Visitor Perceptions of Reusable Foodware Implementation at Grand Canyon National Park: A Pilot Study for Messaging and Graphic Design Considerations

Abstract

The Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA) attracts roughly five million visitors annually, creating immense pressure on the waste stream managed in the park. To reduce environmental impacts, the National Park Service, collaborating organizations and concessionaires are in the process of implementing large-scale reusable foodware systems, replacing single-use plastics. This pilot study aimed to engage visitors in the design process to inform preferences and attitudes to further support management decision-making regarding the design and implementation of reusable foodware systems in the park. During September 2025, park visitors were intercepted at key concessionaire food vending locations and asked to complete a brief survey. The survey contained attitudinal questions, persuasive phrases, and potential logos and graphic designs that could be used with program implementation, which were evaluated via Likert scales by n = 164 respondents. Results suggest that respondents have overwhelmingly positive attitudes and norms towards reusing foodware at the park. Results highlight phrases and graphic designs that will be most effective as the program launches and can be used to inform future research.

1. Introduction

Of the waste generated in Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA) in 2025, approximately 20% was composed of plastic bottles [1]. While this material holds the potential to be recycled, plastics are recycled less often than other materials like glass or metal. Within the park setting, barriers to recycling can often arise in the form of convenience—throwing it away is easier—and confusion—not knowing how to recycle [2]. While recycling has been suggested as a solution, there is considerable evidence that suggests that single-use plastics are just that, single use, and carbon intensive to recycle in the first place, if they even end up in the recycling bin [3,4].

As each U.S. National Park faces unique challenges in managing their waste systems, there have been suggested solutions that involve replacement of single-use plastics entirely. Durable foodware alternatives refer to washable, reusable, and often commercially sanitized items designed for repeated use. Usually these include anything from utensils, straws, plates, cups, and bowls, as well as to-go food containers. At GRCA, multiple stakeholders are collaborating to make the switch from single-use items to reusable food packaging across food and beverage locations in 2026 [5]. To date, no research has been conducted on this topic in a park and protected area context. Thus, the purpose of this pilot study is to engage GRCA visitors in the design process of a reusable foodware program. Specifically, this exploratory study aims to evaluate visitor attitudes, beliefs, norms, willingness to pay, and if willing to pay, average appropriate amounts for reusable foodware. Additionally potential messaging and graphics are evaluated for preference and perceived effectiveness to inform additional research efforts on this topic.

1.1. The Plastic Problem

Plastics are reliant on fossil fuel production; as of 2024, 4% of fossil fuels were used to produce plastics [3]. Currently, food and beverage packaging is primarily single use. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the public health response was to implement more single-use plastics in an effort to mitigate the spread of contamination [6,7]. Researchers suggest that approximately 40% of the plastic materials produced are single-use plastics, and this has been steadily increasing with the rise in plastic production since World War II, with the United States generating the most single-use plastic waste [6]. Mining of virgin materials to create plastics continues to be a problem for numerous reasons; if waste management trends continue, roughly 12,000 Mt (million metric tons) of plastic waste will be within the natural environment or within landfills by 2050 [8]. The current economy mines materials from the Earth, creates products from these, and eventually disposes of them as waste, known as the linear economy. Scholars argue that this “take-make-dispose” structure developed during a period of abundant resources and inexpensive materials which discouraged businesses from the recovery of materials after use [9]. The continued mining of new material for products that are often only used once has lasting impacts on the health of humans and natural systems.

The next best alternative to eliminating waste is to circulate it, meaning to reuse, repair, remanufacture, and recycle. This is known as the circular economy, which aims to keep materials circulating in the economy as long as possible to reduce resource extraction [9,10]. It faces an ongoing debate regarding how circularity should be defined and requires a systemic shift in redesigning supply chain and consumption patterns [10]. When recyclable materials are not sorted correctly, such as a plastic bottle being placed into a recycling bin intended for glass or vice versa, the entire bin is considered contaminated and is consequently often sent to the landfill [11]. The risks to both human health and ecosystems through plastics leaching include dispersion of microplastics [3,8,12]. These impacts highlight the profound and lasting harms associated with the production, use and disposal of plastics.

1.2. Waste Behaviors

Waste sorting has been studied widely as it relates to pro-environmental behavior, with research consistently demonstrating the importance of attitudes and environmental values in shaping participation [13,14,15]. Sorting outcomes in parks and protected areas often focus on visitor attitudes, sorting accuracy, and messaging effectiveness [2,16,17]. Although recycling is a significant sustainability solution, rates are low, with only 9% of the 400 million tons of plastic currently produced actually being recycled [18]. Many studies have explored the limitations of recycling, which include: contamination, intentions to recycle versus actual behavior, and the responsibility of government and manufacturers to make it easier [3,19,20]. This occurrence, known as the attitude–behavior gap, highlights the external constraints rather than the lack of environmental care, signifying the role of infrastructure design (and ease of use), clarity of instructions, and decision making as key components [19].

In three U.S. National Parks, this attitude behavior gap has been explored through visitor observations paired with surveys to gain insight into factors influencing waste sorting behavior [2]. This research cited visitor engagement with messaging and signage as a key influencer of proper waste sorting behavior. While recycling limitations and challenges exist, the EPA states that reduction and reuse are the absolute most effective ways to save natural resources and protect the environment [21]. While reuse is prioritized over recycling, the sustainability of reuse takeout container systems still remains in question [22]. Carbon intensity relies on consumer behavior; one study examined silicone reusable bags and beeswax wraps, noting consumer washing and number of uses to increase greenhouse gas emissions [23]. The success of a reuse system relies on several things, including the willingness of participants to engage; consumers see reuse as important yet struggle to put it into action when given the choice between disposable single-use and reusable alternatives [24].

Prominent theories have been primarily applied to shape the ways we think about waste behaviors, including the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which analyzed attitudes, social norms, and perceived behavioral control [25]. The perceptions visitors hold about reuse, their normative beliefs, and motivations have been explored when examining the switch to reusables [24,26]. In the tourism setting, TBP has been used to understand the effectiveness of reuse, which largely relies on visitor participation. Both attitudes and perceived behavioral control were used to explain behavior. Moral obligation was especially influential in areas where environmental protection is high. Perceived behavioral control is a key predictor, indicating that even tourists who are morally motivated require convenient and easy-to-use systems. The limited research on this topic suggests that tourists base their behaviors on the benefits they derive from it [26].

Previous research has also explored the Value-Belief-Norm Theory (VBN), which interprets pro-environmental behaviors like reuse through the lens of personal values, which drive specific actions [27]. Studies applying this framework suggest that it is most important to provide people with the skills and resources to reuse effectively through convenience [28]. Furthermore, the adoption of reusables is based on what is perceived as right or wrong for the environment and this drives the pro-environmental norm, suggesting a strong relationship between perceived behavior control and willingness to adopt reusables [28].

Through understanding waste behaviors and intentions, waste managers can implement more effective policies and interventions. Causes of attitude–behavior gaps can be explained through TBP and VBN but can also include time constraints, trust in systems, and prior knowledge [19]. Behavior change needs to motivate and enable consumers, addressing accessibility and education. Systemic change is necessary to achieve a reduction in waste, which can provide a step towards a more circular economy.

1.3. Understanding Reuse Behavior

The word recycling is widely used in many contexts; however, the term reuse and where it applies is not as well understood. The role of semantics has been explored as an influential factor on behavior given our familiarity with recycling and less with reuse [24]. Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the adoption of reuse systems faced concerns regarding cleanliness [7]. Baird et al. examined willingness to use reusable containers based on levels of disgust and pro-environmental behaviors, using stained bowls as a test of tolerance for reusables showing signs of prior use; findings indicated that subjects with knowledge of plastic pollution or stronger pro-environmental values were more willing to eat from stained bowls [29].

Multiple life cycle assessments and models have been analyzed across different material compositions of reusables [22,30]. Hitt et al. compared cost models, use scenarios, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and water impacts, finding that reusable containers had a lower impact across all metrics compared to the disposable single-use container [22]. Milani et al. found that closed-loop (collecting and returning) systems are more economically efficient than single-use materials [30]. Of course, consumer behavior plays a significant role in the amount of emission reductions that can contribute towards switching to reusables [23]. Most of this emissions impact is due to at-home washing of products and can be decreased by commercial washing. Greenwood et al. found that consumers were more willing to recycle than use reusable packaging in the UK, which suggests that participation may depend on familiarity with the system [24].

In terms of messaging and being able to communicate the reuse system effectively, research has examined which types of image renderings, pictures, icons, and words are most effective in promoting proper waste disposal behavior. Findings suggest that involvement of graphic design work that conveys information with images or icons is better than conveying information with only words [31]. This aligns with other work exploring persuasive signage using graphic design elements [32]. Previous research suggests that evoking environmental values in messaging contributed to a noticeable increase in using a reusable cup when given the option [33]. Effective reuse messaging strategies included highlighting negative consequences to the environment because of not using reusables, as well as sharing that consumers must be mindful of choices [28]. Prior research in destinations where environmental protection is central to the visitor experience indicates that reuse intentions are driven not only by convenience and social norms, but also moral obligation [26].

Willingness to pay models have been explored to understand deposits on take-out containers and return rate changes. Essentially these models rely on borrowing reusables, where they are owned by the retailer and borrowed by the consumer; both charges and discounts have been examined through interventions to bring about change in behavior [34]. For example, discounts towards reusable cups have been found to not significantly increase the use of reusable cups in users [35]. Most of this research analyzes when consumers are given a choice between reusable and single-use. In U.S. states with plastic bottle deposit programs compared to those without, there is a higher return rate, demonstrating the need for more understanding in the reuse space [22]. Overall, the evidence suggests there is a demand for reusables as an alternative to single-use disposables [34]. Reusables have the potential to mitigate plastic waste in the restaurant industry and reusable alternatives can break even in global warming potential within several uses [22,24]. While this body of research is still emerging, evidence highlights the central role of messaging and convenience for consumers to return reusable containers [22,26,28,31].

1.4. The Gaps

Despite growing evidence supporting the transition to reusable container systems in commercial contexts, there is a lack of understanding regarding the application of reuse systems in high use protected areas, specifically within U.S. National Parks. Within most U.S. National Park areas, concessionaire operators lease land and facilities providing services to the visiting public, such as selling food, various products, and items within packaging. These materials directly shape the waste streams that exist at the park and surrounding gateway communities. Sustainable waste infrastructure is critical in high-visitation protected areas where people from around the world visit, with varying interpretations and behaviors associated with waste disposal and reuse. Not only do reuse approaches improve the visitor experience by reducing litter, but they also help preserve the natural beauty, prevent ecosystem damage, and protect wildlife. In terms of to-go containers, considering the range of visitor types at GRCA-such as lodging guests, day hikers, or overnight canyon recreationists—it is essential to consider the various roles that replacing single-use disposables will have in each scenario. Furthermore, with visitors from around the world experiencing GRCA, the use of the language and graphics around a new waste management system must be evaluated for potential efficacy.

1.5. Grand Canyon as a Case Study

In response to plastic waste, GRCA and concessionaires have collaborated with sustainability-focused organizations including Leave No Trace and Upstream, to implement what is anticipated to be the largest food service reuse system in the U.S. The new system is expected to eliminate 21 million single-use units and prevent 510 tons of trash from the landfill over the next 10 years, with nearly 50 million visitors experiencing reuse [5]. The project plans to integrate radio frequency identification technology, otherwise known as RFID, that will be used to monitor reusable containers from point of sale to collection, allowing analysis of loss and performance of the system. Color-coded waste bins will also be added to existing infrastructure for the collection of the reusables. The system will be self-contained within the park, with infrastructure upgrades including dishwashing equipment and dedicated staff to manage operations.

Reuse foodware systems in parks and protected areas are generally understudied and lack empirical data regarding efficacy. This exploratory study evaluates visitors’ perceptions of a reusable foodware system and gauges preferences formessaging and graphic design elements, using data collected through surveys with GRCA visitors. This pilot study aims to generate recommendations for signage and foodware that educates visitors on the changes, assessing different styles of messaging to find what is visually appealing and what resonates with visitors from pick up to drop off locations. Given the exploratory nature of this research, particularly given that this is the first study of its kind in a national park, we anticipate that this pilot study will also inform future research in park-related settings.

2. Results

Results from this research aimed to engage visitors in the design process to gauge preferences to further support management decision making. Summary statistics were applied to our data to evaluate attitudes, beliefs, norms, willingness to pay, and if willing to pay, average appropriate amounts. Effective potential messaging and graphics were also evaluated and are presented below through summary statistics. Results are organized by respondent demographics, self-reported waste behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, norms, and willingness to pay for potential systems. Finally, preferred persuasive messaging and graphics are presented. Inferential statistics were not applied to these data given the small sample size and exploratory nature of this pilot study.

