"”figommfi .”~mm . ‘ ‘ ‘. __.',. “..n~ 9 14": "‘Y’""' ' H v.‘ N a ' ~g.m- 4’ .v-. m”. .‘.. WA.” ‘A'- 0““.- —- . W ||l|.l... ._.c.o\.. . . _ I . . ._ . . ,.., .VV ._ . 4.. o. o .. _ ... .. ... . .. .o.....4v ...... . loo l.¢¢I—o-..vo.oV. ... .. V .I.“\I.AOI‘C. ..9. ._ .fi. .\ V . .4. .~.I‘. oo\.ca.\t.\.->OV ‘ V...\...' .00 o..:9L‘. . . o . -.o o .. at. :4. 0 l3. . .. . . . .... ‘. .. .rcut _ . , l . .l. _ . V .0 or . . o . . . . .A .o_V..l‘.o ’0. ’." _ ... r I: ...p.rcotou... , V . . .. . . . o . _.. cfin .0..\c.a_¢.4l _ . c . u . . . ._. .i. a. .o o... .. .p- on ¢¢.oV‘. . . . . . . u . ..;.o.. IV. . o-.o..'.,2.-' . . o . . . . . . ,V. . V o . .Vla. v .0. O. O: . . ..V . . . _ .. . . V.. . .. ..... . . . 4'7... oiuqo'lf'lrolr. o . .. u _ . cos. .. . o .. n _ .. . .o. , . . . . . V . o .. . . .V o _. .a.. u. .u..-’. '90..-..ov‘.r . . a. . . . . . . . . . . — . . . .I A . a . o. . ._ I. fit C a... a o . .~ . u . .. . .. . . u o . - . < o . . .. . . 9 . .. . I . n. . . . . o . . . .. ‘ c . .o o . . .O-I '.¢- 4 . ..o-. o“0'rl‘ 0%...." ‘. 0V..!A , a. .o . . . . . o. . . ‘ . . c . . .. o .. . . .V. .a.o Of ‘0’}. 0'0\ OJ o . .ofl. ‘4. .... v....... ,..o.. -. _. v ... o. V. V I... . . . . o . . ., ..... . ’ a . _.....CAOO. 7'. ‘3' .0 ~. . .. . . .. . ..- .V..V.. . . .o.. __ .. . .. . ... . .. . . . .... .... .. . . . o n/ 30.....- 0.130. Us. 0 . ..... ‘.. .._,.....\\o., ~...... .V. .. u . . c .. . .. .. V . . . , .. . .. . . . o. . c. ao.4v¢nof..s.'r \u. ., . . ... . .o .g. . . . .. _.. - _ . .. . . A . . . . .V . . . . v . r. v-f..:o14‘v Y¢.l.-J o... . .g. ‘v .. .. A.‘.o.o. . .. .o- .. . . ,. \ . ._ .. _ . . . .V. a ._ .. 00.. .a. 0| .3, 3J3§39 _. .| ..... .. ~. .. . o. . .. . . . u . V _ . . . .. .. _ . o . . .. .V. .p .- O‘.o.o’!’. 'J 9‘... V N? .. 4 . . . . .. . . .... .. . . _ . .V o . . .. . . . . .. ... . . . V . . 71.0 a. o trgto . J . _.. . . ...v.. . a .. _ . . , . . .,. . _ , . _ . V . . .. . ..'...-¢. .0 ‘OOJO'.”rvOO§ . ... 4 ... ... ..o. . ... .. _ ... . . .. . _ . . . .. .. . . . ..o c.3a. o....or..9 r .o . ... . . . o . . .- . .V . . .. . . . _ . . V . . . . . . .V . ¢ _. o. I .Jllrv:(xil + X12) : [xil /(xi1 + xi2)] i 1 Then, x2 is given by the following formula: r r X 2 r 2 i1 1 x = Z - p Z X- /P(1 - p) L:1 lfxil + xizu i=1 14 Where: r 2 X. _ i=1 11 p - r .E (X11 + X12) 1—1 The formula for determining the degrees of freedom is: (r - l) (C - l), with r representing the number of rows, and C representing the number of columns. For 18 example, if there are 8 rows-~or categories to the par- ticular question—-(8 - l)(2 - l) = 7 degrees of freedom. For x2 with a 95 per cent confidence limit at 7 degrees of freedom——referred to hereafter as 7 degrees 2 freedom x.95--it can be said that there is a .95 chance thatx2 will be less than 14.07. These values are taken from Table 6b in Dixon and Massey.1 Thus for the purpose of this study it can be declared that a difference exists between campers and day-users, in a particular character- istic, when the x2 value falls above the 95 per cent confidence limit values at the specified degrees of freedom. The analysis method for comparing the mean persons per vehicle between campers and day-users required a differ- ent statistical test.2 X1 = X2 o/(l/Nl) + (1/N2) Where: a = .05 02 = 3 Y1 = larger arithmetic mean group size i2 = smaller arithmetic mean group size N1 = larger arithmetic mean sample size N2 = smaller arithetic mean sample size 1 2 Ibid., p. 308. Ibid., pp. 101—04. 19 This statistic, the Comparison of the Means of Two Populations, is a good test when the populations, N and 1 N2, are large and are drawn from a normal distribution. The statistical difference or similarity between means was determined by the value of z. A similarity of means can be assumed at the .05 significance level, if the value of 2 falls between the values of zl/Zd and z 1-1/2a' These values were obtained from Table 4 in Dixon and Massey.1 At the .05 significance level, these values were —1.96 and +1.96, respectively. If the value for 2 falls outside of this range, we can assume a statistical differ- ence between the means at the .05 significance level. The same variance can be assumed for both parks. There was no reason to assume that the capacity of group vehicles varies from park to park. A range of nine was assigned, by assuming that the top capacity of an American station wagon as ten persons. This involved another assumption, that buses carrying a large number of persons were included in an infinitesimally small part of the sample. The range, being a biased estimate of the vari- ance, was multiplied by the coefficient in the appropriate table in Dixon and Massey to get an unbiased estimate of the variance, or 0.2 This statistic could have been replaced by the x2 distribution test. However the data would have had to have 1 2 Ibid., p. 306. Ibid., p. 239. 20 been compiled differently by the computer. Mean figures were established by dividing the total number of persons sampled within a sub-group by the total number of groups—- vehicles——in the sub-group. Criteria For Characteristic Difference When a statistical difference was noted between sub-groups in both parks, we can clearly state that the data does not dispute the sub-hypothesis regarding the characteristic in question. Conversely, when a similarity was noted between sub-groups in a particular characteristic at both parks, we can declare that the data rejects the sub-hypothesis in question. A more difficult case would be where a sub- hypothesis was not disputed by the data for a character— istic in one park, but the same sub-hypothesis was rejected by the data in the other park. This might suggest that the same type of sub—group, campers or day-users, could differ from park to park. It would also suggest that more research is needed in more parks regarding these particular characteristics. In order to determine whether the main hypothesis is not disputed, we must decide on how many sub-hypotheses may be rejected before the main hypothesis is rejected. We will state, rather arbitrarily, that when at least 50 per cent of the sub-hypotheses concerning socio-economic characteristics, and at least 50 per cent of the 21 sub-hypotheses concerning behavioral characteristics are supported by the data for a particular park, the main hypothesis is not rejected for that particular park. In order for the main hypothesis to be accepted for the purposes of this thesis, the main hypothesis must not be rejected for either park of this study. For the main hypothesis to be accepted regarding a particular park, three, or more, sub-hypotheses must be supported by the data for socio-economic characteristics, and at least three sub-hypotheses must be supported for behavioral character- istics. It is not necessary for the same sub-hypotheses to be supported in both parks. When the above conditions are met, there is considered to be socio-economic differences, and there wguld_be behavioral differences between campers and day-users in both parks. This is, in essence, what is stated in the main hypothesis. The next chapter will cover the application of the above analysis methods to the collected data from both parks pertaining to the socio-economic characteristics of campers and day-users. CHAPTER III SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTIC ANALYSIS Age Distribution Sub—hypothesis 1 is as follows: there is a sta- tistically significant difference in age distributions between campers and day-users. x2 distribution at the 95 per cent confidence limit, and nine degrees of freedom--x2.95 @ 9 d.f.--tests were run between campers and day-users of eachsex from both parks. Age data may be found in Appendices A-1 and A—2. The test problems are worked out in entirety in Appendices B-l, B-2, B-3 and B-4. I At x2.95 @ 9 d.f., the critical range, as explained in Chapter II (page 17) is above 16.92. We will reject the sub-hypothesis if the calculated x2 value falls below this value. The calculated x2 values for age distributions are as follows: Between female campers and day—users--Holland 28.5 Between male campers and day-users-—Holland 82.3 Between female campers and day-users-—Waterloo 21.0 Between male campers and day-users--Waterloo 40.9 22 23 What is significant is that all values are above the critical value and that a difference in age distri- butions between campers and day-users in both parks can be declared. } Thus, sub-hypothesis 1 can not be rejected from the available evidence at either park. Figures 1 and 2 show a graphical presentation of age distribution patterns between campers and day—users at Holland and Waterloo, respectively. Sex--Head of Family Sub-hypothesis 2 is as follows: there is a sta- tistically significant difference in the sex of the head of the family_between campers and day-users. x2 distribution tests were run at the 95 per cent confidence limit, with one degree of freedom, between campers and day-users at Holland and Waterloo. Sex of the head of the family data may be found in Appendix A-3. The test problems are worked out entirely in Appendices B-3 and B-4. At x2.95 @ l d.f., the critical value is above 3.84. We will reject sub-hypothesis 2 if the calculated x2 values fall below this value. The calculated x2 values for the sex of the head of the family are as follows: Between campers and day-users-—Holland 1.45 Between campers and day-users--Waterloo .625 24 .mmma .pofiumm msflumnumm snap ozu How xumm mumum pamHHom um mummsnwmp paw mummfimo mo .xmm mg .coflusnfluumflp mm041 .uom um>o 25 .wmma .pofiumm mcflumaumm sump mzp How mmu< coflummuomm.mumum ooHumpmz um mummsanp can mummEmo mo .xmm ma .COHDSQHHumHU mmdnl.m musmwm ........ mummEmo mumm5|>mo HMDOB mo ucmu Hmmllmmamz HMOOB mo Dsmu HmmllmmHmEmm on ma oa m m OH ma om # w A t L +1, » A m Hops: i Lum mecca mlm ii if mum valoa tr LIvanoa 3-3 I, .. 3-3 vmlom nu irvmlom mmlmm 1: irmmlmm vmlom 1: -Ivmlom mmsmm i- 11am1mm mVIov 11 ivmVIov om Hm>0 Lfi ilom um>o 26 At both parks the calculated x2 values fall below the critical value. Thus, the sub-hypothesis is rejected by the data in both parks. We are forced to reject sub- hypothesis 2 at the .05 level of significance. From Figure 3, we can see a consistent and slightly greater representation of campers with a male head of the family at both parks. While not a significant variance for this study, it might suggest that more research is needed regarding this characteristic over a larger number of southern Michigan state parks. Age Differences-—Head of Family Sub-hypothesis 3 is as follows: there is a sta- tistically significant difference in the age of the head of the family between campers and day-users. x2 distribution tests were run at the 95 per cent confidence limit, with nine degrees of freedom, between campers and day—users at Holland and Waterloo. Age of the head of the family data may be found in Appendix A—4. The test problems are worked out entirely in Appendices B-5 and B-6. At x2-95 @ 9 d.f., the critical value is 16.92. We will reject sub-hypothesis 3 for either park if the calcu- lated x2 value falls below this value. The calculated x2 values for the age of the head of the family are as follows: 27 Per Cent of Respondents Male Female Male Female Head Head Head Head Waterloo State Holland State Recreation Area Park Day-users- Campers [::3 Figure 3.-—Sex of the head of the family for campers and day-users at Holland State Park and Waterloo State Recreation Area during data gathering period, 1968. 28 Between campers and day-users-—Holland 32.4 Between campers and day—users--Waterloo 8.879 At Waterloo, the calculated x2 value falls below the critical value. At Holland, the calculated x2 value falls well above the critical value. Thus, the data rejects sub-hypothesis 3 for Waterloo and we are forced to reject the sub-hypothesis for that park. The data at Holland does not reject sub-hypothesis 3. Thus, a sig- nificant difference in the ages of the head of the family between campers and day-users can be declared at Holland. This apparent contradiction between parks might suggest that different segments of the population in southern Michigan might use different parks. More research on this characteristic in more southern Michigan state parks must be accomplished before a clearer picture is obtained. Figures 4 and 5 are graphical presentations of age patterns of the heads of families at Holland and Waterloo. Occupation Differences-—Heads of Families Sub-hypothesis 4 is as follows: there is a sta- tistically significant difference in the occgpation patterns of the head of the family between campers and day- users. x2 distribution tests were run at the 95 per cent confidence limit, with sixteen degrees of freedom, between campers and day-users at Holland and Waterloo. Occupation of the head of the family data may be found in Appendix A-7. 29 2 0 -( __ .0 0. Per Cent of Respondents q- d 20 I 26-30 I 36-40 I 46—501 56-60 61 or 21-25 31-35 41-45 41-55 or less less Day-users Campers 9.0.0.000 Figure 4.--Age patterns of the head of the family for campers and day—users at Holland State Park during data gathering period, 1968. Per Cent of Respondents 3O 1 1 1 1 1 l l 1 1. I I I I I I I v *1— 20 26—30 36-40 46—50 56-60 61 or 21—25 31-35 41—45 51—55 or less over Day-users Campers ..“.,,,” Figure 5.--Age patterns of the head of the family for campers and day-users at Waterloo State Recreation Area during data gathering period, 1968. 