Parks Canada Mountain National Park Level of Services Analysis

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Parks Canada Mountain National Park Level of Services Analysis"

Transcription

1 Parks Canada Mountain National Park Level of Services Analysis Kelly Jeannette Purych, BScF MBA Candidate 2006 Natural Resources and Energy University of Alberta School of Business Centre for Applied Business Research in Energy and the Environment (CABREE) March 27, 2006

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since the establishment of Canada s first national park in 1885, Parks Canada has grown substantially, expanding it s designated sites over time to include more than 40 national parks, reserves, and conservation areas. The chronology of park establishment and development has resulted in variation among park facilities and services. However, it is common management and a corporate mandate, defined by the Parks Canada charter that ultimately unifies the sites, creating a sense of familiarity, and consistency of experience whether you visit Pacific Rim National Park Reserve in British Columbia, or Quttinirpaaq National Park in Nunavut. It is consistency in the level of services offered, and resulting user experience that Parks Canada mountain national parks wish to achieve for their frontcountry campgrounds. A uniform fee structure is applied to the mountain national park campgrounds, however there is question as to whether uniformity exists in the delivery of services. The objective of this analysis is to determine the current variances, and provide recommendations to ensure a consistent frontcountry camping offer throughout the mountain national parks. A comparative analysis was carried out examining field unit operating procedures, assets and infrastructure, financial performance and campground staffing levels as they relate relative to the size of camping offer, use levels, and operating area characteristics. Customer satisfaction survey results, and private sector and privately operated provincial campground comparison data are also utilized in the evaluation of current operations. Recommendations related to operational processes, and capital investment opportunities are provided to normalize campground service across mountain national parks. However, the quality of financial performance and staffinglevel data prohibited specific analyses. A lack of consistent reporting, further complicated by aggregate reporting of data, Moraine Lake, Banff National Park reduced financial and staffing-level comparisons to the lowest common denominator of the operational field units, degrading the value of the results. Specific recommendations could not be provided. In such cases, recommendations for a standardized reporting process are provided. The resulting data will better facilitate field unit, campground, and site type comparisons, and provide opportunity for evaluation of specific management practices. Foremost, the enhanced data will allow for the determination of true service costs, values essential in determining appropriate service-levels given desired cost recovery in mountain national park campgrounds. Page 2

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...2 TABLE OF CONTENTS...3 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES INTRODUCTION Role of Parks Canada Mountain National Park Campgrounds Management Plan Goals and Objectives Service-Level Measures Current Customer Satisfaction Results CAMPGROUND STAFFING LEVELS Mountain National Park Average Campground FTE Variation in Campground FTE given Administrative Staff Range Recommendations ASSET LEVEL & INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS Full-service and Electrical-only Sites Asset Replacement Values Priority Infrastructure Attributes Recommendations Private Campground Comparison Unserviced Sites Asset Replacement Values Priority Infrastructure Attributes Recommendations Private Campground Comparison Primitive Sites Asset Replacement Values Priority Infrastructure Attributes Recommendations Private Campground Comparison Group Camping Offers Asset Replacement Values Priority Infrastructure Attributes Recommendations Additional Mountain National Park Recommendations Greywater Disposal in Mountain National Park Campgrounds Condition of Mountain National Park Frontcountry Campground Assets Mountain National Park Campground Recycling Programs LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Kiosk-serviced Campgrounds Cleaning Schedules Compliance/Enforcement and Emergency Response Processes Recommendations...30 Page 3

4 5.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Operational Field Unit Financial Summaries Unique Operational Field Unit Initiatives Recommendations ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Group Camping Offer in the Mountain National Parks Recommendations CONCLUSION ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES APPENDIX A Mountain National Park Campgrounds APPENDIX B Mountain National Park Campground Use Data APPENDIX C - Events affecting Use and/or Revenue APPENDIX D Mountain National Park Campground Staffing Information APPENDIX E Regression Output for Refined FTE Model APPENDIX F Infrastructure Survey Full-Service/Electrical-only/Unserviced Campgrounds 43 APPENDIX G Infrastructure Survey Primitive Campgrounds/Group Camp Offers APPENDIX H Financial Summary Data Page 4

5 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Banff-South Customer Satisfaction Survey Results (2004)...9 Table 2: JNP Customer Satisfaction Survey Results (2004)...9 Table 3: LLYK Customer Satisfaction Survey Results (2004)...9 Table 4: WLNP Customer Satisfaction Survey Results (2004)...10 Table 5: Summary of FTE Deviations from Average FTE Distribution...11 Table 6: Summary of Site Type Percentages by Staffing Unit...12 Table 7: Summary of Administrative Staff Range by Staffing Unit...13 Table 8: Summary of Kiosk Services...27 Table 9: Summary of Campground Cleaning Schedules...28 Table 10: Summary of Campground Compliance and Enforcement...29 Table 11: Summary of Emergency Response Processes...30 Table 12: Summary of Group Camp User Profile...33 Table 13: Summary of Group Camp Reservation Policy...34 Table 14: Summary of Group Camp Advertising...34 Figure 1: Mountain National Park Campground Relative Staffing All Staffing Units...11 Figure 2: Mountain National Park Campground Relative Staffing Staffing Units w/ Unserviced Sites...12 Figure 3: Full-service & Electrical-only Campgrounds Asset Replacement Value versus Capacity...15 Figure 4: Unserviced Campgrounds Asset Replacement Value versus Capacity...19 Figure 5: Primitive Campgrounds Asset Replacement Value versus Capacity...21 Figure 6: Group Camping Offers Asset Replacement Value versus Capacity...24 Figure 7: Operational Field Unit Financial Performance 2003/ / Page 5

6 1.0 INTRODUCTION The mountain national parks include Jasper, Banff, Yoho, Kootenay, Mount Revelstoke, Glacier, and Waterton Lakes National Parks. The parks share a general geography, however also exhibit notable variances including, but not limited to, local geography, access, and use. The variances result in a set of unique management challenges for each park. To effectively address these challenges, the mountain national parks are further organized into operational field units, grouping parks with similar issues and of relative proximity into single management units. Jasper National Park (JNP) and Waterton Lakes National Park (WLNP) are each managed as independent field units, whereas Banff (BNP), Yoho (YNP), and Kootenay (KNP) National Parks are grouped into 2 field units, Banff-South and LLYK. Banff- South field unit manages the area directly adjacent to Banff centre and extends to areas and facilities located on Highway 1A. LLYK manages the remaining areas of Banff National Park, as well as Yoho and Kootenay National Parks. Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks are also combined for management purposes. The two parks form the MRG operational field unit. The mountain national parks are centrally coordinated, however each field unit has general jurisdiction of matters of operational nature. Field unit Visitor Services groups manage campground staffing and contracts, as well as determine budget allocations for field unit campground expenditures, and capital projects. Although decentralized management by operational field units addresses specific organizational challenges, the structure may not provide solution to an additional challenge, ensuring that a consistent offer is available across all field units. The mountain national parks wish to explore this issue with respect to their frontcountry campgrounds. The parks apply a uniform fee structure to their camping offers, and consequently seek to ensure that consistency exists in the level of services they offer, and the resulting user experience. For the purposes of this analysis, service is defined as both the work provided directly by the campground staff as well as tangibles including facilities and physical goods delivered to the user. Staffing levels, and financial summary data, as well as quantitative and qualitative infrastructure data, and field unit processes are considered in the measurement and comparison of the level of services offered by frontcountry campgrounds. 1.1 Role of Parks Canada Mountain National Park Campgrounds It is important to recognize Parks Canada s role in providing not only standard camping offers but also unique wilderness experiences. The agency seeks to maintain this position partially through their range of camping offer, which varies from high use, full-service sites to lower use, primitive sites that are available year-round. Parks Canada is a not-for-profit agency that continually strives to provide competitive camping offers that achieve cost recovery in a manner congruent with expectations of Canadians. A bottom-line approach, based solely on financial performance measures is therefore an inappropriate course. As stewards of public land, Parks Canada must also find a balance within their camping offer consistent with the ecological objectives outlined in higher-level management plans, while continuing to satisfy the demands of domestic and international users. 1.2 Management Plan Goals and Objectives Field units have jurisdiction over matters of operational nature. It is therefore essential to recognize some of the management constraints and/or limitations of the management framework in which each field unit must operate. The framework is defined by the goals, objectives and actions committed to by each of the mountain national parks. National park management plans formalize key principals and policies used to address social, economic, and environmental issues faced by the parks 1. Public consultation processes are employed in the development of park management plans, as well as extensive analysis of current issues and incorporation of applicable legislation, policies, plans, and studies. Page 6

7 The plans provide an overall direction for the management of parks with focus on the preservation and strengthening of their ecological integrity, promotion of high quality visitor experiences, and limitations to development within park boundaries 2. Park management plans are comprehensive. They provide a framework for management applicable to all aspects of park operations. Frontcountry campground operations are addressed in management plan sections related to Visitor Services or frontcountry accommodations. Although the field units considered in the analysis differ slightly in their specific strategic goals, objectives, or prescribed actions, all mountain national park management plans demonstrate the shared commitment to maintain the current offer of frontcountry campgrounds. Allowances are granted for minor modifications to address specific ecological considerations, or respond to changes in user needs or industry trends deemed appropriate for a national park camping experience. However, modifications must occur within footprints of existing campgrounds 3. Management plans provide a framework for managers. Operational field units must manage frontcountry campgrounds in a manner congruent with the goals and objectives committed to in applicable management plans. 1.3 Service-Level Measures There are 34 frontcountry campgrounds, and an additional 5 group camping offers and 5 overflow campgrounds that are currently in operation across the mountain national parks. Please refer to Appendix A for a complete listing of campgrounds included in the analysis. The frontcountry campgrounds offer 4 distinct site types that differ in the essential services they provide, as well as the associated fee that is applied for their use. Full-service sites offer the highest service-level. They provide electrical, water and sewer connections, and access to flush toilet washrooms and shower facilities. Fullservice sites account for 11% of total sites in mountain national park campgrounds. Electricalonly sites are also available. They provide electrical connections, as well as access to flush toilet washrooms and shower facilities. Electrical-only sites account for 10% of the total sites. Unserviced sites account for 71% of total sites available in the mountain national park campgrounds. The sites lack the utility connections provided by full-service and electrical-only sites, however provide access to flush toilet washrooms, as well as showers at select locations. Unserviced sites are priced differentially based on the availability of shower facilities. The most basic service-level sites are primitive camping offers. The sites provide access to water and vault privies. Primitive campgrounds are typically smaller in capacity and contribute to 8% of total sites in the mountain national park campgrounds. In order to provide recommendations to normalize services across site types, measures to compare services are necessary. The analysis quantifies service through a variety of data. Financial summaries from 2003/2004 and 2004/2005, campground full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing information from 2004/2005, and the current mountain national parks asset inventory are utilized for the analysis. Field unit campground surveys were also conducted from June-August 2005 to provide additional service information. The surveys included general infrastructure and spatial data, and information related to specific field unit practices and procedures. Operational field units often do not manage each campground as a single entity. Instead, the majority are managed and reported as part of a functional staffing unit and combined cost/profit centre. The combined data presents significant challenges in isolating staffing and cost apportionments of specific campgrounds and site types. The issue is further complicated by the non-uniformity of staffing positions and job functions, and salary and wage apportionment processes across operational field units. Due to the lack of consistency and aggregate reporting, financial and staffing-level data comparisons are reduced to the lowest common denominator of the operational field units. The aggregation of data necessary for comparison of mountain national park campgrounds prohibits comprehensive Page 7

8 analysis of specific campgrounds and site types, degrading the value of the data and results. Direct comparisons of the compiled service data provide general insights into the variation in the level of services across field unit campgrounds, however they do not provide an accurate reflection of the actual delivery of service to the users. Field unit resources are distributed among campgrounds within the field unit. Ultimately, campground site types, capacity, and use determine the relative amount of resources allocated to deliver services to every user of the mountain national park campgrounds. Use data from 2001/2002 to 2004/2005, as measured by the number of occupied sites or camper nights over the season, relative use data, which also considers campground operating season, and campground capacity are used where appropriate, to ameliorate service data for greater value and comparability. Please refer to Appendix B and C for campground use data, and summary of extreme weather events, wildlife issues, management activities, and labour disruptions that have impacted campground use, and consequently revenue over the 4-year period. 1.4 Current Customer Satisfaction Results It is imperative to understand the relationship between customer satisfaction and the current service-level prior to making comment or recommendations to adjust the services offered by the mountain national park campgrounds. To illustrate the relationship, a customer satisfaction study from 2004 is referenced, with survey methodology and results presented below. Parks Canada s Western Canada Service Centre surveyed 14 campgrounds in 4 of the mountain national parks to determine the satisfaction of camping experiences. The results were then weighted using the total number of occupied sites during the survey period to reflect the entire population over the period. Included in the survey were Banff-South s Tunnel Mountain, Two Jack and Johnston Canyon campgrounds, as well as JNP s Pocahontas, Wabasso, Wapiti, and Whistlers campgrounds, LLYK s Lake Louise, Kicking Horse, and Redstreak campgrounds, and WLNP s Crandell and Townsite campgrounds. The satisfaction survey used a 5 point scale ranging from very satisfied (5) to not at all satisfied (1) to rate the following 6 satisfaction criteria 6 : Friendliness and courtesy of Kiosk staff Condition of facilities Cleanliness of campsites Cleanliness of washrooms Feeling of safety and security Your overall camping experience Using three threshold measures for satisfaction determination, a rating was applied to each criterion of the surveyed campgrounds and field units (field unit ratings are based on, and therefore limited to, results from the field unit campgrounds surveyed). Satisfaction Threshold Measures 5 : Average scores of 4.00 or greater are described as very good with scores below 4.00 described as may need attention top box scores of 5 out of 5 represent completely satisfied clients Average scores of 3 to 5 out of 5 avoid the low box threshold representing dissatisfied clients Western Canada Service Centre used a traffic light system to summarize the three satisfaction measures 6. Please refer to tables 1-6 for operational field unit customer satisfaction survey results. High satisfaction ratings were achieved in all criteria of the WLNP survey as well as friendliness and courtesy of kiosk staff, cleanliness of campsites, and feeling of safety and security criteria for Banff-South, JNP, and LLYK campgrounds. The two criteria that failed to achieve high ratings across surveyed campgrounds were also found to be statistically Page 8

9 significant predictors of satisfaction of overall camping experience. While condition of facilities was determined to be the primary predictor of overall camping experience, the criterion itself essentially captured the effects of the cleanliness of washrooms criterion 11. LLYK s Kicking Horse and Lake Louise campgrounds demonstrate this relationship with less than exemplary ratings in condition of facilities and cleanliness of washrooms criteria, and good ratings for their overall camping experience. General survey results suggest that greater resources and/or organizational focus are required in the service areas related to facilities and field unit process in select operational field units. The customer survey results provide an important measure for the general satisfaction of surveyed campground users. Issues related to the aggregate nature of staffing and financial data prohibit a breakdown of actual user costs, a figure essential in the determination of appropriate service-level. Customer satisfaction survey results provide an alternative insight into the appropriateness of the current service-level, and the needs and wants of campground users. In addition to quantifying camper satisfaction in the 6 criteria areas, the customer survey provided a mechanism for campers to communicate additional information regarding their satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction with their camping experience. The comments provided by campers were unsolicited, and therefore may reflect more extreme viewpoints rather than that of the average user 12. However, Table 1: Banff-South Customer Satisfaction Survey Results (2004) 7 Table 2: JNP Customer Satisfaction Survey Results (2004) 8 Table 3: LLYK Customer Satisfaction Survey Results (2004) 9 Page 9