2.1. Demographics

Our sample consisted of slightly more females (63%) than male respondents (33%) (

Table 1. Sample demographics.

	Frequency	Percent
Gender:
Female	79	63%
Male	42	33%
Nonbinary	2	2%
Prefer not to say	2	2%
Education:
Some high school	2	2%
High school graduate or GED	6	5%
Some college, business, or trade school	17	14%
College, business, or trade school	60	48%
Some graduate school	6	5%
Master’s degree	23	18%
Doctoral or professional degree	11	9%
Annual Income:
$10,000–19,999	2	2%
$20,000–49,000	14	11%
$50,000–99,999	37	30%
$100,000–149,999	26	21%
More than $150,000	29	24%
Prefer not to say	15	12%

Note that not all respondents completed all of the survey questions.

). The sample was highly educated, as 80% of respondents had obtained a college or graduate degree. Forty-five percent of the respondents indicated making more than $100,000 U.S.D. annually. Eighty-seven percent (n = 110) of respondents were permanent residents or citizens of the United States, with the largest percent, respectively (13%) coming from within the state of Arizona (Figure 1).

2.2. Self-Reported Waste Behaviors

Background descriptive data were collected to determine the relevance of waste-related experiences in the park. Sixty-six percent of respondents brought items (e.g., food, wrappers, packaging, etc.) into the park that they later disposed of within the park, while 55% purchased grab and go food or beverage items, 72% brought reusable items (e.g., reusable water bottle, utensils) with them to reduce waste during their visit, and 54% of respondents ate from a food location within the park.

2.3. Attitudes Towards Reuse Program

Attitudes toward the environment, services, and potential for charging fees associated with the program were evaluated through Likert Scale questions. Attitudes toward using the proposed system were extremely positive. For example, respondents overwhelmingly noted that by using reusables at the Grand Canyon [they are] protecting the environment (

Table 2. Attitudes toward the environment and services associated with reusable foodware.

	N	Mean	S.D.
Environment:
I believe it is important to reuse items instead of throwing them away.	127	6.63	0.688
By using reusables at the Grand Canyon I am protecting the environment.	127	6.65	0.882
This is a hopeful solution in the fight against climate change.	127	6.01	1.27
I do not think reusables make much of a difference for the environment. 1	127	5.07	1.73
Goodness of Service:
It is important to me to know that the foodware is washed, sanitized, and inspected upon each reuse.	127	3.10	1.67
I think using reusables for food, beverages, and snacks is gross. 1	128	1.38	0.765
Charging Perceptions:
I would be willing to pay a charge if I lost the reusable or chose to bring it home.	127	6.09	1.20
It is unfair to charge visitors who do not return their reusable foodware. 1	128	3.15	1.83
Ease of Service:
I would find it easy to return my foodware to one of the drop off locations.	127	2.11	1.71
Carrying around reusables is inconvenient. 1	127	5.88	1.55

These items were developed based on TPB [25]. All items were measured with a 7-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree, through 4 = Neither Agree or Disagree, to 7 = Strongly Agree; note that not all respondents completed all of the survey questions. ¹ Statements indicated were reverse coded during analysis to 1 = Strongly Agree and 7 = Strongly Disagree.

). Perceptions regarding the goodness of potential services, such as cleanliness, were more mixed, but the majority of respondents did not think that reusable systems would be gross to use. Most respondents indicated that they would be willing to pay a fee if they failed to return the reusable foodware. Finally, respondents largely felt that returning reusable foodware would be easy to perform.

Respondents largely believed that it would be wrong for [them] to not return [their] foodware, and failing to do so would cause guilt (

Table 3. Beliefs and subjective norms regarding reusable foodware.

	N	Mean	S.D.
Foodware:
It would be wrong for me to not return my foodware during my visit to this park.	127	4.20	0.943
I would feel guilty if I did not return my foodware during my visit to this park.	125	4.18	1.05
Environment/Behavior:
Using the park’s reuse program would remind me that I should reduce waste in my everyday life.	126	4.41	0.696
I can help to make a difference by bringing fewer disposable items with me during my visit to the park.	128	4.48	0.601
By reusing in national parks, I am helping protect the health of the environment.	127	4.62	0.616

Beliefs and subjective norms represent the perceived social pressure to engage in or refrain from a specific behavior, reflecting the influence of important individuals or groups. These items were developed based on TPB and VBN [25,27]. All items were measured using a 5-point Likert Scale, 1 = Strongly Agree, 3 = Neutral, 5 = Strongly Agree; not all respondents completed all of the survey questions.