31 The test problems are worked out entirely in Appendices B-7 and B—8. At x2.95 @ 16 d.f., the critical value range is 26.30. We will reject sub-hypothesis 4 for either park if the calculated x2 value falls below this value. The calculated x2 values for the occupation of the heads of families are as follows: Between campers and day-users--Holland 18.8 Between campers and day—users-—Waterloo 26.6 At Holland, the calculated x2 value falls well below the critical value. At Waterloo, the calculated x2 value falls just above the critical value. Thus, at Holland, the data rejects sub-hypothesis 4. For Holland, we are forced to reject sub-hypothesis 4 at the .05 level of significance. At Waterloo, the data does not reject the sub—hypothesis that the occupations of the heads of fami- lies differ between campers and day—users. Again, as with sub-hypothesis 3, we have an apparent contradiction in the data from the two parks. To resolve this contradiction, more research is needed. The sub-hypothesis should be tested at a number of other southern Michigan state parks before any conclusions can be drawn. Figures 6 and 7 are graphical presentations of occupational patterns of the heads of families at Holland and Waterloo. 30%jr 25%‘ 203-1- 15%. 10%« 58+ "O H 0 «1 >1 L‘. O 0 ~04 -A m arm n H L43 m 000) 0 0'0! u find Qua O SCH H IUQIIO 9. ha: 23m 32 m '0 a a 2 2 .2: 0 . M a or! 00 0 JJ "-1 Q) 3' 8' as O m 41 «US 0 I: 3 0’ M H H -H m «U d ‘60 ~04 H H 0 0 H 4) 00 H 0 “H H >03 > EC 0 'U D) «4 w-C 4);: 0 H M d) #4:! H .0 .2 .‘3 =3 41 H 04-, H d H O: HO O dd 44 O 0 ~v-l G ”O U U) U 0 ma: U) fut-1 A U) :13 OS I: D In Figure 6.--Occupationa1 patterns of the heads of families for campers and day-users at Holland State Park for data gathering period, 1968. naires. Values are for percentage of respondents to question- 33 .monemccoflummsq ou mucmpcommmu mo mmmucmoumm MOM mum mm5am> .moma .Uoflumm mcflumcumm sump mcflusp scum coflpmmuomm mumum ooHnmumz um mummslhmp Ucm mummEmo “Om mmflHHEmm mo momma can mo mcumuumm Hmcoflummsooo:n.n musmflm J In W H H as T T.a as H.a no as as D Snw Wes a o e "u I. a 0 4+ p. s.9 9 0.1 d 1 e I ens see 1 «+3 8 T. 1 n n q qea 11 n.} e e T. e Ind uqa O qq+ m T: T. s D. 0 0mm .n s.n I 3 a 41 +39 Dem .9 goo .d a. 1 e a 1 1 .1 ans 2 4 s .1 .su.n e 711 I e e m u so He+ 3 "s 3 81¢ a s A o 1 e 1. 4+ 9 oxe I. m e m.i 1 s l A A .13 TL A a I d S S __L. a a P e u I. o P s o u .A P e T P :wm -woa .wma D mummEmo mom I mummsfmmo ifiwmm 34 Educational Differences-~Heads of Families Sub-hypothesis 5 is as follows: there is a sta— tistically significant difference in the educational levels of the head of the family between campers and day- users. x2 distribution tests were run at the 95 per cent confidence limit, with five degrees of freedom, between campers and day-users at Holland and Waterloo. Educational level of heads of families data may be found in Appendix A—6. The test problems are worked out entirely in Appendices B-9 and B-lO. At x2.95 @ 5 d.f., the critical value range is 11.07. We will reject sub-hypothesis 5 for either park if the calculated x2 value falls below this value. The calculated x2 values for the educational levels of the heads of families are as follows: Between campers and day-users--Holland 5.797 Between campers and day—users--Waterloo 5.70 At both Holland and Waterloo, the calculated X2 values fall below the critical value. Thus the data from both parks does not support sub—hypothesis 5, and it is rejected at the .05 level of significance. The graphical presentation of educational patterns of heads of families, as shown in Figures 8 and 9, does point out some pattern variances between campers and day-users. These 35 30 ~-— ' 15’ C: 25 ‘9' m p c o m 8 m 20 I \H 0 4J c m 15—- U H m m 104} 5 dr- I, 4r 1 + I, e 8 yrs 9—11 12 l3-15 l6 17 yrs or yrs yrs yrs yrs or less more Day-users Campers 000...... Figure 8.-—Educational patterns of the heads of families for campers and day-users at Holland State Park during data gathering period, 1968. 36 o .0 : o O O O 35 w- . O O O O O . o C 0 .° '. 30 '1’- : . . O . o m 0 0 4J . . C O 0 r35 25 s- : g C: 0 O O o O ((1?)4 : o. :3 ,: 'H 20 4r- : 0. ° : . +3 o .. £3 : o o (D O . .0. U : 3 o 15 4. . 3 : - , O4 .: ..o 0.. O 0.. 10 __.. .' 0.0 5 —t ' l J 1 l l j I ' T I l I 8 yrs 9-11 12 yrs 13—15 16 yrs 17 yrs yrs yrs or more Day-users campers 0.00000... Figure 9.--Educational patterns of the heads of families for campers and day-users at Waterloo State Recreation Area during data gathering period, 1968. 37 differences are not significant at the 95 per cent confi— dence limit, however. Income Differences-~Families Sub—hypothesis 6 is as follows: there is a sta— tistically significant difference in the incomes of the heads of families between campers and day-users. x2 distribution tests were run at the 95 per cent confidence limit, with six degrees of freedom, between campers and day-users at Holland and Waterloo. Income levels of heads of families data may be found in Appendix A-7. The test problems are worked out entirely in Appendices B-11 and B-12. At x2.95 @ 6 d.f., the critical value is 12.59. We will reject sub—hypothesis 6 for either park if the calculated x2 value falls below this value. The calculated x2 values for the income levels of the heads of families are as follows: Between campers and day—users-—Holland 13.80 Between campers and day-users-—Waterloo 16.70 At both Holland and Waterloo, the calculated x2 values fall above the critical value. Thus the data from both parks does not dispute sub-hypothesis 6, and it is accepted at the .05 level of significance. The graphical presentation of income patterns for heads of families for day-users and campers at Holland and Waterloo are shown in Figures 10 and 11, respectively. 38 I 35%“ 30%1- 15%—- 1 1 1 l r r I I“ l I Less $3000. $6000. $8000. $10000. $15000. $25000. than to to to to to or $3000. $5999. $7999. $9999. $14999. $24000. over I l I Day-users campers 0000000000000 Figure 10.--Income patterns of the heads of families for campers and day—users at Holland State Park during data gathering period, 1968. 39 '(F 2 35% -<)- .. O o O .' ', o. 9 O. . 30%“? o o 0. . f I o. 1 25%~~ .' . ' o : ’. O O O O 20%—_ ; . . O : '. 15%->- .' o O O . '. 10%__ 1 O. .. 5%» , '. 1 1 1 ,1 1 i 1— Less $3000. $6000. $8000. $10000 $15000. $25000. than to to to to to or $3000. $5999. $7999. $9999. $14999. $24000. over Day-users Campers 00.0.0000. Figure ll.--Income patterns of the heads of families for campers and day-users at Waterloo State Recreation Area during data gathering period, 1968. 40 Summation of Socio-Economic Differences A more lengthy discussion of the implications of the data analysis findings for socio-economic character- istics will be included in Chapter V. At this point, the data analysis findings covered in Chapter III are arranged in Table l for visual convenience. In the next chapter, data analysis of behavioral characteristics will be covered between campers and day- . users in both parks. This will consist of statistical tests of sub-hypotheses 7 through 12. The format will be. similar to Chapter III. 41 .usmoaeesmem am.me es.eH ooHumumz masses so usmoeessmam am.NH om.ma esmaaom msoosH sH mosmsmeeaa .e usmoaeasmem uoz Ho.HH os.m ooasmumz sesame so semen- usmoeeasmem uoz Ho.HH eas.m essaeom seaumosem as mosmsmeeso .m ssmoaeHsmem om.e~ oe.em ooHHmumz sesame so emmmunsoHssa unseemesmem uoz om.e~ m.me tsmHHom .5000 se mosmsmeeea .e usmoeeesaHm uoz ma.es asm.m ooasmsmz messes no team usmoemesaem ma.ea s.mm esseeom limos ea mosmsmeeeo .m HGMOHchmHm Hoz vm.m mmm. ooHHmHmz mHHEmm mo pmmm utmoeeesmam uoz sm.m me.e tsmasom --xmm as mosmsmemaa .N ssmoeessmem Na.eH m.~m mess: esseeom usmoHeHsmHm ma.eH m.mm mmemsms tsmHHom psmoaeesmem ma.ea a.oe mess: ooasmpmz soapssHusmHo HGMOHchmHm mm.mH o.Hm mmHmEmm ooHHmumz mmfi CH mocmHmHMHa .H mocmummmHo mo msHm> mx msHm> xumm mHmmcuommcunsm cosmonHcmHm .uHm HMOHHHHU mx xumm .mOHumHHmHOMHmno OHEocoom IoHoom op mchHmuHmm mononuommnl IQSm HOH mmcHUch mHmmHmsm mo COHumEESm «1|.H mqméa CHAPTER IV BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTIC ANALYSIS Travel Distances Sub—hypothesis 7 is as follows: there is a sta— tistically significant difference in distances traveled to the park between campers and day-users. x2 distribution tests were run at the 95 per cent confidence limit, with ten degrees of freedom, between campers and day—users at Holland and Waterloo. Travel distance data may be found in Appendix A-8. The test problems are worked out entirely in Appendices B-13 and B-l4. At x2.95 @ 10 d.f., the critical value is 18.31 We will reject sub-hypothesis 7 for either park if the calculated x2 value falls below this value. The calculated x2 values for the group travel distances are as follows: Between campers and day-users--Holland 85.6 Between campers and day—users--Waterloo 83.0 2 At both Holland and Waterloo, the calculated x values fall well above the critical value. Thus, the data 42 43 does not reject sub—hypothesis 7 at either park, at the .05 level of significance. The graphical presentation of group travel distance differences between campers and day-users are shown in Figures 12 and 13. Travel Time Sub—hypothesis 8 is as follows: there is a sta- tistically significant difference in the time spent travel- ing to the park between campers and day-users. x2 distribution tests were run at the 95 per cent confidence limit, with nine degrees of freedom, between campers and day-users at Holland and Waterloo. Travel time data may be found in Appendix A-9. The test problems are worked out entirely in Appendices B-15 and B-16. At x2.95 @ 9 d.f., the critical value is 16.92 We will reject sub-hypothesis 8 for either park if the calcu- lated x2 value falls below this value. The calculated x2 values for the group travel times are as follows: Between campers and day-users—-Holland 130.8 Between campers and day-users--Waterloo 64.1 At both Holland and Waterloo, the calculated x2 values fall well above the critical value. Thus, the data does not reject sub-hypothesis 8 at either park, at the .05 level of significance. The graphical presentations of group travel time differences between campers and day-users are shown in Figures 14 and 15. 44 I 50%i 458-- 40%~- 35%-- 30%'T 25%-* 20%-« 15% u 10% " 1 I 25—49 75—99 125-149175—1991225-249 miles males 1 miles ndles miles less 50-74 100-124150-174 200—224 250 than miles miles mules miles miles 25 or miles over Day-users ' campers 00000000.. Figure 12.-—Travel distance patterns of day— user and camper groups at Holland State Park during the data gathering period, 1968. 45 50% J- 45% -, 40% “r- 35% m I 30% ~- 25% -r 20% -- I 15% ‘ 10% __ 5% as A...o.ooooooooooooOo'::a/’ I I l I l I 25-49 75—99 125-149 175-199I225-249 miles miles miles miles miles less 50-74 100—124 150-174:200-224 250 than miles miles miles miles miles 25 or miles over Day-users campers 000000.... Figure 13.-—Travel distance patterns of day- user and camper groups at Waterloo State Recreation Area during the data gathering period, 1968. 46 45%JL 35%4- 30%—— N O o\° l I 15%—- 10%-- 5%..— ' I less 8-1 IH-z 2%-3 38-4 over than hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. 4% 5 hr. 1-13 2-23 3-35 4-4% hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs hrs. I I Day-users Campers 0000000.;0 Figure 14.-—Travel time patterns of day-user and camper groups at Holland State Park during data gathering period, 1968. 47 45%- 40&_ 35%- 30%~ 25%- 20%- 15%b 10%~ E 5%”- \30. :00. M ...Oo.o.. ’- l I I 1 less lLl% 2—2% 3-3% 4-4% than hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. % hr. 8—1 lk-Z 2%-3 32-4 over hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. 43 hrs. Day-users Campers 000000.00. Figure 15.--Travel time patterns of day—user and camper groups at Waterloo State Recreation Area during data gathering period, 1968. 48 Group Descriptions Sub-hypothesis 9 can be stated as follows: there is a statistically significant difference in the de: scription of the visiting group between campers and day- users. xz distribution tests were run at the 95 per cent confidence limit, with seven degrees of freedom, between campers and day-users at Holland and Waterloo. Group description data may be found in Appendix A-lO. The test problems are worked out entirely in Appendices B-17 and B-18. At x2.95 @ 7 d.f., the critical value is 14.07. We will reject sub-hypothesis 9 for either park if the calculatedx2 value falls below this value. The calculated x2 values for the group descriptions are as follows: Between campers and day-users—-Holland 66.9 Between campers and day-users--Waterloo 34.3 At both Holland and Waterloo, the calculated x2 values fall well above the critical value. Thus the data does not reject sub-hypothesis 9 at either park, at the .05 level of significance. The graphical presentations of group descriptions between campers and day-users for Holland and Waterloo are shown in Figures 16 and 17, respectively. 49 60%__ 55%“? 50%~~ Day-users - 45%*~ Campers 1:] 40%+ 35%~ 30%« 25%“ 20%~ 15%4 10%- 5%- c m c m m m m p msa win m H o c m r+c Fvo F1 Ocn N o o m raa -ar4 m 21m vi m p EH4 Ew4 D .4 c m #40 (L: H or: $43 0:» HCL mzs ms: 5 m m h.o m o Ora o 5 two m<3 o a .z \ \ c: 0 HM v—i HH 4J H3 N3 r—ao NU OLD HKI: (DEX-I 0 Figure 16.--Group description patterns of day-user and camper groups at Holland State Park during data gathering period, 1968. 50 70%J I 65%‘ 60%:L 55%~— 50%—- 45%” Day—users - 40%—— Campers I I 35%4~ 30%-- 25%-- 20%- 15%- 10%“ 5%“ c: an: m me) o p mxa wiu m H m c m Fwd rap H oua N 0 0:0 r4H -Hr4 m ::m -H m c Ew+ Baa s H GIL Lam {LG H or: «La 0:» MIL as: a): sq; m £140 £240 OH 0:3 0‘0 040 CH .Q \ \ r: 0 5434 H HH 4J F13 NCV F10 010 CID Hut (3h. 0 Figure l7.--Group description patterns of day-user and camper groups at Waterloo State Recreation Area during data gathering period, 1968. 51 Group Sizes Sub—hypothesis 10 can be stated as follows: there is a statistically significant difference in the size of the visiting group between campers and day-users. Tests for mean differences were run at the 95 per cent confidence limit between campers and day-users at Holland and Waterloo. Group mean size may be found in Appendix A—ll. The test problems are worked out entirely in Appendices B-19 and B-20. At the .05 level of significance, the critical range is between +l.960 and -l.960. We will reject sub—' hypothesis 10 at either park if the calculated values for test of means fall within this range. The calculated values for test of means are as follows: Between campers and day-users--Holland 5.8 Between campers and day-users--Waterloo 2.3 At both Holland and Waterloo, the calculated values for test of means falls above the critical range. Thus the data does not reject sub-hypothesis 10 at either park at the .05 level of significance. The graphical presentation of group size patterns between campers and day—users for Holland and Waterloo are shown in Figure 18. 52 5 Hh m ,_| 3 c 4-* m > u m 0.4 m 3‘“ a o 0') u m m m 2 ‘— m m H m 5;; l _..— Day- Campers Day- Campers users users Holland Waterloo Figure l8.——Mean group size patterns of day—users and campers at Holland State Park and Waterloo State Recreation Area during data gathering period, 1968. 53 Arrival Times Sub-hypothesis 11 can be stated as follows: there is a statistically significant difference in the arrival time of the group between campers and day-users. x2 distribution tests were run at the 95 per cent confidence limit, with six degrees of freedom, between campers and day-users at Holland and Waterloo. Group arrival time data may be found in Appendix A—12. The test problems were worked out entirely in Appendices B-21 and B—22. At x2 .95 @ 6 d.f., the critical value is 12.59 We will reject sub-hypothesis 11 for either park if the calculated x2 value falls below this value. The calculated x2 values for the group arrival times are as follows: Between campers and day-users-—Holland 44.3 Between campers and day-users-—Waterloo 112.6 At both Holland and Waterloo, the calculated x2 values fall well above the critical value. Thus, the data does not reject sub-hypothesis 11 at either park at the .05 level of significance. The graphical presentations of group arrival time patterns between campers and day-users for Holland and Waterloo are shown in Figures 19 and 20, respectively. 20% 15% 10% 5% 54 10— noon Day-users Campers noon— 2 pm 2-4 pm gathering period, 1968. pm 8-10 pm Figure l9.--Group arrival time patterns of day- users and campers at Holland State Park during data 55 30% h 25% 1. fl \\\ 20% .§ 0” .0 .090'....... p 15% 10%- / J 5% 8—10 10- noon— 2—4 4-6 6—8 8-10 am noon 2 pm pm pm pm pm Day-users Campers coco-000.00.00.90. Figure 20.--Group arrival time patterns of day— users and campers at Waterloo State Recreation Area during data gathering period, 1968. 56 Group Activity Participation Sub-hypothesis 12 can be stated as follows: there is a statistically significant difference in the group activity particpation patterns between campers and day- users. X2 distribution tests were run at the 95 per cent confidence limit, with twenty—four degrees of freedom, between campers and day-users at Holland and Waterloo. Group activity participation data may be found in Appendix A—l4.. The test problems are worked out entirely in Appendices B-25 and B-26. At x2.95 @ 24 d.f., the critical value is 36.42. We will reject sub-hypothesis 13 for either park if the calculated x2 value falls below this value. The calculated x2 values for group activity par— ticipation are as follows: Between campers and day-users-—Holland 100.4 Between campers and day-users--Waterloo 497.1 At both Holland and Waterloo, the calculated x2 values fall well outside of the critical range. Thus, the data does not reject sub-hypothesis 13 at either park at the .05 level of significance. The graphical presentations of group activity participation patterns between campers and day-users at Holland and Waterloo are shown in Figures 23 and 24, respectively. 57 um Au¢!.ton.u¢ 9mm“ mm laws .0 ”'0“ ONHI‘M um dawn cum 3m . m 01. ”than ”new summon 31-}: Oman-o m L“ . $13003 rum .' ‘ ‘3 am M 53"" . 0.: n1 (mu) would u" .1 “fig. 91mm: am on w; onnmna Ana! '.. 05' emu-am u' M': anaemia M. 9'6 ”V1!" “1 hf’ ’? ”IAVOIIOW I." "1 man ”ml 86'! I.“ }: "mu rum 9': :2 -,4 .° 'o:..~'..?,r$‘. 2. 3.11:... 35"... .00...’ 0 0.0 1‘ " '.'.~$. - "a , ’0'... ”nun 0M! r” ‘ n» =6? -:' 432555-112 -':-:-::= 9mm .1. 3.". $433." . 3?; ; 333:: ":5. 53'::.\ s ..:; sum-me I?» a 1". um v «a an ‘9 4 Haw-unflunvmnivvumurI v1 1'6 13.2 .-°3.§".,‘-:3?.= ' ’. ”woman In since " h 3:": “3?" Ti" 33‘" man: 0:. ma 9°” 2:“ ""“1—3‘ 1N3 vlhlfinflIIS-LHDNI '.w )0 )0 it y: .3 .9 g z a 3 a a a Figure 21.-Group activity participation patterns between campers and day-users at Holland State Park during data gathering period, 1968. 58 k: 'n .I.'- M an 3 "::1.:;':'.:3-1-:?-.-E'-: WV .24 .5: - .' .33.": '7‘;"f. .:":5' a}: 31 f s i. 2'. fit]. -, ..-.'. . o'L'.’..i --,.K. ‘..“.3". .' 2"; ‘ ' -. ”-3." .‘W‘“ .1" ‘ ‘35:...- vnrrnu. MM slv culuxnm¢.unfltk Mr V ”1 TAWIM «to MS t: ,-°.,-.-..- :3: L174 “mu“ 1:: m on TAU" mm I!“ "93 L'- 1353 TM“. mums 63! BE: ‘-' :3 cues mo m 5‘“ 8m . Ar. 5’ L . m“... - HAD“ 1." on 3177 3""- -~ on»: Posmnc In “'0! °.'.-"«'.'-.-.-. can mum. ‘1'" mourn“; ht'l (MIN 1"! 2:7 sum-IO "N '.'-.‘.='.‘I‘.-"I-'.'- nor". gamut SCUOA but“ 0'4 um. 3mm ”'09 ::::.'::'.‘.':.'::°:::::::-.'.':::: sou-um 0’9» -°'::.::'.: :'.:::'.'.'. um“, (- H q a I. . . owns“: - I was: -m ['.-M'.";'.:.'.:::::'.:'. ". I:' '.'-'1'-'5'-'-5 summflfi 0“ rs: :-°..*'-':I:': “a.“ g? cm. ammu. “,’ m.. 'u . w . :-':'.-.t.-,“.r'.7::; '53.. '0‘ -..;~ *- ncumuc 1°93 {fig}, -'c’,=;:-.':.::': woman. to scam: POINT! l"- “-7 .‘z'. -: -'-'-:. t n '7. 0. i .I.“-.' '... ' u- . 3|‘u?-“'..‘ M ‘9‘" CA‘ g a 301. am 12313 12% 50% Figure 22.-Group activity participation patterns between campers and day-users at Waterloo State Recreation Area during data gathering period, 1968. 59 Summation of Behavioral Characteristics A more lengthy discussion on the implications of the data analysis findings for behavioral characteristics will be included in Chapter V. At this point, the data analysis findings covered in Chapter IV are arranged in Table 2 for visual convenience. With the data analysis complete, and the sub- hypotheses accepted or rejected, Chapter V will discuss the implications of the findings. The main differences between campers and day-users in southern Michigan state parks will be discussed, with possible explanations. Some obvious conclusions gained from the study will be stated. 60 \ ucmoamacmam N4.om H.sma ooHHmums mmocmumuman ucmoamacmam Nv.om a.ooa wamaaom coaummaoauumm msouu .NH ucmoamflcmam mm.ma G.NHH ooHHmumz unmoauacmam mm.ma m.aa ccmaaom mmocmnmmmao mane Hm>anua .HH ncmoamacmam mm.a+ on ma.H- m.~ ooHHmnmz bemoauacmam mm.H+ on mm.H- m.m camaaom mmocmnmumao mmam moose .oa ncmoamaamam no.4H m.am ooHHoumz mmoamummuao uCMOHMHcmHm no.va m.mm pcmHHom coflumfiuommo QDOHU .m pcmoauammam mm.oH H.am ooanmpmz ;. mafia ucmoamacmam mm.ma m.oma camaaom mcaam>mue ca moamnmmmao .m ucmoauflcmam Hm.ma o.mm coaumnmz mmosmumao pcmoauaamam Hm.mH m.mm mamafiom mafiam>mne ca mosmummuflo .a mocmumwmam mo mdam> msam> xumm mwmwnuommnunsm mUQMOHMHcmHm .uflm HMOHbHHU x xumm .moflumflnmuomumno Hmuofl>m£mn on mchHMpHmm mommzuomhnlnsm HOm mmcflpcflm mflmhamcm mo coflumEESm 4:1.m mqmda CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Discussion There are a number of considerations that are important in evaluating the results of this investigation. These potential problems could, under certain circumstances, have an effect on the validity of the findings. The author has reason to believe that these problems do not signifi- ‘ cantly affect the results, as will be pointed out in the ‘ following discussion. Size of Sample The sample size was structured to include a minimum number of day-users that would return a complete question-‘ naire. This was necessary for Crapo's test for significance between survey questionnaires and oral interviews.1 This was not necessarily the minimum sampling needed for a high degree of confidence in this present study. The sampling size was approximately .5 per cent of the total 1968 attendance for Waterloo, and approximately .3 per cent of lCrapo and Chubb, Day—use Investigation Technigpes, 61 62 the total 1968 attendance for Holland.2 However, based on the total attendance during the sampling period--July 1 through September 5—-approximately l per cent of Holland park users, and approximately 2 per cent of Waterloo park users were sampled.2 Such a small sample size would, of course, inflate the standard deviation; and the deviation would be ex— tremely wide for high confidence levels. Ideally, a larger sampling, such as 5 per cent of attendance, would increase confidence levels. It would be interesting to re—run the tests for the rejected sub-hypotheses in Chapter III with data from a 5 per cent sampling. Reliability Nearly as important as validity is reliability. Given similar sampling sizes and statistical tests, would the same results be found in the above parks again? This would depend upon how "typical“ a season 1968 was for the parks in question. If it was "abnormal"--in the sense that for some reason the parks attracted a higher, or lower percentage of certain types of park users than normal that year--the reliability of the data could be questioned. 1Figures Obtained by dividing total persons sampled in a park by total 1968 attendance figures. 2Figures obtained by dividing total ersons sampled in a park by attendance during data gathering period, as determined from Park Manager's weekly report attendance figures from Holland and Waterloo. 63 For instance, 1967 was an abnormal year. For Holland, a heavy die-off of alewife (Alosa psuedoharengus) created extremely unhealthy and unpleasant conditions on the Lake Michigan beaches. Attendance was much reduced that year, as at many other Lake Michigan state parks.1 During 1967, many people removed their families from the city in the summer due to riots and racial unrest. They camped at Waterloo and other state parks and recreation areas ringing the southeastern Michigan metropolitan area until the disturbances abated.2 No similar abnormalities occured in 1968. The summer was "normal," both sociologically and climatically. This is reflected in the 1968 attendance figures.3 Thus, there is no reason to reject 1968 data as reflecting a summer of adnormal park usage. 1Michigan Department Natural Resources, Biennial Report, p. 3. 2During the period of civil unrest during the summer of 1967, large numbers of people removed their families from Detroit, Pontiac, Jackson and other Michigan cities and camped in the state recreation areas of southern Michigan until the racial disturbances were over. The author person- ally spoke with many such families at Lakeport State Park, Holly State Recreation Area, and Proud Lake State Recre- ation Area. Waterloo rangers told the author that there were a number of such families at their campgrounds too. 31968 attendance figures for both parks fit well into the gradual, upward curve formed by plotting 1965 through 1969 attendance figures. 64 £323 Another possible source of error is bias. Of the groups handed a questionnaire, only a relatively small proportion returned them complete.l What bias was in effect in the return of the questionnaires? Were some types of park users--such as the higher-educated, the younger, the wealthier, etc.-—more highly motivated to return the questionnaires than other types of park users? Were some questions in the questionnaire subject to bias by certain group segments? For instance, were respondents with higher educational levels more apt to answer the question on years of education than those with a lower level of education? If there is bias towards individual questions, there should be a difference in the response rates to these questions between voluntary responses—-questionnaires——and controlled responses--interviews. Crapo did not find this to be the case.2 A high correlation was found between the data obtained by oral interviews and information from questionnaires voluntarily completed and returned. Only one question at each park showed a significant variance between voluntary and controlled response. At Waterloo, it was Question 9 regarding travel distance; and at Holland, it was Question 8 regarding travel time. lCrapo and Chubb, Day-use Investigation Techniques, p. 82. 21bid., p. 66. 65 If we assume that people responded truthfully, to the best of their knowledge, we must conclude that the above type of bias was not strongly in evidence. There is also the possibility of bias towards campers in the sampling. Normally, campers represent approximately 3.3 per cent and 7.4 per cent of total yearly attendance at Holland and Waterloo, respectively.1 In the study sample, campers represented 35.8 per cent and 32.5 per cent of the totals at Holland and Waterloo, respectively. This could mean that campers are more highly motivated towards returning the questionnaire, than are day—users. This probably is the case to a degree. Most park managers can attest to excellent cooperation by campers in past surveys. Another probable explanation is that campers will make many more trips through a park exit, on the average, than will day-users. Campers will thus increase their odds of receiving a questionnaire. Combine this with the high motivation for returning the questionnaire, and the large percentage of campers in the sampling is reasonable. Crapo and Chubb recognized this type of bias, and discussed it under the heading of "The Problem of Repetitive Entries."2 As long as the camper response is kept segregated from l . . Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Biennial Report, pp. 5, 7-8. 2 Crapo and Chubb, Day—use Investigation Techniques, p. 69. 66 day-user response, this type of data should not signifi- cantly affect the conclusions of this thesis. Differences Between Campers and Day—users Several sub-hypotheses pertaining to socio—economic characteristic differences were rejected at each park, and several were not rejected by the analysis of the data. No sub—hypotheses pertaining to behavioral characteristics were rejected by the data findings at either park. At this point, we will discuss the implications of the sub-hypotheses that were not rejected by the analysis findings. Socio—economic Differences Age differences.——There was a distinct age distri- bution pattern difference between campers and day-users at both parks. (As can be seen from Figures 1 and 2, a larger group percentage of late teens, young adults-—25 to 35-— and older persons over 50 were found among day-users at HollandITfiAt Waterloo, larger group percentages of young # k .../’ \ children—-under 10-—late teens and young adults--20 to 30-- \_ \ \\\ o)" 1 - ,i’ group percentages among younger children-—under 10--early were found among day-users‘ At Holland, campers had larger teens—-under 15--and more middle-aged persons--35 to‘50. At Waterloo, campers had larger group percentages in the early teens--under lS--and among the more middle-aged 67 adults--30 to 50. There were about equal group percentages among the older adults over 50 in both campers and day— users. While there was some variation between parks, a basic pattern seemed to prevail. Campers seemed to_be more "" flfiflil‘h“.fl at appage when most people are more established and have begun to increase their earninghpower_and vacation time. _ .-_.._-———.._._._-.__..—_- ,-—- ——_——.__ __ H“- The large percentages of children from late elementary grades through junior high school age seemed to bear out this image. The bulk of camping adults should have children in this age range. lf/Dayjusersmappeared to be largely of four basic types. There were the young adults in their twenties ané earlyhphigpies. These people are probably not so es— tablished in their jobs and in other social institutions. People of this agemgroup would have children in the pre- .f‘. - —.-.~-...p—-.—-- «- S<§_§99}.__sss.-_en4m§s,£_}¥.....e.lsmentary grades age: whichare the pgxt large group percentage of day-users. There were the .older 9909131 over 50. These people probably have grown children. Theilast~class.of.dayrusers-was-the-late teenage group. An American in his late teens is highly :M*m_.iwww mobile today, and is usually strongly attracted to the beaches at state parks. These beaches serve as a social, as well as a recreational outlet for this age group. As Holland has a better swimming beach than Waterloo, it also had a higher group percentage of late teenage day—users. ,4 / / 68 Age differences of head of family.--A difference in age patterns of the head of the family was found at Holland. Day:users had higher group percentages of both younger and. gldgp heads of families. This pattern agreed with the differences in the age distribution patterns above. The youngwadults33probably,young married couples—~would have_h young_heads of families. A person in his late teens will often have a parent approaching, or past, 45 years of age. Campers had much higher group percentages among 26 to 45 year Old,b§§§§19§ families. The same pattern was dupli— cated at Waterloo. However, the differences were not extreme enough to register a statistically significant difference in the data analysis. The pattern of differ- ences are presented in Figures 4 and 5. Differences in occupation of head of family.--A difference in the oCcupational patterns of the heads of families was found at Waterloo. As can be seen from Figure 7, day-users had higher group percentages among craftsmen, operatives, factory workers and retirees. Campers had higher group percentages among professional people, managers and self-employed. Differences were very small between other occupations. The occupations of the day- users suggest, again, older and more skilled persons, “Mu—.4“ ___._A '.....-. as well_ as the young, as yet unskilled people. The V/GEQBEéEipfl§m9§ E s SSTPBES suggest middle-aged people--it requireswamnumber~of~years of education and training to 69 rise_towthe~professionalror.managerialilevel. As seen in Figure 6, the occupational patterns at Holland were very similar to that of Waterloo. However, the differences were not enough to show a statistically significant difference in the data analysis. Interestingly enough, professional people amopg / ,a campers had the_highest single group percentage. The “H” proportion of day-user professional people, and day-user craftsmen were nearly identical in both parks. The camping percentages of the same occupations varied widely between the two parks. At the risk of stereotyping occupations, it may suggest that certain parks offer attractions that would appeal to a person who was also attracted to a particular kind of occupation. As will be seen in the discussion on travel distance, distance from home did not appear to be as important a factor in park selection among campers as with day—users. Also significant was the percentage of represen- tation of occupations in both sub-groups. It was far different from what might be expected on the basis of national occupation distribution.1 For instance, while both parks are in rural locations, farm labor was con— spicuously absent. This might suggest that certain occupational groups do not use state parks in the pro- portion that the occupations are present in the population. lU.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Sta— tistics, Monthly Labor Review (January, 1969). 70 Differences in family incomes.--A difference in income patterns between campers and day-users was found at both parks. Looking at Figures 10 and 11, we can see that ampers~t , dwtoihaye greater group percentages in the middle income brackets-—from $6,000 to $15,000 yearly incmg; Day-essmhhad-91.792311593959913. PSI-‘.Esnf—ages below $6,099, andiaboyea$15+000 yearly income. At both parks, $10,000 to $15,000 was the median yearly income for both sub-groups. The day-user data on family income continues to suggest either young, unskilled and unestablished people or older, skilled persons who have reached their maximum . 1... pa,wm-vuno-I’—-u Wnfippla. . mun-o -". earning power. ICampers, on the other hand, seem to have a _ wimpy-ow... .m.‘.. (a Mum-«.mw §_heavy representation of people who have increased their i learning power, and have prospects of raising it still “w-i J" " lfurther before retirement.l -r fiw-fl-" "" As in the last characteristic discussed, a more significant fact, from amsogiological aspect, is that state park users of ppph subfgroups seem to be well above the national and regional norms for family income.1 This x: may suggest. that...both....the.,.,ruralflndwgrbaampgqrrégi 9.9.1:. .Héve If the—time, financialimeans, or the inclination for state parkflaativities. There could be transportation problems \//rfor inner-city poor from Detroit, Jackson, Lansing and lU.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Popplation Reports, Series P-60, No. 59. 71 Grand Rapids. Anotherflpossibility is that activities such ,. ’ ‘ “7 ’M-Ba hJC.f.l" Ar ‘u as,campingmare not attractive to low-income groups?” There usually is a substantial investment in camping equipment involved, and this may be beyond their financial capa- bilities. Whatever the reasonh there is a strong "middle- class" aspect of state-park users in both sub—groups,‘ campers having even more strongly middle—class character— isticsflthanwdaynusars. Douglas noted this trend and has cited statistics for Federal wilderness areas that algg show incomes and educational levels that are above the . 1 national norm. Behavioral Differences Statistically significant differences have been found in all behavioral characteristics between campers and day-users. These differences will now be discussed in detail. Travel distance.——At both parks, campers tended to travel farther toethe park. As can be seen from Figures 12 and 13, nearly 50 per cent of day-users in both parks JO" traveled less thanm25-miles.= Approximately 50 per cent \v ‘ .. --...-fi._ y. gin-3...: 1..., of campers in.both parks traveled over 50.miles from home. It would seem that the day-users tended to visit the 1William 0. Douglas, A Wilderness Bill of Rights (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1965), p. 18. 72 closest park to home. Thus, Holland primarily drew day— users from Holland, Grand Rapids and the surrounding towns. Waterloo attracted day-users primarily from Lansing, Jackson, Ann Arbor and the smaller surrounding towns. The indications are that campers were more‘, selective in their choice of parks...They had more time Am-J-hu' ~ to spend in the park, and thengggldmtrav l farther; Campers were probably motivated by particular preferences for whatever attractions that a park can offer. Proximity to home was also a factor in park selection among campers. Manwaamili s remainwin a southern Michigan_state park \/////flcampground.for the maximum time allowed during the summer.1 The wife and family vacations, while the husband commutes tomand from.the park to work. Closeness to home might also be a factor in selection of a park for a short, weekend camping trip. However, this is probably a less important factor with campers than with day-users. Travel time.——The sampling of travel time may first appear redundant to travel distance to a park. However, people frequently decidewon trips by the length of time that they can drive the distance. ~ErgggggE1yL itmrequires 1Michigan State Parks Division camping policy states that a family may camp for a maximum of fifteen days in any state park between the dates of June 15 and Labor Day. Frequently, when a family exhausts their camping time in one park, they will move on to the next park for another fifteen days of camping. ;> 73 less time to dfive fifty miles on an expressway_ than it does to driyewtwenty miles through city traffic. I At Holland, 75 per cent of the day-users traveled less than onelhour. The bulk of Holland campers traveled longer than two hours, as can be seen in Figure 14. This further supports the picture of day-users with more or less local origins, and campers who reside some distance from the park. At Waterloo, as shown in Figure 15, the differ— ence was not quite so great. However, a similar pattern was exhibited. Nearly 75 per cent of the day-users lived within a one hour drive from the park. Almost 60 per cent 'V ‘I'A‘F'fl" n.” of theflcampers traveled over two hours to reach the park. Group descriptions.--The most interesting fact about campers, regarding group description, is that the overwhelming majority of them, at both parks, were single families with children. The only other camper group description with a group percentage of over 10 per cent was the "group of friends" category at Holland.‘ Figures 16 and ’17 reveal that day—users also had the largest group per— 'fi‘mn‘(~u "a- NMWflAh’ centageS‘inflthew"single family with children" category. However, day user_s were much more heterogeneous as a group. Single couples and groups of friends were much more in ”,-s= “memfiw .. i ,.W . evidence than among campers. This was particularly the case at Holland. An explanation may be that an overnight, or longer, trip is much more of a family affair than a several hours visit to a park. 74 Group mean size.——As can be seen from Figure 18, campers at both parks exhibited a significantly larger mean group size than did day-users. This tended to agree with group description data, where campers usually consisted of an entire family. With the larger percentages of single couples, single persons, and smallegroupsmofafriends among /’ dayeusers, theimeanwgroup size of.day-users_wou1d_be smaller? Arrival time.--Day-users and campers exhibited significantly different arrival time patterns at both parks as shown in Figures 19 and 20. Campers,-as a group, tended“ ;///to arriyewmuchmearpier. At Waterloo, campers also tended to arrive earlier than most day-users. A perfect pattern was showngggmflaterlqe. with the most...frequSEF_.,.§£§,iYs;l..itimem_f0r campers being~8wa.m., and the greatest arrival pf dayéusers being betweenwnoonwand»2~p.m. At Holland, the arrival time patterns for the two sub-groups were somewhat different. Greatest group percentage of day—user arrivals was between 6 and 8 p.m. Also different from Waterloo, the peak arrival time for campers was from 2 to 4 p.m. This suggests that parks have different patterns of arrival times. The author, who has been employed at a number of Michigan state parks, has also noticed this difference between parks. A plausable explanation for the increase of day-user arrivals late in the day might have been the result of hot, tired people from the Holland area 75 who go to the beach after work for a picnic or a refreshing swim in Lake Michigan. The high percentage of campers entering Holland between 2 and 4 p.m. might have been due to people who had campsite assignments, and were able to occupy the site at 3 p.m.l The high arrival number of campers at 8 a. m., and the highearrival number of day- users in afternoon is perfectly logical-h.Competition for campsites at the crowded southern Michigan campgrounds demand an early arrival to assure a campsite lot. Themfaypriteutimemfcr picnics and other outings would seem to be early afternpon. Hours spent in park.-—While not formulated into a sub—hypothesis, data was also tabulated for question 21, the number of hours spent in the park. For campers, this meant the number of hours they spent in the park on the day of departure. As could be expected, campers spent many more hours in a state park than did day-users. However, rather than beingga trite piece of data, Figures 23 and 24 reveal some interesting patterns of day-user park use. Nearly half of Campground lot assignments are made according to expected vacancies that day. However, the previous night's occupant has until 3 p. m. to vacate the lot. The peOple who receive the lot assignment can not place their camping equipment on the lot until it is vacant. Subsequently, many campers, once they are assured of a lot via the assignment method, spend the day elsewhere until 3 p.m. when they return to occupy their campsite lot. 45% 40% 35% 30% 25%' 20% 15% 10% 5% 76 . .400\\ .. ‘.“ AO __~_~____’_fl____ Less Than 2—4 4—6 6-8 8-10 10-12 More Than 2 hours hours hours hours hours ihours 12 hours Day-users campers °""'°0000000 Figure 23.--Group time spent in the park patterns between day-users and campers at Holland State Park during data gathering period, 1968. 77 25% \ Less Than 2—4 2 hours hours Day-users Campers 6—8 hours 8-10 hours 10—12 hours More Than 12 hours Figure 24.--Group time spent in the park patterns during day—users and campers at Waterloo State Recreation Area during data gathering period, 1968. 78 Holland day—users spent less than two hours in the park. Overw5G—per~eentaofmflaterloowday-users spent less than fQEELQQHISIithhe park, ‘m Campers answered the question for the day they lef£_the park. The large percentages of campers that spent over twelve hours in the park suggests that campers in southern Michigan state parks do spend most of the day of departure in the park. This also supports the con- jecture that the large number of new camper arrivals between 2 and 4 p.m. was because the camp lots are occupied by the previous night's camper until 3 p.m. There was a chance that the question may have caused some confusion among campers. Some campers may have calculated the number of hours since 8 a.m.--the time of the park opening --and some campers may have calculated from midnight, the number of hours spent in the park that particular day. The reason for this conjecture is that if all campers calculated from 8 a.m., the majority of campers left the park after the park closing hour of 10 p.m. Also, if all campers calculated from midnight, some campers left the park at l, 2 or 3 a.m., which is unlikely, in the number found in Appendix A—13. The author feels that the question should have read: "How many hours, since 8 a.m., did you spend in a. the park today?" The question, as stated in the question- naire, presents no such problems for day-users. 79 For the purposes of this study, we can assume that Hun... nor—4. 1r campersggpent_varying lengths of timefiin the park on the day of departure. However, the length of day-user visits data was more accurate and conclusive. Group activipy participation.--There was a sig- nificant difference at both parks in group activity participation patterns between day-users and campers. Figures 23 and 24 reveal that a greater percentage of campers participated in most activities than did_day—users. The three activities with the greatest group par- ticipation among campers at the two parks were also the three activities with the greatest group participation among day—users at both parks. These were»swimmingrvsun— bathing and relaxi¥9.. However, a HGEH larger percentage Ifgf camper groupsvatsboth~parks participated in these activipiespEhanmdigmdaytpsers. After the three most popular activities, there was some variation between parks. For the activity "sight-seeing by car," a greater percentage of day-users than campers at Holland indicated participation. Day-users at Waterloo had a greater per- centage of picnickers than did campers. Perhaps the most significant fact of these patterns was that the most popular activities for campers were also the most popular activities for day-users. However, there was usually a much smaller group percentage participation among day-users in each activity than among 80 campers. This is probably tied in with the fact that the majority of the day-users spent less than four hours in the parks. It suggests that day-users are more specific in their purpose for visiting a park. Apparently, campers had more time in the park and were able to be more ex— ploratory in looking for things to do. Non—significant Differences While the differences between campers and day-users for the sex 9f the head of the family was not found to be statistically“Significant at either park, Figure 3 indi- cates a consistent trend toward more families with a q .- _.-.MV ‘3 -1. .,-‘h.... -L.l.....;..L.-\.u- .. .female head among dayeusers. Perhaps a more interesting fact is that the national statistics for female heads of families is around 10 per cent and the park—user sampling for both sub—groups was considerably lower than that.1 One reason may be that the "outdoor activity" aspect of State parks would attract families with male heads since the largest percentages of park-users in both sub—groups -were entire conjugal families. melationaldlfferenceswere .nct. found to be sta- tisticallymgignificant. However, certain patterns for educational levels reached by the head of the families were fairly consistent between the two parks. Day—users lU.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 176. fixDay—users had more heads of families withwsomewyearsmof 81 had more families headed by a person with a grade school education, or less. Campers had a slightly greater per— centage of headseof family‘with a high school education. - a, ”my college, while campers had a greater percentageuofhheage~~ of families with college.degrees or P05t SIBQP§E§_33£¥- Educational levels from a random sampling of the national population would be expected to show much lower percentages of high school, college and post-graduate edu- cation for the heads of families.1 (The indications are that state park users are more highly—educated than the average national population. Douglas found the same to be true for users of Federal parks and wilderness areas.2 Conclusions From the foregoing, it is apparent that a number of conclusions can be drawn from the study. It is quite conclusive that the Michigan state park-using public is not a random sampling of the national or state population. As shown in the discussion, edu- cational levels, occupational patterns, income levels, and hewsexiof—the~headagfytheWfamilywvariediconsiderably,£§9m what—ancandpm sampling might be expected to show. "WW lU.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 390. 2Douglas, Bill of Rights, p. 18. 82 Age distribution of park- users varied from the ‘4..- - __ "flI-fif“... M.“ wfll‘duf ‘L ’1”. N'M'E H‘W . ...L.' "kfl.\_,5..—" d: national or state population age structures.l There were “I. .1. _- "- ~--._._. -‘... __ " A - n—Q‘Mflm ‘3'. more younger people, and far less representation among the ”middle age _groups than would be expected in a broad - ‘..-’..“ samplingofmtheepopulation, All of the above indicates a strongly middle— -class aspect-ofmsEaEempefk7users. Conspicuouslby their absence.“ were thewpoormandhtheavery rich. Obviously, the very rich can afford more exclusive_private recreational facilities, while the poor may not be able to afford transportation or the equipment needed for a State park camping trip. Perhaps more importantly is the need for more research in sampling the attitudes of the poor--under $3,000 a year income--and the very rich--over $25,000 a year income-- regarding state parks as a recreational outlet. There were differences in the following socio- economic characteristics between campers and day-users at one, or both, parks. Age distributions, age of the head of the family, occupation of the head of the family, and income of families were all shown to differ significantly between campers and day-users at the 95 per cent confidence level. All of the behavioral characteristics were shown to have statistically significant differences between campers and day-users at the 95 per cent level of confidence. 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 416. 83 Criteria for rejecting or accepting the main hy- pothesis, "There is a significant difference between campers and day-users in southern Michigan state parks in both socio-economic and behavioral characteristics," required that at least three socio-economic characteristics, and at least three behavioral characteristics be found to have a statistically significant difference at the 95 per cent level of confidence. The three.sub:hypothese§::li 3 andifiiforwflollandestatemParkT~andfl11w4T~andw6«for~Waterloo State RecreationeArea—-were_not rejected at each park for .socio—eeonomic~characteristics, and all six sub-hypotheses regarding7behavioral—characteristicsflwefewnotwrejected at bethpparks. Thus, there are no grounds for rejection of the main hypothesis. 7? The acceptance of the main hypothesis should be 7 interpreted in the light of the following constraint: 7The. m .D hypothesis was notwrejected for two parks in southern mam-4‘ ' Michigani It is likely that similar differences occur at other southern Michigan state parks of a comparable type; and location. A broader application of the constraint would imply that it is assumed that conditions will remain more or less the same. The differences are present during the summer months of July and August, when the sample was taken. It must imply that there not be a sudden "revo- lution" in park usewpatterns, such as the camping "boom" of the late 19503 and 19605. The constraint also implies that there be no drastic changes in policy by the Parks 84 Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources _to disrupt present patterns. Anwexample of this might be -:‘- bHJ’I- a program-to encourage the socially-disadvantaged urban and ruralflgroups to participate more in~state park camping. And finally, it implies that there be no great sociological upheaval of catastrophic proportions, such as the Great Depression of the 19305. Concluding Remarks In all park systems, and in every decision-making procedure from park planning to creating administrative policy, it is imperative to know as much as possible about the people who use that park system's facilities. This information is time-consuming and expensive to accumulate and analyze. Inmmostwparkesystems, the camper is more statiepary and available, and is the most frequent subject of park_surveyse A question arises as to whether data gathered from the.campigqmgaghfusers_are.valid.for_application to day- users. If it is not valid, there is the prospect of applying standards based on the behavior and preferences of a small segment of the park-using public-—campers--in formulating services and facilities for all state park users. The author believes that the two user groups are ? significantly different in southern Michigan state parks, 85 and this belief has been substantiated by acceptance of the main hypothesis. ~A—twmzparkwaamplewqan ”not. be . 999.83.8953811089 completelywconclusivemregardingiall the parks innihe region«’ However, the sample represents what the author feels is a reasonably typical cross-section of southern Michigan state parks. There is good reason to assume that similar user patterns exist in other southern Michigan state parks, with perhaps minor differences due to local circumstances. In the norggsrnfltWOmthirds of Michigan, where local- (VJ-wt" populatigpwgegeigiesflare sparse, use and user patterns could very well differ from the state parks in southern Michigan.”“For instance, the author would expect more similarity in socig;ggQQQmichharacteristi s between campers eand daywusers in.the northern Michigan state_parkef Due to these regional differences, any conclusions about the above findings must be confined to state parks in the southern one—third of Michigan. CHAPTER VI RECOMMENDATIONS " n 11!; _-11 .'u_ The recommendations that follow apply to the Parks "' Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources 5 only inasmuch as the data of this thesis concern southern i Michigan state parks. The recommendatione can also be7 applied by any similar agency concerned with defining the user and useipatterns within their respective park_systems. l. Enough differences were found between day- users and campers in the two study parks to merit extending this kind of study to other parks. Muggmgggggggggwianrmati n could be revealedygehparkuplannersiand“administfiat9¥§eb¥w. ."u "J'Otflu'l mifi 'l'jf-EP' the exteneion of this eppdy& It is possible ‘ ‘ ';— ‘..... :n m 'sxxuwiaucwafifl“ that differences, not found to be statistically be7statistically7different_at_other,_similar parked Several variations weregfound.between thehsame.kin419fWuserwgrcup§-et“Holland.and Waterloo. .Extension of the study would reveal 86 87 which of the variations were the more general case throughout the region, or possibly, that all parks varied somewhat in these character- istics. Thiskind of user researehL to be meaningfpl, mustnbeeextendedioveriarnumberwofiJyears. The- same parks should be re-sampled at intervals of no more than every three years. A "trend" in user or use patterns can not be established - Y-t—rrc—f-wrw in one season's sampling. Furthermore, the longer the time that has elapsed since data collection, the less relevant to current planning purposes that results become. For instance, the author suspects that 1958 data from the above study parks would vary eon- siderably from the 1968 data discussed in this thesis. The 1968 data, already two years old, information to be considered current. The£§ii§iannggd for congtapt‘effqrtmtp refine *5‘1.-kiii and—Simplifyisamplingiand analysis methods. Since research is expensive and agency funds are seldom more than minimally adequate for operations, research is frequently the first activity to "suffer" in times of "budget— tightening." 88 If close use and user pattern similarities are found to exist between certain kinds of state parks--for instance, southwestern Michigan Lake Michigan parks--one representative park of the am "WMM “an. w— I‘D.-.“ “.7 group could be selected as an index~for CORT putinual sampling, thus saving on man—hours andfl‘ computer7time7costs. Within the context of good resource management, park masterlplans should be periodically reviewed in light of research findings. 37 v I "' friez- SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and Periodicals Arkin, Herbert, and Colton, Raymond R. Tables for Sta- tisticians. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1962. Carlson, R. E.; Deppe, T. R.; and Maclean, J. R. Recre- ation In American Life. Belmont, Ca1if.: Wads- worth Publishing Company, 1963. Clawson, Marion. "The Crisis In Outdoor Recreation." American Forests, Vol. 65, No. 3, 1959. . "Economics and Environmental Impacts of In- creasing Leasure Activities." In Future Environ- ments of North America. Edited by F. F. Darling and J. P. Milton. New York: The Natural History Press, 1966. . Land and Water for Recreation: Opportunities, Problems, and Policies. Chicago: Rand, McNally and Company, 1963. , and Knetsch, Jack L. Economics of Outdoor Recre- ation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1966. , and Knetsch, Jack L. "Outdoor Recreation Research: Some Concepts and Suggested Areas of Study." Natural Resources, Vol. 3, 1963. Douglas, Wm. O. A Wilderness Bill of Rights. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1965. Dixon, Wilfrid J., and Massey, Frank J. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1951. Menninger, Karl. The Vital Balance. New York: Viking Press, 1963. 89 90 Public Documents and Reports Clawson, Marion, and Knetsch, Jack L. "Recreation Re— search: Some Basic Analytical Concepts and Suggested Framework for Research Problems." Proceeding of the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation Research. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1963, 9-42. Crapo, Douglas, and Chubb, Michael. Recreation Area Day- use Investigation Techniques: Part I, A Study of Survey Methodology. East Lansing, Mich.: Recre- ation Research and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, College of Agri- culture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, Technical Report No. 6, 1969. King, David A. Characteristics of Family Campers Using the Huron-Manistee National Forests. St. Paul: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1965. Michigan Department of Conservation.1 State Park Attendance ::l26§: Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Parks Division, 1966. . State Park Attendance-—1966. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Parks Division, 1967. . State Park Attendance--l967. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Parks Division, 1968. . State Park Camper Data for 1965. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Parks Division, 1966. . State Park Camper Data for 1966. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Parks Division, 1967. . State Park Camper Data for 1967. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Parks Division, 1968. 1In late 1968, the Michigan Department of Con- servation was encorporated into the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. This included all of the former de- partmental agencies, as well as a number of previously unassociated organizations, in an effort to streamline Michigan government. 91 . Twenty—Fourth Bienniel Report for 1967-1968. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Parks Division, 1968. . Turn-away Data--Season 1965. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Parks Division, 1966. . Turn-away Data-~Season 1966. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Parks Division, 1967. . Turn-away Data--Season 1967. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Parks Division, 1968. Michigan Department of Conservation, Recreation Resources Planning Division. Outdoor Recreation Planning In Michigan by a Systems Analysis Approach. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Recreation Resource Planning Division, 1965. . Michigan's Recreation Future. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Recreation Resource Planning Division, 1968. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Parks Division. State Park Attendance-—l968. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Parks Division, 1969. . State Park Camper Data for 1968. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Parks Division, 1969. . Turn-away Data--Season 1968. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Parks Division, 1969. Michigan State University, Department of Resource Develop- Outdoor ment. Michigen Outdoor Recreation Demand Study. Lansing, Mich.: State Resource Planning Program, Michigan Department of Commerce, Technical Report No. 6, June, 1966. Recreation Resources Review Commission. Outdoor Recreation For America. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. . Study Report 22, Trends In American Living and Outdoor Recreation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. 92 Palmer, Walter L. An Analysis of the Public Use of Southern Michigan Game and Recreation Areas. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Research and Development Division, 1967. Twardzik, Louis F. The Future of State Parks as Suppliers of Recreation Opportunities. East Lansing, Mich.: Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, PR 206, 1963. . Expanding the User Approach to Recreation Area Planning. East Lansing, Mich.: Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, PR 206, 1963. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Resources and Recreation in the Northern Great Lakes Region. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Task Force Report, 1963. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. De- partment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Series P-25, No. 416. . Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Series P-60, No. 59. . Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 176. . Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, series P—25' NO. 3900 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recre- ation. Outdoor Recreation for America. Washing— ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. . The 1965 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau Outdoor Recreation, 1967. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly Labor Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau Labor Statistics, January, 1969. 93 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Conservation. Wisconsin's Outdoor Recreation Plan. Madison, Wis.: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Conservation, Publication 802, 1968. Other Sources Crapo, Douglas, Melvin. "Recreation Area Day—use In- vestigation Techniques: A Study of Survey Methodology Within Michigan State Parks." Un- published M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1969. APPENDICES APPENDIX A PARK-USER CHARACTERISTIC DATA 94 TABLE A-l.—-Frequency distribution of male park-users by park, age group, and user groups. Waterloo Waterloo Holland Holland Age Campers Daywusers Campers Day-users Group (Years) No. % No. % No. % No. % Below 5 105 12.0 237 12.6 73 10.8 124 10.7 5—9 136 15.5 321 17.2 113 16.7 154 13.3 10-14 154 17.6 323 17.4 99 14.6 119 10.3 15-19 113 12.9 307 16.5 98 14.5 255 21.4 20-24 51 6.0 118 6.3 49 7.4 113 10.0 25-29 39 4.5 103 5.6 35 5.3 73 6.3 30-34 54 6.3 92 4.9 43 6.4 71 6.2 35-39 71 8.2 119 6.8 49 7.3 82 7.1 40-49 111 12.7 178 9.6 90 13.3 101 8.7 50 or Over 37 4.3 57 3.1 25 3.7 70 6.0 Totals 871 100. 1,855 100. 680 100. 1,162 100. % User Group 48.4 49.8 49.96 47.2 95 TABLE A-2.-—Frequency distribution of female park—users by park, age group, and user groups. 22:33:" 3:563:22. 2:112:32 £32223. Group (Years) No. % No. % No. % No. % Below 5 90 9.9 213 11.1 72 10.5 106 8.4 5—9 141 15.4 325 17.2 95 13.8 152 12.0 10—14 195 20.3 330 17.4 105 15.3 138 10.9 15-19 127 13.8 310 16.4 135 19.6 319 24.3 20-24 57 6.2 119 6.1 57 8.3 105 8.3 25-29 52 5.7 140 7.2 47 6.8 97 7.6 30-34 67 7.4 128 6.6 34 4.9 79. 6.2 35-39 85 9.2 134 7.0 53 7.2 91 7.3 40-49 86 9.3 146 7.5 75 10.9 112 8.9 50 or Over 24 2.8 73 3.5 20 2.7 78 6.1 Totals 929 100. 1,871 100. 688 100. 1,295 100. % User Group 51.6 50.2 50.04 52.8 96 .mHm3msm zmmsommmm OZ: mcwpsaocfi mp pmcflmuno mosam> mpooammn =.uoa we; mom mm.» em em.e em.e ea mo.mm m.km mom mamasmo ecmaaom mes H.m om om.o H.m me oe.mm a.mm ems mummsummo ecmaeom mam mm.ma mm mo.m mo.m NH em.ma mo.om mam unmasmo ooHHmpmz mam em.ea mma Ho.m me.e em am.em m.me mos mummsusma coaumumz .uoe w .02 .ammm m .p09 w .02 .ammm m «.309 w .02 mmsommmm MHHEmm haflfimm 02 mo poem mamamm mo poem mam: .mHHEHL some mo one: may mo xom esp Mb mmdoum Homolxnmm mo QOHpSQflHumHU «II.MI¢ mamma 97 .mHmBmcm emmcommmm oz: on» mcwosaocfl an pmswmuho mmsHm> muomammn =.pos we; mom New mmm mmm Hmuoa mm.m ha n.m me vm.m mm vh.oa hm .mmmm .oz wv.m mm.m n Nh.v v.¢ mm mw.m mm.m oa om.m vm.m om Hm>o one am mh.m Hm.m m oo.m h.v mm N~.N vo.m m mn.m me.~ mm oolmm vm.¢ mm.v ma oo.oa m.m on oo.m mw.e ma NH.m mm.v av mmlam v~.vH a.ma av oo.ha o.ma mad mH.HH ~.0H ow o¢.mH mm.oa mm omlmv wH.HN a.ma Hm oo.vH m.mH mm mm.am m.ma up ov.ma mm.ha mma melav no.0m m.ma mm mm.ma v.va boa mm.am o.ma up mm.oa m>.vH «ma ovlmm wm.ma m>.mH mm oo.mH m.HH em oo.ma mh.ma em mm.ma mm.ma mma mmnam mh.HH NH.HH em va.m m.m em mo.m hm.h mm mm.HH mo.oa om omlmm mm.h v.5 mm mm.m m.m we oh.m nm.n mm m>.m mm.> on mmuam mh.a mm.a m oo.m >.m me oo.m m.v ma mm.m mo.m me om cone mmmq .ammm .poe .uoe .ammm .uoe .uoe .ammm .uoe .uoe .ammm «.uoe .uoe m m w w w w w w Amnmmmv mummamo mnwmssmmn mummamu mummzlmma 0mm pcmaaom onwaaom ooaumpmz ooHHmumz .mHHEmm mcu Mo cams gnu mo man may we museum Hmmsuthm map mo :Oflusnaupmflp <1:.w|¢ flames 598 mom nee mmm mmm menace ee.ea em me.ma em oe.ma em mm.ea ema seams oz mm.HH mm.m om me.~H om.oH om mH.eH om.~H we m~.ma mo.HH mm sucuoom .umnuo oo.c oo.o o oo.o oo.o o oo.o oo.o o oo.o oo.o o tmsoaasoss as. me. ~ e~.H oa.a m ma.a oo.H e «m. me. e annuaaaz mm.H ~m.H e Ne.m om.~ om mn.~ oe.H e me.H m~.H Ha mouwuwx ma.a mm. m we. oe. n mm. on. n ma. me. a mua3omso= om.a ~m.H v Hm.~ oo.~ we em. om. m om.a mm.a ea acooaum me. me. n em.~ oH.~ ma ee.v eo.v we eH.m m~.e mm uonoa oo.o oo.o o oo.o oo.o o oo.o oo.o o oo.o oo.o o uonaq sham hm.n o~.n ca me.m oH.m NN mm.~ oo.~ m He.~ m~.~ om moa>uom oo.o oo.o o oo.o oo.o o oo.o oo.o 0 ma. HH. a oaonmusom muo>aum me.» om.m he H~.o om.m oe NH.~H oe.oa He mm.m He.n mm mo>auaumao mm.pa mo.¢a me mo.o~ oe.ea fine mv.m~ oo.o~ as Ho.o~ mm.ma wee cmsuuuuuo ~H.» mm.m me He.“ oe.o me ee.o cm.m mm ~m.m os.m Hm madam ea.n ow.a m em.m ov.~ he m~.m oe.v ma mm.v mo.e mm Haoauoao “5.0” mm.m em Hm.da om.m me ma.m om.m Hm mm.m Hm.m Ho ammoensonuaom .uummmcms me. me. m cm. mu. m mm. om. m H~.H eo.a a «nascent sums mn.am o~.o~ om ~m.m~ om.o~ mma mm.ma o~.ea we mo.m~ oo.a~ ope Lancammmuoum .emwm .uoe .uoe .ammm .uoe .poe .emmm .uoe .uoe .emmm .uoe .uoe o w a w a m a o mummsdu mummSIamo mummfido mummslxmo onwaaom ocmaaom ooHHoum3 oodumumz .saaeme we» no omen on» no coaummsooo ecu an mmsoum ummsuxumm no newusnfiuumwonu.m|¢ mamma 599 mom mmm men mam mamuoe om.m ma oa.oa ov om.m av vo.HH moa mucoammm oz o>.mH om.ma hm om.m ov.n om ma.nfl oa.mH NHH om.- oo.aa mm xuoz .omuouumom Hm.HH o~.HH vm ma.m oa.n mm mo.oa oo.m an o~.m om.n mm ouoaaou nmuoameou mv.ma om.ma mm Hm.m~ om.v~ om an.o~ om.ma mva mm.m~ om.- mom mmcdaoo whom» mad mm.am oo.m~ mm oa.mm ov.¢m mmH mm.m~ om.m~ cam H~.mm om.mm mom Hoonom nmfim woumameou mo.HH om.oa mm ~m.ma or.HH nv mm.aa om.HH vm on.m om.m up oomuo nuaausum «m.o om.o om mm.m oh.v ma e~.oa om.m mp om.m oa.m ow mama uo momuu sum .muom .uoa .uoa .mmom .uos .uoa .mmom .uoa .uoa .mmmm .uoe .uoa m a m w m m a » mquEmu vanaaom mummfimo ooHumumz muomsl>mo ocmaaom ,mummsnxmo oodumumz .mHfiEMw mnu mo 0mm: may mo cofiumoscm an mmsouw Hmmsnxnmm mo coausnfiuumaoul.wnm mqmda 1130 mom mam New mam mamuoa om.m on hm.a mm om.ma ooa o~.ma «AH mmaommom oz Hm.n om.m Ha pm.H m~.H m ma.m om.“ «m mm.m ov.m m~ uo>o uo ooo.m~m H¢.MH oa.~a hm mm.” hm.» hm Hp.ma om.HH mm mo.HH om.m om mam.e~w ou ooo~mam mm.mn oo.~m mm ha.nm ov.«m mma nm.om om.o~ mad hd.mm om.mm «on mmm.vaw on ooo.cam Ho.H~ oa.ma mm ~m.m~ oh.w~ moa ha.ma op.ma MNH FF.H~ oa.ma mod mmm.m» 0» ooo.mm H~.ma om.ha mm m>.mH m~.va om ~m.ma om.m~ Hoa ~m.ma oq.ma ”NH mam.sm ou ooo.mw nq.m om.¢ ma vv.w mm.m MN om.n om.» we m~.m om.m av maa.mw o» coo.m» mv.a om.H . pm.a m~.~ m oo.m ov.v «m mm.~ o~.~ c~ ooo.mm saga mama .maom .uoa .uoa .mmom .uoa .uoa .mmmm .uoa .uos .mmmm .uoe .uoa a w a a a a a m mummsnmnn ooanwunz mummfimo ooHHmum3 mummslmmo canaaom mummsummo OOaHoumz .mmewEMM mo mEOUQH may >3 mammalxumm mo coausnfluumwoul.h|< wands lOl OOO NNO OOO OOO mHmuoe O0.0H OO O0.0 ON O0.0 OH NN.H NH Hm>o no mmHHE OON OO.H O OO. O NO.H O OO. O OON op ONN O0.0 OH OO.H OH NO.H O NN. N ONN op OON OO.N O OO.H OH NO.H O HH. H OOH ou OOH OO.m OH OO.N OH NO. N HH. H «OH op OOH OO.N O OO. O ON. H O0.0 O OOH ou ONH O0.0 NH O0.0 ON NO.H O OO.H OH ONH ou OOH OO.N O OO.N NN O0.0H NO ON.O NO OO op ON O0.0 OH O0.0 NO O0.0N OHH O0.0N NNN «O op OO O0.0N HO O0.00 NON OO.HH OO O0.0H OOH Ow op ON O0.0N NO OO.NO HHO OH.OO OOH O0.00 OOO OmHHE ON can» mmmq .uoa .uoa .uoe .uoa .uoe .uoa .uoa .uoe O O O O HmmHHzO mocmumfio mummfimu wcmaaom muwmslmmo camaaom mHmQEmu oodumumz mummsnmma ooanmumz .xumm may on AmmHHEV mUGMpmHU Hm>mnu ma mmsoum Hmmslthm mo coausnfluumflnll.m1< mqmds 1()2 NOO OOO OOO OOO mHmuoe O0.0 OO OH.OH OO N0.0H OHH H0.0H NO mmcommmm oz OH.O OO.N NN HN.ON O0.0H OO OO.H ON.H HH O0.0 O0.0 NN muse: N\H O um>o OO. OO. O N0.0 OO.N O OO. OO. O HO. HO. N Ouson N\H O 0» O OO.N OO.N ON ON.O ON.O OH OO. OO. O NO.N ON.N O mason O ou N\H O ON. ON. N O0.0 O0.0 NH OO. OO. O ON.H NO.H O muses N\H O ou O O0.0 O0.0 ON O0.0 O0.0 HN NO.N OO.N HN NO.N OO.N O mason O 0» N\H N OH.O OO.N NN OO.N ON.N O HN.H OO. O N0.0 OO.N HH mason N\H N o» N ON.O O0.0 OO O0.0 ON.O OH O0.0 O0.0 NO HO.NH O0.0H NO muse: N ou N\H H O0.0 O0.0 OO O0.0 O0.0 NH O0.0H OO.NH OHH O0.0N OH.HN OO mason NxH H o» H OH.OO O0.0N OHN O0.0N ON.HN OO O0.00 OH.NO OON O0.0N OO.HN OO use: H on N\H O0.00 O0.00 NHO O0.0N O0.0H OO O0.00 OO.HO OON N0.0H O0.0H OO usoz N\H can» mm0A .mmmm .uoa .uoa .mmmm .uoe .uoe .mmmm .uoa .uoa .mmmm .uoa .uoe O O O O O O O O OBOE Hm>mua muwmanxmo camaaom mummemu osmHHom mummslhmo ooHuwumz mummfimu oodumumz .xumm may on Amazonv mEHu Hm>mnu wn museum ummdnxumm we COOuDQOHumHQII.ms< mqmde 103 NOO OOO OOO OOO OHmuoO OO. O OH.H O OO.HH OOH O0.0 ON uncommom oz OH.O O0.0 OO N0.0 O0.0 ,OH O0.0 O0.0 OO OO.N OO.N OH noguo OO.NN OO.NN OOH O0.0H O0.0H HO O0.0H OO.NH OHH O0.0. 0.0 OO OccmOum .. uo macho O0.0 O0.0 OO O0.0 O0.0 NH H0.0 OO.N ON NH.H OO.H O ocoH< couumm 0:0 OO. OO. O OO. OO. O OH.O OO.N ON OO.H OO.H O mnouu vunwnmmuo H0.0 O0.0 OO OO.N ON.N O OO.N ON.N OH OO.H OH.H O OmHmsoo who: no 039 OH.OH OH.OH OOH O0.0 O0.0 OO O0.0H O0.0 OO N0.0 O0.0 ON OHco mamnoo mco OH.O OH.O OO OO.N OO.N O O0.0H O0.0 OO O0.0 O0.0 NN couvHOzu nqu uoOHOaam one O0.00 O0.00 NON OO.NO OO.NO OOH OH.NO ON.OO OHO O0.00 O0.00 OON :ouOHHnu OOO: . meaum 0:0 .mnom .uoa .uoa .mmwm .uoa .uoe .mmmm .uoa .uos .mmmm .uoa .909 O O O O O O O O coOumOuummO macho muamnlhno canHHo: muomemu ccmHHo: mummsnxmo OOHHGuuz muomEdU ooHuuunz .mcofiumwuomwo macho an mummnlxnmm mo cowuanwuuuannl.oald wands 104 TABLE A-ll.--Group mean size of the various park-user groups. Number User of Total Group Group Groups People Mean Holland , Day-users 742 2,457 3.31 Waterloo Day-users 895 3,726 4.16 Holland Campers 302 1,368 4.47 Waterloo Campers 393 1,800 4.58 Total 2,332 9,351 4.01 1()5 OOO NOO OOO OOO OHOuoO ON.N O O0.0 HO OH.OH HO OO.NH OHH oucomumm oz O0.0 O0.0 OH O0.0 ON.O HO OO.N ON.N O OH. HH. H .a.a OHIO OH.OH O0.0H NO ON.OH O0.0H OOH O0.0 O0.0 OH HH.O OO.N ON .a.m OIO ON.OH O0.0H OO O0.0H O0.0H OOH ON.O ON.O ON O0.0H O0.0 OO .s.m OuO O0.0H O0.0H OO O0.0H O0.0H HOH H0.0H O0.0H OO NO.NN O0.0H NOH .s.a OnN NH.OH OO.NH OO O0.0H OH.OH OHH H0.0H ON.OH OO O0.00 O0.0N OON .s.m Nuaoo: O0.0H O0.0H OO O0.00 O0.0H OHH O0.0H O0.0H NO ON.ON OO.NN OON cooan.s.u OH H0.0H O0.0H OO O0.0 O0.0 NO OH.ON OH.ON OO O0.0 O0.0 OO .3.» OHuO .mnom .uoa .uoa .aaom .uoa .uoa .amom .uoa .Ooe .mmom .uoa .uoa O O O O O O O O OmsOs Hm>Ouu< muomawo csdHHom mummsnamo ncmHHoz mnomfimo ooHHoumz unmannhao ooHHouas .xumm on» um Hm>wuum «0 mad» mzu an mmsoum Ammanxuwm mo cowusnwuumwonl.maa< man‘s 106 TABLE A-13.--Distribution of user-groups by participation percentages in each park activity. Waterloo Holland Waterloo Holland Day-users Day-users - Campers Campers ‘ m a . . . .§‘ E .§ § .3: 5‘3 .5. .2 ACthltles a.» a.» a.» a.» 0.4: mu 0.» a.» s e a m s e s m s a s e :se 5 m 0‘; 01m 01m 0:; 01m arm ()0. o a ma NH HH NH sw4 wa “O HH 0 o cwo o 0 U o o o u o 0 o w o -d -H -H -H -d -H -H -H on «4; o» «'4: op «43 -u 04» 3:; ‘4 2i: :3 3.2 *3 3.: z m m m m m m m m Sightseeing from car 113 12.65 213 28.75 142 36.20 74 24.20 Walking to scenic points 116 12.95 198 26.60 142 36.20 129 42.10 Picnicking 482 48.37 184 24.80 146 38.20 121 39.50 Looking at plants, animals or birds for hobby - 48 5.37 25 3.60 59 15.00 19 6.20 Swimming 650 72.80 329 44.30 339 86.40 235 77.00 Wading 299 33.30 206 27.80 157 40.00 151 49.30 Sunbathing 486 54.40 332 44.90 269 68.40 217 70.80 Waterskiing 108 12.10 16 2.60 59 15.00 14 4.57 Skin or scuba diving 18 2.02 10 1.35 16 4.07 8 2.61' Motorboating 108 12.10 20 2.70 77 19.60 20 6.54 Sailing 8 .89 10 1.35 6 1.52 11 3.60 Canoeing 10 1.12 7 .94 16 4.07 5 1.64 Rowboating 12 1.34 5 .67 28 7.12 3 .98 Boat fishing 31 3.47 6 .81 74 18.85 9 2.94 Bank fishing 20 2.23 14 1.89 70 17.80 30 9.80 Fishing (wading) 6 .67 3 .41 30 7.65 7 2.28 Games and team sports 89 9.95 40 5.40 102 25.90 33 10.75 Trail hiking 59 6.60 11 1.48 105 26.80 24 7.85 Horseback riding 6 .67 1 .14 24 6.10 5 1.63 Listening to ranger ta1ks 24 2.68 23 3.10 99 25.20 11 3.59 Taking guided tours 14 1.56 3 .41 39 9.94 5 1.64 Visiting museums or nature centers 14 1.56 8 1.08 36 9.30 28 9.16 Relaxing 428 47.80 326 44.00 290 73.90 215 70.04 Photography 70 7.82 64 8.65 97 24.70 73 23.80 Other 52 5.81 82 11.00 44 11.19 41 13.40 107 NOO mom OOO mam mHmuoa oO.¢ NO om.mH mm om.OH ONH Hm.mH OO oncommou oz OH.H OH.H m Oo.mm om.mv NOH OO.H OO.H OH OH.OO OO.HO mom auson NH nun» who: mm. om. o O0.0 om.O om OO.N OO.H OH om.O NH.O ON undo: NH 0» 0H vo.H OO.H HH OO.HH om.0H mm O0.0 OH.O Om OO.m OH.O mm «H50: OH 0» a mm.w ov.O mm mo.m om.m ON OO.NH 00.0H mm Hm.O ON.O mm mason m 00 w Hm.mH om.vH moH ON.O o~.O NN H0.0~ om.H~ omH O0.0 mm.m OH mason w 0» v Ho.O~ ov.v~ HOH OH.v om.m HH HH.Om om.O~ mmm Hm.m O0.0 OH muaon v on N mm.mv om.mv mmn mm.m om.v mH H~.HN om.mH OOH Hm.~ ON.N m chaos N 52.3 was .mmum .uoa .oz .mmom .uoa .oz .mmmm .909 .oz .mmmm .008 .oz 0 O O O O O a a xumm cH anomalhmo vseHHom mHoQEdo csdHHom mumunuhso OOHHeumz mueaseu ooHuouez acmmm musom .xnmm and GO ucmmm undo: an mmsoum nonalxumm mo :oHuanvaHoul.vHI¢ mum‘s APPENDIX B STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PROBLEMS OF DATA 108 TABLE B-1.--x2 distribution test for significance between male campers and day-users at Holland State Park at 95 per cent confidence level. x11 X12 xii/Xi1+x12 Campers Day-users Total Under 5 73 124 197 27.1 5 - 9 113 154 267 47.8 10 - 14 99 119 218 44.9 15 - 19 98 255 353 27.2 20 - 24 49 113 162 14.8 25 - 29 35 73 108 11.3 30 - 34 43 71 114 16.2 35 - 39 49 82 131 18.3 40 - 49 90 101 191 42.3 50 or Over 25 70 95 6.6 Totals 674 1,162 1,836 256.5 2x11 zxil 2(Xi1+xiz) 2 = 556.5 - P (674f1 = 256.5 - 237.4 = 19.1 = 82 3 X L P (l-P) J .232 .232 ° _ 674 _ P — 1836 - .367 82.3 > 16.92 .'. Difference is significant at .05 level. 109 TABLE B—2.--x2 distribution test for significance between female campers and day-users at Holland State Park at 95 per cent confidence level. X11 xiz xii/Xil+xi2 Age Group Campers Day-users Total Under 5 72 106 178 29.1 5 - 9 95 152 247 36.5 10 - 14 105 138 243 45.4 15 - 19 135 319 454 40.1 20 - 24 57 105 162 20.1 25 - 29 47 97 144 15.3 30 - 34 34 79 113 10.2 35 - 39 53 91 144 19.5 40 - 49 75 112 187 30.1 50 or Over 20 78 98 4.1 Totals 693 1,277 1,970 250.4 2X11 23X12 £(Xil+xi2) 2 _ 250.4 - P (693fl ._ 6.5 _ X " [:[ P’(l-P) _] ' 7258:] ’ 28's 693 1970 = .352 28.5 > 16.92 .'. Difference is significant at .05 level 110 TABLE B-3.--x2 distribution test for significance between male campers and day-users at Waterloo State Recreation Area at 95 per cent confidence level. x11 X12 X. /x. +x. Age Group Campers Day-users Total 11 11 12 Under 5 105 237 347 32.9 5 - 9 136 321 457 40.5 10 - 14 154 323 477 49.7 15 - 19 113 307 420 34.0 20 — 24 51 118 169 15.4 25 - 29 39 103 142 10.7 30 - 34 54 92 146 19.9 35 - 39 71 119 190 26.5 40 - 49 111 178 289 42.6 50 or Over 37 57 94 14.5 Totals 871 1,855 2,731 286.7 2X11 2X12 Z("111782) O_HW ‘F‘ru‘wm? x2 [[2865] _ P (871) / P (1- P)]_ 286.72I5277.9 P = 2871 = .319 x2 = 215 = 40. 9 40.9 > 16.92 .'. Difference is significant at the .05 level. TABLE B-4 .—-x 2 111 distribution test for significance between female campers and day-users at Waterloo State Recreation Area at 95 per cent confidence level. X. X. 11 12 X 2/x +X Age Group Campers Day-users Total i1 i1 i2 Under 5 90 213 303 26.7 5 - 9 141 325 466 42.5 10 - 14 195 330 525 72.4 15 - 19 127 310 437 36.9 20 - 24 57 119 176 18.5 25 - 29 52 140 192 14.1 30 - 34 67 128 195 23.0 35 - 39 85 134 219 33.0 40 — 49 86 146 232 31.9 50 or Over 24 73 97 5.9 Totals 924 1,918 2,842 304.9 2X11 2X12 2(Xil+xiz) x2 = [304.91 - P (924) / P (l—P) = 2 _ 304.9 - 300.3 _ 4.6 _ X ’ .219 .219 ‘ 21'0 _ 924 _ P - m- .325 21.0 > 16.92 .'. Difference is significant at the .05 level. 112 TABLE B-5.--x2 distribution test for significance between campers and day-users, sex-head of family, at Holland State Park at the 95 per cent confidence level. Sex of Head of Family Campers Day—users Totals Male 268 637 905 Female 14 45 59 Totals 282 682 964 2 = ([268 x 45 - 637 x 121 4 1/2 964)2 964 X (905) (282) 1682) (59) 2 _ 14,899,207,184 X ’ 10,269,139,980 = 1'451 1.451 < 3.84 . . Difference is not significant at .05 level. .57 ‘3" W‘W W‘ 113 TABLE B-6.--x2 distribution test for significance between campers and day—users, sex-head of family, at Waterloo State Recreation Area at the 95 per cent confidence level. Sex of Head of Family Campers Day-users Total Male 316 702 1,018 Female 12 37 49 Totals 328 739 1,067 2 = ([316 x 371 - 702 x 12] - 1/2 1067)2 1067 X (1018) (328) (739) (49) 2 _ 7,978,482,096.75 = X ‘ 12,815,217,744 '525 .625 < 3.84 . . Difference is not significant at the .05 level. -I ..-’ '——J—-—~L 114 TABLE B-7.---x2 distribution test for significance between campers and day—users, age-head of family, at Holland State Park at the 95 per cent confidence level. Age of Head xil Xi2 xii/Xil+xi2 of Family Campers Day-users Total Below 20 5 42 47 .5 F6 21 — 25 22 48 70 6.9 53 26 - 30 34 64 98 11.8 . “j 31 — 35 39 84 123 12.4 i l 36 - 40 59 107 166 20.9 (_ . 41 - 45 61 98 159 23.4 " 46 - 50 41 119 160 10.5 51 - 55 13 7o 83 2.0 56 - 60 35 43 1.5 61 and Over 33 40 1.2 Totals 289 700 989 91.1 zxil 2x12 zxil+x12 x2 = [91.1 - P (289)] / P (1 - P) = 91°123784'4 32.4 _ 289 _ P _ —§§.— .292 At 9 d.f., 32.4 > 16.92 .°. Difference is significant at .05 level. 115 TABLE B-8.---x2 distribution test for significance between campers and day-users, age-head of family, at Waterloo State Recreation Area at the 95 per cent confidence level. Age of Head xil Xi2 X 2/x +X of Family Campers Day-users Totals il i1 i2 Below 20 18 45 63 5.1 21 - 25 29 70 99 8.5 f; 26 - 30 29 90 119 7.1 SE 31 - 35 54 125 179 16.3 b 36 — 40 77 132 209 28.4 K 41 - 45 77 155 232 25.6 5“ 46 - 50 40 98 138 11.6 51 - 55 18 41 59 5.5 56 — 60 8 22 30 2.1 60 or Over 10 20 30 3.3 Totals 360 798 1,158 113.5 '2in ZXiz ZXil+Xi2 x2 = [113.5 - P (360)] / P(l-P) = 113'5214111°6 = 8.879 _ 360 _ P — 1158 — .310 At 9 d.f., 8.879 < 16.92 .'. Difference is not sig- nificant at .05 level. 116 TABLE B-9.---x2 distribution test for significance between campers and day-users, occupation-head of family, at Holland State Park at the 95 per cent confidence level. X11 X12 Occupation Campers Day-users Totals Xii/Xil+xi2 Professional 80 152 232 27.6 Farm Managers 2 5 7 .6 Managers, self— employed 27 73 100 7.3 Clerical 8 17 25 2.6 Sales 18 49 67 4.9 Craftsmen 45 131 176 11.5 Operatives 17 40 57 5.1 Private Household 0 0 0 0.0 Service 10 22 32 3.1 Farm Labor 0 0 0 0.0 Labor 2 15 17 .2 Student 4 18 22 .7 Housewife 3 3 6 1.5 Retiree 4 20 24 .7 Military 2 8 10 .4 Unemployed 0 5 5 0.0 Other, factory 30 80 110 8.2 Totals 252 638 890 74.4 2X11 2X12 ZXiI-l-Xiz x2 = [74.4 - 252 (P)] / P (1-P) = 74°?26271'3 = 15.3 P = %%E = .283 At 16 d.f., 15.3 < 26.30 .'. Difference is not signifi- cant at the .05 level. 117 TABLE B-10.--x2 distribution test for significance between campers and day-users, occupation-head of family, at Water- loo State Recreation Area at the 95 per cent level of confidence. X11 X12 Occupation Campers Day-users Totals xii/Xil+xi2 Professional 64 170 234 13.2 34. Farm Managers 3 9 12 .8 '[ Managers, self- g‘l employed 21 61 82 5.6 1 Clerical 18 36 54 6.0 ' Sales 23 51 74 7.1 [h Craftsmen 79 148 227 27.5 Operatives 41 69 110 15.3 Private Household 0 l 1 0.0 Service 8 20 28 2.3 Farm Labor 0 0 0 0.0 Labor 16 38 54 4.7 Student 2 14 16 .3 Housewife 3 7 10 .9 Retiree 7 ll 18 2.7 Military 4 8 2.0 Unemployed 0 0 0.0 Other, factory 4 99 103 .2 Totals 293 738 1,031 88.6 2X11 2X12 Exil+Xi2 88.6 _ 83.2 _ 504 X = [88.6 - 293 (P)] / P (l-P) = .203 - .203 = 26.6 _ 293 _ P — m— .284 At 16 d.f., 26.6 > 26.30 . . Difference is significant at the .05 level. 118 TABLE B-ll.--x2 distribution test for significance between campers and day-users, education-head of family, at Holland State Park at the 95 per cent confidence level. Education of X11 X12 x 2/x +x Family Head Campers Day-users Totals i1 i1 12 8 Years or Under 20 72 92 4.4 9 - 11 Years 32 84 116 8.8 12 Years 89 210 299 26.5 13 - 15 Years 56 145 201 15.6 16 Years 34 71 105 11.0 17 Years or More 57 112 169 19.2 Totals 288 694 982 85.5 Exil 2X12 ZXi1+Xi2 x2 = [85.5 - 288 (P)] / P (l-P) = 85'525784°3 = 5.797 _ 288 _ P — §§—-— .293 At 5 d.f., 5.797 < 11.07 .'. Difference is not sig- nificant at the .05 level. 119 TABLE B-12.--x2 distribution test for significance between campers and day-users, education-head of family, at Water- loo State Recreation Area at the 95 per cent level of confidence. Education of Xi1 xi2 X Z/x +X Family Head Campers Day-users Totals il 11 i2 8 Years or Less 19 46 65 5.5 9 — 11 Years 47 77 124 17.8 12 Years 138 303 441 43.2 13 - 15 Years 90 203 293 27.6 16 Years 29 65 94 8.9 17 Years or More 30 99 129 6.9 Totals 353 793 1,146 r 09.9 2X11 2X12 ZX11+X12 iifii1/X11+x12] x2 = [109.9 - 353 (P)] / P (l-P) = 109'9232108'7 = 5.7 _ 353 _ At 5 d.f., 5.7 < 11.07 .'. Difference is not significant at the .05 level. 120 TABLE B-l3.—-x2 distribution test for significance between campers and day—users, income-family, at Holland State Park at the 95 per cent level of confidence. X. X. Income of 11 12 X 2/X +X Family Campers Day-users Totals il 11 i2 $3,000 or Less 4 32 36 .4 $5,999 15 48 63 3.6 $7,999 53 101 154 18.2 $9,999 58 123 181 18.6 $14,999 98 198 296 32.4 $15,000 - $24,999 37 88 125 10.9 $25,000 or More 11 52 63 1.9 Totals 276 642 918 r 8 .0 ZX11 Zx12 2xi1+x12 iiixil/Xil+X12] x2 = [86.0 — 276 (P)] / P (1-P) = 86'02I083'1 = 13.8 _ 276 _ P — 918 — .301 At 6 d.f., 13.8 > 12.59 .'. Difference is significant at .05 level. TABLE B-14.--x2 121 distribution test for significance between campers and day-users, income-family, at Waterloo State Recreation Area at the 95 per cent level of confidence. x11 X12 Income of 2 Family Campers Day-users Totals xil/xil+x12 $3,000 or Less 5 20 25 1.0 $5,999 23 49 72 7.3 $7,999 56 121 177 17.7 $9,999 105 169 274 40.2 $10,000 - $14,999 135 304 439 41.5 $15,000 — . $24,999 27 86 113 6.5 $25,000 and Over 5 28 33 .9 Totals 356 777 1,133 2115.1 ZX11 Zx12 2xifxiz i: il/xil+x12] x2 = [115.1 — 356(P)] / P (l-P) = 115'1215111'5 = 16.7 _ 356 _ P — 1133'_ .314 At 6 d.f., 16.7 > 12.59 .'. Difference is significant at .05 level. 122 TABLE B-15.—-x2 distribution test for significance at the 95 per cent level of confidence between campers and day- users, travel distance (miles), at Holland State Park. Travel . X. X. Distance 11 12 x 2/X +X (Miles) Campers Day-users Totals i1 i1 i2 Less than 25 82 311 393 17.1 25 - 49 81 232 313 20.9 50 — 74 18 52 70 4.6 75 - 99 9 22 31 2.6 100 — 124 12 26 38 3.8 125 — 149 9 5 14 5.6 150 - 174 18 19 37 8.8 175 - 199 9 10 - 19 4.3 200 — 224 15 14 29 7.8 225 - 249 6 5 11 3.3 250 or Over 47 26 73 30.3 Totals 306 722 1,028 r 2 109.1 Exil ZX12 ZX11+x12 iiixil/Xil+xizl x2 = [109.1 — 306 (P)] / P (l-P) = 109'126991°2 = 85.6 _ 306 _ 2 P — 1028 — .298 x .95 @ 10 degrees freedom = 18.31 85.6 > 18.31 .'. Difference is significant at .05 level. 123 TABLE B-l6.