DNR recreation amenities (i.e. toilets, picnic tables)?

Very Satisfied Dissatisfied

Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
Neutral/ Not Satisfied or Dissatisfied Do not know

8. How satisfied are you with WA DNR recreation services (i.e. signage, helpfulness of
staff)?

Very Satisfied Dissatisfied

Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
Neutral/ Not Satisfied or Dissatisfied Do not know

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. What recreation activities do you primarily engage in? Select all that apply.

Hiking
Camping
Nature Viewing
Biking
Kayaking/boating
Skiing/snowshoeing
Hunting/fishing
Picnicking
Riding Off-Road Vehicles/ORVs
Horseback Riding
Other (please specify)

10. What are your largest barriers to visiting WA DNR recreation areas, or recreating in
general?

Transportation: recreation sites are too far/too difficult for me to get to.
I am not aware of what recreation opportunities are near me.
I do not have the proper gear/clothing, or it is too expensive to recreate.
I do not have the time.
I do not feel safe.
I do not feel welcome
I do not wish to recreate more often.
Other (please specify):

11. What is your age?

Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Prefer not to answer

12. Do you identify as having a disability?

Yes
No
Prefer not to answer

13. What gender identity do you most identify with?

Female
Male
Other: ____________
Prefer not to answer

14. Do you identify as Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish descent?

Yes
No
Prefer not to answer

15. How would you describe yourself?

Alaska Native or American Indian

Asian or Asian American
Black or African American
Caucasian or White
Two or more races
Prefer not to answer
Other: _______

16. What is your annual estimated household income?

Under $15,000
$15,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $54,999
$55,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $94,999
$95,000 to $114,999
$115,000 to $149,999
$150,000+
Prefer not to answer

17. (Optional) please use this space to provide any additional feedback or comments: