23-06 Benchmark Presentation, OK State Parks

Phase 2 – Needs Assessment n Telephone survey – 2,013 completed calls n On-line survey – 651 respondents n Focus groups – 8 held statewide n Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Woodward, Miami,

Evaluation of the Oklahoma State Park System

Lowell Caneday, Ph.D

Deb Jordan, Re.D

Research Team

n   Oklahoma State University, Leisure Studies

n   Dr Lowell Caneday, Dr Deb Jordan,

Dr Yating Liang

n   Nathan Caneday, Kaowen Chang, Bullit Farris

n   Oklahoma State University, Bureau of Social Research

n   Dr Christine Johnson and staff members

n   Dornbusch Associates

n   Jason Bass and

David Dornbusch

Phase 1 – Inventory and Mapping

Phase 2 – Needs Assessment

n   Telephone survey – 2,013 completed calls

n   On-line survey – 651 respondents

n   Focus groups – 8 held statewide

n   Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Woodward, Miami,

Weatherford, Lawton, Beavers Bend,

Tahlequah

n   State Park visitor study – 3,414 respondents

n   State Park managers’ study – 350 staff

respondents

General Conclusions

n   Oklahoma population is better educated and more diverse than are actual state park visitors n   Racial, ethnic differences exist among park

visitors

n   50% of Oklahomans report having visited a

state park in past 12 months

n   Confused as to which properties are state parks

n   Large majority of park visitors are day users

n   Park visitors ‘self-select’ preferred parks

n   State parks are a ‘public trust’

General Conclusions

n   Primary purpose of state parks: provide

inexpensive outdoor recreation opportunities n   Differing views among campers, cabin guests, and lodge guests

n   Differing views among general population and park visitors

n   Strong views on economic value of parks

n   Unwilling to pay more taxes

n   Perception that parks, lodges, golf course are profitable

n   Great value to local economies

Do

Identify Benchmarking Partners

n   Similar versus dissimilar partners

n   Mutual assistance (both partners must benefit)

n   What is ‘best in class’?

n   Who is ‘best in class’ on specific measures?

n   Who do we want to be like?

NASPD

NY

AK, AZ AR, CT, DE,

HI, KS, LA, ME,

n   Arkansas, Missouri, Colorado, North

Carolina

Defining factors: 40 measures of operations

Operating budget, capital budget, personnel, funding sources, acreage, types of property, amenities

NOT agency of management or mission statement

General Conclusions

n   Financial support

n   Oklahoma lowest on capital expenditure

n   3 rd highest in operating budget

n   Used fewer funding vehicles for revenue

n   3 rd highest in total visitor revenue

General Conclusions

n   Marketing and public information

n   Marketing materials, Web pages

n   Only Georgia and Arkansas reported

marketing plans

n   Oklahoma conducted fewer customer surveys

n   Oklahoma had fewest park interpretive staff

n   Maintenance

n   Oklahoma 5 th in acreage, 3 rd in average

budget per acre

n   Four partners applied national standards

n   Partners spend greater percentage on upkeep

General Conclusions

n   Planning

n   Only Oklahoma did NOT have master plan

n   Partners have business plans, capital

improvement plans, staffing plans, and

interpretive plans for EACH property

n   Public Involvement/Constituent Understanding

n   Similar patterns among all partners

n   Three systems, including Oklahoma, have profit foundations

non-General Conclusions

n   Staffing and Personnel

n   Fewer interpreters than all but North Carolina

n   2 nd highest number of employees (behind

Recommendations: Philosophy

n   Establish and publicize

the meaning of

Oklahoma State Parks

n   Manage that system

Recommendations: Assess Needs

n   Agency and staff

Recommendations: Program Plan

n   Plan for amenities fitting intent in each park

n   Develop and implement a park-preparedness process and plan

n   Establish and implement a maintenance plan applying professional standards

n   Develop a resource management plan for

each property

n   Thorough review of existing policies and

procedures

n   Require concessionaires to comply with

performance objectives and quality standards

Recommendations: Pre-program

n   Refine marketing efforts – target specific

groups and types of users

n   Initiate a dedicated funding source – vehicle license surcharge

n   Increase capital investment to rehabilitate and repair existing infrastructure

n   Reconsider the role of interpretation and

education

n   Develop a compelling message for the public

Extension of Project

n   Carrying capacity at Little Sahara and

Beaver Dunes

n   Utilizing the Visitor Experience and

Resource Protection (VERP) model

n   By August 2005