Results at a glance: Evaluation of the Visitor Safety Program

Overall, the Visitor Safety Program is adequately responding to visitor safety incidents; however, an opportunity exists to strengthen program accountability, training and monitoring, which will in turn impact the effective delivery of the program.

The findings related to each of the following areas identified to have an impact on visitor safety are highlighted below:

Planning, Training and Coordination with Partners

The number of approved visitor safety plans remains low across the system, in particular for national historic sites. The creation of the Visitor Safety Training Guidelines has helped to clarify expectations, but barriers to effective implementation remain, including time constraints for receiving training due to seasonality of positions, an over‑reliance on prior training, and logistical challenges for remote locations. Although few formal agreements were in place, working relationships with search and rescue partners were generally strong, and the process for establishing and reviewing business licenses with third-party operators was found to be acceptable.

Mitigation

Due to special funding, the condition of assets has improved in recent years, although ongoing financial support is needed. Signage addressing hazards was generally sufficient, and several best practices in public education were identified, but the consistency with which safety messaging is transmitted could be improved. There is also a risk that the effectiveness of direct visitor safety messaging will be lost as registration shifts online.

Response, Monitoring and Evaluation

With respect to incident tracking, the Agency has been proactive in addressing any associated issues with the Incident and Event Management system. A need for annual reporting on visitor safety plans was identified in order to document progress made on action plans and assess the success of mitigation strategies.

Program Accountability and Capacity

Issues associated with program guidance constituted a barrier to the effective delivery and overall accountability of the program. With respect to staff capacity, the majority of Visitor Safety and Fire Operations Coordinator positions have been temporarily extended; however, long-term funding has yet to be identified to fully fund these positions. Contributing factors to increased work-related stress included reduced capacity, the nature of visitor safety work, and increased responsibilities.

External Factors

Increased visitation and changing visitor demographics have presented challenges to managing visitor safety. Although the use of technology is helping to contribute to a safer visitor experience, reliance on such technology coupled with an increased interest in back‑country activities can also have a negative impact on visitor safety. Additionally, climate change poses a significant risk to visitor safety due to unpredictable weather events and degradation of infrastructure assets.

The Visitor Safety Program was found to be working well alongside other related programs.

Program expenditures stayed relatively constant over the last four years, with estimated annual expenditures on visitor safety averaging $11 million per year, representing approximately 0.9% of total Agency expenditures.

Overall findings for efficiency point to areas for improvement regarding prioritisation of goods and services budgets for visitor safety. With respect to search and rescue costs, high costs in isolated northern parks put a strain on field unit budgets, but there is currently no comparable model in North America where search and rescue fees are being regularly collected from visitors.