). Respondent norms suggest that visitors feel that this type of program would help protect the environment and lead to more sustainable outcomes overall.

2.4. Willingness to Pay

The majority of respondents (59%) indicated that it would be acceptable to be charged for a reusable foodware container (

Table 4. Willingness to pay for reusable foodware system.

Cost Model Analysis	Frequency					Percent
Yes	75					59%
No	19					15%
Unsure	33					26%
	The Fountain					Visitor Center
	N 1	Min.	Max.	Mean	S.D.	N 1	Min.	Max.	Mean	S.D.
Yes? Indicate amount.	21	$.25	$10.00	$2.98	2.53	45	$.50	$20.00	$4.22	3.52

¹ Not all of the n = 75 respondents indicating “Yes” that they would be willing to pay for reusable foodware reported a fiscal amount.

). Fiscal ranges varied considerably; however, on average respondents indicated that $3–4 would be an appropriate amount.

2.5. Persuasive Message Testing

Potential messages that could be used on foodware, and at pick up and return areas were developed in collaboration and evaluated by respondents at GRCA (

Table 5. Visitor perceptions of persuasiveness of different messages.

	The Fountain			Visitor Center
	N	Mean	S.D.	N	Mean	S.D.
Printed on foodware, which is the most persuasive?
… Free to borrow, return anywhere; no charge if returned.	38	3.63	1.53	77	3.49	1.46
… When you give it back, we keep it going.	36	3.58	1.32	75	3.11	1.49
… Return, return, return.	33	2.88	1.56	70	2.80	1.59
Posted at either pick up or return locations would be the most persuasive to return foodware?
… Avoid extra charges, return your foodware.	36	3.11	1.51	74	3.18	1.38
… Keep the adventure going, eat, enjoy, and return your container to a station when you’re finished.	37	3.59	1.24	75	3.40	1.22
… Keep the Canyon clean, together we preserve nature, return your container here.	37	4.05	1.129	77	3.81	1.20
… Leave No Trace! Return your foodware for cleaning and reuse. It’s the simple way to care for the places we love.	37	3.92	1.36	76	3.68	1.24

). Respondents indicated that Free to borrow, return anywhere; no charge if returned was the most persuasive message that could be applied to the reusable foodware. Regarding pick-up and return locations, the most effective message included Keep the Canyon clean, together we preserve nature, return your container here.

2.6. Graphic Design

Twenty-five different graphics were designed by the research team, with the intent to evaluate (1) a logo containing the word, “Reuse” (Figure 2), (2) a graphic containing no words, but rather promoting reuse as a behavioral action (Figure 3), and (3) a graphic that contained a potential mascot for the reuse program (Figure 4).

All graphics tested included both color and black and white graphics, and respondents were asked: “Which of the following graphics posted on foodware or at pickup/return stations would be most persuasive for you to return your foodware?” The graphics (both color and black and white) containing the word “Reuse” that was preferred included cyclical arrows surrounding the word, specifically on the “U” (Figure 2). The wordless graphics (both color and black and white) that were preferred included cyclical arrows mimicking the shape of a plate, which included a fork and spoon (Figure 3). Preferred potential mascots for the program included a green colored bird containing arrows outlining the body, and a black and white turtle with arrows forming the shell (Figure 4). Both potential mascots were rated equally, suggesting that either of these graphically represented animals may be effective as a mascot for the reusable foodware system at GRCA.

3. Discussion

The majority of respondents ate from food vending locations within the park, suggesting that the sample was relevant for this exploratory study. Overall attitudes, beliefs and norms toward using the proposed system were extremely positive, and respondents reported that adopting the system would help protect the long-term sustainability of GRCA. Respondents largely agreed that the reuse program is a hopeful solution in the fight against climate change, although standard deviations suggest less consensus around this topic. Perceptions regarding related services such as cleanliness (e.g., It is important to me to know that the foodware is washed, sanitized, and inspected upon each reuse), were noted as important and should be considered when educating the public about the system; however, results indicate that visitors do not find the concept of reusable foodware to be “gross”, suggesting that the program could be successful if implemented. Respondents also felt that returning reusable foodware would be easy to perform, and that it would be fair to charge visitors if they failed to return foodware.