10 Table 4: WLNP Customer Satisfaction Survey Results (2004) 10 common themes addressed in camper comments provide valuable insight. The customer satisfaction survey results should be taken with a caution. Not all operational field units, campgrounds or site types are represented in the survey, and not all characteristics of defined service are explicitly represented in the satisfaction criteria. The customer satisfaction survey results provide a benchmark of general satisfaction of a sub-set of users of a sub-set of mountain national park campgrounds. Customer satisfaction is not always influenced by campground processes or manageable campground attributes. Satisfaction or dissatisfaction can result from numerous characteristics that are not easily quantified, or even definable. Users exhibit preferences and resulting satisfaction from many location specific characteristics, including campground or site proximity to water features, points of interest, or town centres. Aesthetic values of a site can also influence the satisfaction of users. While some users prefer the screening and privacy associated with cedar/hemlock forest undergrowth, others prefer the open canopies and resulting sunlight provided by pine stands. These attributes, as well as additional location specific attributes that influence the overall satisfaction of users are not considered in the analysis. They are not easily measured, and often cannot be managed. 2.0 CAMPGROUND STAFFING LEVELS Managers, finance personnel, administrative support staff, supervisors, attendants, wardens, plumbers, handymen, groundskeepers, janitorial staff, and refuse collectors all contribute to the daily operation of mountain national park campgrounds. While all play a vital role in both the direct and indirect delivery of services to users, not all employees are included in the analysis due to a lack of reporting consistency. Select operational field units lack detailed apportionment coding necessary to sort FTE data of staff whose positions include more than Campground Services. The data is therefore limited to Visitor Services managers, campground supervisors, campground attendants, janitorial staff and groundskeepers for 2004/2005. FTE data, which represents the equivalent number of full-time, 40 hours/week positions based on the number of employees and the collective size of their positions was collected for the mountain national park campgrounds. Since the majority of operational field units manage common staff across two or more campgrounds, data is provided per staffing unit. Each staffing unit includes two or more campgrounds, and often more than one site type. WLNP and MRG are each managed as single staffing units. Banff-South campgrounds are managed as three units including Tunnel Mountain campgrounds, Two Jack campgrounds and 1A campgrounds (Johnston Canyon and Castle Mountain). LLYK field unit staff is managed as four units including KNP campgrounds, YNP campgrounds, and Lake Louise campgrounds including Lake Louise Tent, Lake Louise Trailer, and Protection Mountain, and Banff-North campgrounds including Waterfowl Lakes, Rampart Creek and Mosquito Creek. JNP is also managed as four staffing units. Whistlers, Wapiti, and Snaring comprise one unit, while Pocahontas and Wabasso are managed independently. The remaining JNP campgrounds comprise the South Campgrounds staffing unit. The staffing unit FTE data is provided as a single value and not per position. Variances in job Page 10

11 functions across the mountain national parks currently disallow a more granular analysis. For example, attendants in Banff-South campgrounds are responsible for cleaning sites and washrooms, and providing kiosk services, whereas JNP s Wapiti campground attendants are responsible solely for kiosk services. Without an explicit understanding of Banff-South attendant duties, detailed comparisons of job functions are not possible. Please refer to Appendix D for 2004/2005 mountain national park staffing data. Mountain national park staff are not apportioned to specific campgrounds or site types, and not easily isolated by job function. The lack of apportionment essentially aggregates available FTE data. The data loses value in its aggregate presentation as it fails to indicate the staffing requirement necessary to provide the current service-level in mountain national park specific campgrounds and site types. Bracketing processes can be utilized to extract some of this information, however the number of assumptions made severely degrades the value of the results. The staffing analysis is reduced to general comparisons based on the quality of the data. 2.1 Mountain National Park Average Campground FTE Collected 2004/2005 FTE data was plotted against 2004/2005 camper nights. Figure 1 demonstrates the relationship between the Table 5: Summary of FTE Deviations from Average FTE Distribution Campground Field Unit Operational Field Unit Actual Campground FTE 2004/2005 variables, with a regression line fitted to represent the average FTE figure given use within the mountain national parks. FTE deviations from the fitted regression line are presented in Table 5. Using average campground FTE given annual camper nights (2004/2005) as a baseline measure, six of the staffing units exceeded the mountain national park FTE average, while seven operated at an FTE-level less than the average. The deviations are expected given that staffing is not managed uniformly based solely on use. Site type, and more specifically the service-level associated with site type also contribute to the Figure 1: Mountain National Park Campground Relative Staffing All Staffing Units determination of staffing level. The effect is likely observed in the Tunnel Mountain staffing unit figure. The staffing unit, which exceeded the mountain national park FTE average by in 2004/2005, also collectively offer the greatest proportion of full-service and electrical-only sites. Average Campground FTE 2004/2005* Staffing Surplus/ Deficit ALL Waterton WLNP WLNP Tunnel Mountain BNP Banff-South Two Jack Main/Lake BNP Banff-South A Campgrounds BNP Banff-South ALL Lake Louise BNP LLYK ALL Banff-North BNP LLYK ALL Kootenay KNP LLYK ALL Yoho YNP LLYK ALL Glacier GNP MRG Whistler/Wapiti/Snaring JNP JNP Wabasso JNP JNP Pocahontas JNP JNP South Campgrounds JNP JNP * Average Mountain national park Campgrounds FTE given 2004/2005 camper nights (Campground FTE = Camper Nights ) Campground FTE /2005 Campground FTE vs Camper Nights Campground FTE = Camper Night s ,000 40,000 60,000 80, , ,000 Annual Camper Nights The exact influence of site type on Tunnel Mountain staffing level cannot be quantified due to the multiple site type offer of the staffing unit. Without a clear understanding of the number of FTEs that service each site type, comparisons across staffing units are not possible. As such, it is unknown as to whether the Page 11

12 Table 6: Summary of Site Type Percentages by Staffing Unit Staffing Unit Operational Field Field Percentage per Site Type Unit Unit Full-service Electrical-only Unserviced Primitive Capacity ALL Waterton WLNP WLNP 24% 76% 392 Tunnel Mountain BNP Banff-South 28% 16% 56% 1159 Two Jack Main/Lake BNP Banff-South 100% 454 1A Campgrounds BNP Banff-South 100% 175 ALL Lake Louise BNP LLYK 39% 61% 488 ALL Banff-North BNP LLYK 57% 43% 193 ALL Kootenay KNP LLYK 17% 5% 78% 400 ALL Yoho YNP LLYK 100% 167 ALL Glacier GNP MRG 100% 80 Whistler/Wapiti/Snaring JNP JNP 6% 12% 77% 5% 1212 Wabasso JNP JNP 100% 228 Pocahontas JNP JNP 100% 140 South Campgrounds JNP JNP 100% 181 additional FTEs in Tunnel Mountain campgrounds can be fully attributed to site type effects, or if the staffing unit is in fact overstaffed. Comparisons of staffing units with a homogenous site type offer are possible. Table 6 summarizes the breakdown of site types per staffing unit. Two Jack Main/Lakeside, 1A Campgrounds, Yoho, Glacier, Wabasso, and Pocahontas staffing units are comprised of unserviced sites only. Shower facilities are available within select units of this sub-set, however their influence on staffing demands should be negligible. Figure 2 demonstrates the relationship between 2004/2005 FTE data and camper nights of unserviced site staffing units. Figure 2: Mountain National Park Campground Relative Staffing Staffing Units w/ Unserviced Sites 2004/2005 Campground FTE versus Camper Nights Staffing Units w/ Unserviced Sites 6 5 Campground FTE = Camper Night s YNP 4 1A Campgrounds Two Jack M ain/lake 3 Wabasso 2 1 Pocahontas GNP 0 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Annual Camper Nights Campground FTE The variation in FTEs is greatly reduced when the data is isolated for unserviced sites. It demonstrates general consistency in staffing levels for the site type across operational field units. However, the results seem to be somewhat incidental as opposed to the result of deliberate management activity, as staffing units in the same operational field unit exhibit different relative staffing levels. Both Banff-South s Two Jack and 1A campgrounds, and JNP s Wabasso and Pocahontas campgrounds differ in their relative FTE staffing. Four of the six staffing units considered in the unserviced site comparison were part of the 2004 customer satisfaction survey. Pocahontas, which falls slightly below the average relative FTElevel, received a good satisfaction rating for the cleanliness of washroom criterion. Given that Two Jack campgrounds, which fall further below the average relative FTE-level received high satisfaction ratings in the same criterion, it can be inferred that Pocahontas survey results are more likely attributed to a process issue or lack of specific janitorial FTEs. Kicking Horse campground received a good rating for overall camping experience, partially influenced by its low satisfaction rating in cleanliness of washrooms criterion. Although Yoho staffing unit exceeds the average relative FTE-level by the greatest margin, survey results again demonstrate either a shortage of janitorial FTEs or the existence of field unit process issues. Unfortunately, the aggregate nature of the data limits specific analysis of staffing. 2.2 Variation in Campground FTE given Administrative Staff Range A regression was carried out relating 2004/2005 FTE data to camper nights as well as site capacity. Additional explanatory variables were included in the regression to account for the variation in the distance travelled by staff within each staffing unit. The administrative staff range variable measures the Page 12

13 furthest distance between campgrounds within the staffing unit, including the distance travelled by the staffing unit supervisor to the office of the supervising manager for the operational field unit. The operational staff range variable is similar, however does not necessarily include the field office. Variable selection methods were employed to refine the model such that the coefficient of determination was maximized with as few explanatory variables as possible. The refined model output is presented in Appendix E. The results suggest that 95% of the variation in FTE can be explained by 2004/2005 camper nights and administrative staff range. The relationship is as follows: Campground FTE = Camper Nights Administrative Staff Range The regression output indicates the existence of a negative correlation between staff range and FTE. As the distance travelled between staffing unit campgrounds increases, the total FTE is reduced. The relationship is important as it again demonstrates the effect of site type on staffing levels. Staffing units with the greatest staff range are typically lower service sites. The majority are primitive, and unserviced sites with the exception of the higher service-level sites available at Redstreak campground. With every additional kilometre in staff range there is a decrease of in FTE. This provides significant explanation of variation in FTE for average Table 7: Summary of Administrative Staff Range by Staffing Unit Administrative Staff 0-30km 30-60km 60+km Staffing Units Waterton, Tunnel Mountain, 2 Jack, Lake Louise, Whistlers/Wapiti/Snaring, Wabasso 1A Campgrounds, Yoho, Pocahontas Banff-North, Kootenay, Glacier, Jasper South Campgrounds primitive and unserviced sites. Table 7 summarizes staffing units according to staff range. 2.3 Recommendations The analysis of campground staffing is severely limited by the quality of the available data, and as such specific recommendations regarding the current staffing levels are not possible. Using the average relative FTE and customer satisfaction survey results as a benchmark for the appropriateness of unserviced site staffing levels, it appears that managers have been reasonably effective in the determination of staffing levels. However, the lack of complete data, and variation in site type staffing within operational field units demonstrates the lack of strategic planning. Staffing decisions are generally based on historic levels as opposed to a clearly conceived determination based on actual site type staffing demands. It is an inefficient solution, as historic staffing levels do not necessarily reflect true site type staffing demand or appropriate service-level given cost recovery. The static approach to staffing has significant impacts to not only the delivery of service to users, but also the financial performance of each campground. Campground salaries and wages contribute to more than 75% of campground operating expenses. Managers require more valuable information to effectively manage these costs and enhance overall financial performance. Given that mountain national parks seek cost recovery, the determination of uniform level of services offered per site type should reflect the user costs associated with the delivery of services. This concept is further explored in Section 5.3. Without a clear understanding of the specific staffing requirements (i.e. FTE per campground, site type, job function) and their costs, managers will continue to make sub-optimal staffing decisions. The data in its current state fails to facilitate meaningful comparisons of staffing across operational field units. The following initiatives will enhance analysis of historic staffing levels, and aid in the determination of efficient staffing levels in the future. Adjust current apportionment systems for financial reporting to include ALL Parks Page 13

14 Canada staff that contributes to frontcountry campground operations in the mountain national parks. The unilateral development of staff apportionment systems has resulted in significant inconsistencies in the staff whose salaries and wages are apportioned to Campground Services. Develop field unit specific schedules of time allocations of staff per campground in staffing units that offer more than one site type. Campgrounds with a multiple site type offer provide a unique service-level. The staffing level at these campgrounds should be compared to the offered site type that exhibits dominate use levels. Develop field unit specific schedules of time allocations of staff per job function. Broad categories of campground services should be distinguished. For example, job functions could be broken down to supervisory, administrative (including all interactions and communications with users), security, maintenance, groundskeeping, janitorial roles, etc. The variation in campground operating season and flexibility of staff resources within staffing units will present significant challenges in developing staff allocation schedules. However, the additional detail will provide decision-makers with enhanced data for the identification of specific staffing issues and greater value extraction from the comparison of mountain national park campgrounds. Report use data per site type for campgrounds with a multiple site type offer. This information is not readily available for all operational field units, however would augment relative site type comparisons of staffing and financial performance across mountain national park campgrounds. Current reported use data assumes equal use of site types for these campgrounds. Any additional site type use value is lost in its aggregate presentation. 3.0 ASSET LEVEL & INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS The customer satisfaction survey results identified infrastructure, as represented by the condition of facilities criterion as the main predictor of satisfaction with overall camping experience 13. There is variation in not only the condition of campground facilities across operational field units, but also the facility type and attributes. This analysis considers the variation per site type across operational field units. The mountain national parks asset replacement value inventory, as well as additional campground infrastructure survey data is utilized for the comparison. Not all survey data is considered for each site type. Only information related to specific attributes deemed relevant to site type users are examined. Applicable fees charged by private campgrounds, and privately operated provincial campgrounds offering comparable infrastructure and servicelevel to mountain national park offers are also compared. Disparity in applicable fees and the ancillary services offered by alternative camping offers provides general reference to assess the competitiveness of mountain national park campgrounds. The mountain national parks maintain an asset replacement value inventory listing all campground assets that have an individual value greater than $10, The inventory includes kitchen shelters, kiosks, washroom buildings, food storage units, utility systems, roads, etc. Although the inventory is updated regularly to reflect the addition of new campground assets, there is general consensus among field units that replacement values do not reflect the actual cost required to replace many existing assets. The inconsistencies in replacement value are attributed to costing variances over time, as the majority of assets in the inventory were added in the 1950 s, 60 s and 70 s. Despite generally accepted issue with the asset inventory, mountain national park campgrounds use the data to determine recapitalization cost, which is defined as the amount of money required to ensure the safety of an asset as it ages over time. Parks Canada requires 2% of the total value of an asset per annum for recapitalization. The mountain Page 14

15 national parks use recapitalization costs as a benchmark for performance. The benchmark however, is based on an inventory that does not reflect actual replacement values, and does not adjust for the condition and maintenance requirements of ageing assets. For the purposes of this analysis, asset replacement values for all campgrounds within the mountain national parks were examined. Shared assets were apportioned to campgrounds based on campground capacity. Unlike staffing or direct operating costs that are flexible and managed in accordance with site type and use, assets are inflexible resources and should be compared based on the number of users they are able to support. The total asset replacement values of each campground are compared per site type. Although issue exists with the accuracy of asset replacement values in the inventory, the analysis is meant to compare the relative asset base of campgrounds as opposed to assets in absolute terms Asset Replacement Values Full-service and electrical-only campground asset replacement values were plotted against campground capacity. Figure 3 demonstrates the relationship between the variables, with a regression line fitted to represent the average asset replacement value given capacity of mountain national park full-service and electrical-only campgrounds. Waterton Townsite and Redstreak have relative asset replacement values below the average of mountain national park campgrounds that offer full-service and/or electrical-only sites. Both of the campgrounds are a multiple site type offer. Full-service sites comprise less than 50% of Waterton Townsite total sites. The combination of Redstreak full-service and electrical-only sites contributes to less than 40% of the campground s total sites. There are no significant variances in the facilities of these campgrounds compared to others within the group. Instead, the lower relative asset replacement values are likely attributed to 3.1 Full-service and Electrical-only Sites Full-service and electrical-only sites are the highest service-level sites provided by the mountain national park campgrounds. The sites typically provide users with a pull-in area to park RVs with electrical/water/sewer connections, a picnic table and access to flush toilet washrooms, shower facilities, sani-stations, and other ancillary services. Full-service and electrical-only sites are available in WLNP, BNP, JNP, and KNP. With the exception of Tunnel Mountain Trailer, all other full-service and electrical-only sites are part of a multiple site type campground. The sites comprise 11% and 10%, respectively of the total mountain national park camping offer. Figure 3: Full-service & Electrical-only Campgrounds Asset Replacement Value versus Capacity ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE (in 000's) Campground Field Unit Operational Field Unit ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE vs CAPACITY Full-service/Electrical-only Campgrounds 30, ,000.0 ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE = CAPACITY , , , , CAPACITY (# of sites/campground) Total Site Capacity Full-service (F) and Electrical only (E) Sites Asset Replacement Value Asset Replacement Value Differential Waterton Townsite WLNP WLNP F 5, ,246.2 Tunnel Mountain BNP Banff-South F 10, Trailer Tunnel Mountain BNP Banff-South E 9, ,931.5 II Lake Louise BNP LLYK E 6, Trailer Redstreak KNP LLYK F, 19E 3, ,131.0 Whistlers JNP JNP F, 100E 23, Wapiti JNP JNP E 14, ,039.5 Page 15