--x2 distribution test for significance at the 95 per cent level of confidence between campers and day- users, travel distance (miles), at Waterloo State Recre- ation area. Travel X X Distance i1 i2 X 2/X +x (Miles) Campers Day-users Totals i1 i1 i2 Less than 25 134 436 570 31.5 25 - 49 46 156 202 10.5 50 - 74 116 222 338 39.8 75 - 99 62 47 109 35.3 100 - 124 4 15 19 .8 125 - 149 l 0 l 1.0 150 - 174 2 1 3 1.3 175 - 199 4 l 5 3.2 200 - 224 4 2 6 2.7 225 - 249 4 3 7 2.3 250 or Over 16 12 28 9.1 Totals 393 895 1,288 r 2 137.5 2”‘11 ZX12 ZX11+X12 iiixil/Xil+xizl x2 = [137.5 - 393 (P)] / P (l-P) = 137'5211119°9 = 83.0 _ 393 2 _ P - 1288 x @ 10 degrees freedom — 18.31 83.0 > 18.31 .'. Difference is significant at .05 level. 124 TABLE B-l7.--x2 distribution test for significance at the 95 per cent level of confidence between campers and day— users, travel time (hours), at Holland State Park. Travel X X Time i1 i2 x 2/x +X (Hours) Campers Day-users Totals il 11 i2 Less than 1/2 55 312 367 8.2 1/2 to l 65 215 380 15.1 1 to 1 1/2 12 46 58 2.5 1 1/2 to 2 10 36 46 2.2 2 to 2 1/2 7 22 29 1.7 2 1/2 to 3 21 26 47 9.4 3 to 3 1/2 12 2 14 10.3 3 1/2 to 4 19 20 39 9.3 4 to 4 1/2 9 4 13 6.2 Over 4 1/2 53 22 75 37.5 Totals 263 705 968 r 2 102.4 2X11 2X12 ZX11+X12 iiixil/Xil+xi2] x2 = [102.4 - 263 (P)] / P (1-P) = 102.419876.5 = 130.8 P _ 263 _ 2 2 2 _ — 555 — . 7 x .95 @ 9 degrees freedom — 16.92 130.8 > 16.92 .'. Difference is significant at .05 level. . " “1c, 125 TABLE B-18.--x2 distribution test for significance at the 95 per cent level of confidence between campers and day- users, travel time (hours) at Waterloo State Recreation Area. Travel Time X11 x12 x 2/x +X (Hours) Campers Day—users Totals i1 i1 i2 Less than 1/2 65 283 348 12.1 1/2 to 1 85 287 372 19.4 1 to 1 1/2 83 114 197 35.0 1 1/2 to 2 42 42 84 21.0 2 to 2 1/2 11 8 19 6.4 2 1/2 to 3 8 21 29 2.2 3 to 3 1/2 4 3 . 7 2.3 3 1/2 to 4 9 6 15 5.4 4 to 4 1/2 2 3 5 .8 Over 4 1/2 22 11 33 7.4 Totals 331 778 1,109 r 2 112.0 2X11 2X12 2X11+X12 iiixil/Xil+xi2] x2 = [112.0 - 331 (P)] / P (l-P) = 112.02%998.6 = 64.1 P — 331 - 29 2 9 9 d f d — 1 92 — 1109'_ . 8 x . 5 @ egrees ree om — 6. 64.1 > 16.92 .'. Difference is significant at .05 level. 126 TABLE B-l9.—-x2 distribution test for significance at the 95 per cent level of confidence between campers and day- users, group descriptions, at Holland State Park. X. X. Group 11 12 X 2/X +X Description Campers Day—users Total i1 i1 i2 One Family With Children 190 262 452 79.9 51 Two Families xi With Children 9 38 47 1.7 ' 1' One Couple 30 134 164 5.5 : Two or More Couples 7 34 41 1.2 Organized Group 3 5 8 1.1 One Person 12 58 70 2.1 Group of Friends 41 167 208 8.1 Other 10 38 48 2.1 Totals 302 736 1,038 r 2 101.7 2X11 2X12 Z”(11”)(12 iiixi1/X11+X12] x2 = [101.7 - 302 (P)] / P (1-P) = 101'726687'9 = 66.9 _ 302 _ 2 _ P — 1038'_ .291 x .95 @ 7 degrees of freedom — 14.07 66.9 > 14.07 .'. Difference is significant at .05 level. 127 TABLE B—20.--x2 distribution test for significance at the 95 per cent 1 users, group evel of confidence between campers and day- descriptions, at Waterloo State Recreation ‘lfi' Area. Group xil Xi2 X 2/x +X Description Campers Day-users Totals i1 i1 12 One Family ‘31 With Children 256 413 669 98.0 i] .E, Two Families T” with Children 22 80 102 4.7 } One Couple 25 80 105 5.9 3 Two or More Couples 5 18 23 1.1 Organized Group 7 25 32 1.5 One Person 4 26 30 .5 Group of Friends 35 110 145 8.4 Other 10 39 49 2.0 Totals 364 791 1,155 r 2 122.1 Zx11 5x12 ZXifxiz iiixil/xil+x12] x2 = [122.1 - 364 (P)] / P (1-P) = 122°1216114'7 = 34.3 P — 364 — 315 2 f — 4 — 1155'- . x .95 @ 7 degrees reedom — l .07 .05 @ 7 degrees freedom = 2.17 34.3 > 14.07 .'. Difference is significant at .05 level. 128 Test of Means at the .05 Level of Significance, Group Mean Size Between Campers and Day—users at Holland State Park 9 (Range x .337 (coefficient) = 3.0 (unbiased est. 0) i1 ' i2 = 4.47 - 3.31 o/(1/Nl)‘+ (1/N2) 3/(1/306) + (1/742) Not significant if: z > -l.960, or z < 1.960 at .05 level of significance. 5.8 > 1.960 -. Means are significantly different at .05 level. 129 Test of Means at the .05 Level of Significance, Group Mean Size, Between Campers and Day-users at Waterloo State Recreation Area 9 (Range) x .337 (coefficient) = 3.0 (unbiased est. 0) z = 1 2 _ 4.58 — 4.16 o/l/Nl) + (1/N2) 1.747(17393) + (1/895) _ Difference of means not significant if: z > —1.960, or z < 1.960, at .05 level of significance. 2.30 > 1.960 Means are significantly different at .05 level. 130 TABLE B-21.--x2 distribution test for significance at the 95 per cent level of confidence between campers and day- users, arrival time, at Holland State Park. .‘.." r V Irma.‘ r!) . X. X. Arrival 11 12 X 2/X +X Time Campers Day—users Totals 11 11 12 10 - noon 40 114 154 10.4 noon - 2 p.m. 39 113 152 10.0 2 - 4 p.m. 56 131 187 16.8 4 - 6 p.m. 54 107 161 18.1 6 - 8 p.m. 42 133 175 10.1 8 —10 p.m. 17 61 78 3.7 Totals 297 691 _ 988 r 2 98.7 Zxii ZX12 Exil+xiz iiixil/Xil+x 2] x2 = [98.7 - 297 (P)] / P (l-P) = 98'721089'4 = 44.3 _ 297 _ 2 _ P — §§§ — .301 x .95 @ 6 degrees freedom — 12.59 44.3 > 12.59 .'. Difference is significant at .05 level. 131 TABLE B—22.--x2 distribution test for significance at the 95 per cent level of confidence between campers and day- users, arrival time, at Waterloo State Recreation Area. . X. X. Arrival 11 12 X 2/X +X Time Campers Day-users Totals il 11 12 8 — 10 a.m. 99 59 158 62.0 10 - noon 62 205 267 14.4 noon - 2 p.m. 68 237 305 15.2 2 — 4 p.m. 69 172 241 19.7 4 - 6 p.m. 29 84 113 7.4 6 — 8 p.m. 16 24 40 6.4 8 - 10 p.m. 9 1 10 8.1 Totals 352 782 1,134 r 2 133.2 2X11 2x12 XXi1+xi2 iiixil/Xil+xi2] x2 = [133.2 - 352 (P)] / P (l—P) = 133'E214109°1 = 112.6 P — 353 — 310 2 95 @ 6 d f d - 12 59 - m — . )( . egrees ree om — . 112-6 > 12.59 .‘. Difference is significant at .05 level. .9 m -',I "" ‘I. .'WFI.V 132 TABLE B-23.--x2 distribution test for significance at the 95 per cent level of confidence between campers and day- users, time spent in the park, at Waterloo State Recre— ation Area. Time in x X Park 11 12 X 2/X +X (Hours) Campers Day-users Totals il 11 12 Less than 2 9 163 172 .5 2 - 4 17 255 272 1.1 4 — 6 15 190 205 1.1 6 - 8 25 95 120 5.2 8 — 10 28 36 64 12.3 10 - 12 24 15 39 14.8 Over 12 202 14 216 188.9 Totals 320 768 1,088 r 2223.9 Zx11 ZX12 2Xil+xiz .Z[Xil/X11+X12] l=l x2 = [223.9 - 320 (P)] / P (l-P) = 223'923894°1 = 624.0 P _ 320 _ 2 4 2 _ 12 9 - 1088 — . 9 x .95 @ 6 degrees freedom — .5 624.0 > 12.59 .’. Difference is significant at .05 level. 133 TABLE B-24.---x2 distribution test for significance at the 95 per cent level of confidence between campers and day-users, group activity participation, at Holland State Park. xi1 x12 x11““12 x 2/x +x Activity Campers Day-users Totals il 11 12 Sightseeing from car 74 213 287 19.1 Walking to scenic points 129 198 327 50.9 Picnicking 121 184 305 48.0 Looking at birds, etc. 19 25 44 8.2 Swimming 235 329 564 97.9 Wading 151 206 357 63.9 Sunbathing 217 332 549 85.8 Waterskiing 14 16 30 6.5 Skin or Scuba Diving 8 10 18 3.6 Motorboating 20 20 40 10.0 Sailing ll 10 21 5.9 Canoeing 5 7 12 2.1 Rowboating 3 5 8 1.1 Boat fishing 9 6 15 5.4 Bank fishing 30 14 44 20.5 Fishing (wading) 7 3 10 4.9 Games and team sports 33 40 73 14.9 Trail hiking 24 11 35 16.5 Horseback riding 5 1 6 4.2 Listening to ranger talks 11 23 34 3.6 Taking guided tours 5 3 8 3.1 Visiting museums or nature centers 28 8 36 21.8 Relaxing 215 326 541 85.4 Photography 73 64 137 38.9 Other 41 82 123 13.7 Totals 1,488 2,136 3,624 r 2635.9 2xi1 2x12 2X11"x12 iiixil/Xil+xizl x2 a [635.9 - 1488 (P)] / P (l-P) - 635°92;2611‘6 - 100.4 P = §g§§ = .411 x2 - .95 e 24 degrees freedom - 36.42 x2 - .05 e 24 degrees freedom - 13.85 100.4 > 36.42 .‘. Difference is significant at .05 level. 134 TABLE B-25.--x2 distribution test for significance at the 95 per cent level of confidence between campers and day-users, group activity participation, at Waterloo State Recreation Area. x11 x12 xil+xi2 . “I‘m Activity Campers Day-users Totals x11/X11+X12 Sightseeing from car 142 113 255 79.1 Walking to scenic points 142 116 258 78.2 Picnicking 146 482 628 33.9 Looking at birds, etc. 59 48 107 32.5 Swimming 339 650 989 116.1 Wading 157 299 456 54.1 Sunbathing 269 486 755 95.5 Waterskiing 59 108 167 20.8 Skin or Scuba Diving 16 18 34 7.5 Motorboating 77 108 185 32.0 Sailing 6 8 14 2.6 Canoeing 16 10 26 9.9 Rowboating 28 12 40 19.6 Boat fishing 74 31 105 52.5 Bank fishing 70 20 90 54.4 Fishing (wading) 30 6 36 25.0 Games and team sports 102 89 191 54.5 Trail hiking 105 S9 164 67.2 Horseback riding 24 6 30 19.2 Listening to ranger talks 99 24 123 79.7 Taking guided tours 39 14 53 28.7 Visiting museums or nature centers 36 14 50 25.9 Relaxing 290 428 718 117.1 Photography 97 70 167 56.3 Other 44 52 96 20.2 Totals 2,466 3,271 5,737 r 1,182.2 2Xi1 2xi2 zXi1+xiz iiixii/Xil+xizl x2 - [1182.2 - 2466 (P)] / P (l-P) a 1182'?7;51°6°" - 497.1 x2.95 6 24 degrees freedom a 36.42 497.1 > 36.42 .'. Difference is significant at .05 level. APPENDIX C SELF-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN DATA COLLECTION WHEEL AS A REMINDER. $332 3.12.152“ PLEASE mom nus PAglt-U‘SE-CARD You are one of those selected to represent the peOple who use our State Parks. The information you give here will be used to help improve our park system and provide the activities you enjoy. Please fill out all questions carefully. IT WILL TAKE ONLY A COUPLE OF MINUTES Your help will be greatly appreciated and, 'Of course. all information that you supply will be treated confidentially. This study is being conducted for the Department of Conservation and the Governor's mnce of Planning Coordination by Michigan State University. PLEASE FILL OUT EVERY QUESTION AND LEAVE .THlS CARD IN THE BOX NEAR THE PARK EXIT. mu you CAMP IN THIS PARK LAST NIGHT? E] you C] no ARE you GOING To CAMP IN THE PARK TONIGHT?- D yes" C] no wnIm-I OF THE FOLLOWING BEST nascmnss THE GROUP IN THIS VEHICLE? (Check one) ' ~ ' a. B one family with children 9. D organized group b. E] two families with children (troop, team, club, etc.) f c. [3 one couple only C] one person alone g. D grcup of friends h. D other ___________________________ (write in) d. D two or more couples WHAT ARE THE AGES OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS VEHICLE? MALE: , , , , , . FEMALE: , , , , , . no not write helow--Please turn page. I‘,\I;l\' (TOME NUMBER: llA'l‘l'I: 135 136 o. l 5 WHAT KIND OF mm B THE FOR YOUR GROUP? (Check one) a.monedayouttngortrip (LDpertdenovernight b. D part of a major ennial trip vacation e. U part (1 a combined C. D part of two or more 3:231:10: trip “d shorter vacations ‘ f. [3 other (Write in) WHERE IS YOUR PRESENT HOME ? (Exact street address not required) Town or City County State WHAT IS YOUR ZIP CODE ? HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SPEND TRAVELING TO THE PARK TODAY? (NOT INCLUDING "STOPOVER" TIME ALONG THE WAY.) Hours ............ Minutes HOW MANY MILES, BY THE MCBT DIRECT ROUTE, B THE PARK FROM YOUR HOME ? ' Miles 10 WHAT B THE SEX AND APPROXIMATE AGE OF THE "HEAD OF YOUR FAMILY" ? . D male To BE . AGE? __________ years SEX? D female ANSWERED ' 1] WHAT DOEs THE "HEAD OF YOUR FAMILY" Do FOR A ' LIVING? BY THE DRIVER . Occupation (write in) 12 WHICH OF THE ANSWERS BELOW BEST INDICATES THE 01" THE - TOTAL NUMBER OF YEARS OF EDUCATION COMPLETED VEHICLE . BY THE "HEAD OF YOUR FAMILY" ? (Check one answer) - DUDUUUUD UUDD , 12346678 9101112 DECIDE] 13 14 15 16 17 or more 13 WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBE THE TOTAL INCOME OF YOUR FAMILY LAST YEAR (Check one) 1.. C] under $3,000 e.D $10,000-$14,999 b. D $3,000-$5,999 I. D $15,000-$24,999 0. D $6,000—$7,999 3.0 $25,000 and over d. D «moo-$9.999 137 14 HOW MANY DAYS HAVE YOU USED THE PARK m 1909 ? a. D this is the first park a. B 13—16 days visit b. C] 1-4 days I. C] 17-20 days c. B 5-9 (hys g. C] 21-24 dsys d. E] 9-12 days h. C] over 24 days HOW MANY DAYS HAVE YOU USED THE VARIOUS PARK SYSTEM BELOW IN 1968 ? CHECK ONE ANSWER FOR EACH PARK SYSTEM. 1-3 4—10 11-20 21-30 over Park Sgtem None 9313 95.2 932'— M 30 dais '5 CITY [3 Cl C] D D D 16 COUNTY and METROPOLITAN [3 CI D CI D [j 17 STATE E] C] D E] D C] 18 NATIONAL [:I D D D D [I 19 WHAT TIME DID YOU ENTER THE PARK? (Check one) s. D 9:00-10:00 a.m. e. [3 4:00-6:00 p.m. b. E] 10:00-noon I. 0‘ 0:00-9:00 p.m. c. E] noon-2:00 p.m. g. [j 9:00-10:00 p.m. d. D 2:00-4:00 p.m. 20 WHY DID YOU cnoosE THE PARK RATHER THAN A DmrERENT ONE ? DO NOT FILL OUT THE REMAINING QUESTIONS UNTIL'JUST BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE PARK. ENJOY YOUR VISIT AND DON T FORGET TO LEAVE THIS CARD IN THE BOX PROVIDED NEAR THE PARK EXIT. 2] HOW MANY HOURS DID YOU SPEND IN THE PARK TODAY? (Chock one) a. D 2 hours or less 0. D 8-10 hours b. B 2-4 hours f. B 10—12 hours G. C] 4-6 hours 3. D 12 hours or mors d. D 6-8 hours 138 22 WHAT KIND OF ADDITIONAL RECREATION OPPORTUNITY OR FACILITIES WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ADDED TO THE PARK? b. c. 23 WHICH OF THE ACTIVITIES LETED BELOW DID YOUR GROUP DO WHILE HERE ? (Check all the boxes that spply.) ’ a. D sightseeing from h. D wster skiing q. D we snd teem car only i. D sldnorsouhs sports b. [:1 walking to scenic diving RD trail hiking pom“ j. [:1 motorbostlng s.Uhorsebsok riding °' D picmckmg k. E] sailing t. [:lluteningm ranger d. D looking at plants, 1. D cm I talks animals or birds u D W W tours for a hobby m. D rowbosting ' D v. visiflng museums or e D swimming :1. D but fishing nsuire centers f. D w o. E] bank fishing "I: “I I “in“ p. D fishing (wading) x up“ n, g. D sunbathing ' E ‘ other (write in) 24 IN THE SPACES PROVIDED BELOW, WRITE IN THE FOUR ACTIVIT- YOUR GROUP SPENT THE MOST TIME DOING. ALSO WRITE IN THE NUMBER OF HOURS YOUR GROUP SPENT DOING EACH OF THE ACTIVITIES. Activities Time Sat a hours b hours C hours d. hours THANKS FOR YOUR HELP! HAVE AN ENJOYABLE AND SAFE TRIP HOME If you have accidently carried this csrd away from the park, please mail it to: Recreation Research and Planning Unit Room 302, Natural Resources Building Michigan State University Esst'Lsnsing, Michigan 48823 HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 31293100932338