Most respondents (59%) indicated that they would be willing to pay a fee if they failed to return the reusable foodware, although 26% of the sample indicated that they were “unsure” if they would be willing to pay for this type of system. This suggests that there is considerable room for promoting the system and reinforcing the existing attitudes, beliefs and norms regarding the larger sustainability impacts that this type of program may produce for the park. On average, those that would be willing to pay for the reusable foodware suggested that $3–4 U.S.D. would be appropriate.

Respondents indicated that Free to borrow, return anywhere; no charge if returned was the most persuasive message that could be applied to the reusable foodware program at GRCA. Regarding pick-up and return locations, the most effective message included Keep the Canyon clean, together we preserve nature, return your container here. Despite slight differences between the two sampling locations, if implemented onsite, results suggest that these messages would lead to the most efficacy around returning foodware. This study indicates that both color (i.e., green) and black and white graphics would be positively received, and should the park determine that wording is preferred, using the “reuse” graphic (Figure 2) would be most effective. Figure 3 highlights the potential for implementing a graphic(s) without wording, and Figure 4 suggests that either the green colored bird, or black and white turtle graphic would serve as a suitable mascot for the program. Should the park adopt these findings, we recommend that one of these logos and mascots be selected and disseminated consistently in tandem with the effective messaging, to further reinforce attitudes, beliefs and norms, while developing branding that is consistently recognizable at GRCA and potentially other parks that might adopt these systems.

4. Materials and Methods

During September 2025, two researchers collected visitor responses to surveys. Prior to data collection, IRB research approval was received by Penn State’s Office for Research Protections Human Research Protection Program (Study00027694), and GRCA Research Permit was obtained (Study# GRCA-00140; Permit # GRCA-2025-SCI-0053).

4.1. Study Site

Grand Canyon National Park, located in Arizona, U.S., sees five million visitors a year [36]. Around 90% of that visitation is condensed to the popular South Rim, where there are historical hotels, campgrounds, and many scenic trails [37]. The recent Dragon Bravo Fire, which ignited on 4 July 2025, sparked by lightning on the North Rim, has now since shut down the North Rim for the foreseeable future [38]. Data collection occurred at two locations within the park, outside at concessionaire-operated space, the Fountain, and additionally near the bus stop at the main Visitor Center, a First Amendment declared zone, both of which are along the South Rim. Each location had varied flow of traffic and visitors, at the Fountain, due to the Grand Canyon Railway South Rim stop which sees a lot of day visitors, and the popular Bright Angel trail nearby. As well as the Visitor Center which sees a large number of day visitors for interpretive programs as well as using the large parking lot to take the many free shuttle buses to locations across the park.

4.2. Participants and Sampling

After consulting managers, with Xanterra and Delaware North it was determined that participants roaming around the plaza of the Fountain were best to approach sitting down instead of passing through at a certain time of day, many of whom were waiting for the train back to the city. Taking opposite sides of the Fountain, researchers approached every fifth person or group of people. At the main Visitor Center, where there was a flow of traffic, every fifth person or group walking by was targeted. If at each location there were a group of people together, the person with the most recent birthday was asked to complete the survey to avoid self-selection. Each individual or group was informed that the survey was voluntary and they may leave at any time.

4.3. Survey Design and Graphic Design

The survey was created using Qualtrics and approved by the author’s Institutional Research Ethics Board. The survey began with visitation and trip details, including how many times they have visited GRCA and which best describes their traveling party. Next, waste and food behavior were evaluated, asking if any items were brought, such as food, snacks, grab and go items, any reusables like water bottles or utensils, and lastly, if they ate from a food location within the park. Aligning with the Theory of Planned Behavior [25]. Attitudes, personal norms, and how difficult they found certain tasks were then evaluated. Aligning with previous research in the National Park setting on waste reduction behaviors [2,16,17]. Each of these was split into subcategories to analyze. Explicitly one question focused on willingness to pay; if visitors were to take the item home or lose it, how much were they willing to pay for said item. Persuasive message phrases were tested that could be considered for print on foodware itself or at pick up/return locations. Persuasive messages were built in collaboration with Upstream and Leave No Trace, based on themes in line with the park, as well as Leave No Trace-specific messages [39]. Each of these was pre-tested in an undergraduate course, for the study, displaying the top three to four voted choices from this pre-test. All persuasive messages were presented in the survey in a randomized order to eliminate order bias.