16 comparable values for full-service and electricalonly sites diluted by the number of unserviced sites in the campgrounds. Wapiti and Tunnel Mountain II exceed the average relative asset replacement value. Wapiti electrical-only sites comprise only 11% of the campground total sites, yet the relative asset replacement value for the campground exceeds the average by $3,039,500. The asset inventory lists LIFT STATION #4 WAPITI CMPGRND with a value of $3,000,000. A lift station of this value is wholly unique to Wapiti campground. There are no obvious explanations for the higher than average relative asset replacement value for Tunnel Mountain II. Its facilities do not significantly exceed those of other campgrounds offering higher service-level sites Priority Infrastructure Attributes Full-service and electrical-only site users typically seek a less primitive camping experience. The size and manoeuvrability of camping units also influences the needs of the users. Easily accessible sites and condition of roads are important campground attributes as well as access to potable water, sani-stations, washrooms, shower facilities, telephones, and other ancillary services. Please refer to Appendix F for complete infrastructure survey data. Waterton Townsite, Tunnel Mountain Trailer, Tunnel Mountain II, Lake Louise Trailer, Redstreak, and the majority of Whistlers fullservice and electrical-only sites are designed for pull-through service. Wapiti is the only higher service-level offer that differs from conventional campground design. It essentially provides a large parking area fitted with electrical connections to support 40 RV units. There are no areas assigned to specific sites or users. Provided picnic tables and fireboxes are common to all users of Wapiti electrical-only sites. Tunnel Mountain II roads are in excellent condition. The condition of other campground roads range from good, requiring regular maintenance to fair, requiring maintenance and additional repair. Lake Louise Trailer, Redstreak, Whistlers campground roads were identified as potential candidates for upgrading projects. Please refer to Section 5.32 for further discussion of campground asset condition. All full-service and electrical-only campgrounds provide users with treated water. Full-service sites have direct access through utility connections. Electrical-only site users can fill RV reservoirs at sani-stations or access water through locations distributed throughout the campgrounds. Wapiti electrical-only sites provide the least access to water, with only one access location for its 40 sites. Tunnel Mountain II, Lake Louise Trailer, Redstreak, and Whistlers have the greatest access to water, with less than 27 sites allocated to every water access location. The number and distribution of water access locations is not as vital to higher service-level users, as most have the capacity to store water in RV units. Sani-stations are also of greater significance to electrical-only site users as opposed to fullservice site users. Without full utility connections, electrical-only site users may require access to water and disposal opportunities for waste. Lake Louise Trailer, Redstreak, Whistlers, and Wapiti have the greatest access to sanistations, with less than 35 electrical-only sites allocated to every sani-station. Tunnel Mountain II has the least access. The campground provides a sani-station lane for every 94 electrical-only sites. Full-service site campgrounds also have access to sani-stations. Waterton Townsite has one sani-station lane and Tunnel Mountain Trailer has access to two sani-station lanes. All full-service and electrical-only sites have access to shower facilities. The facilities are shared among all users of multiple site type offers. JNP campgrounds have the least access, with the greatest number of sites allocated per shower. Wapiti provides a shower for every 26.1 sites, while Whistlers provides a shower for every 26.9 sites. All other campgrounds have a site to shower ratio of less than 20. The actual shower facilities are quite uniform across campgrounds. They are lit, heated buildings with showers, toilets, sinks, mirrors and electrical outlets. Although RVs may be equipped with washroom Page 16

17 facilities, they are not always utilized. Campground access to washroom facilities is important as RV campers commonly frequent them. Site to toilet ratios for higher service-level campgrounds are comparable, with no more than 5.6 sites allocated to every toilet. All of the washrooms are lit, heated, and provide electrical outlets, with the exception of JNP washrooms. JNP washrooms are not heated, and do not provide outlets in women s washrooms. There is a noted variance in the provision of soap and paper towel across operational field units. JNP higher service-level campgrounds provide both, whereas LLYK campgrounds provide only soap and WLNP provides only paper towel. Banff- South field unit provides neither. This variance is common to not only higher service-level sites but also unserviced sites. All higher service-level campgrounds provide users with access to telephones. There is also available cellular coverage for all of the campgrounds, with the exception of Waterton Townsite. The higher service-level campgrounds offer a greater number of ancillary services. The services have developed independently, and therefore often vary across operational field units. Examples of the ancillary services are provided below. All campgrounds with the exception of Wapiti, have theatres and regular interpretive programs during the peak season. Redstreak and Whistlers provide playgrounds for campground users. Banff-South and JNP higher service-level campgrounds have newspaper vending machines. A snack food vending machine is also installed at Whistlers campground. Banff-South Tunnel Mountain campgrounds have access to shuttle transportation to Banff centre during peak season Recommendations Using average campground infrastructure per site type as a measure of the appropriate service-level, specific campground infrastructure variances were identified. Recommendations to normalize the variances are presented below. Adjustments to campground assets should be thoroughly assessed by managers given the priorities of mountain national park campgrounds, the potential value-added to campground users, and the feasibility due to spatial issues of existing infrastructure. Consider potential road upgrading projects for Lake Louise Trailer, Redstreak, and Whistlers campgrounds. Please refer to Section 5.32 for further discussion regarding campground asset condition. Review total and relative sani-station use in Tunnel Mountain II campground. If warranted consider additional sani-stations for future capital projects. JNP campgrounds have a site per shower ratio that is significantly less than other full-service and electrical-only campgrounds in the mountain national parks. Both Whistlers and Wapiti s relative use, as represented by occupancy over time, support rationale for additional shower facilities. Consider potential shower facility projects for Whistlers and Wapiti campgrounds. Establish a mountain national park standard with regard to the provision of soap and paper towel for full-service, electrical-only, and unserviced site campgrounds. Examine the feasibility of incorporating additional ancillary services into the fullservice and electrical-only current offer. Additional ancillary services should reflect changing user needs and trends. See KOA ancillary services below Private Campground Comparison The current fee for full-service and electrical-only sites in the mountain national parks is $33 and $28, respectively. Users are also required to pay a personal use fee (PUF) for national park entry. Page 17

18 PUF must be purchased for each day spent in the national park. Firewood is available for an additional charge of $7. Kampgrounds of America (KOA) operates two campgrounds within the Rocky Mountains. The Hinton/Jasper location neighbours JNP, and the Revelstoke location neighbours GNP. Both KOA campgrounds offer full-service sites equivalent to the mountain national park offer defined in Section 3.1. The sites do not provide shower facilities, however they do offer varying ancillary services. Both KOA campgrounds provide free cable and wireless internet for full-service sites. The Revelstoke KOA also provides a pool for users. The base fee for a KOA full-service site is $33. For every person over the 2 person maximum, an additional $5 is charged. For every child between 6 and 17, an additional $3 is charged, with children under 6 staying for free 15. There are no fire pits at the KOA full-service sites, however firewood may be purchased at the Revelstoke campground for use in camping kitchens. Given an average family, with an assumed 2 adults and 2 children in a single RV unit, a onenight stay at a mountain national park full-service site without fire would cost $ The comparable KOA site for the same family would cost $39 without fire 17. Without PUF, the mountain national park offer would actually be $6 less expensive than the KOA site. Kananaskis Country provides an offer comparable to mountain national park electrical-only sites. Located in the Rocky Mountains, Willow Rock campground provides the same essential services defined in section 3.1 for $23 per night 18. The fee does not include firewood. It must be purchased from the campground operator for $5. Discounts are available to Alberta seniors. Based on the same family with a single RV unit, a one-night stay at a mountain national park electrical-only site without fire would cost $ The same site at Willow Rock campground would cost $23 without fire 20. Without PUF, the mountain national park offer is more competitive with the Kananaskis Country offer at a cost of $ Unserviced Sites Unserviced sites contribute to 71% of the total sites in the mountain national park camping offer. The sites provide users with essential services including an area to pitch a tent or tents, a pull-in area to park support vehicles or an RV camping unit, a picnic table, a fire pit, and access to potable water, sani-stations, flush toilet washrooms, shower facilities (at select campgrounds), and kitchen shelters. Unserviced sites attract a greater variety of users. The sites commonly host RVs, although campground specific site length and turning radius constraints can limit the size of RV units that utilize the sites. A greater proportion of unserviced site users are tent campers Asset Replacement Values Unserviced campground asset replacement values were plotted against campground capacity. Figure 4 demonstrates the relationship between the variables, with a regression line fitted to represent the average asset replacement value given capacity of mountain national park unserviced campgrounds. There is greater variation in relative asset replacement values of unserviced campgrounds than campgrounds with full-service and/or electrical-only sites. Some of the variation is due to the inclusion of both unserviced sites with showers and without showers. The three campgrounds that exceed the average relative asset replacement value by the greatest margins are Two Jack Lakeside, Two Jack Main, and Kicking Horse. Both Two Jack Lakeside and Kicking Horse campgrounds provide showers. Two Jack Lakeside provides the most access to showers, with a shower allocated to every 8.2 sites. In addition to providing showers, Kicking Horse provides the most access to kitchen shelters, with a kitchen shelter allocated to every 9.6 sites. Two Jack Main has an above average access to washrooms and kitchen shelters. The campground has 19 joint washroom/kitchen shelter facilities to service its 380 sites. Pocahontas has the lowest relative asset replacement value of all unserviced Page 18

19 Figure 4: Unserviced Campgrounds Asset Replacement Value versus Capacity ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE (in 000's) 20, , , ,000.0 ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE vs CAPACITY Unserviced Campgrounds ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE = CAPACITY CAPACITY (# of sites/campground) daily for cleanliness and safety, however a boil advisory is always in effect. The relative access to water varies across unserviced campgrounds. The number of sites allocated to a water access location ranges from 4.6 at Marble Canyon to 35.0 at Pocahontas. However, campgrounds that provide the least access to water, with more than 20 sites allocated to a water access location, also have lower relative use, as determined by occupancy over time. Campground Field Unit Operational Field Unit campgrounds. The campground does provide kitchen shelters, however the low relative asset replacement value is most likely attributed to the absence of Pocahontas water utilities and wastewater systems in the asset replacement inventory Priority Infrastructure Attributes Site Capacity The needs of unserviced site users are similar to those of full-service and electrical-only site users. In addition to access to potable water, flush toilet washrooms, shower facilities (at select campgrounds), and telephones, unserviced site users also value access to kitchen shelters. Please refer to Appendix F for complete infrastructure survey data. All unserviced campgrounds provide treated water, with the exception of Kicking Horse campground. Kicking Horse water is checked Asset Asset Replacement Replacement Value Value Differential Crandell WLNP WLNP 130 3, ,303.4 Tunnel Mountain I BNP Banff-South , Two Jack Lakeside BNP Banff-South 74 6, ,598.7 Two Jack Main BNP Banff-South , ,539.2 Johnston Canyon BNP Banff-South 132 6, ,444.9 Castle Mountain BNP Banff-South 43 1, ,073.4 Lake Louise Tent BNP LLYK 210 5, Protection Mountain BNP LLYK 89 3, Waterfowl Lakes BNP LLYK 110 3, Kicking Horse YNP LLYK 86 5, ,122.8 McLeod Meadows KNP LLYK 98 2, ,643.6 Marble Canyon KNP LLYK 60 2, Illecillewaet/Loop Brook GNP MRG 60 4, ,513.4 Pocohontas JNP JNP ,158.9 Wabasso JNP JNP 228 5, ,367.1 Tunnel Mountain I, Two Jack Lakeside, Johnston Canyon, Lake Louise Tent and Kicking Horse campgrounds all provide showers. The campgrounds have greater access to showers than campgrounds with full-service and/or electrical-only sites, with less than 20 sites allocated to every shower. The actual shower facilities are relatively uniform across campgrounds. They are lit, heated buildings with showers, toilets, sinks, mirrors and electrical outlets. Kicking Horse campground shower facility is the only facility that is not heated. Access to flush toilet washrooms does not significantly vary across unserviced campgrounds. Johnston Canyon provides the most access, with a toilet allocated to every 2.7 sites. Lake Louise Tent provides the least access, with a toilet allocated to every 6.4 sites. There are however notable variances in the actual washroom facilities. There are essentially two categories of unserviced washrooms: a standard unserviced offer and a primitive unserviced offer. The provision of electricity ultimately determines the category. Crandell, McLeod Meadows, Marble Canyon, Illecillewaet, and Loop Brook provide primitive unserviced washrooms. Primitive unserviced washrooms are a function of their isolated location and resulting lack of readily available power transmission. Illecillewaet Page 19

20 campground washrooms are fitted with solar panels to power washroom facilities, however the system is not currently operational. Kicking Horse and Waterfowl Lakes campgrounds have generators to power the campgrounds and washroom facilities. The additional assets and infrastructure are appropriate given the larger capacity of the campgrounds, and higher relative use, as determined by occupancy. The provision of telephones at unserviced campgrounds is also influenced by the availability of utilities. Waterfowl Lakes, Kicking Horse, McLeod Meadows, Marble Canyon, Illecillewaet, and Loop Brook campgrounds all lack telephones and cellular coverage. All unserviced campgrounds in the mountain national parks, with the exception of Tunnel Mountain I and Pocahontas provide kitchen shelters for users. The kitchen shelters typically contain 2 or more tables with seating and at least one wood stove. They vary slightly in construction and/or configuration, however they all function in providing users with shelter from adverse weather conditions. There is nonuniform use of kitchen shelters across mountain national park campgrounds. The shared space does not appeal to all users. The number of sites allocated to every kitchen shelter varies from 9.6 at Kicking Horse to at Wabasso. However, Wabasso does not have a high relative campground use by occupancy. Illecillewaet also has limited access to kitchen shelter, with a single kitchen shelter provided for its 60 sites. It also has a higher relative campground use, as determined by occupancy over time Recommendations Using average campground infrastructure per site type as a measure of the appropriate service-level, specific campground infrastructure variances were identified. Recommendations to normalize the variances are presented below. Adjustments to campground assets should be thoroughly assessed by managers given the priorities of mountain national park campgrounds, the potential value-added to campground users, and the feasibility due to spatial issues of existing infrastructure. Re-evaluate the feasibility of a water treatment facility at Kicking Horse campground given current financial performance and relative use. Given the appreciable infrastructure investment required to provide all unserviced campgrounds with power, consider a graduated fee schedule to reflect the reduced services provided by unserviced sites without power. Evaluate the potential user benefits of kitchen shelters at Tunnel Mountain I and Pocahontas campgrounds. If feasible, and deemed appropriate by operational field unit managers, consider kitchen shelter projects for the campgrounds. Rebuild the fire damaged kitchen shelter at Illecillewaet to increase site access to kitchen shelter facilities Private Campground Comparison Unserviced sites are priced differentially based on the provision of shower facilities. The current fee for unserviced sites in the mountain national parks is $24 with showers and $19 without, with an additional $7 fee for firewood. The users are also required to pay PUF for each day spent in the national park. Both the Hinton/Jasper and Revelstoke KOA campgrounds offer an equivalent to mountain national park unserviced sites without showers as defined in Section 3.2. The base fee for a KOA tent site is $22. For every person over the 2 person maximum, an additional $5 is charged. For every child between 6 and 17, an additional $3 is charged, with children under 6 staying for free 21. There are no fire pits at the KOA unserviced sites, however firewood may be purchased at the Revelstoke campground for use in camping kitchens. Given an average family with two children and a Page 20

21 single camping unit, a one-night stay at a mountain national park unserviced site without showers would cost $35 without fire 22. The equivalent site at one of the three KOA campgrounds would cost $28 without fire 23. Without PUF, the mountain national park offer would actually be $9 less expensive than the KOA site. Kananaskis Country also provides an offer comparable to mountain national park unserviced sites without showers. Located in the Rocky Mountains, Willow Rock campground provides the same essential services defined in section 3.2 for $17 per night 24. The fee does not include firewood. It must be purchased from the campground operator for $5. The campground offers a discount to Alberta seniors, but charges additional fees for camping units that exceed their one camping unit limit. camping units, a picnic table, a fire pit, and access to water, firewood and vault privies. Primitive campgrounds are typically rustic, wilderness offers that attract users seeking a specific experience. The campgrounds range in capacity from 25 to 66 sites and contribute to 8% of the mountain national park camping offer Asset Replacement Values Primitive campground asset replacement values were plotted against campground capacity. Figure 5 demonstrates the relationship between the variables, with a regression line fitted to represent the average asset replacement value given capacity of mountain national park primitive campgrounds. The relative asset replacement values across primitive campgrounds do not differ significantly, with the exception of Wilcox Creek, which exceeds the average and Given an average family with two camping units, a one-night stay at a mountain national park unserviced site without showers would cost $42 with fire 25. The equivalent site at Willow Rock campground would cost $37 with fire 26. Without the charge for an additional camping unit, the Kananaskis Country site would be $20 less expensive than the unserviced site at a cost of $ Primitive Sites Primitive sites are the lowest service-level offer provided by the mountain national parks. They are self-registration sites with essential services including an area to pitch a tent or tents, a pull-in area to park support vehicles or RV Figure 5: Primitive Campgrounds Asset Replacement Value versus Capacity ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE (IN 000'S) 2, , , , Campground ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE vs CAPACITY Primitive Campgrounds ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE = CAPACITY CAPACITY (# of sites/campground) Field Unit Operational Field Site Capacity Unit Asset Replacement Value Belly River WLNP WLNP Columbia Icefield JNP JNP Jonas Creek JNP JNP Honeymoon Lake JNP JNP Wilcox Creek JNP JNP 46 2, Mt Kerkeslin JNP JNP 42 1, Snaring River JNP JNP 66 1, Mosquito Creek BNP LLYK Rampart Creek BNP LLYK 51 1, Monarch YNP LLYK Takakkaw YNP LLYK Asset Replacement Value Differential Page 21

22 Monarch, which falls below the average. Wilcox Creek is somewhat unique in its design. The majority of its sites allow for easy pull-through service for RV units. It also has a sani-station to service RVs. Similar to other JNP primitive campgrounds, Wilcox Creek has above ground storage tanks for potable water. However, it also has a gravity fed delivery system to provide greater access for users, which is unique to the campground. The additional assets may contribute to the above average relative asset replacement value. Conversely, Monarch lacks assets common to other primitive campgrounds. Monarch was developed as an overflow option to Kicking Horse, and as such lacks some characteristics common to primitive campgrounds. Monarch sites do not have fire pits. They also have below average relative access to kitchen shelters and vault privies Priority Infrastructure Attributes The general needs of primitive site users are similar to those of unserviced site users. They place priority on the access of potable water, vault privies, kitchen shelters, and food storage. Please refer to Appendix G for complete infrastructure survey data. All JNP primitive campgrounds provide treated water to users in above ground storage tanks. The treated water is not processed on-site. It is delivered to the campgrounds. The remaining primitive campgrounds do not provide treated water. The water is sourced through ground wells. Water is monitored for cleanliness and safety, however a boil advisory is always in effect. The size and use of primitive campgrounds has limited investment in water treatment and delivery systems. With the exception of Rampart Creek, Snaring River and Wilcox Creek campgrounds, which offer multiple access points for water, all primitive campgrounds provide a single location for its access. The furthest distance from a site to a water source in primitive campgrounds ranges from 100 to 750 metres. Access to vault privies differs across primitive campgrounds. The number of sites allocated per privy ranges from 3.5 to 12.8, with the furthest distance measured from a site to a privy between 100 to 400 metres. The relative use of campgrounds should be considered in the determination of the appropriate number and spatial distribution of privies. Rampart Creek provides a vault privy for every 12.5 users, with the furthest distance from a site to privy measuring 250 metres. However, relative use, as represented by occupancy over time demonstrates lower overall demand on Rampart Creek assets compared to other primitive campgrounds. There are no significant variances in the number of vault privies given relative use across primitive campgrounds. All primitive campgrounds in the mountain national parks provide kitchen shelters for users. The kitchen shelters typically contain 2 or more tables with seating and at least one wood stove. They vary slightly in construction and/or configuration, however they all function in providing users with shelter from adverse weather conditions. There is non-uniform use of kitchen shelters across mountain national park campgrounds. The shared space does not appeal to all users. The number of sites allocated to every kitchen shelter varies from 9.2 to 46 in primitive campgrounds. The campgrounds providing the least access with over 30 sites per kitchen shelter, and higher relative campground use by occupancy, include Monarch, Takakkaw and Snaring River campgrounds. The potential for animal encounters exists in all mountain national park campgrounds. To reduce animal attractants, tent campers are directed to store food and food-related items in their vehicles. However, unsupported campers are limited in food storage options. All primitive campgrounds provide food storage options, with the exception of Wilcox Creek. The campgrounds either provide individual lockers, a shared walk-in locker, or bear-pulls to safely store food. There is not an exceedingly high demand for food storage capacity, however the provision of at least one food storage option per campground is reasonable in meeting the needs of unsupported campers. YNP primitive campgrounds are the only offers Page 22

23 that do not provide fire pits with every site. Approximately 50% of Takakkaw sites have fire pits, while Monarch sites have none. Although there is an initiative to explore the inclusion of fire-free sites into the mountain national park camping offer, it is unclear as to whether this is the rationale for the lack of fire pits in YNP primitive offers Recommendations Primitive campground users are not included in customer satisfaction surveys. Their specific needs and resulting satisfaction with the current service-level are therefore not fully defined. Using average campground infrastructure per site type as a measure of the appropriate service-level, specific campground infrastructure variances were identified. Recommendations to normalize the variances are presented below. Adjustments to campground assets should be thoroughly assessed by managers given the priorities of mountain national park campgrounds, the potential value-added to campground users, and the feasibility due to spatial issues of existing infrastructure. Examine the cost of supplying (i.e. delivery, storage) potable water to Mosquito Creek, Rampart Creek, Monarch, Takakkaw and Belly River campgrounds. Review campground specific kitchen shelter use demand. If feasible, and deemed appropriate by operational field unit managers, consider new kitchen shelter projects for Monarch, Takakkaw, and Snaring River campgrounds. Install a food storage unit at Wilcox Creek campground. Review potential rationale for fire-free sites in YNP primitive campgrounds. If they are not currently part of the fire-free site initiative, consider the addition of fire pits for Monarch sites, and remaining Takakkaw sites Private Campground Comparison The current fee for a primitive site in the mountain national parks is $14, with an additional firewood fee of $7. The national park users are also required to pay PUF for each day spent in the national park. Kananaskis Country campgrounds provide an offer comparable to mountain national park primitive sites. Located in the Rocky Mountains, Lac Des Arcs, Three Sisters, and Sibbald Lake campgrounds provide the same essential services defined in section 3.3 for $17 per night 28. The fee does not include firewood. Firewood must be purchased from the campground operator for $5. The three campgrounds offer discounts to Alberta seniors, but charge additional fees for camping units that exceed their one camping unit limit. Given an average family with two camping units, a one-night stay at a mountain national park primitive site would cost $37 with fire 29. The equivalent site at one of the three Kananaskis Country campgrounds would also cost $37 with fire 30. Without the charge for an additional camping unit, the Kananaskis Country site would be $15 less expensive than the primitive site at a cost of $ Group Camping Offers Mountain national park group camping offers were developed to meet the needs of a specific segment of users. The offers traditionally occupied meadow-like areas and provided a shared, primitive experience for groups at a reduced rate. Group camping offers have evolved over time, and although their objective remains relatively consistent, variation exists in group camp assets and infrastructure, and management across field units. Field unit specific management variances are examined in Section 6.1. Group camping offers are located in WLNP, JNP, KNP and Banff-South field units. Banff-South group camping offers are not included in this comparison. They are a hybrid of the group camping concept and are not managed as independent campgrounds. They utilize specific sites of Banff-South standard camping offers to Page 23

24 create a group-like experience, at a fee comparable to that of the site type it occupies. The asset base and general infrastructure of the offers are not comparable to traditional group camping offers Asset Replacement Values replacement value. For example, Marmot Meadows has the highest level of visitation. The total and relative use-levels of the group camp has supported rationale for investment in additional assets and upgraded facilities over time, significantly increasing its relative asset replacement value beyond that of other offers. Group camping offer asset replacement values were plotted against campground capacity. Figure 6 demonstrates the relationship between the variables, with a regression line fitted to represent the average asset replacement value given capacity of mountain national park group camping offers. Figure 6: Group Camping Offers-Asset Replacement Value versus Capacity ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE (in 000's) ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE = SITE CAPACITY The relative asset replacement value of group camping offers is highly influenced by the stated capacity of the group camps. As previously discussed, many of the offers occupy meadowlike areas. There is no defined capacity. Instead, field units assign a theoretical capacity based on the assessed capability of the site and facilities to support users. Use-levels are generally the greatest determinate of group camp asset ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE vs CAPACITY Group Camps Campground Field Unit Operational Field Unit CAPACITY (# of sites/campground) Site Capacity Asset Replacement Value 3.42 Priority Infrastructure Attributes Group camp users exhibit similar needs to those of primitive site users. They place priority on the access to potable water, washroom facilities, kitchen shelters, fire pits and food storage. Please refer to Appendix G for complete infrastructure survey data. Asset Replacement Value Differential Belly River Group WLNP WLNP Crooks Meadow Group KNP LLYK Marmot Meadows Group JNP JNP Ranger Creek Group JNP JNP Whirlpool Group JNP JNP Marmot Meadows and Whirlpool are the only two group camps that currently provide treated water. Marmot Meadows water is provided by the same source and delivery system as Whistlers campground. Whirlpool provides treated water in an above ground storage tank similar to other JNP primitive campgrounds. Ranger Creek does not currently have access to water, however given sufficient use-levels, an above ground storage tank with treated water could be provided. Crooks Meadow and Belly River source their water from wells. Water is monitored for cleanliness and safety at the group camps, however a boil advisory is always in effect. All group camps, with the exception of Marmot Meadows provide only one location to access water. The group camps differ in the type of washroom facilities they provide. Marmot Meadows and Belly River have flush toilets, however the number of toilets they provide, in real and relative terms, varies significantly. Marmot Meadows provides 14 toilets for its users, whereas Belly Page 24

25 River provides only 2 toilets. The Marmot Meadows washroom is comparable to unserviced site washrooms, providing a heated, lit facility with a dishwashing sink, electrical outlets, and paper towel. The washroom is unique to the group camps and contributes to the high asset replacement value for Marmot Meadows. There are 4 vault privies at Crooks Meadow, and 2 primitive pit toilets at Whirlpool group camp. Ranger Creek has 1 pit toilet. It is not located directly at the site, but in the parking area 200m from the actual site location. Kitchen shelters are provided at all group camps. Their size and condition vary. Belly River, Marmot Meadows, and Crooks Meadow are the largest and most frequented group camping offers. They provide larger kitchen shelters with greater seating capacity and often a greater number of stoves than the kitchen shelters at standard frontcountry campgrounds. They are also in better condition relative to Ranger Creek and Whirlpool group camp shelters. The Ranger Creek kitchen shelter is a small, dilapidated structure with a small wood stove and limited seating. The Whirlpool kitchen shelter is improved in comparison and more comparable in size to standard frontcountry offer shelters, which is appropriate given the group camp site capacity of 25 people. There are a limited number of fire pits at the group camping offers. Belly River provides two large fire pits with bench seating. Whirlpool has one large central pit and an additional 5 fireboxes that are dispersed throughout the site. Marmot Meadows and Ranger Creek group camps have 3 fire pits and 1 fire pit, respectively. Crooks Meadow has a combination of 21 fire pits and fireboxes located near the kitchen shelter and dispersed throughout the site. Ranger Creek is the only group camp with no access to food storage. It is unsatisfactory given the distance of the site from the parking area. Greater potential exists for the improper storage of food and food-related items. Crooks, Marmot and Whirlpool have food storage options on-site. Marmot Meadows and Whirlpool provide individual lockers, while Crooks Meadow has a walk-in locker located in the kitchen shelter. Belly River does not have a food storage option directly on-site, however if required food storage lockers are available at the adjoining Belly River primitive campground Recommendations Specific recommendations to normalize group camp infrastructure are not provided. The current variation in assets and infrastructure, and general field unit management demonstrate a lack of common strategy and organizational support with regard to the offer (see Section 6.1). The relevancy of group camps must be re-examined given the current needs of campers, and past performance (i.e. use-levels and financial performance over time). If group camps are to continue in the mountain national parks, their position within the current frontcountry offer must be redefined, and adjustments to infrastructure made to reflect the desired servicelevel of the offer. Please refer to Section 6.1 for further group camping offer discussion. 3.5 Additional Mountain National Park Recommendations 3.51 Greywater Disposal in Mountain National Park Campgrounds There is no explicit greywater disposal strategy communicated to all mountain national park campground users. Protection Mountain, McLeod Meadows, Marble Canyon, Monarch, and all JNP campgrounds, with the exception of Wapiti and Whistlers lack disposal systems for the removal of wastewater independent of the sewer connections in washroom facilities or vault privy holding tanks. In some cases, campgrounds that have specific greywater disposal infrastructure in place have a limited number of conveniently located drains to accommodate campground users, essentially discouraging their use. When users check-in to kiosk-serviced or self-registered campgrounds, they are informed of The Bare Campsite Program and directed to keep a clean site to ensure that no potential wildlife attractants be left unattended. However, the direction does not extend to a recommended Page 25

26 method for greywater disposal. The customer satisfaction survey comments demonstrated the lack of process. Users were uncertain as to the proper disposal method for their greywater. LLYK campgrounds have included a directive on the back of their campground maps instructing campers to dispose of wastewater down toilets or take to sani-stations. Although the approach provides users with better guidance, not all LLYK campgrounds distribute campground maps and not all campers read them. The improper disposal of greywater can pose potential health and safety issues for campers, as well as negatively impact wildlife. Cumulative effects of improper disposal may also result in non-congruency issues with park management plan strategic goals to provide accommodation in a manner that maintains ecological integrity. 32 The greywater disposal policy for mountain national park campgrounds needs to be effectively communicated to users. It should be reviewed with other site cleanliness regulations at the time of check-in, and also included in informational brochures (i.e. The Bare Campsite Program, etc.) to ensure that all mountain national park users are aware issue and policy. If a strategy does not currently exist, the mountain national park management team needs to develop a strategy. A strategy that incorporates existing infrastructure is preferred. However, if it is infeasible, greywater disposal systems should be considered for future capital projects given the level of priority of the issue, as determined by the management team. priority needs of site type users were considered during the infrastructure survey, and are discussed in previous sections. However, the condition of all assets vary across campgrounds. Asset age, relative use, maintenance schedules, and improvement projects contribute to the current state of assets. Actual asset value and condition are not currently tracked. To manage for consistency in offers across national mountain parks, a strategic approach to campground capital expenditures is required. Conduct an independent audit of major frontcountry campground assets evaluating their relative condition and ability to deliver service to users. Develop a capital expenditure plan for the mountain national park campgrounds that appropriately prioritizes field unit and campground projects based on the audit evaluation Mountain National Park Campground Recycling Programs All operational field units have recycling programs. The programs have developed unilaterally over time and as such vary in their management responsibility, collection processes and revenue allocation. In KNP, GNP, and WLNP, recycling programs are coordinated by local not-for-profit organizations, with limited collection assistance provided by campground employees. Other field units manage their recycling programs independently. The recycling initiative is clearly congruent with Parks Canada ethos Condition of Mountain National Park Frontcountry Campground Assets Facilities play an important role in camper satisfaction and overall experience. This relationship is supported by customer satisfaction survey findings 33. Campground assets and infrastructure are also the most variable aspect of campground operations across mountain national parks. The condition of select assets related to the Banff-South and JNP recycling programs should be expanded to include Castle Mountain, Honeymoon Lake, Columbia Icefields, Jonas Creek, Mt Kerkeslin, Snaring River and Wilcox Creek campgrounds. Recycling receptacles should be added to the campgrounds. Page 26

27 4.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Campground staff delivers services to users through direct interaction and communications, and through other indirect operational field unit processes. In many cases, the delivery of the services is flexible, and adjusts to reflect demand demonstrated by the current level of visitation. Information related to the services provided is presented assuming peak season use levels. The following sections and tables summarize the main points of contact for service delivery by campground staff. Included in the comparison are check-in processes at kiosk-serviced campgrounds, cleaning schedules, and compliance/enforcement and emergency response processes. 4.1 Kiosk-serviced Campgrounds A campground attendant welcomes visitors upon arrival to kiosk-serviced campgrounds. The attendant checks-in the user and assigns a site, or allows the user to select a site depending on the length of the check-in queue and the number of unoccupied sites remaining. All kiosk-serviced campgrounds in the mountain national parks have adapted coding systems to assign sites to meet the specific needs and preferences of users at the time of check-in. The sites are coded in the kiosk according to their characteristics including site width and length, and proximity to washrooms, kitchen shelters, water features, etc. The attendants are able to easily and effectively pair users with appropriate sites given availability. At the time of check-in, attendants also disseminate the code of conduct common to all mountain national mountain campgrounds. Users must comply with rules pertaining to site cleanliness, quiet hours (and specific generator use schedules), check-out procedures, etc. Additional information related to local campground programs and initiatives, recreational and general tourism opportunities are communicated or available upon request. As demonstrated in Table 8, kiosk hours of operation vary across operational field units. Similar to many delivered campground services, kiosk hours are adjustable, and changed periodically during the season to reflect demand. The result is an exhibited correlation between annual camper nights and peak season kiosk hours across operational field units. The responsive adjustment of hours of operation is an effective and efficient process employed by all of the kiosk-serviced campgrounds in the mountain national parks. Table 8: Summary of Kiosk Services WLNP Banff- South Lake Louise Kiosk hours Townsite 7:30am-9:30pm (14hrs) Crandell 8:00am-9:00pm (13hrs) Campground maps All campgrounds 7am-12am (17hrs) None available 7:30am-10:30pm (15hrs) All campgrounds KNP 7:30am-10pm (14.5hrs) All campgrounds YNP 8am-6pm (10hrs) All campgrounds JNP 8am-12am (16hrs) All campgrounds GNP 8am-7:30pm (11.5hrs) Small map available The friendliness and courtesy of kiosk staff satisfaction criteria of the customer satisfaction survey, resulted in high ratings in all surveyed campgrounds in Banff-South, LLYK, JNP, and WLNP field units. Additional comments collected through the customer satisfaction surveys identified only one issue specific to kiosk services. Some users expressed frustration with the long kiosk queues and length of wait to checkin. Bottlenecks regularly occur at preferred check-in times and days during the peak season. They are primarily attributed to point of purchase constraints as opposed to kiosk staffing issues. Additional kiosk lanes to relieve pressure during these periods are unwarranted given the temporary nature of the increased demand. It is also important to reiterate that survey comments were not solicited, and may not necessarily represent the viewpoint of the average user 34. With the exception of Banff-South, all operational field units distribute maps of their kiosk-serviced campgrounds at the time of check-in. Campground maps serve as a practical tool for users. Given that kiosk-serviced campgrounds are primarily larger in capacity and offer higher service-level sites, the maps provide users with more than assistance in locating their designated Page 27

28 site. Campground maps also detail features including washrooms, shower facilities, playgrounds, theatres, phones, trailheads, garbage/recycling bin locations, etc. Banff-South ceased circulation of campground maps as part of an initiative to reduce the amount of paper used and distributed within the field unit campgrounds. The number of maps required for distribution in Banff-South campgrounds is significant given their annual campers nights, however JNP campgrounds, some of which report higher use levels, continue to distribute campground maps. There is inconsistency that exists with respect to distribution of campground maps. 4.2 Cleaning Schedules During the peak season campground washroom facilities, and sites and fire pits are cleaned according to the schedules in Table 9. The cleaning frequencies vary in response to adverse weather conditions and decreases in the level of visitation over the course of the season. Table 9: Summary of Campground Cleaning Schedules WLNP Banff- South Lake Louise Banff- North KNP YNP JNP Cleaning Frequency Washrooms Townsite daily Crandell Belly River 3x per week Daily Daily w/ spot check Daily w/ spot check Every other day Daily w/ spot check Daily w/ spot check Sites & Fire Pits Townsite daily Crandell Belly River 3x per week Two Jack Lakeside 1-2x per week Johnston Canyon Castle Mountain Two Jack Main 1x per week Tunnel Village I Tunnel Village II regular spot checks Tunnel Village Trailer Lake Louise Campgrounds Protection Mountain Washroom cleaning frequencies do not vary according to site type. With the exception of WLNP s Belly River campground and KNP campgrounds, all mountain national park campground washrooms are cleaned on a daily daily every 2-3 days Waterfowl Lakes daily Other 93 North Campgrounds every 2-3 days Kootenay Campgrounds once per month/season excluding Marble Canyon Kicking Horse Other Yoho Campgrounds daily every 2-3 days Whistlers every 3 days Wapiti Wabasso Pocahontas Other Jasper Campgrounds every 1-2 days GNP Daily All Glacier Campgrounds post-camper departure w/ checks basis. Although there is consistency in process, the variations in use of washroom facilities are not reflected in the cleaning frequency. While Banff-South campgrounds reported 103,786 annual camper nights (36.2% occupancy) in 2003/2004 given an average 4.5 sites per toilet, KNP campgrounds reported 15,114 annual camper nights (30.3% occupancy) with an average 2.9 sites per toilet. Not only is there disparity in total use level, but also in the relative use of facilities based on sites per toilet as a comparative measure. The customer satisfaction survey results for the cleanliness of washrooms criterion identified 7 campgrounds in Banff- South, Lake Louise, YNP, and JNP field units as having a good or low satisfaction rating. The criterion received the lowest overall rating of the satisfaction criteria included in the survey. The criterion was also recognized as being a significant predictor of overall camping experience. Opportunity exists to adjust cleaning frequency of washrooms to reflect relative use, improving not only the customer satisfaction in the specific area but also contributing to an enhanced overall user experience. Cleaning frequency of KNP campground washrooms is less than the average for mountain national park campgrounds, however the field unit, as represented by Redstreak campground received a high satisfaction rating for cleanliness of washrooms. This finding could be attributed to KNP campgrounds having the lowest average sites per toilet ratio of campgrounds in the mountain national parks. There is greater variation in the frequency in which sites and fire pits are cleaned across operational field units. The average ranges from daily to weekly cleanings. Although variation exists, the current schedule seems to satisfy users. The customer satisfaction survey results demonstrate high satisfaction for the cleanliness of campsite criterion for all campgrounds surveyed in Banff-South, LLYK, Page 28

29 JNP, and WLNP field units. The customer satisfaction survey does not represent all campgrounds in the mountain national parks, however the survey does include Two Jack Main campground, which exhibits one of the more infrequent cleaning schedules. KNP campgrounds are the exception to the average range of cleaning frequency. Cleaning of sites and fire pits often occurs less than once per month in Redstreak and McLeod Meadows campgrounds. Although Redstreak campground received a high user satisfaction rating for the cleanliness of campsite criterion, site cleanliness is not an issue solely related to users. Unclean sites can be an attractant for wildlife, presenting potential camper health and safety issues, as well as impact to wildlife. Site and fire pit cleaning schedules should be adjusted in KNP campgrounds to a level consistent with the current mountain national park average. 4.3 Compliance/Enforcement and Emergency Response Processes Campground attendants conduct regular compliance checks of all frontcountry campground sites. The purpose of the checks is to ensure compliance with regard to fee payment (campground and park entry fees), and general campground regulations. It also provides additional opportunity for attendants to engage in dialogue with users and vice versa. This interaction has greater importance for selfregistered sites where campground attendants are not as accessible. If major compliance infractions occur that extend beyond the comfort level of campground attendants, warden services or the RCMP are contacted and responsible for enforcement. Table 10 summarizes the enforcement responsibility and compliance check Table 10: Summary of Campground Compliance and Enforcement Enforcement Responsibility Compliance check frequency WLNP Warden Services Kiosk-serviced 2-3x daily Self-Registered 3x per week Banff-South RCMP All campgrounds 3x daily Lake Louise Warden Services Kiosk-serviced 3x daily Self-Registered 2x daily Banff-North Warden Services All campgrounds 2x daily KNP Warden Services Kiosk-serviced 3-4x daily Self-Registered 1-2x daily YNP Warden Services All campgrounds 2x daily JNP Warden Services All campgrounds 2x daily GNP Warden Services All campgrounds 1-3x daily frequency for operational field units. The frequency of compliance checks is relatively consistent across mountain national park campgrounds with the exception of WLNP s Belly River campground, which hosts the lowest number of annual camper nights in the mountain national parks. A uniform approach to compliance check frequencies is appropriate, as the number of delinquent campers that commit minor compliance infractions is not easily explained by specific campground attributes. More major infractions, usually having to do with conduct are more easily predicted. Proximity to larger centres drawing a specific type of user, proximity to local town centres, and to a lesser extent the level of visitation has been linked to the number of major compliance infractions. This relationship is evident in the disproportionate number of issues in the Banff-South operational field unit, and specifically Tunnel Mountain Village II campground. The 2004 customer satisfaction survey included a criterion described as feeling of safety and security. All surveyed campgrounds in JNP, Banff-South, LLYK, and WLNP reported a high level of satisfaction for this criterion. Although it does not explicitly refer to compliance and enforcement, the regular checks by campground attendants and enforcement presence contribute to user perception of safety and security. Emergency preparedness processes at mountain national park campgrounds also contribute to user perception of safety and security. All campgrounds post contact information in case of emergency. At kiosk-serviced sites, emergency information is posted at the kiosk or on message boards near the kiosk. At self-registered sites, emergency contact information is located on the self-registration stations. Other than the specific location from which emergency response is dispatched, the mountain national parks have similar processes in place. Table 11 summarizes the emergency response process in each field unit. Page 29

30 Table 11: Summary of Emergency Response Processes WLNP Visitors are directed to contact either 911 or an additional emergency number. Both numbers contact Lethbridge dispatch, which deploys the appropriate emergency response closest to Waterton. Phones and emergency phone are located at all WLNP campgrounds. Banff- Visitors are directed to contact 911, which deploys the appropriate emergency response. There is also an RCMP number posted at all Banff-South campgrounds. South Phones are available at all Banff-South campgrounds w/ the exception of Castle Mountain (cell coverage available). Lake Louise Banff- North KNP YNP JNP GNP Visitors are directed to contact 911, which deploys the appropriate emergency response. Parks employees are directed to call Banff Dispatch in case of emergency. Phones are available at all Lake Louise campgrounds. Visitors are directed to contact the campground host to radio Banff dispatch. They will then deploy the appropriate emergency response. There is no phones service available at Banff-North campgrounds and no cell coverage. Visitors are directed to contact 911, which deploys for appropriate emergency response from Cranbrook. Campground staff is directed to contact Banff dispatch in case of emergency. There is no duty warden specific to KNP. Redstreak is the only KNP campground with phone service and cell coverage. Visitors are directed to call 911, which deploys appropriate emergency response from Banff. Campground staff is directed to contact Banff dispatch in case of emergency. There is no phone service or cell coverage in YNP campgrounds, however, there are phones located at Cathedral Lodge and the Information Centre at Field. Visitors are directed to contact 911, which deploys appropriate emergency response from Jasper. Visitors and campground staff can also contact Jasper dispatch in case of emergency. Phones are located at all JNP campgrounds w/ the exception of Snaring (cell coverage available). Visitors are directed to contact either 911 for appropriate emergency response from Revelstoke or Golden, or to contact Jasper Warden Service. Jasper will contact the duty warden in Revelstoke, who will deploy the appropriate response. There is no phone service or cell coverage in GNP campgrounds. A payphone is located at Roger s Pass. 4.4 Recommendations There is general consistency in peak season service processes across operational field units. It is important to recognize that the comparison considers only a snapshot of services in time. Over the course of the season, processes are adjusted to meet changing demand. This is a highly cost effective method if managers are able to make active, appropriate adjustments to service processes to reflect use. The following recommendations highlight areas of inconsistency across operational field units or specific issues identified by users of the mountain national park campgrounds. Review the Banff-South decision to discontinue the distribution of campground maps at kiosk-serviced campgrounds. It is inconsistent with other kiosk-serviced campgrounds, and identified as an area of dissatisfaction of mountain national park campground users in the customer satisfaction survey results. Peak season washroom cleaning frequency is generally uniform across mountain national park campgrounds, however there is expressed dissatisfaction with the current service-level in this area. The cleaning frequency should reflect relative use given the demand on campground specific infrastructure over the season. Site and fire pit cleaning frequency in KNP should be adjusted to a level consistent with the current mountain national park average. Sites and fire pits should be cleaned at least once per week to ensure that campsite residue does not exist. The increased cleaning frequency will aid in the mitigation of potential health and safety risk to users. 5.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Financial summary data from 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 was collected for mountain national park campgrounds. Revenues, and costs including S&W, and goods and services (G&S) for individual campgrounds and commonly managed cost/profit centres are included in the data set. The data is not directly comparable. The lack of S&W apportioning which prohibited a complete campground staffing analysis also prohibits comparable reporting of S&W expenses. Operational field units with more sophisticated wage apportioning processes report higher S&W costs by including a greater number of employees that provide services to mountain national park campgrounds as a portion of their position. Direct comparisons of S&W costs will not be made for this reason, however they will be compared indirectly through a broader comparison of field unit revenues and direct operating costs. The inclusion of S&W costs in the aggregate comparison is appropriate given their dilution through the broader comparison, and the focus on relative performance as opposed to actual figures. Not all operational field units recognize revenue uniformly. Revenue from firewood sales was to be added to WLNP revenue as well as PUF revenue from campground kiosks to both WLNP and Banff-South campgrounds. The other Page 30

31 operational field units already recognize firewood sales and PUF in their total campground revenue. The Banff-South financial summaries also included an additional cost centre, Banff General Expenses for flexible resources common to all Banff-South campgrounds are coded to this cost centre. The expenses were apportioned to Banff-South field unit campgrounds according to camper nights to better approximate actual direct operating costs. Other minor changes were made to the data under the direction of Visitor Services managers or campground officers. Please refer to Appendix H for financial summary data. 5.1 Operational Field Unit Financial Summaries The mountain national park campgrounds strive to provide competitive camping offers that achieve cost recovery. Figure 7 demonstrates operational field unit financial results for 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 seasons. Figure 7: Operational Field Unit Financial Performance 2003/ /2005 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 0 FINANCIAL SUMMARY DATA 2003/ /2005 WLNP Banff-South Lake Louise Banff-North KNP YNP GNP JNP 645,367 2,668,167 1,029, , , , ,148 2,769, /2004 Revenue 2003/2004 Operating Costs 396,413 1,810, , , , , , , /2005 Revenue 654,694 2,454, , , , , ,224 2,729, /2005 Operating Costs 411,899 2,123, , , , , ,066 1,312,355 In 2004/2005, five out of eight field units failed to achieve a cost recovery position. Although there is no typical camping season, labour disruptions during a portion of the 2004/2005 season significantly impacted use and revenue, and therefore, 2004/2005 financial data should not be used as a measure of performance. Use is often impacted by external factors including extreme weather events, natural disturbances, wildlife issues, etc. Internal factors, as evidenced by 2004/2005 results can also impact use through management activities and/or labour disruptions. Please see Appendix C for a summary of events that may have impacted campground use, and consequently revenue in 2003/2004 and 2004/2005. In 2003/2004, GNP was the only field unit that failed to achieve cost recovery. The average revenue generated per site in Illecillewaet and Loop Brook campgrounds in 2003/2004 was approximately $25. Given the duration of their operating seasons and operational costs, Illecillewaet and Loop Brook campgrounds would have had to operate at 95% occupancy to break even. There have been no examples of mountain national park campgrounds achieving occupancy greater than 82% over the past 4 years. The ability for GNP campgrounds to generate revenue and the operational costs associated with operating the campgrounds provides marginal opportunity to achieve cost recovery. On average, over 75% of direct operating costs are attributed to S&W. However, a lack of apportioning processes in select operational field units results in variable S&W reported data. A direct comparison of S&W is therefore not a valuable exercise. The remaining 25% of operating costs are G&S. Annual expected G&S expenditures are relatively low. It is unexpected expenditures required to address issues that arise during the season (i.e. plumbing issues, etc.) that contribute to the larger portion of G&S. It is also unexpected expenditures that contribute to the variable nature of G&S from year to year. An initial analysis was conducted. G&S data was divided by annual camper nights, and where possible compared to cost/profit centres of similar site types. The results were highly variable. They could not be explained by dramatically different management, but instead demonstrated the variable nature of G&S due to unexpected expenditures. 5.2 Unique Operational Field Unit Initiatives Single line items of G&S expenditures are difficult to compare. Not all campgrounds Page 31

32 expense the same G&S every year, and general ledger coding can vary across operational field units. Comparing G&S expenses as a total as opposed to single line items limits the opportunity for specific comparison and evaluation of management practices. The following is a list of initiatives unique to one or more operational field units. Unfortunately, any cost savings resulting from the initiatives are difficult to determine. Banff-South Tunnel Mountain II shower building is fitted with a solar hot water system. When sunlight is sufficient, the sun heats water as it passes through the panels mounted on the roof of the building. The water is stored in an insulated tank for use, and recirculated when its temperature drops below the threshold. The energy savings associated with the assets are unknown. Lake Louise Tent, Lake Louise Trailer, and Protection Mountain campgrounds have motion sensors installed in washroom and shower facilities to conserve energy when not in use. The RCMP is contracted to provide enforcement for Banff-South campgrounds. The cost is expensed under Protection Services in Banff-South financial reports. However, the cost is not easily compared to other operational field units as enforcement provided by Warden Services is not clearly represented in S&W due to apportioning inconsistencies. GNP has a hybrid fleet vehicle for campground employees. Crandell, Redstreak, Wapiti, and Pocahontas campgrounds provide campground employees with golf cart or gators for cleaning and compliance checks, as opposed to full-size trucks. 5.3 Recommendations The analysis of campground financial performance is severely limited by the quality of the data, and as such recommendations regarding specific campground and field unit operations are not possible. The current financial data does not allow for direct comparisons across operational field units. The lack of common S&W apportionment processes provide the greatest challenge, given that S&W contribute to more than 75% of operating costs. The mountain national park campgrounds seek cost recovery, however without an explicit understanding of true service costs, determination of the appropriate level of services offered by the campgrounds is not possible. Reporting inconsistencies must be reconciled to determine appropriate service levels, and provide managers with opportunity to benchmark performance relative to other operational field units and campgrounds. Adjust current apportionment systems for financial reporting to include ALL Parks Canada staff that contribute to frontcountry campground operations in the mountain national parks. Develop field unit specific schedules of allocations of staff per campground in management units that offer more than one site type. In future financial comparisons, this information will provide greater insight into true service cost per site type. The variation in campground operating season and flexibility of staff resources within staffing units will present significant challenges in developing staff allocation schedules. However, the additional detail will provide decision-makers with enhanced data for greater value extraction from the comparison of mountain national park campgrounds. Report use data per site type for campgrounds with a multiple site type offer. This information is not readily available, however assists in relative comparisons of staffing and financial performance across mountain national park campgrounds. Current reported use data assumes equal use of site types for these campgrounds. Any additional site type Page 32

33 use value is lost in its aggregate presentation. Reconcile revenue recognition issues regarding PUF and firewood revenue from campgrounds. Review general ledger coding processes for consistency across mountain national park Campground Services. More specific descriptors may be required to ensure uniform coding of like items. 6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Group Camping Offer in the Mountain National Parks The development of the group camping concept was Parks Canada s response to the identified needs of a specific segment of users. The objective was to create a high-quality, basicservice tent camping option whereby non-profit organizations seeking a shared, primitive experience could camp as a group at a reduced rate 35. Group camping offers traditionally occupied meadow-like areas, and hosted church, school, and social organizations as well as families and touring groups. Group camping has since evolved, and although the objective remains relatively consistent, there is significant variation in field unit specific administration and policy regarding facilities, processes, and access. The variation in facilities, and recommendations addressing their disparity are discussed in section 3.4 JNP, WLNP, LLYK and Banff-South field units are current providers of group camping offers. Each field unit has developed unique policy with respect to its exclusivity through user profile and advertising, as well as reservation policy. Tables 12, 13 and 14 summarize field unit policy with regard to these aspects. Group camping offers are no longer strictly for tent camping. With the exception of JNP group camps, all other field units are able to accommodate both tenting and RV campers. The exclusion of RV opportunities in JNP s Ranger Creek and Whirlpool River offers is more a function of feasibility due to a lack of available space, than a concerted effort to maintain an offer congruent with the original group camping precept. Marmot Meadows is also somewhat limited by space. Although the parking area is large enough to host RV vehicles, the space is required for support vehicles for tent campers. Marmot Meadows tent camper capacity is 100 people. The inclusion of RVs as acceptable camping units for select group camping offers demonstrates field unit responsiveness to the changing needs of their users. They have updated the concept to provide greater relevance given the current market, yet deviated from the original objective of the offer. Table 12: Summary of Group Camp User Profile Group Camps Allowable Camping Units Eligible Users WLNP Belly River -Tents & RV s -Non-exclusive LLYK Crooks Meadow -Tents & RV s (RV s are considered a support vehicle. They are charged a higher fee for group camping) -Non-profit only Marmot Meadows -Tents only -Non-profit only JNP Ranger Creek -Tents only Whirlpool River -Tents only -Non-exclusive Tunnel Mtn II -Tents only Tunnel Mtn I -Tents & RV s Tunnel Mtn I RV -RV s only Banff-South Two Jack Main -Tents only -Non-exclusive Two Jack Main RV -Tents & RV s Johnston Canyon -Tents & RV s Crooks Meadow and Marmot Meadows camping offers are available to users that demonstrate nonprofit status. Other group camping offers have not maintained the same requirement of their users. They are non-exclusive. Any users meeting the reservation requirements are able to use the group camping offer. The relaxing of non-profit requirements and inclusion of RVs as acceptable camping units at select offers is a significant departure from the original intent of the group camping concept. And as such, group camping begins to resemble standard camping offers provided by the mountain national parks. With the introduction of the reservation system across all field units, and the ability to reserve more than one site for a shared, group-like experience, the distinction becomes even less apparent. Group camping Page 33

34 offers maintain their price differential, however some of their unique attributes now are more easily imitated by standard frontcountry camping offers. Table 13: Summary of Group Camp Reservation Policy Group Camps Minimum Size WLNP Belly River 25 people $25 LLYK Crooks Meadow 10 people N/A JNP Banff-South Marmot Meadows Ranger Creek Whirlpool River Tunnel Mtn II Tunnel Mtn I Tunnel Mtn I RV Two Jack Main Two Jack Main RV Johnston Canyon 10 people 10 people 10 people 10 people 5 sites 10 sites 10 people 5 sites 10 people Deposit All group camping offers require a reservation. The reservations are booked through field unit offices as opposed to the nationwide reservation system. In order to make a reservation for JNP and WLNP s group camping offers, a deposit of $20 and $25 is required, respectively. The deposit is credited toward the camping fees or forfeited if the reservation is cancelled prior to a certain date. The operational field units also require a minimum group size for reservations. The reservation requirements commit the user and ensure that use will warrant the costs associated with the services provided to the user. Campground staff does not regularly service group camping offers if the sites are not in use. They are a flexible resource, distributed to meet demand. The most significant difference between group camping offers and standard camping offers is how they are managed administratively. Personnel from field unit offices are responsible for reservations, and check-in, which they manage independently or in coordination with Campground Services staff. The individuals are separate from Campground Services, yet they are directly involved in the administration of Campground Services. $20 N/A Detailed use data does not exist for majority of group camping offers, however field units confirm generally marginal use levels. It is undetermined whether the use levels are indicative of user response to an outdated concept, or a function of the level of field unit support dedicated to the offers. Regardless, group camping offers exist on the periphery of mountain national park core campground operations. Field units promote their standard frontcountry camping offers in Parks Canada s The Mountain Guide and the Parks Canada website, however group camping offers are not advertised in the same manner. With the exception of the Banff-South group camping offer, all other offers are advertised through the Parks Canada website and local promotional brochures only. Many users of group camping offers are repeat users. They often return to the same offer more than once or sometimes on an annual basis. Advertising plays a limited role in their decision to visit. However, the absence of group camping offers from The Mountain Guide, the mountain national parks primary promotional tool and general advertising strategy, does little to inform and attract new users to increase overall use of group camping offers. Reservation Policy -Require a reservation and deposit -The deposit is credited toward the camping fee -If the reservation is cancelled at any time prior to the arrival date, the deposit is forfeited -Require a reservation, no deposit required -Require a reservation and deposit -The deposit is credited toward the camping fee -If the reservation is cancelled <30 days prior to the arrival date, the deposit is forfeited -Require a reservation, no deposit required Table 14: Summary of Group Camp Advertising Group Camps Marketing Efforts WLNP Belly River Group Camp -Published in Waterton/Glacier Guide (Waterton Lakes Mountain Guide equivalent) -Online information available at Parks Canada website LLYK Crooks Meadow Group Camp -Published in limited promotional brochures not including The Mountain Guide -Online information available at Parks Canada website -Contact information displayed on highway signage JNP All Jasper Group Camps -Published in limited promotional brochures not including The Mountain Guide -Online information available at Parks Canada website Banff- South All Banff-South Group Camps -Not explicitly advertised -New users are often referred from the Banff Call Centre Page 34

35 6.11 Recommendations The lack of clear objectives for mountain national park group camping offers over time has resulted in a piecemeal approach to their management. There seems to be question as to where group camping offers fit within the current frontcountry camping offer, resulting in inconsistent administration, processes, access, and overall organizational support across operational field units. The relevancy of group camping offers must be re-examined given their performance and the current needs of campers. Determine whether the group camping concept can continue to provide a relevant offer, distinct from standard frontcountry campgrounds. Review current and historic use levels, and financial performance of group camping offers. Use data is not readily available for all group camping offers. However, the data does exist in informal administrative documentation at operational field unit offices. Financial data for group camping offers suffers from the same lack of apportioning processes as other frontcountry campgrounds. A clear understanding of revenues and user costs is necessary to determine the financial performance of the offers relative to a cost recovery position. Given financial performance and annual use levels, determine what group camps are appropriate candidates for continuation of the offer. Group camps that fail to meet financial performance measures or minimum use levels should be decommissioned. The rationale to continue providing a group camping offer should not be based on the existence of infrastructure or the satisfaction of a handful of annual users. Develop standard policies regarding whom the offer is made available to, how they are advertised, booked and managed administratively to ensure a consistent offer across mountain national park group camps. Adjust deposit amount and minimum group size to reflect the actual user costs associated with servicing each group camping offer. Formalize use and financial reporting to clearly track performance over time to provide future decision-making tools. 7.0 CONCLUSION Campground user satisfaction or dissatisfaction is influenced by numerous attributes that are not easily quantified, or even definable. It is therefore imperative that mountain national park campgrounds ensure a consistent user experience through manageable aspects of campground services. The parks have been effective in delivering acceptable service-levels at frontcountry campgrounds, as evidenced by customer satisfaction survey results. Where variances exist and/or dissatisfaction communicated, recommendations are provided to normalize services related to operational processes, and assets and infrastructure. The recommendations address variances from current service-levels. However, current service-levels are not based on true service costs. The reporting processes of operational field units, and resulting data that prohibits complete staffing and financial analyses also prohibits the determination of true service costs per offered site type, demonstrating a piecemeal approach to current service-level determination. Given desired cost recovery in mountain national park campgrounds, site type service-levels should reflect the cost of delivery. Enhanced data from improved operational field unit reporting processes will better facilitate field unit, campground, and site type comparisons, and provide opportunity to evaluate specific management practices thus improving strategic decision-making. Foremost, the data will allow for the determination of true service costs, and subsequently appropriate baseline service-levels for mountain national park campgrounds. Page 35

36 ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Parks Canada Jasper National Park of Canada Management Plan. May. index_e.asp. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Parks Canada Campground Performance Assessment Survey (Draft). Parks Canada, Social Science Unit, Western Canadian Service Centre. February. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. Grigel, Frank, Social Science Specialist, Parks Canada. Interview by author, August 31, Phone communs. 9. Parks Canada Campground Performance Assessment Survey (Draft). Parks Canada, Social Science Unit, Western Canadian Service Centre. February. 10. Redford, Dale, Assets Management Advisor, Banff/Waterton Lakes Field Units, Parks Canada. Interview by author, August 23, Phone communs. 11. Kampgrounds of America Directory. KOA website. Retrieved on May 15, 2005 at Parks Canada Website. Banff National Park of Canada Fees. Retrieved on January 12, 2006 at visit/tarifs-fees_e.asp?park= Kampgrounds of America Directory. KOA website. Retrieved on May 15, 2005 at Bow Valley Campgrounds. Kananaskis Country. Retrieved May 15, 2005 at cgrounds.html 15. Parks Canada Website. Banff National Park of Canada Fees. Retrieved on January 12, 2006 at visit/tarifs-fees_e.asp?park= Bow Valley Campgrounds. Kananaskis Country. Retrieved May 15, 2005 at cgrounds.html 17. Kampgrounds of America Directory. KOA website. Retrieved on May 15, 2005 at Parks Canada Website. Banff National Park of Canada Fees. Retrieved on January 12, 2006 at visit/tarifs-fees_e.asp?park= Kampgrounds of America Directory. KOA website. Retrieved on May 15, 2005 at Alberta Government Community Development. Kananaskis Country Camping Information. Retrieved on May 15, 2005 at parks/featured/kananaskis/vehicle_camp.asp 21. Parks Canada Website. Banff National Park of Canada Fees. Retrieved on January 12, 2006 at visit/tarifs-fees_e.asp?park= Alberta Government Community Development. Kananaskis Country Camping Information. Retrieved on May 15, 2005 at parks/featured/kananaskis/vehicle_camp.asp. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. Parks Canada Website. Banff National Park of Canada Fees. Retrieved on January 12, 2006 at visit/tarifs-fees_e.asp?park= Alberta Government Community Development. Kananaskis Country Camping Information. Retrieved on May 15, 2005 at parks/featured/kananaskis/vehicle_camp.asp. 27. Ibid. 28. Ibid. 29. Parks Canada Website. Banff National Park of Canada Fees. Retrieved on January 12, 2006 at visit/tarifs-fees_e.asp?park= Alberta Government Community Development. Kananaskis Country Camping Information. Retrieved on May 15, 2005 at parks/featured/kananaskis/vehicle_camp.asp. 31. Ibid. 32. Parks Canada Jasper National Park of Canada Management Plan. May. index_e.asp. 33. Parks Canada Campground Page 36

37 Performance Assessment Survey (Draft). Parks Canada, Social Science Unit, Western Canadian Service Centre. February. 34. Grigel, Frank, Social Science Specialist, Parks Canada. Interview by author, August 31, Phone communs. 35. Canadian Parks Service (previous Parks Canada agency) Camping Manual. Page 37

38 APPENDIX A Mountain National Park Campgrounds Campground Field Unit Operational Field Unit Site Type Waterton Townsite* WLNP WLNP Full-service Crandell WLNP WLNP Unserviced Belly River WLNP WLNP Primitive Belly River Group WLNP WLNP Group Banff Overflow (Cascade) BNP Banff-South Overflow Tunnel Mountain I BNP Banff-South Unserviced Tunnel Mountain II* BNP Banff-South Electrical-only Tunnel Mountain Trailer BNP Banff-South Full-service Two Jack Main BNP Banff-South Unserviced Two Jack Lakeside BNP Banff-South Unserviced Johnston Canyon BNP Banff-South Unserviced Castle Mountain BNP Banff-South Unserviced Protection Mountain BNP LLYK Unserviced Lake Louise Trailer BNP LLYK Electrical-only Lake Louise Tent BNP LLYK Unserviced Lake Louise Overflow BNP LLYK Overflow Mosquito Creek BNP LLYK Primitive Waterfowl Lakes BNP LLYK Unserviced Rampart Creek BNP LLYK Primitive Silverhorn Overflow BNP LLYK Overflow Redstreak* KNP LLYK Full-service McLeod Meadows KNP LLYK Unserviced Marble Canyon KNP LLYK Unserviced Crooks Meadow Group KNP LLYK Group Monarch YNP LLYK Primitive Kicking Horse YNP LLYK Unserviced Takakkaw YNP LLYK Primitive Illecillewaet GNP MRG Unserviced Loop Brook GNP MRG Unserviced Mt Sir Donald Overflow GNP MRG Overflow Honeymoon Lake JNP JNP Primitive Columbia Icefield JNP JNP Primitive Jonas Creek JNP JNP Primitive Mt Kerkeslin JNP JNP Primitive Marmot Meadows Group JNP JNP Group Pocohontas JNP JNP Unserviced Ranger Creek Group JNP JNP Group Snaring River JNP JNP Primitive Snaring Overflow JNP JNP Overflow Wabasso JNP JNP Unserviced Wapiti* JNP JNP Electrical-only Wilcox Creek JNP JNP Primitive Whirlpool Group JNP JNP Group Whistlers* JNP JNP Full-service * Campgrounds that offer multiple site types are classified according to their highest service-level sites Page 38

39 APPENDIX B Mountain National Park Campground Use Data 2001/ /2005 Page 39 Use data provided by Tao Gui, Ecosystem Database Specialist, Banff Field Unit.

THIRTEENTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE

THIRTEENTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE International Civil Aviation Organization AN-Conf/13-WP/22 14/6/18 WORKING PAPER THIRTEENTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE Agenda Item 1: Air navigation global strategy 1.4: Air navigation business cases Montréal,

More information

TOURISM SPENDING IN ALGONQUIN PROVINCIAL PARK

TOURISM SPENDING IN ALGONQUIN PROVINCIAL PARK TOURISM SPENDING IN ALGONQUIN PROVINCIAL PARK Margaret E. Bowman 1, Paul F.G. Eagles 2 1 Ontario Parks Central Zone, 451 Arrowhead Park Road, RR3, Huntsville, ON P1H 2J4, 2 Department of Recreation and

More information

Banff National Park of Canada

Banff National Park of Canada Banff National Park of Canada Things you should know regarding Tunnel Mountain Village I and Tunnel Mountain Village II Campgrounds Updated July 13, 2012 Important Notices Important Notices General Campground

More information

The Economic Impact of Tourism Brighton & Hove Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH

The Economic Impact of Tourism Brighton & Hove Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH The Economic Impact of Tourism Brighton & Hove 2013 Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH CONTENTS 1. Summary of Results 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2

More information

Proposal to Redevelop Lower Kananaskis Lake Campgrounds in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park. What We Heard

Proposal to Redevelop Lower Kananaskis Lake Campgrounds in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park. What We Heard Proposal to Redevelop Lower Kananaskis Lake Campgrounds in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park What We Heard In December 2016, Alberta Parks proposed to make several changes to campgrounds in the Lower Kananaskis

More information

The Economic Impact of Tourism Eastbourne Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH

The Economic Impact of Tourism Eastbourne Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH The Economic Impact of Tourism Eastbourne 2016 Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH CONTENTS Page 1. Summary of Results 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2

More information

2015 British Columbia Parks. Visitor Survey. Juan De Fuca Park. China Beach

2015 British Columbia Parks. Visitor Survey. Juan De Fuca Park. China Beach 2015 British Columbia Parks Visitor Survey Juan De Fuca Park China Beach 1 Contents Introduction 3 Methodology 3 Limitations 3 How this report is organized 3 Part 1 - Visitor Satisfaction 4 Part 2 - Visitor

More information

Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director

Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director Economic Impact of Tourism Oxfordshire - 2015 Economic Impact of Tourism Headline Figures Oxfordshire - 2015 Total number of trips (day & staying)

More information

Northern Rockies District Value of Tourism Research Project December 2007

Northern Rockies District Value of Tourism Research Project December 2007 Northern Rockies District Value of Tourism Research Project December 2007 Project Partners: Northern Rockies Regional District, Tourism British Columbia, Northern Rockies Alaska Highway Tourism Association,

More information

1.0 BACKGROUND NEW VETERANS CHARTER EVALUATION OBJECTIVES STUDY APPROACH EVALUATION LIMITATIONS... 7

1.0 BACKGROUND NEW VETERANS CHARTER EVALUATION OBJECTIVES STUDY APPROACH EVALUATION LIMITATIONS... 7 New Veterans Charter Evaluation Plan TABLE CONTENTS Page 1.0 BACKGROUND... 1 2.0 NEW VETERANS CHARTER EVALUATION OBJECTIVES... 2 3.0 STUDY APPROACH... 3 4.0 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS... 7 5.0 FUTURE PROJECTS...

More information

The Economic Impact of Tourism New Forest Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH

The Economic Impact of Tourism New Forest Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH The Economic Impact of Tourism New Forest 2008 Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH CONTENTS Glossary of terms 1 1. Summary of Results 4 2. Table

More information

2009 Muskoka Airport Economic Impact Study

2009 Muskoka Airport Economic Impact Study 2009 Muskoka Airport Economic Impact Study November 4, 2009 Prepared by The District of Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Department BACKGROUND The Muskoka Airport is situated at the north end

More information

Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director

Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director Economic Impact of Tourism Epping Forest - 2014 Economic Impact of Tourism Headline Figures Epping Forest - 2014 Total number of trips (day & staying)

More information

The Economic Impact of Tourism Brighton & Hove Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH

The Economic Impact of Tourism Brighton & Hove Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH The Economic Impact of Tourism Brighton & Hove 2014 Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH CONTENTS 1. Summary of Results 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2

More information

Agritourism in Missouri: A Profile of Farms by Visitor Numbers

Agritourism in Missouri: A Profile of Farms by Visitor Numbers Agritourism in Missouri: A Profile of Farms by Visitor Numbers Presented to: Sarah Gehring Missouri Department of Agriculture Prepared by: Carla Barbieri, Ph.D. Christine Tew, MS candidate April 2010 University

More information

Customer Satisfaction Tracking Annual Report British Columbia Ferry Services Inc.

Customer Satisfaction Tracking Annual Report British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Customer Satisfaction Tracking Annual Report British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Presented to: British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Victoria, British Columbia 0 0 West Second Avenue Vancouver BC VH Y

More information

2009/10 NWT Park User Satisfaction Survey Report

2009/10 NWT Park User Satisfaction Survey Report 2009/10 NWT Park User Satisfaction Survey Report Industry, Tourism and Investment Government of the Northwest Territories Table of Contents Survey Methodology. 3 Survey Sample...3 Satisfaction with Services

More information

JOSLIN FIELD, MAGIC VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012

JOSLIN FIELD, MAGIC VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 1. Introduction The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that airport master plans be updated every 5 years or as necessary to keep them current. The Master Plan for Joslin Field, Magic Valley

More information

DIRECTOR S ORDER #41: Wilderness Preservation and Management

DIRECTOR S ORDER #41: Wilderness Preservation and Management These are relevant sections about Wilderness Management Plans from National Park Service 2006 Management Policies, Director s Orders #41 and Reference Manual 41. National Park Service U.S. Department of

More information

Commissioned by: Economic Impact of Tourism. Stevenage Results. Produced by: Destination Research

Commissioned by: Economic Impact of Tourism. Stevenage Results. Produced by: Destination Research Commissioned by: Produced by: Destination Research www.destinationresearch.co.uk December 2016 Contents Page Introduction and Contextual Analysis 3 Headline Figures 5 Volume of Tourism 7 Staying Visitors

More information

Economic Impact of Tourism. Hertfordshire Results. Commissioned by: Visit Herts. Produced by:

Economic Impact of Tourism. Hertfordshire Results. Commissioned by: Visit Herts. Produced by: Commissioned by: Visit Herts Produced by: Destination Research www.destinationresearch.co.uk December 2016 Contents Page Introduction and Contextual Analysis 3 Headline Figures 5 Volume of Tourism 7 Staying

More information

Abstract. Introduction

Abstract. Introduction COMPARISON OF EFFICIENCY OF SLOT ALLOCATION BY CONGESTION PRICING AND RATION BY SCHEDULE Saba Neyshaboury,Vivek Kumar, Lance Sherry, Karla Hoffman Center for Air Transportation Systems Research (CATSR)

More information

PREFACE. Service frequency; Hours of service; Service coverage; Passenger loading; Reliability, and Transit vs. auto travel time.

PREFACE. Service frequency; Hours of service; Service coverage; Passenger loading; Reliability, and Transit vs. auto travel time. PREFACE The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has embarked upon a statewide evaluation of transit system performance. The outcome of this evaluation is a benchmark of transit performance that

More information

Benefit Sharing in Protected Area Management: the Case of Tarangire National Park, Tanzania

Benefit Sharing in Protected Area Management: the Case of Tarangire National Park, Tanzania Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Findings reports on ongoing operational, economic and sector work carried out by the

More information

Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport. Plan for saskatchewan.ca

Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport. Plan for saskatchewan.ca Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport Plan for 2018-19 saskatchewan.ca Table of Contents Statement from the Minister... 1 Response to Government Direction... 2 Operational Plan... 3 Highlights... 7 Financial

More information

Submitted Electronically to the Federal erulemaking Portal:

Submitted Electronically to the Federal erulemaking Portal: 121 North Henry Street Alexandria, VA 22314-2903 T: 703 739 9543 F: 703 739 9488 arsa@arsa.org www.arsa.org May 9, 2011 Docket Operations, M-30 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue,

More information

2 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS 2004 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REVIEW

2 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS 2004 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REVIEW 2 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS 2004 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REVIEW The Joint Transit Committee and Rapid Transit Public/Private Partnership Steering Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation

More information

PSP 75 Lancefield Road. Northern Jacksons Creek Crossing Supplementary Information

PSP 75 Lancefield Road. Northern Jacksons Creek Crossing Supplementary Information PSP 75 Lancefield Road Northern Jacksons Creek Crossing Supplementary Information September 2017 The northern crossing of Jacksons Creek proposed within the Lancefield Road PSP is a key part of the ultimate

More information

The Economic Impacts of the Open Skies Initiative: Past and Future

The Economic Impacts of the Open Skies Initiative: Past and Future The Economic Impacts of the Open Skies Initiative Past and Future strategic transportation & tourism solutions The Economic Impacts of the Open Skies Initiative: Past and Future Prepared for Aéroports

More information

July 2018 RV PRODUCTION. Overview of towable and motorised recreational vehicles manufactured in Australia. Data Provided by nemaustralasia

July 2018 RV PRODUCTION. Overview of towable and motorised recreational vehicles manufactured in Australia. Data Provided by nemaustralasia y RV PRODUCTION Overview of towable and motorised recreational vehicles manufactured in Australia. Data Provided by nemaustralasia This research is undertaken in partnership between the National Association

More information

EU GPP CRITERIA FOR INDOOR CLEANING SERVICES 1. INTRODUCTION

EU GPP CRITERIA FOR INDOOR CLEANING SERVICES 1. INTRODUCTION EU GPP CRITERIA FOR INDOOR CLEANING SERVICES (please note that this document is a compilation of the criteria proposed in the 3 rd Technical Report, which should be consulted for a full understanding of

More information

L 342/20 Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/20 Official Journal of the European Union L 342/20 Official Journal of the European Union 24.12.2005 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2150/2005 of 23 December 2005 laying down common rules for the flexible use of airspace (Text with EEA relevance)

More information

Economic Impact Analysis. Tourism on Tasmania s King Island

Economic Impact Analysis. Tourism on Tasmania s King Island Economic Impact Analysis Tourism on Tasmania s King Island i Economic Impact Analysis Tourism on Tasmania s King Island This project has been conducted by REMPLAN Project Team Matthew Nichol Principal

More information

The Economic Impact of Tourism on Scarborough District 2014

The Economic Impact of Tourism on Scarborough District 2014 The Economic Impact of Tourism on Scarborough District 2014 Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH CONTENTS 1. Summary of Results 1 2. Table of

More information

Gold Coast: Modelled Future PIA Queensland Awards for Planning Excellence 2014 Nomination under Cutting Edge Research category

Gold Coast: Modelled Future PIA Queensland Awards for Planning Excellence 2014 Nomination under Cutting Edge Research category Gold Coast: Modelled Future PIA Queensland Awards for Planning Excellence 2014 Nomination under Cutting Edge Research category Jointly nominated by SGS Economics and Planning and City of Gold Coast August

More information

Discriminate Analysis of Synthetic Vision System Equivalent Safety Metric 4 (SVS-ESM-4)

Discriminate Analysis of Synthetic Vision System Equivalent Safety Metric 4 (SVS-ESM-4) Discriminate Analysis of Synthetic Vision System Equivalent Safety Metric 4 (SVS-ESM-4) Cicely J. Daye Morgan State University Louis Glaab Aviation Safety and Security, SVS GA Discriminate Analysis of

More information

Jasper National Park of Canada

Jasper National Park of Canada Jasper National Park of Canada Things you should know regarding Wabasso, Wapiti, Whistlers and Pocahontas Campgrounds Updated January 2, 2018 Important Notices: Important Notices General Camping Information

More information

(Also known as the Den-Ice Agreements Program) Evaluation & Advisory Services. Transport Canada

(Also known as the Den-Ice Agreements Program) Evaluation & Advisory Services. Transport Canada Evaluation of Transport Canada s Program of Payments to Other Government or International Agencies for the Operation and Maintenance of Airports, Air Navigation, and Airways Facilities (Also known as the

More information

The Economic Impact of Tourism in North Carolina. Tourism Satellite Account Calendar Year 2015

The Economic Impact of Tourism in North Carolina. Tourism Satellite Account Calendar Year 2015 The Economic Impact of Tourism in North Carolina Tourism Satellite Account Calendar Year 2015 Key results 2 Total tourism demand tallied $28.3 billion in 2015, expanding 3.6%. This marks another new high

More information

Making the most of school-level per-student spending data

Making the most of school-level per-student spending data InterstateFinancial Making the most of school-level per-student spending data Interstate Financial (IFR) was created by states, for states, to meet the financial data reporting requirement under ESSA and

More information

The Economic Impact of Tourism on Calderdale Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH

The Economic Impact of Tourism on Calderdale Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH The Economic Impact of Tourism on Calderdale 2015 Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH CONTENTS 1. Summary of Results 1 2. Table of Results Table

More information

SAMTRANS TITLE VI STANDARDS AND POLICIES

SAMTRANS TITLE VI STANDARDS AND POLICIES SAMTRANS TITLE VI STANDARDS AND POLICIES Adopted March 13, 2013 Federal Title VI requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were recently updated by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and now require

More information

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for River Management v

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for River Management v Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for Management v. 120803 Introduction The following Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) characterizations and matrices mirror the presentation in the ROS Primer and Field

More information

A (diamond) cut above the rest: Improving hotel operations based on TripAdvisor rating attributes

A (diamond) cut above the rest: Improving hotel operations based on TripAdvisor rating attributes Boston University OpenBU School of Hospitality Administration http://open.bu.edu BU Open Access Articles 2017-10-11 A (diamond) cut above the rest: Improving hotel operations based on TripAdvisor rating

More information

Customer Satisfaction Tracking Annual Report British Columbia Ferry Services Inc.

Customer Satisfaction Tracking Annual Report British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Customer Satisfaction Tracking Annual Report 0 British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Presented to: British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Victoria, British Columbia 0 05 West Second Avenue Vancouver BC V6H

More information

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY PRINCIPLES FOR CANADIAN AIRPORT AUTHORITIES

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY PRINCIPLES FOR CANADIAN AIRPORT AUTHORITIES PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY PRINCIPLES FOR CANADIAN AIRPORT AUTHORITIES The Canadian Airport Authority ( CAA ) shall be incorporated in a manner consistent with the following principles: 1. Not-for-profit Corporation

More information

Economic Impact of Tourism in Hillsborough County September 2016

Economic Impact of Tourism in Hillsborough County September 2016 Economic Impact of Tourism in Hillsborough County - 2015 September 2016 Key findings for 2015 Almost 22 million people visited Hillsborough County in 2015. Visits to Hillsborough County increased 4.5%

More information

MRO 2017 Stakeholder Survey

MRO 2017 Stakeholder Survey MRO 2017 Stakeholder Survey Summary Results Conducted in October 2017 MIDWEST RELIABILITY ORGANIZATION 380 St. Peter Street, Ste.800 St. Paul, MN 55102 P: 651.855.1760 F: 651.855.1712 www.midwestreliability.org

More information

1999 Reservations Northwest Users Survey Methodology and Results November 1999

1999 Reservations Northwest Users Survey Methodology and Results November 1999 1999 Reservations Northwest Users Survey Methodology and Results November 1999 Oregon Survey Research Laboratory University of Oregon Eugene OR 97403-5245 541-346-0822 Fax: 541-346-5026 Internet: OSRL@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU

More information

Gravel and Rock Extraction Highway Maintenance, Recapitalization and Twinning

Gravel and Rock Extraction Highway Maintenance, Recapitalization and Twinning Gravel and Rock Extraction Highway Maintenance, Recapitalization and Twinning Backgrounder: Mountain National Parks A Need for Change Existing supplies of aggregate (sand and gravel) for highway maintenance,

More information

ANGLIAN WATER GREEN BOND

ANGLIAN WATER GREEN BOND ANGLIAN WATER GREEN BOND DNV GL ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT Scope and Objectives Anglian Water Services Financing Plc is the financing subsidiary of Anglian Water Services Limited. References in this eligibility

More information

1987 SUMMER USE SURVEY OF MINNESOTA STATE PARK VISITORS

1987 SUMMER USE SURVEY OF MINNESOTA STATE PARK VISITORS This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp (Funding for document

More information

RE: Access Fund Comments on Yosemite National Park Wilderness Stewardship Plan, Preliminary Ideas and Concepts

RE: Access Fund Comments on Yosemite National Park Wilderness Stewardship Plan, Preliminary Ideas and Concepts September 30, 2016 Superintendent Yosemite National Park Attn: Wilderness Stewardship Plan P.O. Box 577 Yosemite, CA 95389 RE: Access Fund Comments on Yosemite National Park Wilderness Stewardship Plan,

More information

Economic Impacts of Campgrounds in New York State

Economic Impacts of Campgrounds in New York State Economic Impacts of Campgrounds in New York State June 2017 Report Submitted to: Executive Summary Executive Summary New York State is home to approximately 350 privately owned campgrounds with 30,000

More information

Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director

Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director Economic Impact of Tourism Oxfordshire - 2016 Economic Impact of Tourism Headline Figures Oxfordshire - 2016 number of trips (day & staying) 27,592,106

More information

COUNTRY CASE STUDIES: OVERVIEW

COUNTRY CASE STUDIES: OVERVIEW APPENDIX C: COUNTRY CASE STUDIES: OVERVIEW The countries selected as cases for this evaluation include some of the Bank Group s oldest (Brazil and India) and largest clients in terms of both territory

More information

Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director

Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director Economic Impact of Tourism North Norfolk District - 2016 Contents Page Summary Results 2 Contextual analysis 4 Volume of Tourism 7 Staying Visitors

More information

Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director

Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director Economic Impact of Tourism Norfolk - 2016 Contents Page Summary Results 2 Contextual analysis 4 Volume of Tourism 7 Staying Visitors - Accommodation

More information

UC Berkeley Working Papers

UC Berkeley Working Papers UC Berkeley Working Papers Title The Value Of Runway Time Slots For Airlines Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/69t9v6qb Authors Cao, Jia-ming Kanafani, Adib Publication Date 1997-05-01 escholarship.org

More information

RESEARCH AND PLANNING FORT STEELE HERITAGE TOWN VISITOR STUDY 2007 RESULTS. May 2008

RESEARCH AND PLANNING FORT STEELE HERITAGE TOWN VISITOR STUDY 2007 RESULTS. May 2008 RESEARCH AND PLANNING FORT STEELE HERITAGE TOWN VISITOR STUDY 2007 RESULTS May 2008 Research and Planning Tourism British Columbia 300-1803 Douglas St. Box 9830 Stn. Prov. Gov t. Victoria, BC V8W 9W5 Web:

More information

AIRPORT VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT ON AIR PASSENGER SERVICE

AIRPORT VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT ON AIR PASSENGER SERVICE AIRPORT VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT ON AIR PASSENGER SERVICE PREAMBLE European airports have developed an Airport Voluntary Commitment on Air Passenger Service following extensive consultation with representatives

More information

BACKCOUNTRY TRAIL FLOOD REHABILITATION PROGRAM

BACKCOUNTRY TRAIL FLOOD REHABILITATION PROGRAM BACKCOUNTRY TRAIL FLOOD REHABILITATION PROGRAM Backcountry Trail Flood Rehabilitation A June 2013 Flood Recovery Program Summary In June 2013, parts of Southern Alberta were devastated from significant

More information

Hotel Investment Strategies, LLC. Improving the Productivity, Efficiency and Profitability of Hotels Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

Hotel Investment Strategies, LLC. Improving the Productivity, Efficiency and Profitability of Hotels Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Improving the Productivity, Efficiency and Profitability of Hotels Using Ross Woods Principal 40 Park Avenue, 5 th Floor, #759 New York, NY 0022 Tel: 22-308-292, Cell: 973-723-0423 Email: ross.woods@hotelinvestmentstrategies.com

More information

National Passenger Survey Spring putting rail passengers first

National Passenger Survey Spring putting rail passengers first National Passenger Survey putting rail passengers first What is Passenger Focus? Passenger Focus is the independent national rail consumer watchdog. Our mission is to get the best deal for Britain s rail

More information

The results of the National Tourism Development Strategy Assessments

The results of the National Tourism Development Strategy Assessments The results of the National Tourism Development Strategy Assessments - 2012 (I) The assessment tool In 2012 the Sustainable Tourism Working Group of the CEEweb for Biodiversity prepared a guidance for

More information

The Economic Impact of Tourism West Oxfordshire Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH

The Economic Impact of Tourism West Oxfordshire Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH The Economic Impact of Tourism West Oxfordshire 2014 Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH CONTENTS 1. Summary of Results 1 1.1 Introduction 1

More information

2013 Business & Legislative Session Visitor Satisfaction Survey Results

2013 Business & Legislative Session Visitor Satisfaction Survey Results 2013 Business & Legislative Session Visitor Satisfaction Survey Results Completed by Juneau Economic Development Council in partnership with The Alaska Committee August 2013 JEDC research efforts are supported

More information

Various Counties MINUTE ORDER Page 1 of I

Various Counties MINUTE ORDER Page 1 of I TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Various Counties MINUTE ORDER Page 1 of I Various Districts Texas Government Code, Chapter 2056, requires that each state agency prepare a five-year strategic plan every

More information

Foregone Economic Benefits from Airport Capacity Constraints in EU 28 in 2035

Foregone Economic Benefits from Airport Capacity Constraints in EU 28 in 2035 Foregone Economic Benefits from Airport Capacity Constraints in EU 28 in 2035 Foregone Economic Benefits from Airport Capacity Constraints in EU 28 in 2035 George Anjaparidze IATA, February 2015 Version1.1

More information

Pre-9/11 and Post-9/11 Customer Service Outcomes at U.S. Airports for International Travelers to the U.S.

Pre-9/11 and Post-9/11 Customer Service Outcomes at U.S. Airports for International Travelers to the U.S. Pre-9/11 and Post-9/11 Customer Service Outcomes at U.S. Airports for International Travelers to the U.S. Bryan W. Roberts Private Sector Office Department of Homeland Security November 2006 The views

More information

Business Plan INTRODUCTION AIRPORT ENTERPRISE FUND OVERVIEW. Master Plan Guiding Principles

Business Plan INTRODUCTION AIRPORT ENTERPRISE FUND OVERVIEW. Master Plan Guiding Principles 5 Business Plan INTRODUCTION Just as previous chapters have outlined plans for the airport s physical development, this chapter outlines a plan for the airport s financial development. More specifically,

More information

10/25/2013. What is the SCORP?! 2013 Local Government Survey 2013 Statewide Public Survey Advisory Group Priority Areas Your Suggestions!

10/25/2013. What is the SCORP?! 2013 Local Government Survey 2013 Statewide Public Survey Advisory Group Priority Areas Your Suggestions! COLORADO OUTDOOR RECREATION TRENDS RESULTS FROM THE SCORP AND STATEWIDE Colorado Outdoor Recreation Resource Partnership September 2013 PRESENTATION What is the SCORP?! 2013 Local Government Survey 2013

More information

Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations

Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations Dr. Ted Manning Lead Expert WTO Indicators Program President, Tourisk Inc. Ottawa Canada Washington DC 2004 Dolomites Italy Tourism is at

More information

Predicting Flight Delays Using Data Mining Techniques

Predicting Flight Delays Using Data Mining Techniques Todd Keech CSC 600 Project Report Background Predicting Flight Delays Using Data Mining Techniques According to the FAA, air carriers operating in the US in 2012 carried 837.2 million passengers and the

More information

The Economic Impact of Tourism in North Carolina. Tourism Satellite Account Calendar Year 2013

The Economic Impact of Tourism in North Carolina. Tourism Satellite Account Calendar Year 2013 The Economic Impact of Tourism in North Carolina Tourism Satellite Account Calendar Year 2013 Key results 2 Total tourism demand tallied $26 billion in 2013, expanding 3.9%. This marks another new high

More information

Prepared for: TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island CB Contact: Ben Nitschke, Account Manager Phone: (08)

Prepared for: TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island CB Contact: Ben Nitschke, Account Manager Phone: (08) Prepared for: TOMM Committee Kangaroo Island CB Contact: Ben Nitschke, Account Manager Phone: (08) 8373 3822 Email: ben.nitschke@colmarbrunton.com Issue Date: 24 August, 2017 Project number: TOMM0003 www.colmarbrunton.com

More information

Evaluation of Alternative Aircraft Types Dr. Peter Belobaba

Evaluation of Alternative Aircraft Types Dr. Peter Belobaba Evaluation of Alternative Aircraft Types Dr. Peter Belobaba Istanbul Technical University Air Transportation Management M.Sc. Program Network, Fleet and Schedule Strategic Planning Module 5: 10 March 2014

More information

HOW TO IMPROVE HIGH-FREQUENCY BUS SERVICE RELIABILITY THROUGH SCHEDULING

HOW TO IMPROVE HIGH-FREQUENCY BUS SERVICE RELIABILITY THROUGH SCHEDULING HOW TO IMPROVE HIGH-FREQUENCY BUS SERVICE RELIABILITY THROUGH SCHEDULING Ms. Grace Fattouche Abstract This paper outlines a scheduling process for improving high-frequency bus service reliability based

More information

The Economic Impact of Tourism on Oxfordshire Estimates for 2013

The Economic Impact of Tourism on Oxfordshire Estimates for 2013 The Economic Impact of Tourism on Oxfordshire Estimates for 2013 County and District Results September 2014 Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH

More information

Western Highways Transportation Corridor: Adaptation and Challenges for Preserving a Cultural Landscape Today

Western Highways Transportation Corridor: Adaptation and Challenges for Preserving a Cultural Landscape Today 16 Western Highways Transportation Corridor: Adaptation and Challenges for Preserving a Cultural Landscape Today Gwénaëlle Le Parlouër, Cultural Resource Management Advisor, Parks Canada Agency, 30 Victoria

More information

QUALITY OF SERVICE INDEX Advanced

QUALITY OF SERVICE INDEX Advanced QUALITY OF SERVICE INDEX Advanced Presented by: D. Austin Horowitz ICF SH&E Technical Specialist 2014 Air Service Data Seminar January 26-28, 2014 0 Workshop Agenda Introduction QSI/CSI Overview QSI Uses

More information

non-resident means an individual who is not a resident; and

non-resident means an individual who is not a resident; and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Subject Non-Resident Crown Land Camping Northern Ontario Compiled by - Branch Lands & Waters Replaces Directive Title Same Section Land Management Number Same Policy

More information

UNDERSTANDING TOURISM: BASIC GLOSSARY 1

UNDERSTANDING TOURISM: BASIC GLOSSARY 1 UNDERSTANDING TOURISM: BASIC GLOSSARY 1 Tourism is a social, cultural and economic phenomenon related to the movement of people to places outside their usual place of residence pleasure being the usual

More information

Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director

Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director Produced by: Destination Research Sergi Jarques, Director Economic Impact of Tourism Norfolk - 2017 Contents Page Summary Results 2 Contextual analysis 4 Volume of Tourism 7 Staying Visitors - Accommodation

More information

Customer Satisfaction Tracking Annual Report British Columbia Ferry Services Inc.

Customer Satisfaction Tracking Annual Report British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Customer Satisfaction Tracking Annual Report 2003 British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Presented to: British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Victoria, British Columbia 402 1505 West Second Avenue Vancouver

More information

AIR CANADA REPORTS 2010 THIRD QUARTER RESULTS; Operating Income improved $259 million or 381 per cent from previous year s quarter

AIR CANADA REPORTS 2010 THIRD QUARTER RESULTS; Operating Income improved $259 million or 381 per cent from previous year s quarter AIR CANADA REPORTS 2010 THIRD QUARTER RESULTS; Operating Income improved $259 million or 381 per cent from previous year s quarter MONTRÉAL, November 4, 2010 Air Canada today reported operating income

More information

Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation December 2004

Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation December 2004 U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation December 2004 Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation Executive Summary Recent

More information

Activity Concept Note:

Activity Concept Note: Activity Concept Note: Summary Provide a short summary of the proposed Activity including indicative New Zealand funding level and note whether this is a New Zealandled or partner-led process. Why: Rationale

More information

ELEVENTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE. Montreal, 22 September to 3 October 2003

ELEVENTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE. Montreal, 22 September to 3 October 2003 4/8/03 English, French, Russian and Spanish only * ELEVENTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE Montreal, 22 September to 3 October 2003 Agenda Item 3: 3.1 : Air traffic management (ATM) performance targets for

More information

STUDY OVERVIEW MASTER PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

STUDY OVERVIEW MASTER PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES INTRODUCTION An Airport Master Plan provides an evalua on of the airport s avia on demand and an overview of the systema c airport development that will best meet those demands. The Master Plan establishes

More information

The Economic Impact of Tourism on the District of Thanet 2011

The Economic Impact of Tourism on the District of Thanet 2011 The Economic Impact of Tourism on the District of Thanet 2011 Prepared by: Tourism South East Research Unit 40 Chamberlayne Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 5JH CONTENTS 1. Summary of Results 1 2. Table of

More information

EVENT CENTRE / ARENA COMPLEX

EVENT CENTRE / ARENA COMPLEX EVENT CENTRE / ARENA COMPLEX BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL JANUARY 14, 2019 PART A: PROJECT RECAP PART B: DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF THE FACILITY OPTIONS PART C: COMPARING THE OPTIONS PART

More information

3. Aviation Activity Forecasts

3. Aviation Activity Forecasts 3. Aviation Activity Forecasts This section presents forecasts of aviation activity for the Airport through 2029. Forecasts were developed for enplaned passengers, air carrier and regional/commuter airline

More information

International Civil Aviation Organization WORLDWIDE AIR TRANSPORT CONFERENCE (ATCONF) SIXTH MEETING. Montréal, 18 to 22 March 2013

International Civil Aviation Organization WORLDWIDE AIR TRANSPORT CONFERENCE (ATCONF) SIXTH MEETING. Montréal, 18 to 22 March 2013 International Civil Aviation Organization WORKING PAPER 5/3/13 English only WORLDWIDE AIR TRANSPORT CONFERENCE (ATCONF) SIXTH MEETING Montréal, 18 to 22 March 2013 Agenda Item 2: Examination of key issues

More information

Working Draft: Time-share Revenue Recognition Implementation Issue. Financial Reporting Center Revenue Recognition

Working Draft: Time-share Revenue Recognition Implementation Issue. Financial Reporting Center Revenue Recognition March 1, 2017 Financial Reporting Center Revenue Recognition Working Draft: Time-share Revenue Recognition Implementation Issue Issue #16-6: Recognition of Revenue Management Fees Expected Overall Level

More information

Moving Towards a Customer Centric Approach. Dr. Philippe Villard Head, Policy & Economics

Moving Towards a Customer Centric Approach. Dr. Philippe Villard Head, Policy & Economics Moving Towards a Customer Centric Approach Dr. Philippe Villard Head, Policy & Economics pvillard@aci.aero Introduction to Airport Service Quality What is Airport Service Quality? ACI s customer satisfaction

More information

2017/ Q1 Performance Measures Report

2017/ Q1 Performance Measures Report 2017/2018 - Q1 Performance Measures Report Contents Ridership & Revenue... 1 Historical Revenue & Ridership... 1 Revenue Actual vs. Planned... 3 Mean Distance Between Failures... 5 Maintenance Cost Quarter

More information

Economic Impact of Tourism. Norfolk

Economic Impact of Tourism. Norfolk Economic Impact of Tourism Norfolk - 2009 Produced by: East of England Tourism Dettingen House Dettingen Way, Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP33 3TU Tel. 01284 727480 Contextual analysis Regional Economic Trends

More information

Visitor Tradeoffs and Preferences for Conditions at Henry Rierson Spruce Run Campground in Clatsop State Forest, Oregon

Visitor Tradeoffs and Preferences for Conditions at Henry Rierson Spruce Run Campground in Clatsop State Forest, Oregon Visitor Tradeoffs and Preferences for Conditions at Henry Rierson Spruce Run Campground in Clatsop State Forest, Oregon Final Report Mark D. Needham, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Recreation Resource Management

More information

Airservices Australia Long Term Pricing Agreement. Discussion Paper April Submission by Australia Pacific Airport Corporation (APAC)

Airservices Australia Long Term Pricing Agreement. Discussion Paper April Submission by Australia Pacific Airport Corporation (APAC) Airservices Australia Long Term Pricing Agreement Discussion Paper April 2015 Submission by Australia Pacific Airport Corporation (APAC) Airservices Australia Long Term Pricing Agreement Discussion Paper

More information