Graphic design elements were added to the survey to test persuasiveness that could be considered for print on foodware itself or at pick up/return locations. Using 25 different graphics designed by the research team, which included both color and black and white graphics, respondents were asked: “Which of the following graphics posted on foodware or at pickup/return stations would be most persuasive for you to return your foodware?” The survey either included a rotation of logotype, symbol, and mascot all in color, or all in black and white; these were presented in a randomized order through Qualtrics XM Platform (2025) to eliminate order bias and presentation bias.

The reusable foodware upcycling graphics were developed through an iterative design process grounded in current conservation communication and graphic design best practices. Initial concepts were generated as rough pencil sketches, allowing for rapid exploration of visual upcycling symbols, metaphors and compositional approaches. These sketches were shared among the research team, who reviewed them and identified those that most clearly and creatively communicated the concept of upcycling and expressed strong visual engagement. This evaluative process was guided by design methods and criteria refined through prior conservation communication projects including “typography as image [32]” and the use of a “mascot” to capture attention [40]. Selected sketches were then scanned and digitized, after which the design team translated the hand-drawn concepts into vector graphics using Adobe Illustrator 2026 (version 30.0). Within Illustrator, the sketches were carefully redrawn and refined to improve clarity, consistency, and legibility, with a restrained single-color palette used to establish visual hierarchy and reduce cognitive load. The design work was led by academics within the field of graphic design, who have collaborated for several years on conservation communication design projects with Rocky Mountain National Park and the League to Keep Tahoe Blue. Their collaborative practice in the University of Kansas’ Design Outside Studio integrates graphic design strategies aimed at capturing visitor attention, encouraging Leave No Trace behaviors.

4.4. Analyses

Data analyses were conducted via Qualtrics XM Platform (2025) and IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 31.0). Given the exploratory nature of this study, descriptive statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 31.0) to summarize outcomes and answer our research questions.

During September 2025, an n = 164 survey was collected with visitors regarding preferences for foodware reusables and associated messaging. The majority of respondents were intercepted at the GRCA Visitor Center (n = 108), while n = 56 were intercepted at GRCA’s Fountain. A Qualtrics-based survey was administered via tablet computer and contained attitudinal Likert-scale questions and potential educational statements/marketing graphics.

5. Conclusions

The purpose of this pilot study was to explore GRCA visitor attitudes, beliefs, norms, willingness to pay, and if willing to pay, average appropriate amounts for reusable foodware. Additionally potential messaging and graphics were evaluated for preference and perceived effectiveness, in an effort to inform additional research efforts on this topic. Results suggested that visitors are overwhelmingly supportive of the reuse program, and they would be willing to pay a small amount ($3–4) if necessary. As messages and related graphics are implemented in GRCA, park officials and concessionaire operators should consider that “carrying foodware until [they] find a return station” was perceived as the most difficult behavior to perform, although this was still perceived as relatively “easy.” Results suggest that the top-rated persuasive messages and graphics (Table 5, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4) should be considered as feasible approaches for communicating with visitors regarding this program. If adopted, messages and graphics should be consistently applied to reinforce existing positive perceptions and grow recognizability. Coupled with the positive attitudes and norms regarding reuse, results indicate that these designs would be effective and encourage norm development around this program. Once the program is implemented in GRCA, the efficacy of these approaches should be evaluated. We also recommend that these approaches be studied in other parks and protected areas to evaluate visitor perceptions and efficacy in other locations.

Limitations

There are many limitations worth consideration for park managers, concession operators, and future researchers. This is the first national park study to explore visitor perceptions of reusable foodware programs, and results may not translate to other park units, despite the similarities within our sample and other national park demographics. This study only collected data during the fall of 2025 at two prominent park locations, and we obtained a relatively small sample; future research should expand data collection periods to account for potentially different types of visitors that may experience the park during different seasons. These data represent only one park, and other parks, within the National Park Service system and other parks and protected areas, within the U.S., and globally, should be studied to determine potential salience with these results.